 It is Thursday, June 4th, 10 o'clock. This is meeting Senate natural resources and energy. And we are gonna be talking today about a variety of issues around Act 250, various bills, and in particular, focusing today on forest blocks, habitat quarters, and protecting them. So we've asked Representative Chair Sheldon from House Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife join us to kick things off. You sent us H926, which includes forest block protection work, habitat quarters. You've worked in the past on H233. We have a very similar bill, S165. So it's of interest to all of us. And I'd like to ask you to, in the work you've sent us, can you talk a little bit about opportunities you saw or and or problems you saw and how you address them in H926, what you would like us to be thinking about? Sure, thanks for having me. And it is great to see everyone. I haven't seen Commissioner Snyder since this whole thing started either, I don't believe. Well, hello. Great to see you, Representative Sheldon. Yeah, I've seen others. Hello, Commissioner Walk. Anyway, great to see everyone in your virtual offices. And I have a new puppy. So excuse me if she barks, we're working on it. So I'm so glad you're taking up forest fragmentation and habitat connectivity. For me, it's like a cornerstone piece of our work in H926 and its timeliness couldn't be more important. I think COVID has made us very aware of things we need to address in our society. And in the environmental realm, I would say that protection of our forest resources is very much at the top of the list. We know, and Commissioner Snyder can speak to all of the data behind what drives the goals in having Act 250 include forest fragmentation and habitat connectivity as a criteria for review of projects that are already under the jurisdiction of Act 250. The data has been very compelling for a long time. And what we know that's really important is that fragmentation is increasing. And my sense is that through the COVID crisis, we're gonna start seeing more kind of urban refugees and the pressure on our outlying landscape is likely going to increase. And I understand that you're considering an Act 250, 926, pare down version in, I don't know, I'm sorry, the Senate number for the housing bill, but pairing those two things together makes a lot of sense to me in looking at increasing opportunities to develop in our downtowns and places that we would like to see development. And then more closely regulating, a criteria in Act 250 doesn't prohibit development in an area, but it guides it. And the goals are the same in both H233 or your S165. And I do have a question. I think S165 is, or is it as past H233 or are there changes? There are very modest changes, but basically almost two years ago, I took H233, which we passed out of the committee but couldn't get over the finished line out of the Senate. That session ended, I was sorry that we hadn't been able to get all the way back to the house. So basically cloned that bill, reintroduced it so we would have that opportunity to work on it directly, not knowing how the Act 250 process and bills would play out. Yes. So just to kind of finish on the why it's so important, I would say that we're in an extinction crisis and we need more now than ever to protect habitat. It's sort of the number one, although climate change is hand in glove with threats to our other species as well as to ourselves, quite frankly, for life on the planet. We need our forests to remain intact for all the benefits they provide us around carbon sequestration and water quality and clean air. And so I think it's a really important time for us to include this in updating our statewide land use development review law. The key differences between the bills that I see, oh, actually I have one more. I think, and I know you were all in that great presentation we saw, but I think reiterating the importance of Vermont being at the crossroads of our region in terms of the diversity of our biophysical landscape and the critical nature that we play in species adapting to climate change. And so that to me is also a very important piece of why we need to protect our intact forests and the connectivity among them. Sure. Are you referring to the Nature Conservancy presentations we had in Room 11 there? Yes, yes. And as a side note, I think one of the pieces of that critical habitat we included in our bill which did not make it over in age nine to six was trying to increase protections about 2,000 feet. And I think it's important to understand why because we took testimony from biologists who said that elevation difference, that's part of what makes our biophysical landscape diverse and also really critical to species survival. And that has been identified as a key area in the landscape for species to adapt as our climate changes. But I guess what I would say is that the goals and the intent of both of the options that you're considering here are very similar. They can be legally structured slightly differently. And we, as you know, passed out the version that included more direction for protection of forest blocks and habitat connectivity in the criteria and statute in working with the administration and on the joint proposal with VNRC. You know, we became convinced that, well, the preference for the administration at that time was to do, look at that more through rulemaking and have the statute be providing the framework for the rulemaking. And that's the direction that we had it in H926. So I think that's the single biggest difference between the approaches as you consider which policy direction that you wanna take. As I look more closely, they both include resource mapping as an element for this. That's been something we've worked through and is a piece of identifying and helping administer a criteria that includes forest blocks and habitat connectivity. I actually believe they both changed the burden of proof. Ellen can help us with that as well. And, you know, aside from that, I know you're looking at the peaks and the bigger pieces that you can take from H926 but there are some complimentary pieces along the way that you might hear about but I think the billback is one of those. I think we are, the H926 does include billback for the review time that Fish and Wildlife Department spends on Act 250. We believe that that's an important piece of H926. Right. That's actually sort of on a short list of. Yeah. Good. Okay. And that, yeah, I mean, I just think that this is a very important compliment to other pieces of the bill that you are also contemplating through the housing changes. And I hope that we can find a path forward for it and I'm open to questions that you have. Well, I'm not wearing my be optimistic button right now because I don't have my outdoor coat on but mentally I am. So I have some questions about the different pieces. We haven't talked this morning yet about trails and that's really one of the topic. We talked about a week ago all about it and we're gonna commute back to tomorrow. Were you satisfied with the H926 as it pertains to trails when it came out? Because I think of them as related to forest block work of course as well. Yes. I am satisfied with that. Okay. And in terms of, you know, triggering an examination or thinking about forest blocks and fragmentation, 233-165 both include sort of the mapping base approach to looking at when you would address those concerns and the bill as we have it now has a, you know, a quantitative measure 2000 feet of road into an area. So fairly different ways of looking at what would draw you to review. I don't know that the rules and the actual process for what would happen once the trigger is triggered are mean all that different but what triggers the review is quite different. Can you say something about the thinking behind taking one approach versus the other and how, where you've settled? Well, we didn't, in age 233 we were not changing jurisdictional triggers. And in 926 we did go with the 2000 foot road rule and that was actually based