 It's Monday, June 22nd, and this is a meeting of Senate natural resources and energy committee. We are going to be looking at two bills this morning, really to introduce them. They're both house bills. They both pass the house. And so they have a short path to the governor's desk, we hope, if we move them. The first is H716, an act relating to the Abenaki hunting and fishing licenses. The second is H683, an act relating to the protection of migratory birds. We don't have counsel with us today, and there's actually a longer list of witnesses we'll be assembling for the Abenaki hunting and fishing license bill. But Commissioner Porter was available to join us this morning. So we don't have counsel, and I think I would just ask Commissioner Porter to power formally or informally introduce us to the bill and why we have it, what the issues are that are folded into it, please. Sure. Thank you. For the record, Lewis Porter, Commissioner of Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thanks for the opportunity to join you this morning on both bills. I believe we're starting with the Abenaki license bill, correct? Yes. Great. Great. So this is a bill that was introduced in the house. The goal here is to restore hunting and fishing rights licenses to members of a variety of Native American Indian tribes or bands to provide them with free lifetime hunting and fishing licenses. The department and I are supportive of this bill. I think that it writes and recognizes a, well, it doesn't actually write it. It recognizes a historic injustice and wrong done to those who lived in Vermont before European arrival. And it does, it's really a gesture to undo some of that. The, obviously these, the treaties and agreements that were made covered a lot more than hunting and fishing rights, including, well, just a lot, a lot more than hunting and fishing rights. However, this is a gesture towards undoing at least one of those, one of those wrongs. We're supportive of it. I have to say that, that I am ultimately the person who has to balance our budget. And this is one of a number of unfunded mandates and directives from the legislature that I need to find within my current and declining, and declining revenue sources. And so while I'm supportive of the bill, and I think it's a good measure to pass, I do think that the, the joint fiscal estimate is that this would cause between, I believe it's between a $35,000 and $45,000 annual revenue loss to the department. Some of that in, in annual license hunting and fishing licenses. Some of that in lifetime hunting and fishing license revenue, which we put into a trust fund to pay for future costs. I actually respectfully think that the joint fiscal office underestimates that revenue loss pretty substantially. First of all, because while they, well, it's a very difficult thing to estimate and they did, they did reach out to us as they were working on their, on their fiscal note. I don't think that it adequately takes into account several things, one of which is the differential in, in what Vermonters in different parts of the state and from different backgrounds, the rate at which they participate currently in hunting and fishing. And the, the likelihood that this will probably provide an incentive to people to reclaim their, their heritage as a member of one of these bands, which is a good thing. But I do think that the, the $35,000 to $45,000 annual revenue loss estimate is, it's probably low, but you have the joint fiscal note and, and you can make your own, your own evaluation of that. I do appreciate joint fiscal doing the note and, and also especially appreciate them reaching out to us to discuss it. That's very helpful in terms of us getting into a good, to a good place. So in the, in the house, there were a couple of different suggestions of, of ways to make up that revenue, including withdrawing the annual cost of those licenses from the Attorney General's litigation fund and a suggestion in the House also that the, that the Senator Rogers provision to include a use fee on access areas and wildlife management areas be incorporated into the bill. Neither of those were, were moved in the house. There was also an amendment to limit this to Vermont residents who are members of these, of these bands. That was not accepted either. In addition, there was an amendment in the house to expand this to trapping as well as hunting on the, on the idea that at the time that these rights were, were negotiated or taken away from the app in an Abadakie trapping was really an extension of hunting and was not a separate activity, not a separate license. So that's where the bill stands. We are very supportive of it. I do think that in its current form, it's essentially an unfunded tax expenditure. And that difference will be made up by the Fish and Wildlife Department in one or two ways. Either we will employ fewer people or we will increase hunting and fishing licenses on, on everyone else who holds them to, to make up the difference. Those are really our two options in terms of responding to the, to the lost revenue. And I do think that some mechanism through which the, the cost would be spread out among all Vermonters as, as all Vermonters have, have, I guess I'd say have, have benefited or all of our, all of our predecessors did these, these