 Thank you ma'am watch for the signal Okay Good morning. Today is Friday, June 5th. It's 10 o'clock and this is a meeting of the Senate natural resources and energy committee We have where this is day three of a series of discussions around our act 250 work for the session And today we're we've talked already some about development provisions that are currently in s237 force block provisions yesterday Thursday and today we're focusing on Forest products industry and provisions related to support management of forest products industry as well as revisiting trails So with that as we've done each day We've been working with counsel to prepare Well, she's been preparing we've been discussing to get documents prepared to help us Look at the relevant law and as well as to see how things are traded in current law versus the different proposals that are moving out there namely h926 And s165 So with that Like to pause and turn it over if are there any committee questions before we launch into this Okay, seeing none Good morning. Mr. Kowsky. What have you got for us today? Good morning, where would you like me to start? Well, uh, so the the agenda says forest products and recreational trails So I have provided documents On both of those subjects. I have a PowerPoint on the forest products language in h926 and then for the trails language I isolated the recreational trail language in 926 and that's posted and then I also provided a summary document That is based on the conversation we had at the last hearing about trails on Determining jurisdiction over trails under act 250. Okay, great. So the trails piece could take The entire 90 minutes we have and then some so let's spend Maybe it's only 10 minutes, but let's let's do the forest products Industry provisions. Well, so I can see you laughing that might be more than 10 minutes, but It's more discreet and maybe more settled amongst parties So if we could go through that and this committee's worked on it repeatedly over the years What do we allow? How do we regulate? sure Okay, so h926 contains a couple of provisions related to forest products industry So first it adds new definitions in section 6001 There's also new language in the permit condition section And then there is a section related to the mitigation of primary agricultural soils So to start We have this language That adds the definitions of forest based enterprise As well as forest product. So forest based enterprise means an enterprise that aggregates forest products from forestry operations And adds value through processing or marketing in the forest product supply chain Or directly to consumers through retail sales Forest based enterprise includes sawmills veneer mills pulp mills pellet mills producers of firewood wood chips mulch and fuel wood And log and pulp concentration yards Forest based enterprise does not include facilities that purchase market or resell and resell finished goods such as wood furniture wood pellets and milled lumber without first receiving forest products from forestry operations so We're in a universe of of industries That are the forest products industry because you may remember that Forestry and logging is exempt under act 250 below 2500 feet Okay Is there going to be anything coming that relates to how long such a facility will exist and operate? No, okay So i'll just Flag this for myself and maybe for others. I mean some of the conversations over the years have been that a log yard or sawmill might be set up on Or a shipping yard might all be relatively Temporary facilities there for a year or two until operations have finished in an area and then you'd be moving on I don't The only pellet mills I know of I think are permanent. So Let's I'll just flag that and we can keep going. Thanks so Then there's a definition of forest product, which means logs pulp wood veneer wood boltwood wood chips studwood poles pilings biomass wood fuel wood maple sap and bark so Those definitions are then used in the new language under 6086 c so 6086 c The new language is on slide two But the current law is on slide three and i'll touch on it briefly section 6086 c Contains the language regarding permit conditions and it says a permit may contain Which are appropriate That's sort of the big takeaway Conditions also have to be reasonable So we're going to amend this section with new language related to forest products products industry So the new language are permit conditions related on a forest-based enterprise So a permit condition that sets hours of operation For a forest-based enterprise Shall only be imposed to mitigate an impact under Criterion one, which is air pollution five, which is traffic Or eight, which is aesthetics. So that also includes noise be unless an impact under air pollution or traffic Of the section would result a permit issued for a forest-based enterprise Shall allow the enterprise to ship and receive forest products outside regular hours of operation These permits shall allow for deliveries of forest products from forestry operations to the enterprise outside of permitted operate Permitted hours of operation including nights weekends and holidays for a minimum of 60 days per year In making a determination under this subdivision as to whether an impact exists The district commission shall consider the enterprise's role in sustaining forest land use and the impact of the permit condition on the forest-based enterprise Conditions shall only impose the minimum restrictions necessary to address the undue adverse impact Uh three Permit conditions on the delivery of wood heat fuels A permit issued on uh to a forest-based enterprise that produces wood chips pellets cordwood or other fuel wood used for heat shall allow shipment of that fuel wood from the enterprise to the end user outside permitted hours of operation including nights weekends and holidays from october 1 through april 30 of each year And four forest-based enterprises holding a permit may request an amendment to existing permit conditions related to hours of operation and seasonal restrictions to be consistent with these subdivisions Requests for condition amendments under this subsection shall not be subject to act 250 rule 34 e And we I have a I have a couple of slides on rule 34 e, but that's the stow club highlands analysis And so we can talk about that a little bit more Uh, are there questions on this? Is this more or less restrictive than the ability of ambulances to operate? I do not know I'm not surprised. Thank you So I already touched on Were there other questions on the new language? So I touched on what section 86 c says There is another existing provision related to forestry out of forest products industries under 6084 g which allows smaller Forest processing operations to be a minor application under act 250 And those oops you just went by some criteria 3500 cords Allows you to be a minor operation Uh, that's a lot of wood Um a serious question. Mr. Chair. Yeah, sir. The ride gate was 30 truckloads of chips a day Montpelier district heat was one load of chips a day What does the number of cords that we just heard Equal in truckloads I don't know Is it to me it's it's interesting but But it's um Uninformative at this point does it it's meaningless All right Well, maybe we can get some help from commissioner snider on that one, you know, I'm okay good When I see people get a truckload of logs delivered to do their own Cutting and splitting they're getting usually uh, roughly 8 to 10 cords out of that truckload. So anyway It 35 is a substantial number 3500 Um, so let's keep cruising along. Thank you Yeah, I for me. I'm just kind of recognizing that this is a this is a pretty big give. I'm just gonna This is the administration's proposal, correct Yes It is in 926 has passed the house From the committee or for a member I'm sorry Was it from the committee in the committee's bill? It was not a floor amendment Thank you I mean, I don't know any other industry that has that gets this kind of thing, but I'll I'll just leave it there and mute myself For now for now Milk does but Fair so, uh We haven't talked specifically in this committee about What active 50 conditions are or how they are added to a permit? Um, I think you all are fairly familiar