on a lot of looking at a lot of existing data. I didn't do the look that A&R folks helped with that and the VNRC can speak to this more clearly how they came to that number but certainly having a jurisdictional trigger related to fragmentation is also very important to, you know, how we manage and maintain development in our intact forested landscape. Sure. I mean, is the attraction of the road rule it would seem in part is that it's quantitative. So it's less of a qualitative assessment of impacts on areas of different sort of ecological value. Is that part of what's, am I, I'm just trying to have a better feel for what draws the state's attention to being more involved in helping with the planning related to that kind of development. Is it as simple as you've crossed the 2000 foot line so you're in or is it, are we still using subtler measures like the nature of the areas you're crossing with any development? Well, all of the other jurisdictional triggers remain intact and so a development that would trigger Act 250 anyway would now be reviewed under this new forest block and habitat connectivity criteria. So any of them that trigger it, which we know is not the majority of development in the state of Vermont. It's in fact quite the opposite. I think it's 25% or something of development. I don't have all the numbers on the top of my head anymore, but it's a much smaller fraction of the actual overall development that happens in the state that comes under the jurisdiction of Act 250. And I would say we also have over 10 years. I can't remember the year that the road rule was removed, but it was a long time ago, maybe even longer. I think it was the beginning of my career. So that's well over 10 years. It was around when I first became aware of the law and then it went away quite quickly. And you can see there's great data on private roads and driveways out there that demonstrate the need, the infiltration essentially. The landscape we're seeing fragmentation and loss of force cover for the first time in over 100 years. And it's adding up one development at a time. We really are losing what many of us probably value the most without even knowing it. It was the backdrop of our green mountains and our recreational opportunities, sort of one long road or driveway at a time. So I think if we can reverse that trend by implementing the road rule, that'll be really, really critical. Okay. So you're educating me about something I didn't know. Are you saying the road rule was once upon a time a trickering criteria? Yes, and Ellen maybe knows off the top of her head when it changed. It was in the 90s sometime, I believe, right? Okay. It was an effect from 1975 until 2001. Oh, 2001. Okay, so we have a fair number of years. And honestly, like when I was getting ready to talk to you folks this morning, I was picturing the last time I was on Camel's hump and looking at the residential infiltration into those forests that are right around our most pristine undeveloped mountain. So it's a factor in how, you know, we need to take it into account when we review development. Sure, sure. Well, I think probably all of us have had the experience of driving around the state to a place we haven't been for a while, a year or two. And as you drive through, you say, wait, there's a house way up there now that didn't used to be there. You start, the things just keep appearing. So, all right, great. Anything else that you think, you know, is important that you want us to be keeping front of mind as we keep working? No, I'm just really grateful that you're working on this and that I hope we can include it in a package of updates to Act 250. I do think we didn't know about forest fragmentation 50 years ago and it's really, it's past due for us to include it. So I hope we can make that happen this year. So thank you for having me in. Okay. Representative Sheldon. Senator Campion. Thanks for being here. Good to see you. I was, I'm reading the bill and listening at the same time. So I did miss one piece or I just want to go back to the road rule. So this was in effect, then it came out and you're putting it back in. That's right. Okay. It's a slightly modified road rule based on some memories of folks who had to administer the previous road rule. I mean, part of what made it a target for removal was that it was difficult to administer. We've tried to address those concerns in the modified road rule. One of the sticking points in the previous road rule was that it didn't accurately kind of assess the difference between a road and a driveway. And it ended up resulting in some redundancies in the landscape that were even more harmful. So parallel driveways going down, you know, divided instead of shared driveways. So we've tried to make it, we tried to address those issues around administration of it and also still hopefully have it be meaningful. Right, okay. Thank you. That's great. Right. And was that the reason too for, you know, an aggregate count as opposed to the one by one by one. So you don't end up with a perverse unintended consequence of, as you point out, parallel driveways. Right. Yes, that's true. That is exactly why it's accrued kind of, you added up. Okay, great. Any other questions right now for Representative Sheldon? Okay. Well, as everyone has said, good to see you. Thank you for coming in. You're welcome. I hope you'll stick around. And if you hear something being talked about and you say, I would like to say something about that. Don't be altogether shy. Just fine. I would appreciate it if you're able to stick around a little bit. Sure, yeah, I'd be happy to. Okay, great. Great, thanks. With that, thanks again. So I'd like to turn to Mr. Kowsky. So you've helped set us up for today by preparing some materials. Can you take us through what you've got lined up? Thank you. Sure. Jude, can I share my screen? I did, so on the website, I did prepare a PowerPoint as I've been sitting here rereading it. I already found a couple of errors. So I will highlight them as I hit them. But I made a PowerPoint to address the topics that Representative Sheldon was just talking about fragmentation of forced blocks and connecting habitat. So let's open. So your committee does have 926, the Big Act 250 bill from the house. And you've also just heard about S165, which has the same language as H233. And the language was also in H904. So I'm gonna talk about it a little bit, but I think this committee probably remembers that bill well. It did pass out of the house and then passed out of this committee in 2018. But I'm gonna talk about the language a little bit. So to back up a step, 926 is based on the commission on Act 250, the next 50 years, the process that happened and some of their recommendations. So one of the major recommendations that came out of that committee was to address forced fragmentation. The commission looked at a lot of the data that has been accumulated in the last few years, especially in the reports from VNRC and the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation about fragmentation that's happening. So the commission did recommend the language from H233, but that language is no longer in 926, although there are some similarities between them. So we're gonna look at the different similarities and differences and I think I may have missed a couple, but we can start here. So the first thing that they both do are add new definitions to Act 250. They're on a later slide, but this is one of the things that I made an error on. The definitions in 233 and 926 are not exact and one of the differences has to do with the definition of forest blocks. So H233 did define forest blocks as areas that are specifically mapped as forest blocks and that is one of the things that's left out of 926. So it's a small difference, but it is talking about the use of the maps that are required as how we define the forest blocks. So 233 adds new subcriteria to criterion 8, 8b forest blocks and 8c habitat connectors. The burden of persuasion for these new subcriteria are on the