injustices to these, to the members of these bands. I think that that's more would be appropriate given the, given, rather than having those who have hunting fishing licenses cover the additional costs. So that's my short summary of the bill. Happy to answer any questions about it. And yeah, thanks. Thank you for the introduction. Very helpful. The quick question about just overall implementation. How does one distinguish who is eligible to receive the benefits under the proposed bill versus not? I mean, is there already a clearly defined sort of legal mechanism for claiming that heritage and therefore being allowed a free license or? Well, I would, I would defer to the, to the Commission on Native American, Native American Matters, the Vermont Commission and to Chief Stevens on this because I don't really know the details of the, of the tribal membership system. And, and as I understand it, the different bands have different mechanisms through which they, they do that. But, but on the Fish and Wildlife Department side, somebody would come and present to us a card identifying them as a member. They would present their, their, you know, driver's license or whatever identification. So we know it's them and they would be eligible for a lifetime hunting official license. Okay, great. And can you talk a little bit more about some of the things that were in place? So for instance, limiting it to Vermont residents versus not limiting it to Vermont residents, do you have a position and can you characterize why sort of the back and forth was about? Sure, certainly. So my position on that was to defer to Chief Stevens as they, as the primary architect or originator of this idea and to defer to his, to his views and his wishes on this one. I obviously, the, the historic bands did not, did not, were not confined within the borders of Vermont, obviously. And so I think that there is a good argument to be made for extending that beyond Vermont residents. Senator, I mean, Representative Brennan, who introduced that amendment, I think he felt as though this is quite a, quite a benefit to be giving to people who are not Vermont residents and that while he supported the bill and supports the concept, he felt it was fair to limit that to, to members of the bands who are in fact, Vermont residents rather than residents of another, of another state or, or province. Okay. Thank you. So that's that one. I, how about the expanded trapping provision? Yeah, I think, I think that probably makes sense as the, as the, as the fact of the matter is that there wasn't really a distinction historically as I understand it in trapping and hunting activities. We treat them as a different activity with a different license. But I don't think that historically they were viewed that way. And so I think that makes some sense. The, the fiscal impact to that would be quite small given the small number of, of trapping licenses in the state. Okay. Um, and just for scale. So if, if you were to lose roughly, um, $40,000 in license income, how does that compare to what your current total license income is now? Current total license income is, uh, I apologize. Don't hold me to the exact amount, but it's somewhere. Neighborhood of, uh, $7 million give or take, uh, a million. Um, so it's, it's small. Uh, our entire budget for the department is, is, uh, $25 million give or take. Um, so this is a, uh, this is a small, uh, amount of, of revenue hit on a, on a large budget. At having said that you are the legislature is this year considering, uh, a ban on animal part importation, which the wardens will enforce with no, uh, funding attached to it, a migratory bird, uh, protection bill with no funding attached to it, a act to 50 expansion, which I'm grateful to this committee into the house committees for considering a billback vision on, but that only covered a portion of what we spend on act to 50 and what we will spend to implement that bill. Um, that's just this year. Uh, in addition, we do boating enforcement. We don't have designated funding for other for involvement. Uh, we don't have funding for. We have agreed in the past to have a reciprocal license on Lake Champlain, which costs us a million dollars a year and lost revenue for the benefit, the economic benefit it provides to the state of Vermont. Um, so I, I don't want to seem like a sound like a whiny commissioner, although I guess that's what I am. But the fact of the matter is the, the, uh, the mandates and the expectations on the department pile up and we do a lot for the state and we're, and we're happy to do it. At the end of the day, I've got a balance. I got to meet, I got to choose what work we do and don't do the other slightly concerning thing or not concerning, but the other piece that worth mentioning about this is, this is state money that can be used to draw down federal money. That means it's particularly important to our department because as a, as a small state minimum that gets the, that gets the set minimum amount of federal funds, we're always struggling to make sure that we draw that federal money down and don't leave it on the table. All right, I'll stop, I'll stop my diatribe to your simple question. Now, Senator, thank you. Well, no, just, I want to make sure I understand the mechanics of that last point. So for when you do hunting