with but I did sort of go through the steps on this slide. So When someone applies for an active 50 permit, it's either granted denied or granted with conditions Um conditions are added when a district commission um Believes a proposed project causes undue adverse impact under a criterion And so they add these these conditions to ensure the project complies with the criterion Or they'll have to deny the application The district commission decides on a case-by-case basis whether to impose mitigating conditions and which conditions to impose If a district commission cannot draft permit conditions to alleviate The undue adverse impact under a criterion. They will deny a permit. So conditions are added so that a permit can move forward They have broad authority to tailor permit conditions and to be a little bit creative in order to reduce The project's impacts as long as they are appropriate And reasonable And they have to have an appropriate relationship to the criterion. They are addressing So a district commission does not have authority to require permit conditions without a finding that it is necessary for compliance with any of the 10 criteria So they are conditions are added for a specific reason Permit conditions are compulsory and they must be abided by unless the commission changes them The natural resources board has enforcement authority over permits and permit conditions and can bring enforcement action against those who are not following their permit conditions If someone would like to change their permit conditions, they use Rule 34 of the act 250 rules so Rule 34a says that if the change is going to be a material change um they're going to need to go through the Rule 34e process If it's a minor change and it won't be material it can go through the administrative amendment process, which doesn't require hearing Has minimal notice and it's a much quicker process So not all changes to permit conditions are material But those that are material have to go through the rule 33 rule 34e analysis Which is the codification of the stoke club highlands test And that test came from the supreme court, but it was based on the environmental board's rules That balance flexibility versus finality So the courts and the board were concerned that Allowing people to amend their permit conditions would sort of prolong the application process There was concern that if you allowed anyone to change their permit conditions at any time for any reason It would have impacts and the the finality of a permit is important so But there are change there are often Circumstances where where things change and there needs to be some flexibility. So this test balances those two competing issues And here is the the steps that you take in the analysis. So this is the The analysis that this new language in h926 seeks to Go around so this language in 926 Exempts changes to permit conditions for these forest products industries They don't have to go through this process if they want to change their hours of operation and seasonal restrictions. So Typically the analysis starts with the first question Whether the applicant proposes to amend a permit condition that was included to resolve a critical issue in the permit. So Not all permit conditions are critical But uh, if it is The district commission must consider whether the applicant is merely seeking to Relitigate the permit condition or undermine its purpose or intent Then the district commission waves the competing goals of finality and flexibility and it does so by looking at this list of factors so briefly it looks at Have there been changes in law? Or regulation or in the facts of the situation that are beyond the permities control Have there been changes in technology construction operations? Other factors including innovative design or alteration of design Important policy considerations that further the goals of the municipality Manifest error on the part of the district commission board or court and the degree of reliance that Parties have on the permit conditions So in waiting in weighing these factors if it weighs in flexibility the condition can be changed by the district commission So So mr. Chair just in a i'm trying to understand those And For example, um the state of ramon were to say trucks can be another 10 feet longer as they do every 15 or 20 years And now the the trucks that deliver are 15 feet longer And they don't meet the permit condition. Is that what we're talking about here? I think that could be um considered under the first factor because that would be something beyond the permities control or trucks Operated for years and now they invented something new called jake brakes And they want to use jake brakes on their truck. Would that be one of those things? um What kind of permit condition would that relate to the use of brake sound? Oh Yeah Maybe i'm not entirely sure about that Okay, thank you. Are there any are there any other questions about the permit condition? stuff And um, how long is rule 34 e been operating is this well established? Yes, um The let's see Uh stokeloops highland the case was in 1996. Okay, and uh The analysis in that case had been Used previously by the environmental board. So I am not certain, but it is a fairly long time Okay, great. Thank you 1996 Yes, so So mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I don't want I'm not trying to take up a lot of time, but no But I I remember as a kid going logging and a truck would pull into the Place where you unloaded the logs in daylight and they'd roll the logs off and you know you Get your check and and you would leave and Now we have um Wood products are delivered in tractor trailer trucks and in some places. I don't know if they existed for one or not the trucks pulled into uh Kind of ramps they drive you the truck into the ramp and the ramp tips up in the air Where the whole cab of the truck goes, you know 10 20 However many feet up in the air and all the product slides out the back And they do this 24 hours a day and how does How would a trans such a transition be dealt with? under the law were When things get bigger and noisier and louder How do just Does the law say well things are bigger or noisier and louder you If you didn't want this to happen, you shouldn't allow the place to be here to begin with or Does the law say you can't do it because it's bigger and noisier and louder How does that decision get made? so It depends. I guess on if the facility already has its permit or if they're trying to amend permit conditions So when you're applying for the permit Either an interested party or the applicant itself has to you know Explore whether there is an undue adverse impact under the criteria and so Criterion eight under aesthetics does address noise And so if the district commission was concerned about the level of noise And found that it needed to be mitigated because it was an undue adverse impact Um, they would potentially draft conditions that would either There are multiple ways to address noise. So either limiting the hours requiring some kind of screening Some kind of offset of where this the noise can occur And if the operation was becoming More and more Noisy that is one you sort of look at if there has been a material change Or just a slight change And and these are pretty fact dependent things if it's a permitted establishment with a condition that says They cannot exceed a certain amount of noise Um, they potentially will need to go through this rule 34e process the To say To go through the process to say The noise limit notwithstanding they can continue to do it anyway potentially So the new language in h926 is related to operating outside of Previously established Hours of operation in the permit. So allowing them To operate outside what has already been established as their permitted hours of operation for Sort of seasonal periods of time And is that for all operations or just shipment in and out from the site? I I mean I see in three for instance a shipment related provision um Yep, and so that's that's related to just a specific window of time from october to april and then Under two there's an all they're allowed to operate for a minimum of 60 days per year outside of The regular hours of