applicant. This is the same for many of the other criteria and I'm only going to highlight it because the 926 does something slightly different, although very close. Each 926 does not add new subcriteria. It amends criteria 8 to include forest blocks and habitat connectors. And we'll look at the exact language in a moment, but it does not reference fragmentation specifically. So that's one of the main differences between them. 926 though does add the new road rule, the new old road rule. And so that is one of my slides that we'll get to. 233 adds a new section to Act 250 that would address the mitigation of fragmentation. So both 8b and c set up this analysis about avoid, minimize or mitigate fragmentation. And so it also adds this section about mitigation on how you do that. So you have the ability to pay a fee to mitigate the fragmentation. And so it requires the NRB to adopt rules as well as guidance for applicants. And it does require mapping, which is similar in 926, although there is a study in 926 that's added that requests that they look at whether or not resource maps be added for the capability and development plan. So that's a slight difference, but let's look at some of the exact language. So currently under Act 250, there is criterion eight. And criterion eight says that a permit will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area. Aesthetics, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. There's also sub criterion eight, A, which is separate. And that addresses necessary wildlife habitat and endangered species. So here is a side by side of the new language in both of the bills. And I apologize that the language for age 233 is a bit small, but there's a lot more of it. And posted on your website are both of the bills in full so you can look at them more closely if you'd like. But it is sort of one of the primary differences between these language is how many words there are. So what 926 does is a pretty streamlined approach. And the age 233 language is pretty detailed. So let's start with the 233 language. So you all are pretty familiar with this. It adds these two new sub criteria, forest blocks and habitat connectors. So it starts with a permit will not be granted for development or subdivision within or partially within a forest block unless the applicant demonstrates that the development or subdivision will avoid fragmentation of the forest block. If that's not feasible, it is not feasible to avoid the applicant must minimize fragmentation of the forest block. And if avoidance or minimizing the fragmentation is infeasible, an applicant can mitigate the fragmentation. And there in 6094, the new section, there's a formula for how one can mitigate through payment of a fee. It then lists methods for avoiding or minimizing the fragmentation. And it may include, so it's not an exclusive list. It includes locating buildings or other improvements and operating the project in a manner that avoids or minimizes incursion into and disturbance of the forest block, including clustering of buildings and associated improvements. It may also include designing roads, driveways and utilities that serve the development or subdivision to avoid or minimize fragmentation of the forest block. Such design may be accomplished by following or sharing existing features on the land, such as roads, tree lines, stone walls and fence lines. So... Very quick question about this. So a lot hinges on the definition of forest block and habitat connector. Yes. And can you say, or we can wait to hear from agency? I don't have a good feel for those maps. On one level, I could imagine that when I look out from Bristol to Lincoln and beyond that I'm seeing everything I'm seeing almost is a quote unquote forest block or I don't know if they're technical criteria that limit the definition to something, you know, a subset of what we would just generally call the forest. So on slide three, I, or slide five, I include the definitions and I actually thought that they were the same as between the two bills, but they're actually not. So these are actually the definitions that came out in 926. So in 926, forest block means a contiguous area of forest in any stage of succession and not currently developed for non-forest use. A forest block may include recreational trails, wetlands and other natural features that do not themselves possess tree cover or in improvements constructed for farming, logging or forestry purposes. So that's what's in 926. That would require some demonstration of evidence probably. The definition in 233 is slightly different. It's a forest block is a contiguous area of forest in any stage of succession and not currently developed for non-forest use. That is mapped as an interior forest block within the 2016 interior forest block dataset created as part of resource mapping under section 127 of this title as that dataset may be updated pursuant to procedures developed in accordance with the rules. And then the rest is the same. So that sort of middle part about it being mapped as an interior forest block is what's included. All right, I know on my copy of the bill, my note says, and what is the status of this set of maps, so we can come back to it, so I'll flag it for something that we'll have to sort out a little bit because if we're using the term as part of the trigger, then we'll need to know what we're sweeping up through the definition. Be clear about it, thank you. Okay, so we just talked about forest blocks and in each 233, the new subcriteria 8C habitat connectors is very similar in its structure. It also uses this avoid, minimize, mitigate, fragmentation of a habitat connector structure. Small sign note habitat connector, that phrase has been changed multiple times. At various times it was habitat connectivity area connecting habitat or habitat connector. So we can adjust it if it's confusing but it is defined as land or water or both that links patches of habitat within a landscape allowing the movement migration and dispersal of animals and plants and the functioning of ecological processes. Habitat connector may include recreational trails and improvements constructed for farming, logging or forestry purposes. And habitat means the physical and biological environment in which a particular species of plant or animal lives. These both seem like they have the potential to be sort of encyclopedic in their scope, right? Because there's probably, there's just no part of the landscape where it's not some critters habitat. So I guess that's what the sort of how the, and how it would be practically administered if literally everything out there is habitat for something. So how do we define it in a way where people who want to do this work can manage it in a, it would just be manageable for them to take on the work. So I would say that eight C requires that you avoid fragmentation of a habitat connector. So the existing eight A already requires that you avoid the, that you will not destroy or significantly imperil necessary wildlife habitat. So this is a more broad standard in 233, but it is talking about fragmentation of the habitat. And so again, you'll need to, an applicant would need to provide evidence that if there is habitat on the property, which seems possible, you will need to demonstrate that you have not fragmented it, that there will still be able to be the movement between patches of habitat. And so one of the other things is that, as I mentioned with forest blocks, it lists the methods for avoiding. So methods for avoiding or minimizing fragmentation include locating buildings and other improvements at the farthest feasible location from the center of the connector. And that I think in a lot of the testimony your committee took was sort of one of the keys is that you avoid the center. Fragmentation is about the splitting apart of a large piece of a swath. So how can you avoid crossing the center of a connector? Designing the location of buildings and other improvements to leave the greatest contiguous portion of the area