and fishing licenses, those dollars uniquely pull down federal money, those dollars and our general fund dollars can be used to pull down money and it's a very advantageous match rate, three federal dollars to every dollar of state money, but there are also a lot of activities within the department that are not eligible for federal funding. So I guess I would say I'm always concerned that at some point in the future, especially given declining numbers of hunters that at some point in the future, we will not be able to draw all of our federal money in. And I think it would be a shame. Yeah, well, you know, so thanks for walking through the financial side. It's been this committee's position, I think, pretty steadily over the years that when we ask you all to take on some work, whether it's rulemaking or something else, that if it has an impact and it requires resources that will often I mean, I know we I know we've said many times, if it requires a resource, please tell us what it is, how much it costs. And then I think it falls to us to say, if we really want to get this work done, then we need to go ahead and fund it. Doesn't always we're not in charge of appropriations. That's our challenge. They sometimes don't agree with adding work, but not adding money to do the work. Understood. And if I could just respond quickly to that center, I'm sorry, I keep delaying Senator Campion's question. No, no, no, it's it's more for the chair. You keep going. Sure. I just want to make it clear that even in the absence of funding, we're supportive of the bill because we think it's it's that important. So it's not a it's not a it's covered somewhere some other way or we don't support the bill. So I just want to be clear about that. Thank you. Great. Any committee questions for. Yeah, I want for you, Mr. Chair, I suspect this is going to finance and approach so we're not really going to be that involved with the money piece. Is that accurate? Well, I don't think there's an appropriation involved, but there is a a tax expenditure in terms of lost revenues. So finance would certainly be interested. But even though it would could impact the budget of the department, it would not go to approach. Well, so maybe it also has to stop in and approach. But yeah, I just want to get a I don't want us to get too hung up on the money piece since. No, no, no, I just want us to understand what we're. Thank you. That's all and and I believe that on the house side, it went to ways and means for sure. And I think it only had a drive by in in a probes. I don't think they formally took it into two appropriations. OK, so there are. Sort of, you know, based on that concept of nothing in our name without us there, you know, we will be inviting members of different bands to join us in a we'll spend some time looking and we'll come back to this tomorrow. But we, given that we were really all on short notice, we couldn't assemble all the witnesses. So I really appreciate the commissioner jumping right in to help us launch the discussion. Senator Rogers. Yes, so just briefly to some of the commissioner's points, I agree with him that JFO probably underestimated it. I know our family has Native American ancestry, as do a lot of the folks, especially in this area, where French Canadians and many Native Americans joined families. So I think that could be underestimated. I do support it wholeheartedly. I wish trapping was part of it. I'm guessing that at this late time, we're probably trying not to make any changes to it. But trapping, I feel, should be part of it. And I would really like to see the access language attached to it to try to help make up with the lost revenue. So if that's something we don't get to this year, I hope that the legislature will look at both of those issues next year. Thank you. I think you're right, you know, although those are ideas that in an ordinary time in the schedule, we would slow down, bear down, look at it, think about moving it there. Right now, we're we are so short on time that it's harder to do that. Senator McDonnell. OK. All right, so if there are not any more questions for the commissioner, we're going to shift gears and move on to eight, six, eight, three, an act relating to the protection of migratory birds. And I'm just looking in the room to see who all our guests are at the moment. We don't have our own council here at the moment, but we do have a lead sponsor. So I said, Representative Dolan, do you want to introduce the bill to the committee? You know, the short form of our question is what opportunities or problems do you see and how's the bill address them? She's remarkably still on my screen. All right, she may have stepped away from her to do so. Computer, that's given another few. Can you all hear me? Yes. OK, thank you. And thank you for this opportunity. I was not expecting to speak. I was expecting to listen in. But I'm happy to to offer my perspective on this bill. As you know, the we've had in place a 100 year old plus migratory bird treaty with our neighboring countries and and the islands of the Caribbean. And and we've recognized over that period of time how important it is for the health of our ecosystems and our forests of having that treaty. It doesn't address this this bill. And that particular treaty is about the non game species. And