operation for deliveries I mean, I I think we're all familiar with the whole issue of especially if you're on Areas with dirt you want to be in and out while things are well frozen and that may well be at three in the morning not Yep Running I'll just say having been near Whole whole tree chippers for instance That's the sound you can hear a mile away. No no problem. So That would be very different than a truck going in and out Okay, and so that kind of thing so the operations I'll pick some the noisiest thing I can think of which is whole whole tree um are That is that permitted to operate outside of Permanent hours of operation by any language here. I don't see I don't read it that way. I just don't want to misread it Um under no under three. It's talking about um shipment of the fuel so Uh, I think that would primarily relate to uh trucks Driving out with the material Yeah, okay. Thank you so After the chair's question um, you know, they're People chipping the daytime And they often fill trucks in the daytime But they won't run those trucks out because They're waiting for two o'clock in the morning when the roads are frozen again, which is sound and wise practice But then they leave it to in the morning. Does that mean that they deliver an hour and a half later when they get to To their place of delivery and now they're you know driving in and driving out and making a racket When they unload so that they can come back the next morning and get the next load of chips that They're going to wait until two o'clock in the morning to to move This is complicated stuff, mr. Chair Right and that's on the receiving the receiving end. I don't know for instance, if any well just Right next to me the the local high school gets chips large chip delivery. So Um, but it's discreet enough that far enough away from everyone. I don't think it Interfers, but I don't know what the other sites are Um, Senator camping you had something to uh, again, I go back to what other industry do we allow To make these kinds of permit changes Sort of make it so easy for them to do And uh, again, I'm just raising a question. I continue to have concerns. Um And uh, I guess it it does raise Something that I'll just put out there again or put out there that I was thinking about last evening after yesterday's discussion I don't think we have heard yet from And I know this is a little bit just going back to to yesterday's conversation But I think we need to hear from a forester on some things And I we have not heard from a forester And I know there are a lot of foresters out there That we might want to Have give us some real consulting some real thoughts particularly I mean we have People in the administration who have a certain philosophy around some of these things But I think for a more balanced Conversation hearing from a forester Um, you know around the what we were talking about yesterday with roads and then some of these other policies I I think could be helpful and and I'll just leave it there Um, if anyone on this call wants to recommend someone I did reach out to um Bill Keaton at UVM who When I was on the biomass energy development working group. So Same issue, but eight years ago nine years ago He was very helpful then and so I reached out to him But I'd be happy to get recommendations from anyone on the call about other and I can take a I can take a look And ask around also Sure here, uh, so we hear maybe a little bit more of a balanced Proposed balanced, uh Testimony, thank you. Sure. Thank you okay, so, um Ms. Shikowsky, do we have more slides in this deck or do we get to the last one there? Just one last one. Okay So the last provision related to the forest products industry and age 926 As new language to the mitigation of primary agricultural soils That's in 6093 so It adds new language that says notwithstanding any provision of this chapter A conversion of primary agricultural soils by a forest based enterprise Permitted under this chapter shall be entitled to a ratio of one to one protected acres Two acres of affected primary agricultural soil So when you're doing mitigation for prime ag soil Currently under the law the rate of mitigation as you see at the bottom of the slide here Depends on where the project is located. So in designated areas in industrial parks You can pay a fee for mitigation based on a one to one ratio In areas outside of the designated areas There's on-site mitigation and it is a calculation of the ratio between two to one and three to one So this potentially would be lowering the threshold the ratio to one to one This this would consume more prime agricultural soils Yes, okay And the only other thing I wanted to add was Because i'm rushing and I I know i'm not maybe being the most clear You may remember the commission on act 250 the next 50 years the final report has They considered a very specific proposal to this deco slides And so there is a two-page overview of what the commission Found when reviewing this and what Their recommendations were so if you add another time want to look at it There's information there Okay Does that rec does that recommendation say? Recommend that there be more use of prime agricultural soils for something Other than agriculture or less use of primary agricultural soils for They did not recommend adopting this language Thank you okay so Thank you for giving us a Sort of somewhere between 30 000 and 10 000 the 14 000 foot view and that's helpful and Now let's Turn any questions for mr. Chukowski before we move on to some of our other witnesses for this morning No, but thank you very helpful. Thank you. Yeah, I mean clearly this I'll be printing off this deck and reading it through more than once. Uh, there's You've distilled a lot out and I appreciate that but it's I'm going to need to study it Before we convene again as a committee on this topic Uh, we haven't heard anyone from anyone yet about why these proposals were the administration brought these proposals to the house That's my understanding of where they originated. So, uh, commissioner walk is on the Fall as is commissioner snider. I don't know you all and the A&R world are and mr. Lincoln's here and Maybe somebody else too. Uh, anyway, mr. Chair Use your time as you wish amongst Mr. Chair. Yeah before we listen to these witnesses who are going to testify on what we've heard So far one of the things one of the things we know today is um forestry is like all others and In this industry in this industry and other industries are worried about costs and expenses and and making a living One of the a couple Factors are going on today such as much of the infrastructure and trucks and vehicles that harvest forestry Are not in use they're parked and um, they're parked because the The markets are not there to burn chips so There are a surplus of those vehicles and we we we know that the 20 percent of our ash trees are going to be dying in the next um Decade or so which is going to drive down the cost of the price paid for chips By landowners who wish to get something out of this wood before it becomes worthless So we we know that there are people eager to work and put stuff to work and we know that the cost of chips Compared is going to drop compared to what it would have been if there wasn't this This disease attacking chips So I would hope that any recommendations and testimony we have takes those two factors into account and um because that's the future of the forest economy and We don't just say we're trying to save them money. Um When there are going to be you know opportunities for Getting cheaper product. Thank you So, um, just Thanks for bringing that up. We've talked about it a little But in this context, I'm trying to think of what kind of things are you considering? Us doing center mcdonald because right so we have emerald ash for a lot of Ash is going to be taken down before it's diseased and worthless as you point out. So Are you thinking that? That people for instance landowners might say This isn't a great price. But as you're pointing out, I'd really get something rather than nothing So then there's a lot of wood offer cheaply that moves into the marketplace and then how might we respond to that? I'm not following that last step which which means