undisturbed in order to facilitate wildlife travel through the connector. Or when there is no feasible site for construction of buildings and other improvements outside the connector, designing the buildings and improvements to facilitate the continued viability of the connector for use by wildlife. So I think you could potentially say that one of the advantages of the H233 language is how specific it is and providing examples. Additional guidance will probably be needed, but it does provide some concrete examples of how these things can be demonstrated. Great, thank you. Any questions before we go on? Just check them out. Okay, great, thanks. So what 926 does is different. It amends the existing criterion eight and it does also end up with a eight A, B and C. But it rearranges things slightly. Another thing that it does that I already sort of mentioned and we can talk about at another point is it shifts the burden under eight, the burden of persuasion. So eight A is currently drafted so that the burden of persuasion is on someone opposing an application and almost all of the other criteria, many of the other criteria, the burden is on the applicant. So eight in H926 now reads ecosystem protection, scenic beauty, historic sites. Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics or historic sites. Necessary wildlife, habitat and endangered species, a permit will not be granted unless it is demonstrated by the applicant that the development or subdivision will not destroy or significantly imperil what necessary wildlife habitat or any endangered species or if such destruction or impairment will occur. And then the new forest language is down in C. Will not result in an undue adverse impact on forest blocks, connecting habitat or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. If a project as proposed would result in an undue adverse impact, a permit may only be granted if its effects are avoided, minimized and mitigated in accordance with rules adopted by the board. So it does include the avoided, minimized and mitigate but it also uses the undue adverse impact assessment that is already in criterion eight. So, sorry. So because H926 is amending criterion eight, there are some information on how this analysis would happen. So undue adverse impact on forest blocks, connecting habitat and rare and irreplaceable natural areas. So rare and irreplaceable natural areas is an existing element of criterion eight. So we can look at some of the analysis on how that might happen. So you would probably use the first part of the Quichis Lake analysis about adverse impact. So will the project be in harmony with the surroundings? Does it fit in the area? And there is some case law about when a project is being proposed in a forested area, whether or not that would be in harmony with the area. So there is some existing case law about that. And then undue impact under rare and irreplaceable natural areas includes failure to take reasonably available mitigating steps. So I didn't draft this language but it does also include the avoid, minimize, mitigate. So I'm not quite sure how that would play out but I guess it would probably be part of the undue impact analysis. So. And the reasonably available mitigating steps. Is there, are these basically relate to terms of art and existing case law, stuff like that. So the reasonably available mitigating steps are relatively clear or is that what will be specified by guidance through NRB? How is that gonna get spelled out so people, I mean, my basic take is people often want to comply but we have to, we should try to make it relatively easy and clear for them as they're making plans on how they would comply. So that is, there is existing case law on that in regards to rare and irreplaceable natural areas. And so there is some information. I'm not sure what it exactly will look like but H926 does require that the NRB adopt rules and provide guidance on that. So I did already talk about this definition page. So this is the definitions that are included in H926. It's not in both of them but I've already read connecting habit and force block. So fragmentation, that is one of the largest concepts that we're talking about here. And one of the things that is interesting to me is that H926 includes this definition of fragmentation but it's not used in the bill anywhere. So it's leftover but fragmentation means the division or conversion of a force block or connecting habitat from the separation of a parcel into two or more parcels, the construction conversion relocation or enlargement of any building or other structure or of any mining excavation or landfill that may change in the use of any building or structure or land or extension of land use of land. However, fragmentation does not include the division or conversion of a force block or connecting habitat by a recreational trail or by improvements constructed for farming, logging or forestry purposes below the elevation of 2,500 feet. So do the next slide I have is about the road rule. Are there questions before I move out of the criterion eight stuff? Sounds good, I don't see any. Thank you. Okay, so as mentioned, there is a new jurisdictional trigger called the road rule. As I mentioned before, the road rule was a prior jurisdictional trigger. It was in existence from 1975 to 2001. In 2001, so during that time, it was a rule of the Natural Resources Board. It was not in statute. And the Natural Resources Board, the board at the time amended it many times in its 26 year existence because as new projects would come up, they refined it, it was difficult to understand and administer. So they amended it multiple times in its 26 year existence. And then in 2001, the legislature actually repealed it, which is a slightly unusual action because they repealed a rule of the board. But what they did was act 250 was amended in sort of a trade-off. So the road rule was repealed, but the definition of subdivision was amended to lower the jurisdictional trigger to six lots in areas with permanent zoning, so without permanent zoning. So it lowered the jurisdictional trigger for subdivisions as sort of a trade-off. And that was considered a fair trade-off because the purpose of the road rule as Representative Sheldon mentioned is to get at the smaller size development and more unusually shaped development. So the road rule is very long, it's a little unwieldy. I have broken it down on the next page into its elements. So we're talking about the definition of development here under Act 250, so it's a jurisdictional trigger. So it's the construction of a road or roads and any associated driveways to provide access to or within a tract of more than one acre, within a tract of land of more than one acre owned or controlled by a person. Any new development or subdivision on a parcel of land that will be provided access by the road and associated driveways is land involved in the construction of the road. The length of the road and driveways in combination must be greater than 2000 feet to trigger this jurisdictional trigger. And then there is some qualifying language. So roads shall include any new road or improvement to a class four road by a private person, including roads that will be transferred to or maintained by a municipality after their construction or improvement. The length of all of the roads and driveways within the tract of land constructed within any continuous period of 10 years, commencing after July 1, 2020, shall be included. It does not include state or municipal roads, a utility corridor of an electric transmission or distribution company, or a road used primarily for farming or forestry purposes. But the conversion of a road used for farming or forestry purposes that also meets the requirements of the subdivision shall constitute development. Seems relatively straightforward. Maybe. I have been, oh, go ahead. Senator McDonald. This year was just before the big press pressure for cell towers came in, which was kind of interesting. Because suddenly cell towers became