that's what the bill focuses on, the non games of birds that migrate. And they, as you know, bring the music to our forests during the our summer months. And and yet what we've learned is that over the course of the last 40 years or so, when we've been fortunate to have researchers evaluating the health of these bird populations and the engagement of bird watchers around the the the country is that bird populations and their numbers and their richness by species have actually going in the wrong direction. They're they're declining. And this bill was brought to our attention by the Audubon Vermont chapter in recognition of steps that we actually can do that can be low cost. It respects the role of the Fish and Wildlife Department in offering discretion for the department and using its its resources to protect these birds. And so we had worked through it in our committee. It was voted out, if not unanimously, pretty darn close. I think it might have been 10 to one. And I think we got it received huge support on the House floor. I think over 130 votes for this bill. And again, our focus was really to acknowledge the importance of it. Unfortunately, at the federal level, the there were some recent changes to interpreting some of the the rules that go along with compliance with that that treaty. And those rules, unfortunately, had eliminated or weakened the the recognition of how important habitat is in trying to protect these birds. And so this was a response of that of that recent change and of the interpretation of those rules that I think took place in two thousand eighteen or so to recognize that Vermont, in particular, Vermont's forest bird species are Vermont is in a very important location within that Atlantic flyway, in particular for our forest species. So this in our mind was an important step forward to do something for our birds. And the exciting element to this bill is that it did receive support from both the the Department of Fish and Wildlife, as well as some of the stakeholders. I think Warren Coleman may be here and we had talked with Warren with Vapta and the Green Mountain Power. And there was strong support for a bill like this. OK, thank you. Great, thank you for the introduction. Any committee questions for Representative Dolan? All right. Well, with that, then I think I'd like to go next to Mr. Mears, good morning. Thank you for joining us. Nice to see you again virtually. Could you talk to us about the the bill, the need for the bill, what the feds used to do versus what they're not doing now? And how Vermont might play a role in filling in that open gap. Yes, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. This is the first time I participated in a committee hearing in this format. So forgive me if I fumble it. I hope I shared with you a little bit of background so that I'll give you the quick overview. But if you have more questions, hopefully you can you can get more information through the handout that I shared with her. But essentially the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is over 100 years old. It was passed in 1918 and it has been used as a way of providing protections for migratory birds for that entire time. And for the last 50 or so plus years, it has primarily been applied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the country. Well, it applies in two different kinds of ways for the last 50 or so years. One is it's illegal to actually intentionally kill a migratory bird unless you're doing so, you know, according to state game laws. And that that has had a dramatic effect for a whole bunch of different birds which were hunted for the feathers or for food, you know, early in the 20th century. And a lot of bird populations that had plummeted have recovered since starting about the 1970 or so under the Nixon administration. Another set of issues came to the fore, which are where there were actions, typically industrial actions that were taking that had the effect of dramatically impacting bird populations, but were not necessarily tended to cause the bird deaths. That is, unlike, say, you know, shooting a bird with a gun or trapping a bird, these deaths were caused by activities such as the oil drilling ponds that were associated with drilling oil operations and waterfowl would fly over and see them and think they were ponds and died because of the contaminants in them. And so since the 70s, those types of activities have also been subject to this restriction on taking a migratory bird because it's, you know, where it's clear that there's going to be a significant impact, but there's no, even if there's no intent, that's not an excuse under the law, at least it wasn't until 2017. And then the Secretary of Interior and the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued a new interpretation, which they said that they would only enforce where there was actually an intentional taking of a bird that left a pretty substantial gap across most states in the country, including Vermont, because most states had relied heavily on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the authority and relied on the US Fish and Wildlife Service to administer the set of best practices that are typically applied by industry to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. So this bill is intended