that um when The people who harvest and burn wood Um chips will know that the folks Doing the work and delivering the product are getting it at a lower price We often are told we need to make these changes in our environment or use up prime ag land Because there's such a razor competitive edge That um, we have no choice or we need to be we need to to take into account the um the expenses and the Of the logging of the forest industry the forest industry industry is going to be able to buy product More cheaply than it would have And how does that figure into our deliberations for the next decade? So Okay, great So i'm keeping an eye on the clock and i'd like to spend only about another 10 to 15 minutes tops on this It's not that we're going to solve everything but I just would like us all to have sort of a solid introduction to current language Proposals and here from the parties that are looking at a pro or con All right So with that I'd like to turn to the a and r team and invite you folks to weigh in on this All right for the record peter walk commissioner in the dc I'm going to defer entirely to the uh commissioner in forest forest recreation and state forester michael schneider As well as deputy commissioner lincoln As they are the experts here and are bringing you have brought forward this proposal as a way to help address The economic conditions arounding forest operations and forest landowners so to be able to keep Our lands in force Senator campion asked a question About which industries receive similar outcomes If we look at our working lands as a composite of our forest and our farms You see a completely different outcome for forests than you do for farms And we are attempting to make some of that what is available the farms available to the forestry operations in order to be able to Keep our forest in forest in forest operations so that they can continue to be Kept from being in a fragmented condition with that. I will hand it off to commissioners matter Thank you Okay, thank you commissioner walk. Thanks, mr. Chair again. Appreciate the chance to speak with you on this um Hearing your deliberations As ledged counsel walked you through. I'm not quite sure where to begin I guess I'd like to make a couple of points on your comments and questions I'd start there relative to the 3500 chords that was questioned. That's an existing law That's not part of the new changes here um That's about 10 to 12 tractor trailer loads Um, about two and a half tons per cord depending on species, uh, because they vary by weight. They weights vary by species um I believe your your concerns about the noisy chipping is not your main here where this wouldn't apply Those are part of forestry operations. That's that's these are this is about active 50 permits Those would be exempt from act 250. So it's just not relevant here um To your comments about needing to hear from a forester. I encourage you to do that I am myself a licensed forester. I am indeed state forester vermont Um, and um, but if you're not satisfied with me because you believe I have some odd philosophy, which is what I heard I encourage you to hear from the first because they've all supported it. There's many of them um And uh as to balance testimony, I would encourage you to have some testimony I think I just draw you back to it. You you have as the general assembly in title 10 2601 I believe it is have established as the policy of the state to encourage the economic management The conservation and economic management of our woodlands that is an established policy And you have done many things over the years in support of that and in furtherance of that and this falls in as a as a modernization, frankly under climate under covid and is part of the Reimagining of act 250 at 50 with significant support from across It's not just a proposal of the uh administration. This is a proposal that's been well vetted with significant testimony And support broadly across the board. I believe you'll hear from b and rc As well On their support for this. So I hope that just recasts and reframes quickly for you what this is and what it isn't And i'm happy to speak further about the how this connects to things like a changing climate And I'd hope to have your An open mind to consider the very real connection that this all comes from and ties back to For protecting forest integrity and is a significant strategy to thwart forest fragmentation Okay And I don't know if That's like to be helpful if I could and mr. Lincoln further technical questions Can cover them, but uh, frankly, I'm not really sure where to go listening to how you've begun With your considerations here well, I I think you know the The reason I started the biomass energy development working group was to relocalize wood production and help forests Help pay their own way, right? Let it let people make enough money owning forests to keep them for so i'm certainly not at those questions I'm sensing that they're interpreted as somehow averse to the bill I'm just trying to understand how the parts fit together. So I'd love to try to help you with that senator the This this would speak to the root causes of forest fragmentation Which was part of the original fragmentation report in 2015 and as I said yesterday This is really the last piece that we haven't addressed I'm excited to have it in the support in the house was wonderful from the conservation groups It's been fantastic and uh, so i'm hoping you're you're willing to see that larger picture of this to get back Like you said with you know, I was there that back in the bioe day senator and uh, and I appreciate your sensitivity to that And this is exactly that it's an attempt to try to true this up and modernize For uh to deal with things that weren't considered when act 250 was was instituting okay Mr. Mr. Deputy commissioner Lincoln Thank you, mr. Chair I appreciate the opportunity to present in front of the committee for the record san lincoln deputy commissioner department of forest parks and recreation I'd like to go back quickly to yesterday's testimony about all the data around fragmentation and land use planning for forest and uh, the testimony you heard uh, and A lot of very good information about fragmentation and the the what the where and the how fragmentation is occurring But i'll tell you I was on the edge of my seat When nobody asked why These landowners have decided to fragment senator mcdonald did elude talked about the current use report um on intergenerational transfer but What we're not seeing or what what's what's concerning us what's behind some of this The the uh, the many years of testimony here the presentations in front of the commission on act 250 at 50 were about issues about investing In adding value to the commodities grown on our forest land in vermont and Act 250 is one strategy in land use planning to intervene and stop fragmentation trends but And and I and I and as a six-year development review board member three-year planning commission member of my town I'm all about proper land use good planning and strategy But those those provisions intervene at the town clerk permit office or the act 250 permit office Our strategies are about intervening in a family's kitchen table when they're deciding whether or not they're going to fragment Whether or not they will keep their land as forest land and and maybe even consider aggregating forest land to grow Healthy habitat grow healthy for valuable forest products. There has been an enormous amount of testimony put The act 250 at 50 commission about the real and very costly and logistically challenging issues with act 250 permitting that go to these proposals we put forward Small family businesses spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get act 250 permits getting permits that make it so they can't work And get forest products in at night for make farmers make hay when the sun shines and for the forest economy often It means working at night when it's frozen And we know that there are fewer and fewer days when the ground is frozen There are fewer drier days in the summer and we have to be able to work outside normal business hours to pay Back the millions of dollars in investment that many people have in these