elect, were eligible for the road. And some of them went straight up hills. So it's just historical for what it's worth. I'm sorry. Yeah, so this language is a bit different from the last iteration of the road rule. And one of the primary differences is that it includes road and associated driveways. Driveways were left out previously. And it also increases the length to 2,000 feet. The last iteration of the road rule was 800 feet. So, yeah, 800 feet. The old road rule had a, I have been doing a lot of research on the former road rule. There were a lot of issues in implementing it. This is a bit simpler. The old road rule sort of, it was an either or, it was either 800 feet of road or a road that would serve five or more parcels of land. So, yeah. And in this iteration, it's that it's 2,000 feet, whether it's getting to one parcel, one develop whatever, one home, let's say, versus seven homes. And on one or more acre. I think that's all I have prepared. There is a lot of information in this sort of realm. So it could be one of the understatements of the day. Yeah. Okay, well, it's very helpful. So can just as I'm trying to knit together the things in my head that you've been sharing with us, what's the relationship between the road rule? And so this is a jurisdictional trigger for Act 250 review. And then it's like, okay, so what's, what are, how are we doing the review? And if we're in, to make all the connections, if we're in forest block or going through a habitat connector, now we're also saying, okay, if you're developing within those areas, we're going to guide how that development occurs. For instance, the reduce, the avoid, reduce, mitigate paradigm. So that's how the two of them work. One triggers and then the other one guides the nature of the development once you've triggered the review. Yes. So roads that trigger Act 250 under this rule will need to address the new sub-criterion 8C, but so will all other types of development. Right, okay. And if someone were to say, oh, well, the new, the eight ABC is enough. You don't need road rule trigger. I'm just trying to understand how that does, is sort of quote unquote, is or is not necessary or advisable or desirable. I'm just trying to understand that one a little better. So one of the things that the road rule is trying to get at is that the, as we talked about yesterday, the triggers for Act 250, what is development are, it's the size of the parcel normally. So it's 10 acres or one acre. And in a 10 acre town, I think we do often find that there are many projects that happen on less than 10 acres and they do still have environmental impacts. So the road rule gets at smaller developments that may have significant impacts. Okay. So Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Senator Cummings used to say if someone is making, has a logging operation and they build the first class road, that's where development is going to occur. And I think, and I'm often guilty of analogies, but one of the problems that development has wrestled with would be when a town runs a sewer pipe from the town a mile and a half away or two miles to the school. And they say, this pipe is going to the school to make the school operate, et cetera, et cetera. They get that pipe in. And then as soon as the pipe is in, businesses and homes want to do strip development between the town and the school on the sewer line. That's the dilemma that you have when you build roads. So it's not what you're building the road for. It's the demand on that road after it's built. And that's sort of the policy conundrum you get into when you're dealing with that. And for those that are really crazy, they might look up Google, the Bosman Road and Red Clouds War, which was a road proposed by the military and opposed by the Sioux Nation. And the parallels are quite similar. Well, thank you for that. All right. So did this committee have any other questions for Mr. Chikovsky right now? No, thank you. Well, thank you very much for distilling out that information. It makes it a lot easier to see what we have in these three different bills plus current law. Great. And with that, then I'd like to turn to some of our other guests. And I think first I'd like to turn to Commissioner Walk to lead off on the A&R team. Good morning, everybody. Commissioner Walk, Peter Walk, Commissioner of DC, the record, thank you for the opportunity to speak again. I did leave you with a bit of information maybe incomplete at the end of your discussion yesterday. I wanted to sort of expand upon that given where you're going and how we'd like it to be helpful with that discussion. I guess I wanted to frame the sort of context of what we'd recommend that you move forward with from the kind of broader context that Brian Chubb from the Vermont Natural Resources Council and I briefed you on sort of early on in the session, if you'll recall, where we described what has been sort of termed the joint proposal that was a series of reforms and modernizations to Act 250 that would create a more effective process and structure and address areas of criteria and jurisdiction that we thought were appropriate and we thought we could provide some sort of useful context for where there might be areas of agreement. We as, you know, it came as a shock to some people that our two organizations were willing to sit down together and work on those issues, but this bill, this act, this law is incredibly important and at 50 years, there are a number of things that either don't work as well as they should or don't protect the things that need to be protected. So we thought it was a worthwhile effort. That package of concepts contained a number of pieces that Representative Sheldon's committee considered included some didn't include others. And as I told you yesterday, as we looked at 926 as it came out of the house, it didn't meet our goals for what we were hoping to accomplish, but that's not to state that there aren't pieces that are important to do. We just think that because of the nature of the complexity of this law and how it gets implemented, it's important that we do, that we maintain that conversation, that we do the further work that's needed. And so I guess that is my primary concern as you're considering a slimmed down version of 926 or whatever pieces you're planning to put together is that there's been a lot of conversation over the last four years about all sorts of other topics, about governance of Act 250, about sort of management of resources about whether or not they're adequately staffed, about whether or not things like fish and wildlife have the resources available to do the regulatory review, which is gonna be especially problematic as we get into the budgetary context we're in now. So my comments are today are gonna be reflective of what I think is possible and meaningful in this moment and to allow those of us who care about this to continue to work on those discussions and if you wanna put them in to ask us to further study them and bring back recommendation, we're happy to do that. But I would, if you're gonna create a package of items to move now, I'll offer the following recommendations. We do think and we were, it was at our suggestion, the language around adding forest blocks and activity habitat to the criteria were added. That was a way to, and the rulemaking process established to be able to get into the level of detail that's necessary to really be clear with all parties to the process, to know how to interact with that work. We understand that H233 and S165 have more detail in them, but as Ellen mentioned, there's always going to need to be more as we implement regulatory programs to be clear with everybody how that works and so our rulemaking process that defines that makes sense. So we believe that should be part of of whatever package you move forward. That is something that we propose and Senator Parrant's bill two years ago. Senator Bright, I'm wondering, I'm just, it's gonna be, maybe it's not difficult for anyone else to follow, but is there sort