simply to return us to the status quo, to what if the state of the law existed in Vermont prior to 2017 by giving the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife the authority to prevent actions that are known to cause significant impacts on bird populations and respond to that. And so that's really the crux of this bill. There were some as we brainstormed and discussed this bill between the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, which has been a great partner in advancing this. We talked about a variety of approaches and ultimately decided that having the basic prohibition in place was sufficient that we didn't need to create a whole new regulatory and permitting program to advance this, the goals that in Vermont, we hadn't seen a lot of the kind of industrial activity in the West and Midwest. And most of the activities that we're having or had potential impacts on birds were easily resolved when folks like the Wardens or someone in Lewis's team is able to intervene, have a conversation with the actor to make sure they were solved it. And I'll give one example of something that might happen in Vermont frequently, which is if a local community wants to, say, repaint a bridge off very often, there are significant bird populations that nest along bridges, but swallows often do. And what the under the Mitre Bird Treaty Act and under what this law, this new law would do, it would simply say you're still allowed to do maintenance on your bridge. You can clean it, paint it, sand it, whatever you have to do. But wait until the chimney swifts have completed their nesting season and do it later in the summer. So it's typically the kind of thing that the department is able to work out relatively easily with people who have have the, you know, our our engagement activities that could have an impact. So it's a relatively simple bill that returns the state to the basic status quo. And I'll just leave it at that and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. That's very helpful. So just as you were mentioning, I would you anticipated my question, which was so what's a real world example of how this might happen in Vermont since we don't have big ponds next to oil rigs and all that stuff. So has the federal government, has the federal government been reaching out, for instance, to VTrans and saying on your bridge schedule, please, you know, at this bridge, X or Y, don't paint until after August 1st? Or who's been basically enforcing in Vermont thus far? I think Louis, Commissioner Porter may be able to speak to this more directly. But in general, it's the primary enforcers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And the primary way in which it's had an effect is actually not been through enforcement. It's been through the issuance of a set of best practices that, for instance, the utility companies with utility lines or, you know, transportation and fees like VTrans simply comply with as best practice, because they know that that's the way that they can avoid getting into an enforcement situation. But I do I do have the sense that in the past that the departments that have also been called on to kind of help people sort through the guidance. OK. Well, thanks. That is very helpful. Any questions, any questions for Mr. Mears? All right, thank you. I think I'd like to go back to Commissioner Porter and and ask. So just so we understand like a legal lay of the land here, you know, when we talk about emissions, Vermont has been delegated that authority. Are you delegated authority by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Department, you know, to carry out federal regulations on their behalf in Vermont? Not as a blanket. So we do have instances where where our wardens are effectively deputized to enforce federal laws and where the federal wardens are deputized to enforce Vermont laws. It's on a case by case kind of basis, not as a blanket. OK, yeah. Right. Thank you. So, for instance, in the case of like this bridge painting issue, how has it how has it been playing out in Vermont in the last decade or whatever? Yeah, so this this is where it gets gets interesting. The the there's not been a migratory bird Treaty Act case in Vermont, to my knowledge. If there if there was one, it was some it was an obscure case that we don't know about and can't can't dig up. But that doesn't mean that the that the act has not had an effect in Vermont, because probably as as as David Mears says, probably the the greatest effect of this law is in is in encouraging people to to use best practices and to take care in these in these instances. Certainly in other states, we are already seeing some of that care not be taken as much because of the reinterpretation by the by the feds. By far, in our opinion, by far, the best approach to protect birds is to have it done at the federal level. And I think that the new interpretation of the MBTA by by the by the federal government is is terrible and and a terrible mistake. And I look forward to another administration or maybe congressional action to reverse that because obviously birds are not something we can manage in one state even by the very nature of the fact that they're migratory. Having said that, we're supportive of this bill because it as a as a as a a partial measure, as a way to