businesses We were asked not to ask for a wholesale exemption so we came forward with surgical changes that would be the most impactful to create the most confidence in investment and reinvestment and There they are detailed. They are technical But they are real challenges that are stopping people from investing in businesses if they don't have certainty that they can Succeed financially in helping enable forest management and returns to landowners habitat enhancement and things like that. So I'm happy to you know, just just again getting to the why the why are people Choosing to fragment their land and right now the senator from orange spoke earlier the commissioner did We're in the midst of this pandemic and We have seen the ash pandemic that's killing trees Pandemic is that the one you're talking about the covid pandemic? Oh Has changed the entire globes use of forest products We have huge demand for tissue paper and wood energy Various things, but we have a major shift in paper used in offices that Ties all the way back through the supply chain to forest management and forest integrity And we want to do things that create more A durable economy in vermont with more smaller scale investment here We rely heavily on exporting our forest commodities out of state to fewer and fewer larger corporation owned Processors of forest products That are owned around the globe. We would like to have more of them in the state And this is our campaign as a question Thanks, I think this might be I'm not sure if this is going to go to deputy commissioner uh, Lincoln or to ledge counsel So I've got a little chart that I made here So farms we exempt and this is a little bit back to the commissioners comment commissioner walk Farms we exempt but the processing the groups that process things for farms we don't And then I would say logging. Yes, we exempt, but this is looking to exempt The processing related to the logs. Would you say that's Or sort of the processing Of that, I guess I'm looking to not an exemption a little bit. It's just not an it's it's not an exemption Go ahead sam senator. Uh, yeah, so This is not an exemption. This is uh, this is Changes and they all have back stops and in terms of the undue adverse effect and I and I might let Let me let me correct myself then What's another term? Um I don't like this necessarily but uh Being treated a different way the comparison was made earlier to exempting farms And we know that the the processing that's involved with things that come off the farm is not exempt Um, or given any kind of special treatment. I don't really like that, but uh logging Things are exempt But I just want to go now to There is a bit of a change a bit of a shift a bit of a a different way of treating The how we would process things after they were logged. That's Mr. Chair if I could that was my comment. So could I could I respond to it? Could I address and clarify? Yeah, please. Thank you. Thank you So I always make the senator camp in my statement about the Was was to clarify based on a comment that the chair made about his concerns about the noisiest forestry operations being a chipper which Uh, typically would be part of a forestry operation that's part of logging and as you know is exempt This provision doesn't speak to them. This is speaking to those enterprises that that trigger act 250 And this is not an exemption from that. It's a clarification with backstops appropriately For how those permit conditions would be applied So that's what I meant that an apology if it didn't come across right But I was responding to the chair's concern that boy, this seems a bit much when you consider those noisy operations Um, they wouldn't even we can talk about that but that they're not part of this This is about the enterprises that add value And uh, that would require an act 250 permit and those stuff that's the distinction I was trying to make Yeah, and I'm sorry my question. Perhaps that wasn't clear. So farms Are exempt The processing of things that come off of the farms You know, I'm trying to make the comparison to the processing. That's all So I'm it's analogous here Completely analogous here Okay, can you wait until I finish please? So then what I'm saying is so with the logging Process that takes place. We know that that's exempt so afterward, is there a different Treatment is there a different sort of special treatment that we would be giving in a way to those that would process Uh that logging If I may farm that farms do not receive Senator what what the comparison is here is that farms that harvest crops from the fields It's a land-based situation and and in all land-based Occupations we're learning more about water quality better practices all these things when a farmer harvest crops They can take it from the field to the storage facility Without without any restrictions on the hours that they can do that With a logging operation harvest commodities off the land They need to be able to take that same crop to the storage facility the market the the enterprise that adds the value And the same ground conditions often apply. We want them to do that. It's frozen or dry enough And this is a big part of this this proposal is that the people the businesses that receive that material That they are that that conditions can be put on the hours of operation. It's a matter that The allowing when the when the the the very well known situations in the forest economy when there are shoulder seasons where wood has to be trucked at night Or dried conditions during summer logging seasons That might be nights and weekends. It might be the only opportunity the contractor has to get the wood out of the woods without damaging roads and forest soils And it has been a problem for businesses To not be able to get the wood when the raw materials when they need it So it would be as always if there was a gate in front of the farmyard between the field and the farmyard Is is the best, you know to to help illustrate And to the wood energy provisions in there about the deliveries going out What was that part sam the last week the wood energy? the The the ledge council made the presentation about the wood energy and the delivery out outbound trucks for that More and more in the state we rely on wood energy the buildings and institutions the capital complex national life Where our offices are the school that senator the chair Mentioned that by wood almost all of those require nighttime deliveries of the wood They utilize the same impervious surface for parking cars during the day that they do for maneuvering delivery trucks at night to deliver the wood So they even the state requires by contract that the wood chips be delivered at night so they have to be produced and delivered in sequence and That there are times where the trucks have to leave the yards at night from these enterprises and again It's a matter of if someone's going to invest millions of dollars in a business to produce the fuel to heat the buildings If they're going to deliver firewood to a family that's out of wood at night or wood pellets They have to be able to have the opportunity to Have the trucks leave their yard with the preprocessed materials and deliver that and it again It came up in the testimony. I believe that the act 250 and 50 commission heard That that has been an issue. So these are small windows of time Representative dean had asked us he said don't come back to us. He says I hear the issues But don't come back to us asking for an exemption. So we tried to make surgical Changes in here that were seasonal. They were limited. They're they're they're also backstop by undue adverse effect That was part of the discussions that we had in leading up to this Mr. Chair, yeah, sir. McDonald the this the senate recently Approved the burning of wood chips at brighgate With a huge subsidy to this industry for many of the reasons that the witnesses Have brought forth That was to spend taxpayer money To make it possible to ship wood to a place that burns it extremely inefficiently The legislature has taken a huge step in recognizing the requests of the forest industry Farms take crops to the barn That's where they go Milk leaves the barn And goes down country Most of it in trucks that for