of a side-by-side you might share with us as you, I'm not sure if you're right now suggesting changes or if you are just talking about what you support or maybe just make it a little bit more clear I'd be happy to be very clear about what we support. We support moving forward. Or don't, or what you'd like removed or something. We support moving forward with the criteria changes related to forest blocks and connectivity habitat that we proposed originally in Senator Parrant, I think it was S104 two years ago and that was included in H926. I'm sorry, they are in H926? They are in H926, yes. And I would ask, you're gonna get more detail on this from Commissioner Snyder, but I'm laying out the broad strokes of what we think is definitely appropriate at this point. I would agree with, as I just mentioned that a critical piece to doing that, if we're going to explain that criteria, expand that criteria review, is Fish and Wildlife, or all agencies having build-back authority is particularly relevant for Fish and Wildlife as they do not receive adequate funding to do that review. I know Commissioner Porter requested to testify to that effect before this committee, and I would encourage you to hear from him. Commissioner Walk, so is this in essence the same kind of authority that ANR has when you're called upon by the PUC to do evaluations of environmental impacts for energy projects? I believe it is the same, yes, I would have to look at the language, but Ellen is nodding her head, yes. Yeah, okay, thanks. As along with that, and Commissioner Snyder will go into more detail here, when you passed Act 171 several years ago, the idea of looking at forest fragmentation included the idea of making sure that the forest products economy was working so that there weren't private home development pressures on more working lands, or that those were lessened, and so that piece that we've included into providing some regulatory certainty and relief for the forest processing industry is something that we believe is critically important. And there are some, there are a tweaks to that that we would actually further like to see from the language that's in 926 that Commissioner Snyder and Deputy Commissioner Lincoln can suggest to you tomorrow when they testify at that point. Okay, and if just because we are in short on time mode, anytime anyone has suggested language changes, I would just encourage you to send them along to the committee, because the sooner we start seeing things in black and white, the sooner we can make clear decisions. Thanks. And then finally, we believe, as you're going to discuss tomorrow, that it's important to work to address how trails are regulated under Act 250 or reviewed by the state in general. There is a process that is established in age 926 that would be that we think is, that could be appropriate, but we do think there's an opportunity to sort of, to get to the end of that process faster and could suggest language accordingly. The other piece that is, we believe to be important and this would moving to that end state sooner would help address this is that there are projects that are in limbo at the moment and having a moratorium on JOs on Act 250 would be appropriate to make sure that we can address this in full and not leave people who are currently in some status behind. And those are the pieces that we think if you're going to, if those are those sort of forests, or excuse me, and the last piece that I didn't mention was the pieces that are, the issues associated with Desmond downtowns and addressing jurisdiction there. So that is what we believe is an appropriate approach that gives you the three legs of this tool that you're hoping to accomplish and we think is appropriate to move forward. Quick question on the JOs. So I just don't know in terms of history and precedent, is it, has the legislature ever intervened in that kind of, I don't know what to call it, legal process outside of the legislature while there's something pending? I'm just trying to make sure that if we were to agree that we're not doing something legally objectionable, kind of like intervening in a case by changing the law at the moment while the case is pending or something. I think that is a fair question from the legal counsel, from our legal counsel that they do not see that as a concern, but you obviously have your own legal counsel who might be able to weigh in on that. Okay, well, I just didn't know if you had considered it and gave it a clean bill of health already on your side. It is something we've considered and not seen it to be a concern. Okay, thank you. Any, anything more you wanna share with us before we go to Mr. Snaker? No, I just, given how you've divided up your days and what the way I left things yesterday, I just wanted to make sure that you knew exactly where we stood so that you can have that information available to you rather than us responding piece by piece. Okay, great. Well, thanks, thanks for that. And so my cake is I'm gonna read, I'm gonna edit, I've been talking about a three-legged stool, but based on my notes and your comments, I suppose it's up to a five-legged stool in a way. So we're talking about forest block, habitat connectors, and in terms of trying to address fragmentation, trying to build back authority to fund ANR when they're participating in such proceedings. We're talking about further facilitation and clarification of the forest products and processing. We're talking about facilitating how we move forward on trails and we're talking about traveling again. Chris, we're losing you. I think we lost you. So I don't know how many of the five things. I got trails in the mountains. The first four, I think. Okay. And then the last was the downtown development provisions of S237. The only pieces that I would add to that, and these are minor and have a consensus across the board is that there were in H926, there were criteria changes made to 1D and 5 that are consensus in nature. The 1D changes relate to center campaign, your concerns over river quarters and making sure that the language and active 50 matches the modern science and the way we approach river quarters. So that's, I just want to flag that those would be great to fix if you are going to pass something and they are non-controversial. Okay. Commissioner, are you saying 1B is in boy or B is in dog? 1D is in delta. Got it. Thank you. All right. Any committee questions for Commissioner Seider? I mean, sorry for a commissioner to walk. I'm happy to answer all of my questions. I'm looking at one and saying the name of the other. Okay. With that, then thank you for helping clarify where we are and what's in what's moving. I'd like to turn then to Commissioner Snyder to talk to us more about today's topic, all the force block and fragmentation habitat connector work we're looking at. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I think it's still morning. And for the record, Michael Snyder, Commissioner of Forest Parks and Recreation. I appreciate the invitation. As you know, we've been, this is a subject that's very important to us, been involved and we've presented lots of information, data, anecdotes, even for many, many years now, going on a decade, even since before the fragmentation report to the legislature in 2015, which I led and was the principal author of. And so having listened all morning, and particularly with Peter kind of setting it up for the administration here. I think I'm not sure where to start. I mean, I want to be respectful of time. We have great interests. We've contributed. I have information, technical information, other. I guess I'd say, how can I be helpful at this point? Having heard everything you've heard so far, in particular, what Peter just summarized on behalf of the administration, how can I be helpful? Well, one thing is, if you could refresh our memory a little without spending, two minutes sort of a thing. We saw the presentation room 11, we've talked about it. I think we're all in agreement, but can you just give us a brief snapshot of what you find compelling about the work on ForceFrag and Habitat Connectors right now? Sure. And I think Representative Sheldon actually teed that up pretty well, kind of concisely summarizing. Forests have an outsized role and value in the quality of life and in the very nature of Vermont, the quality of life, the economy, the culture. And we are at this point lucky to have sort of an accidental experience that we have forests. And that we have long said there should be a lens in land use planning and regulation that includes forests and their values to us, particularly these forest blocks and the connecting habitat values. And that they are, we've called and you all have listened and that that's the point that forests matter. There's this broad suite of values and benefits that accrue to all from ecosystem services to economic benefits to the scenic backdrop, et cetera, as Representative Sheldon touched upon. And she made the point that it's even more important now in the COVID era and the expected economic kind of decline related that these forests play this outsized role and we are smart to pay attention to them. And I think the point here is in how we pay attention to them, the work that's been done in these various forms of legislation that would address forest fragmentation. I think we've come a long way in the original report. We had five buckets, if you will, of policy recommendations, areas for policy development, landowner enhancements, conservation. We've done all of them. We've done a lot, surprising amount of work together on filling in each of those buckets in various ways, including land use planning and regulation through Act 171. And I guess, so having a criteria, enrichment of the criteria that says forests matter and we should consider those in development planning and regulation. That's, as Peter said, that's good, that's there. I guess for my part, I would suggest there's a missing piece which we'll get to tomorrow. I'm pleased to hear, which is the one piece, arguably the most impactful that we really haven't gotten to is the economics of forest ownership, which is complex, but in this case, in the Act 250 context, it comes up in considering permit reform for enterprises that add value to forest-based products, particularly our issue with the creation of high volumes of low value forest products, which we export out of state, by and large, for value adding. And our point would be, before we get to the point of having to make a decision about subdivision and permitting and how to do a subdivision, which is what we're talking about here with regard to forests, we want to have economic opportunities and a market place. So, I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair. I just, I appreciate the philosophical. My connection's getting unstable. Senator Camping, can you jump in? Yes, I don't know if everyone can hear me. I'm looking to Senator Parran. Shake your head if you can hear me, Senator Parran. Okay, good. Thank you. So, I'm wondering, Commissioner, if you support the return of the road rule, first of all. No, I mean, you heard from Peter. You've heard from others. That's, I think the road rule is worth pursuing and considering, and you've heard this from us. We feel this isn't, it's out of proportion. It's out of, it's in appropriate time to do it in this package. Can you tell me why? I'm just, again, trying to get a good sense of why it's the wrong time. I think I can. I think without the other pieces of reform, which has been absent from this conversation today in how Act 250 is conducted, sort of the governance, et cetera, that Peter mentioned, that's not here. And that would need to be part, I think plugging back in a road rule without those other changes is really problematic and would be very difficult to do, frankly. Because what would happen if the road rule were put back in? And this truly is, I'm just trying to understand, thinking back to your presentation in Room 11, I think we all supported this, the work that you're doing. We're all concerned about forest fragmentation. It seems to me that returning the road rule, this seems to me like it's a good time to do it and I'm just struggling with why it isn't. It's just too much. It's too much, it's too big, especially at a time when so much is in jeopardy with regard to ownership and stewardship of the landscape. We're focused on decisions at the point at which a decision has been made to develop. And it's really important to think about how we develop and I'm for that, you know that. Right, absolutely. But without those other pieces that support other avenues for land ownership and stewardship, we can't just jump to the road rule at that end. It's missing these other important pieces. And so to me, it's part of the package conversation. And I think we should be pursuing it. We should look at it. And I just don't think we have the wherewithal to make it happen now in that larger context. But don't we need additional jurisdiction? I don't know that we do. I think that, well, I think that's things we need and it's a lot at stake. And that's the part we all agree on. And I think it's really down to the details. And for me, it just seems a bit much, a bit too fast without the rest of, I think Peter's tried to help see what could be part of this in a balanced way. I think we're legitimately working to find that. We just don't happen to think the road rule can be balanced in this mix at this time. Senator Braiff, if I might jump in, I would just... If I could add one thing, I just feel like we've talked about the road rule for, it's not really new. I know we've had this conversation, I think since I've been on the committee. I mean, it's been looked at and considered for the past four years. I just... So Senator Campion, I would just correct you that we brought the road rule back into discussion this January as part of the joint proposal because we looked at all of the other ways in which it was looked at as how things might be considered to address forest fragmentation as part of a much broader package. And it seemed to be the one that had the fewest issues associated with it, but that doesn't mean that in the context of just stripping that piece out, you can just put it back into place. The road rule was removed and modified throughout the processes you've heard because there were challenges with its administration. Since then, significant changes occurred within the structure and function of the way Act 250 is overseen. And so to just plug and play without thinking about broader reforms that may be needed is not, if we don't believe it to be appropriate. So it's not a, why not just do this as well? It's that these pieces all fit together in how they interact. Because I mean, we did discuss this in the commission on the act, on looking at Act 250. So I mean, I feel like it's, I don't know if representatives Sheldon is still there. So anyhow, I guess we can continue to explore this point as a committee. Thank you. Right. And just so that, can you speak plainly to what it is that on the governance side, which we're not taking on because the shorthand forward in the building this past session has been their quote unquote, professionalization of the board. So I'm not sure what was happening with the road rule that you see as sort of, I guess in a way beyond the capability of the current governance structure to implement well. Right, I think what you're asking is what does governance have to do with the road rule? I think others speak to this better than me and are more appropriate to speak to it. I would just simply say that my understanding of it is that when we had the road rule, which I remember and when it went away, other things have changed since too. And just to simply say, well, it was there, put it back in is folly actually because other changes have happened. We need to address those. Governance is a piece of that. Again, I think others should speak to this. It's beyond my purview. All I need to know is what is the connection between