both send a message about the importance of of protection and enforcement of these species. And in the in the event, however, unlikely there was something that fit this this bill's category and was done, you know, with with the ability to foresee that it would cause a significant number of bird deaths and somebody went ahead and did it anyway, we may very well enforce on that. So I do think that the bill is helpful and and important. I do I do hope that they that the federal interpretation, the federal regulatory agency goes back to the old way of managing this because I think it was pretty effective and pretty reasonable. When you take something like the migratory bird tree act and move it from federal law into state law, you can't just take the language and put it into state law because the expectations and the abilities and the and the and the requirements on on us as a state agency are quite different than at the federal level. And and what I mean by that is, you know, people expect that when there's a wildlife incident, even though even a one even a one one member, one one individual wildlife incident, they expect the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department will be responsive to that. That's not so true for the for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They're expected by citizens to be to to to take on matters that are that are bigger and more significant to population levels. That's a long preamble way of saying that I'm grateful to Audubon and to the House for taking the time to work on this bill and not not just move the federal language to the state language to the state statutes, but to actually craft a law that that is tailored and and appropriate to us to a state agency. And I think that's been done here. I I mentioned the the and and like as I say, I think the enforcement of this bill will probably be quite small in terms of resources and I but I mentioned the the mandates and and and issues there on the on the prior bill and I just I won't go into all that again. I would suggest that that there are two changes to this bill that that would make it a better and stronger bill or or a better bill that and and I apologize. The whole world's changed several times since the last time I looked at this bill in in before before COVID. But one suggestion that we would have is in let's see in in the four nine oh two on page four of the bill. We would suggest that that the species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to be listed here instead of this blanket. And the reason for that is that there are a number of species that that are potentially invasive that I don't think we want to protect in this bill and among them European starlings, house sparrows, pigeons are already are already excluded here, mute swans and others. So I think that that without weakening the bill, you could you could list those species just referenced to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and list those species protected under that act. And and not not interfere with with USDA wildlife services or others attempts to manage these potentially invasive species. The other. Sorry, go ahead. Well, quick question on that. So at the federal level, has anyone called out the invasive species and say we we've excluded them from management or is this just wondering? I think I think because of the potential for invasive species to invade the the better way to do it would be to list those species included in the MBTA. OK. And and possibly with with some kind of update or provision in case additional species are covered by it. But that's a double edged sword in my mind because the the is possible. The feds could for some reason remove certain species from that list. And you wouldn't want to update it for the removal. You'd only want to update it for the additions, if that makes sense. So maybe the cleanest way to do it would be to just reference the current today MBTA protected species. OK, and is that and we can draft something. OK, I was going to say, does this list exist somewhere already? OK, yeah, absolutely. And we can draft something that would that would help out there. And I apologize because I really don't want to bog this bill down with changes. I know you have very limited time left here, but I don't think that that would create a consternation among either the supporters or the regulated industry to make that change. David, are you in agreement with that? David Mears. Yes, absolutely. I think that's a good change. Thank you. Seems to make sense. OK, you're batting a thousand so far, Mr. The other for the other proposed change or potential change, I would turn it over to Catherine guessing our attorney. But in essence, I think the enforcement section that's listed here for forty five twenty in the second to last line of the bill. I think that there may be a better enforcement section to reference there. And we can give you a suggestion on that offline as well. OK, great. And if you have questions, I would ask you to direct those to Catherine. And she is obviously more knowledgeable on this than I am. Right. Sure. I see you have a team here, Mr. Scott's with us as well as Miss guessing. So Miss guessing the morning. Thanks. You want to fill us in on the enforcement piece? Good morning. Let's see. So on page five under