years have been granted the right to be overweight That we that's the break that they've been getting and it is similar, but it is not The forest industry. It's the milk truckers and that's what we're talking about getting Chips to market and when they show up in the market They make they require an act 250 permit to unload We're not saying that the chippers that operate once every 10 years for a couple weeks in the forest or the noise we're talking about that act 250 for trucking To the facilities that receive it That's what we're talking about and they are different from From milk in that regard So this this legislature and this senate has already approved unanimously a huge subsidy to the industry Because we thought it made sense now. This is a new ask and we're trying to consider it carefully Thank you So I would like to just better understand The nature of I guess well in new definition forest-based enterprise Maybe i'm sort of old school here. I'm thinking of a log yard and trucks getting loaded and off-goes are relatively unprocessed material For further processing elsewhere, whether that's going to get sawn or whatever But the the forest-based enterprises includes things like sawmills veneer mills pulp mills and pellet mills So are are we talking about and those sound like relatively long-term investments that would stay put not like A chipping operation moving around log yard to log yard Can you say a little bit about the goal here? Are we talking about? Allowing basically semi-permanent construction of sawmills veneer mills pulp mills pellet mills In these locations Yeah, yes, I don't know commissioner. Do you want to take it? Oh sam. Sure. You got it Um, yes, this is for permanent structures. We're we're the state is currently exporting tens of thousands of tractor-trail loads a year of of raw materials from our forest to have value added To all these types of mills and they are existing as permanent structures here in the state This this would not be for temporary Mobile facility, you know, there are mobile logging and chipping operations. This would be permanent infrastructure built infrastructure Okay So and that that's helpful clarification because I think part of what we've traditionally talked about in committee when we're on this topic is What's going on in a log yard or a chipping operation in a log yard? How long is it there? How long are people going in because they may well be near residences? Whereas this is more like, uh, I don't know commercial industrial development And this is only about Only about basically only about hours of operation. Do you heard some about? The the prime expose and I'll get to that But this is about hours of operation all other act 250 review conditions Environmental standards are are untouched are unchanged in all of this Um, so so I hope that's helpful too as well that this is this is only about again What we consider to be a surgical slice of of change of policy that's really needed by the industry And it's not in the bill, but I suppose it's kind of in the background How would land have to be zoned in order to host such a facility? I mean if you're ag residential, which is what a lot of talents around here are or I live um, can uh Forest-based enterprise be constructed in such a zone or you have to be in a commercial zone All the same there's no change in this to land use planning if local municipal zoning has Uh prohibitions that applies otherwise. It's all the same trigger jurisdictional triggers and criteria apply Okay, well, thank you I'm getting a clearer picture of what it's a little different picture than what we've been talking about historically in this committee Which is a more at the edge of the forest. How much can you do? How long etc? And this is right. These are new facilities to Bring this industry back, uh in vermont. Is that it? Basic value added opportunities That's the added Thank you. This this doesn't when we say hours of operation Um, the rigate plant runs 24 hours a day So this isn't about operation of a plant This is about building facilities that truck products and unload those products and make noise and that's what act 250 regulates That's what we're talking about plus Apparently we're also talking about if you're going to build a new one of these things um We should Relax the laws so that you can build these places On prime agricultural lands, um, which we in a way that we wouldn't allow Other places to be built. So that's Also in this bill. Is it not? Yeah, may I speak to that? Mr. Chair? Is is that what we're discussing? That's all That is a provision. It's new language in So that's another thing we're discussing. We're not discussing the merits of this right now That's we're discussing what it is that we're discussing That's right. So there's new language in the in the slide deck that Mr. Chakowsky went through And includes a new section 1693 mitigation of primal exiles. Mr. Lincoln And finally, mr. Chair, are we discussing or not discussing discussing the issue of The roadways that go to forests or go up into areas threatened with fragmentation. Is we also discussing that one? Uh, we we haven't really talked about the road rule stuff today per se, but I don't know if The commissioner sneezed a connection between those two You have you have it right mr. Chair this we're as of now we're speaking of these provisions in 926 That that are you know that sure I could make a connection to almost anything in the forest but and they But this is not about the roads out there into the woods or as you say senator bray The the operations that we've all talked about before in the woods or at the woods edge. This is about businesses enterprises Trigger act 250 and as sam has said it's it's it's really only taking a look at certain criteria and the permit conditions that associate Doesn't change the need for a permit Etc and all the locals on him still applies it's very I think sam is an appropriate word. It's an attempt to be fairly surgical But be be helpful in a surgical attention to the permit conditions relating to these certain criteria for You know facilities that already trigger and would still trigger review and and and need a permit Okay, and so is the basic historical issue here that we're trying to address in these forest based enterprise definitions and then Different language around how they're regulated Is that they are different in nature because of things like materials coming in and going out at sort of quote-of-quote odd hours Compared to a traditional business and that's for the most part the thing we're trying to manage How is it how can someone be reasonably assured that they're going about to operate a business in a manner That allows them to address the real world they live in like you can Logs are going to be coming out at three in the morning and they're going to get to your facility at four in the morning You know senator bray. This is not a new industry. I just want to make sure people who are watching You know this is this has been going on for a long time. We are basically and i'm not saying that i'm against the policy I just want to pull apart here Yeah, and you know what we are doing whether or not we are treating one industry differently I just want to go into this with eyes wide open. I appreciate your Bringing up that yes, but this is this is an industry that's been around for a long time. We know If I mean it's it's a it's a traditional rural industry and with concentration and in size and different things new New people building homes in the area. It's triggered active 50 permitting where it may not have been considered by the framers of active 50 You know you considered that a lot of the things that weren't considered back then in your commission study and um So we're we're again not asking for an exemption of all active 50 review. We're asking we're asking for these small changes and the You know to the prime ag soil We're most of these enterprises are located in rural rural areas. They're an offshoot of another rural enterprise and possibly And we're asking for the same treatment in prime ag soil that we are for industrial park development in terms of The mitigation sequence and things like that And the reason for that is again because the these enterprises Have an enormous conservation effect uh on the on them on forced integrity and keeping forest as forest We presented a formula to the act to 50 at 50 commission on even a small facility producing Even one of Vermont's smaller mills puts Hundreds of thousands if not tens of millions of dollars into the mailboxes of forest landowners in the state every year Other than current use the largest conservation program We have is our forest products industry in keeping the the forest economy supply chain Putting revenue in in land ownership holding costs tax payments family living expenses to those forest landowners and so We're not this proposal is not about letting the gates down and having saw mills paving over beautiful farmland to build yards but in terms of These businesses so I mean you're going to drop that provision I'm sorry. What's you does that mean you're going to drop the provision? That gives a special exemption And allows farmland to be paved over to build these facilities Uh, no, I was I was in the middle of explaining. Sorry. Um, maybe if no, I listen to what our intents are, um, the uh The provision is about these businesses need to expand and grow And if they do on land that they own that if that land happens to be designated as prime ag soil, they're being essentially uh, penalized in the mitigation sequence for Expanding a business that conserves land indirectly or directly however you want to call it If you look at a three to one you look at a 2,500 22 and a half million board foot sawmill Puts millions and millions of dollars into the mailboxes of landowners each year to hold forest land intact A three to one four to one mitigation sequence doesn't do anywhere near that tens of thousands of acres impacted annually positively So that we're that i'm saying to you that this is not some veiled attempt to Allow industrial Buildings to be just that people are just waiting for this to build on prime ag land It is another small change That we would like to make for a small number of of investor businesses to create investment here That doesn't penalize them for doing something. They're already doing in great Magnitudes more than the mitigation sequence would be Mr. Chair, um, I don't see any fines or penalties in this legislation um, I respect the tradition of of This forest harvest industry and I have watched it change over decades. It has gotten bigger It has gone from daytime to nighttime For reasons that are understandable It has severed the connection between the people who harvest the logs and took them to the villages in daylight And unloaded those logs and received checks in their pockets And bought milkshakes for the kids in the truck before they went back to the wood lot This industry asks for change after change after change and when you are asked to keep a record Of what you have in your trucks when they leave Places at four o'clock in the morning And where those trucks go to with what's in them you tell us know That that's a traditional it's about in the integrity of foresters And that it it is inappropriate You stymie you stand in the way of that change you stand in the way of modernization you stand in the way of the changes and When you ask it there be a record when we ask it there be a record of someone that gets paid for their product That they'd be notified by the recipient that the landowner be notified you say no and when we come to Changes in act 250 You ask you ask you ask and you make comparisons and you ask for special treatment that other industries don't have And sometimes we listen and when you ask for subsidies To use your product Inefficiently because you're caught in a bind You're caught in a bind with a price of oil To use your product inefficiently We have said yes But when we ask that you join other more modern activities You say no and you continue to want to have special exemptions um This is this is not a one-way street and the There have been given taken this but sometimes there's there's a limit Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you senator mcdonnell um So, uh, right. I mean trip tickets. We don't want to start a whole trip ticket conversation right now But we have been disciplined that we haven't brought it up and we I mean some of us resent when others Want to bring up what they want to bring up. Yeah I can say that trip tickets is just as surgical As anything that's been brought up. So is the notification Of land owners who've sold products is just as surgical as this stuff and it doesn't adversely affect Land it doesn't adversely affect development It doesn't adversely cause a lot of noise. It doesn't take up prime agricultural land and And witnesses say no But when they want to do all those other things we're supposed to say Yes, thank you Well, I would say one thing, you know, if we're going to draw comparisons to ag I mean one thing I think to senator mcdonnell's Point is when you ship milk You you know exactly how many gallons you had loaded on that tanker and you get Uh, you get milk checks you get receipts you get notified. There's a lot of tracking that goes in in also I find this point well taken the we're not discussing From the producer's point of view It provides a reasonable record that helps them know what happened to what was taken and I'm not sure Why we find why that's an objectionable? But I want to go back to the prime ag piece for a moment and that is if such an operation were Permanent and the mill 10 15 20 years hence Were to close because the industry has shifted yet again and I think of the plywood mill for instance in Over in granville So is that Is that land forever allowed to operate as a quote-unquote sort of an industrial spot or does it The exemption was only for a forest based enterprise and if it's not another forest based enterprise It needs to go back to normal uses for prime ag soils It's not an exemption. It's a different mitigation sequence and The the long term use of that was not is not in the language um In the bill. I don't I don't know. I I I clearly understand your question And I but I don't know how we could ever plan for that. I'm not I'm not certain It's uh It's I guess the clearest thing I can say is I I understand your question and it's not addressed in the bill Okay, well, and it's just something for us to consider for going this direction. It it might be that the the conditional The greater flexibility we're talking about might only be for this industry and it should this industry leave then that You would have to restore or something. But um, and so I'd ask council to help us look into this before we come back It's already a few minutes after 11. So for anyone who was I apologize If we're For those who are here only for trails. I don't believe we're gonna be talking about trails today because It is an early issue in and of itself Even though we've already got a running start on it. Um And we might as well spend the the last 10 minutes we have or so Uh speaking a little more about this one so that we don't gloss over something. That's a pending question Mr. Chair just for uh to understand again a little bit if I made the process We're still talking about the senate at least we are still on the same page that Trails horsefrag in downtowns will go together as a bill That is the agreement great. Thank you. I mean the committees of jurisdiction and yeah, I just think that's an important thing to to uh reiterate As we sort of again continue to go through this process. Thank you I mean you can do that. You're gonna poison pill the bill. I mean, I don't know if I'll support it with all three sections in it to be Well, there's you know, I would Everyone makes their own choices. So I respect, you know, you need to do what you think is best I think there's certainly but uh poison pills are slightly Toxic term, right? So there's definitely no Interest in having a poison pill in the bill It's just that there is give and take and so people there's discomfort all the way around but In the you know, how we end up crafting these things we end up trying to balance things off So there's give and take But I I think my sense is that all the parties I've talked with all along the way. No one's interested in a poison pill