forty nine ten. That runs. Well, there's the last sentence says enforcement of this provision shall be in accordance with ten VSA section forty five twenty and that is a section which allows the agency to bring civil actions before the the Superior Court. There are a number of provisions in the current statutes that relate to that. So forty five, eighteen, forty five, nineteen, forty five, twenty. I think it's there's a forty five, twenty a actually not forty five, eighteen, but one of the suggestions that one of the things that could be done is to just cross off that last part. If under our statutes, there's a catch all. So that would allow us to bring an action for a thousand dollars per bird. If we cross out that provision, we still would be able to use the room if the circumstances warranted it. It's a civil action. The other one is basically a ticket for up to a thousand dollars. And it also does not preclude us from collecting restitution for non game species, you know, things that aren't turkeys or things that normally get hunted. That would be a pretty nominal amount. And sorry, well, just so we understand better, I think from a legal standpoint, are you saying that the catch all thousand dollars a bird provision is a more workable provision than using a civil action at Superior Court? It's just a preferred way of enforcing. If it could very well be, this would just give us some flexibility. You know, if we had kind of a really egregious sort of matter, it might be well worth taking it to, you know, to Superior Court. But either or this is more choices. It's it's essentially gives us a little bit more flexibility to use the the enforcement provisions that already exist in the statutes. OK, so. So. Cardamon, go ahead. That what what that would mean is that we could use forty five fifteen, which is a ticket for no more than a thousand dollars. And typically what we do is we work with the Judicial Bureau to, you know, figure out what a fair waiver fine is for that. Then there's. Under forty five nineteen and forty five twenty, that's the that's the piece that allows us to bring a civil action in in Superior Court. And basically we can assess civil penalties, not to exceed a thousand dollars for each violation. So if there were a whole number of birds, we could bring, you know, we could ask for a thousand dollars per bird, not to exceed twenty five thousand dollars under the statutory provisions. And then there's also a section that deals with restitution, which would only be applicable to the the forty five fifteen general penalty. And that would be, you know, if it's not a big game species, it would be no more than five hundred dollars and no less than fifty dollars for each bird. OK. So I'm just suggesting that just citing that one statutory section is a little too narrow. And it does make it harder to just issue a ticket. It also doesn't, you know, there's some ambiguity about whether or not we would be able to use the settlement provisions that are related to the forty five twenty. So. If you could, it would be a very simple change, which would just delete that last sentence. Right. Great. So, as you know, what it's like around the home stretch time, if you can draft language for the two changes you're proposing and send them to the committee, including our council for this. I was just, I think Ellen Chakowsky did the drafting. Is that correct? Or correct. OK. And so if you would send the committee and to Mr. Chakowsky as well, that would be helpful and keep us moving along. But let me also pause and make sure since this represented, you know, a balance between different points of view to the second proposed amendment is Mr. Mears, are you supportive of that change? Yes, absolutely. I was just thinking that I actually I think some of this got lost in the last minute shuffle in the house, which I'm sure you will appreciate. These were changes we have agreed to already. So I'm glad that you are open to considering them. OK, Senator Rogers, I see you have an assistant with you. Who's your assistant? This is my granddaughter, Aria. Everybody and say hi. She's a pretty good. Yeah, very peaceful. So. And Commissioner Porter, you have on your team here, Mr. Scott's here today. I don't know if you wanted him to weigh in on anything we've talked about so far. He just texted me to say he's fine, not testifying, unless you have questions for him. OK, great. Well, then I would go on the sort of the last sort of group of interested parties we haven't heard from yet are represented by Mr. Coleman. So Mr. Coleman, if you could fill us in on who you're on whose behalf you're speaking and then talk to us about the bill and the proposed amendments to please. OK, good morning. I'm not here on behalf of the Vermont Trails Alliance. I'm here on behalf of Velco and Green Mountain Power this morning. And I testified in the house in support of the the bill and worked closely with with David Mears and in the commissioner on this. And just right at the outset, I support the two changes that that the commissioner and Miss guessing have outlined for you. So I think those would be improvements to improvements to the bill. I thought what I would do just very, very briefly is just sort of explain why the utilities were part of the discussion and and and is sort of how what role