anywhere They're just interested in saying how do we come up with something that? Everyone uh can agree to in the end because there's nothing in it From the further point of view so The other thing if we're gonna be adding anything else I want to take a look at some point. Uh, not now of course, but at this warden's bill that has been uh on our this all that also might be Relevant, uh, I have big concerns. Um, I I can't hear Yes, senator campion. I don't know if it was just me your voice disappeared for like the last two sentences Sorry, I just want to I want to talk at some point, uh about the the bill on our wall having to do with wardens Uh, and that doesn't have to happen now, but I uh have concerns, uh, and but if we can As we're talking about things that might move in packages That might be something that we might just keep out there, uh as a conversation Um as we move forward to see if maybe if we can get somewhere with that also it might end up Be becoming part of this sure We're not I don't know. Okay, right h 673 which was referred to us maybe a week ago or something right Um, can we spend just two minutes on that just so the people know what the bill is and why we got it? um commissioner snider Did you play a role in moving 673 or working with the house to have that moved? So as uh, okay, so with With sort of a A vuncular interest in this bill. Can you just tell us sort of what happened and why it came forward? Sure, this is a Bill to modernize the so the tree warden statutes Which date back to 1904. I believe and really haven't seen a whole lot of change although a lot of things have changed since uh, so the intent of the bill is to recognize and importantly clarify The roles responsibilities rights and response and and rights of private landowners municipalities with a highway right-of-way And clarifying the long-standing Statutes of that require a town to have a tree warden, but they're conflicting with other statutes They're lacking in definition and clarity and that have caused some significant problems That you have a case in addison county famously where a landowner Is looking at a million dollar plus fine based on the existing statutes And seems many people have brought that to us as kind of crazy and its Towns differ in how they approach it. So this is an attempt is to modernize and clarify Limit confusion and and conflict And um, we proposed a fairly significant modernization at the beginning that I think bordered on advocacy for green spaces and local communities and There was pushback from certain quarters a lot of support in others But we worked well with the house committee of jurisdiction and Very proud actually it was very a long process of listening and and back and forth We settled on what past that has the support of tree wardens municipalities from our league of cities and towns Which have opposed at first Ended up supporting. We're really proud of it. Hope you will take a good look at it And that's the intent of the tree warden bill Then that uh, that sounds actually quite good. That might be something then that we I might have been confused with another bill That looks like something maybe we would attach possibly to this. I'll look to you, mr. Chair Could be a part of the package something just to keep in mind, right? We have um Our challenge right now is everyone knows is what our bandwidth is so limited and uh, we don't have that much time however the What is normal for the end of session is sometimes we put more things We we bring things together and get them on the same bus traveling together. So senator Cummings followed a christmas tree Our our bill of three could become a bill of four Right, I'd offer a comment on the tree warden bill that that offers I now hopeful is that You know, I know you like to do your good work on it, but uh, that one had a sort of Disproportionate amount of work, uh with a lot of different parties. So it took a long time So, you know, maybe you could see it as and trust that that one has been vetted significantly But do your thing and uh, if we we'd love to be helpful We've got people who can speak to it and help you understand there Well, we trusted everything we get to already been well vetted and then we We do our I didn't mean to suggest other ones And If I could just Make just make a comment I just like to alert you to remind you you on the subject of trip tickets and harvest notification Your comment that you don't understand an objection or that it's not surgical or that it's surgical You have a report from us from a couple years ago. That's very detailed on that doesn't say don't do it It says how to do it. Um, and uh, so I'd encourage you I sent it to senator mcdonald when he called some questions previously You have it. It's a it's a detailed report on how to implement at your request to how to implement Um trip tickets harvest notification. What would be involved and it it's a thoughtful approach to explain what's involved It's significant. We didn't say no. We said here's how and there's a lot to it So just just by way of reminder and you have that report Uh, and it's there's a lot of good hard work in there that that I hope you'll take a look at if you're seriously interested in doing that Just know that you know, we're trying to be helpful and we're trying to to be realistic and provide factual information And I'd I'd hope you'd use it. Uh, it's there for you Okay, can I ask you a favor just uh, because I don't have my hands on that readily can you resend it to um, our committee assistant Judith Newman and she can post it on our website and Distribute to members of the committee Mr. Chair happy to Mr. Chair in a mcdonald. It was briefly discussed that we would put in the uh the rigate bill a um that the administration would write the rules Around what the commissioner has just Suggested and bring them back to the legislature by a date certain But we were told that that would clutter up the bill and we should just move the rigate bill alone um the question of uh What gets included in this bill whether it's act 250 or this or or other things is Is it is a perfect the I'm surprised to see that foresters when it comes to this Legislation are What I would call in forestry terms trying to high High grade this bill Where they take the good logs and they leave the rest of the stuff To the detriment of the entire forest and we know that foresters don't do that anymore. Thank you All right. Well, we're we're into integrated harvesting in the committee. So we're gonna try this but there's an effort to high grade this this bill All right, um, so thanks everyone for the discussion this morning It's been helpful to better understand the bill and what we are really talking about in terms of forest based enterprises I would encourage everyone on the committee to Actually, I'll ask jude to email everyone about power points so that you may want to print them out and read through At any rate to to study them because we have we've received a lot of material in the last three days and The other thing too is just as a side note s237 the downtown development and designated area development work A number of interested parties have all weighed in since wednesday And so I've been asking jude to post their comments as well as either she's been sending or I've been sending comments along So for instance vlct is weighed in some uh planners and developers have weighed in And I think we're going to be hearing from the romant planners association Next week. They are Working to get a consensus opinion amongst I think something like 150 planners. So it's taking them a little time to get there So we're going to have Three burners going on this stove right to the finish line. I think and I appreciate that everyone is Staying good-humored and cordial and I know there's a little it's a little challenging because things are getting a little tense And we are short of time. So I appreciate Everyone's good work And unless there anyone has anything they want to share we should adjourn because Gentlemen will need to put on ties and jackets. We're going to be on the floor in seven minutes Thank you, mr. Jones Okay, so thank you everyone Um see some of you on the floor and Trevor you won't have a good weekend