we play in this. And I think it was already touched on before by by David and talking about best management practices. So, for example, Velco, as you know, which has the, you know, transmission line system in the state of Vermont, they have a pretty comprehensive vegetation management program that is approved by the agency and natural resources with a strong emphasis on making sure that their their practices and maintaining that vegetation are compatible with with with all bird species, migratory birds included. So, for example, a lot of it has to do with, you know, the timing of practices. So making sure that you're doing those vegetation management practices at a time when nesting has already nesting has already occurred. They've also been worked in numerous situations in partnership with the state and federal government. If you've ever been in the Conti Wildlife Refuge, there are woodcock singing grounds there that are for, you know, woodcock mating and nesting. On the other side, Green Mountain Power, as you know, has a wind project up in up in Lowell. Some of the practices that they've engaged in to make sure that they are not having any impacts on migratory species, but in particular, teeny species involve the curtailment of how that facility is operated during certain weather conditions when species are known to be moving about and migrating, as well as having a teeny permit that requires those those certain types of operations, as well as requirements to contribute to a mitigation fund for for habitat. We're talking about bats, bats in that particular case. So I just want to give you just two quick examples where where it is working, where the state has not needed to come in and do, you know, any type of enforcement. We've been partners working with the state and with the with the feds on this. And so that was just again, sort of background to understand one of the regulated industries that that could be impacted by by by this. And ultimately to say, we're fine with the with the with the legislation as it as it's come out of the house, provided you make those additional two changes, I think those would be be helpful. My connection wasn't quite perfect. Did you say the species of concern up at Lowell was bats? It was it was initially, I think migratory birds and bats, teeny, teeny species, a recent renewal of the teeny permit actually only lists bats because the monitoring period over the past and how many years it has been has shown that there's not been any impacts on on birds. So they didn't feel that that needed to be actually part of the permit going forward. So I think it's shown that it's it's operating as as hoped and the curtailment practices are are working. I don't know, you know, the commissioner has anything to add, but that would be my interpretation of that. Sure. Well, just so we one have to know this, but it'd be interesting when how often is it curtailed and under what kind of events? Is there a fat migration season or something? And so that's when they could I'd have to go back and look. But there is a sort of a time of season. I think it's certain weather, whether related conditions. And I just can't remember what they are off the off the top of my head. But I can I can find out and let you know for make good dinner conversation. I suppose. Exactly. I can give you a little bit of background, you know, bats generally are out and forage starting in the spring through the fall. So I can't remember the exact dates, but it's a, you know, in May through September during, you know, sort of they start in the evening hours and forage at night. And so curtailment generally happens during that time period. And it also happens when the wind speeds are very low, because that's a time when bats tend to for whatever reason come into contact with the wind turbines. I think their sonar has some impact on why they are either attracted to the to the movement and are not able to kind of detect and avoid it at low speeds. So that's when curtailment happens. And we've found that the protocols around the curtailment have been pretty successful in mitigating any potential impacts to bats. And so that's that's why it's it's a condition that's included in our teeny permits. Great. Well, thank you very much for the extra info. Inquiring minds want to know. All right. So with that, are there other. So I think we've covered. We've made our room a lap around the room here. Anyone else on the committee or anyone else on the meeting want to offer something on this bill? OK, so we'll watch for changes coming over to the Lodge Council and then we'll we'll, of course, be meeting again. We'll bring that language forward. And then tomorrow, it's always a little troubling to schedule on Tuesdays, because we never know how long the floor is going to go. So maybe that it's actually Tuesday, Wednesday before we get to the finish line on these things. But we will be coming back to the migratory bird bill and we'll come back to and have a full witness list the Avanaki fishing and hunting bill. So with that, we have actually completed our business for the morning. I really appreciate people coming in on a Monday this time of year, just even a little extra time helps the gears keep turning much more smoothly. So thank you, everybody. If there's nothing else, we are adjourned.