governance and the road rule? Because governance affects how we operate the entirety of Act 250 and we'd like to have those conversations about when we expand jurisdiction to make sure that the whole program is functioning. And so that's how they're interlinked. You're creating an expansion of jurisdiction. You would be creating a significant expansion of jurisdiction in a program where there's been significant testimony in the house that the current structure is not functioning as well as it should be. And so those things should be addressed in tandem if you're going to move forward, you're gonna move forward with one change or another. And so creating a package that makes meaningful policy changes today in this moment makes sense, but they should be surgical if you're not gonna look at the entire package of things that need to be addressed. Tim, anything else, Commissioner Snyder that you would like to bring committee's attention to before we go on? Thanks, I think it's been covered and there's these other pieces that I'm really glad to hear that they're still in the mix that we'll speak to tomorrow with the forest processing and the recreational trails. I think they are appropriate and a big piece of this and would encourage that they're part of the anti fragmentation. That's my point is that in addition to thinking about blocks and how we treat them in the planning and permitting, these other aspects are also helpful in maintaining forest integrity and health. And that's what we're here for. Okay, I see the chairs disappeared. It looks like into the, Senator Bray, are you there? If not, I think we probably should just move on to our next witness. It looks like he's, Okay, let's thank you. Who's next on the list? Oh, there you are, Senator Bray. You disappeared for a while, so we thought maybe we'd move on to the next witness. Yes, well, that perfect timing. I'm just having a little internet thing. I keep cutting in and out. So it's a bit herky jerky. With that I like to, yes, please. So invite Mr, well, we have both Mr. Shoup and Mr. Fidel with us. So you can decide if you'd like to go in the order that you're in, in which order you'd like to go. I think we'd prefer reversing the order and having Jamie Fidel go first. And just to be clear, I see on your agenda, Sam Lincoln was on the schedule. Right, I think. So I figured we always, we often invite people to bring everyone on their team that, so I figured if Commissioner Snyder wasn't calling on the deputy commissioner that we, there was nothing more to add. So let's check in. Mr. Chair, could I just comment on that? I think it'd be helpful. Can I clarify something, Mr. Chair, please? Sure, please. On that point. I appreciate Brian mentioning that. So just to be clear, I'd actually asked you if we could include Deputy Lincoln and you were gracious enough to do so. I actually meant that for tomorrow in the processing conversation. So we're good right now and thanks for checking. Yeah. Great. So as I said, we would like to reverse order and I'll turn it over to Jamie. Okay. So our, sorry. This is very awkward for me because I lose five and 10 seconds at a whack here. So are we all set then? Commissioner Snyder and. We're all set with Commissioner Snyder and now we're going to hear from Jamie Fidel. Go ahead, Jamie. Great, thank you. Thanks, Jamie Fidel with Vermont Natural Resources Council. Good to see you all. Really appreciate it opportunity to talk with you all about addressing forest blocks and forest fragmentation in Act 250. I feel like this has been an ongoing important conversation and you've already hit on the history on this issue. And so I'm not going to go through all the detail. I actually put together some written testimony that I sent to Jude this morning and hopefully you'll have it as a reference just so you can see our going through the history of how much the Vermont legislature has been focused on forest fragmentation over the last six years consistent annual review of what is the issue and how to address it. And I've been doing a lot of work with a group, the forest partnership. And so while I'm testifying on behalf of the NRC today, just wanted you to know that there's a community of conservation organizations and it's been a priority for all of them to address forest fragmentation. And the partnership is Audubon, Vermont Trust for Public Land, Vermont Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, Vermont Land Trust, VNRC and Vermont Conservation Voters. So we've been working with your committee for many years now on these issues and we do agree in a nutshell. And Act 250 should be improved in two ways. I'm going to talk about strengthening criteria which you've been talking about to either avoid minimize or mitigate impacts to the forest blocks or connectivity areas. And then the second piece of it is we do think there needs to be some attention to the jurisdictional side of things, the gaps that exist on the landscape that are not addressing the kind of the most egregious fragmenting types of impact. And Brian's going to talk about the proposed rule that you have that would address roads and driveways. But I did want to hit on just very quickly some of the research we've done which I think provides a window into why that jurisdictional piece is an important part of your conversation. And then I just wanted to offer a couple of clarifying thoughts on the criteria itself. Again, if you look in my written testimony there's been a lot of research and statistics over the years shining a spotlight on the fact that we are, for the first time in over a hundred years we're actually losing our forests. They're declining in extent. Commissioner Snyder has led a bulk of excellent research highlighting these trends in the agencies fragmentation reports. The Forest Service as well has been analyzing this and statistics are, they are what they are and they're not a great trend for our state. Recent U.S. Forest Service reports suggest that Vermont may have lost up to over a thousand years. If I could have just interrupt. I do appreciate all this background. I feel like you know it to be honest to be perfectly frank. I'd like to get down to some of these questions. Let's do it. And so I'd like you to, if you wouldn't mind pick up where we left off around the road situation. Okay, well I'm actually gonna let Brian hit on the road situation. So I'd like to hear, yeah actually can you just tell us a little bit about your thoughts on this? Sure, yeah. The reason it's needed and I'm not gonna go into a lot of detail on this because of the testimony but it's important to set up why looking at long roads is important. We've done comprehensive subdivision research in Vermont to look at what's the average size of subdivisions that are happening and are they large enough to be triggering Act 250 based on the current jurisdictional rules that we have. So we looked at 22 case study towns between 2003 and 2009. We looked at 925 subdivisions, poured through the subdivision records into towns. They created over 2,000, close to 2,750 lots collecting over 70,000 acres and only one to 2% of those subdivisions would trigger Act 250. They were not large enough to trigger Act 250 based on the lot requirements we have right now. That was startling to us because we realized, wow. By and large, the overwhelming majority of subdivision development in Vermont does not appear to be going through any kind of Act 250 consideration. We probed that a little bit more and we found that's because the average subdivision in Vermont based on all of that research is two to four lots. And so subdivisions will never trigger Act 250 and they could have the longest possible roads associated with them. So when the road rule went away, there was no longer any ability to look at fragmenting impacts of development that's far reaching into intact working forest, forest blocks and natural areas. And that was something that we identified along with a whole entire land use planning community in Vermont, as we've put out multiple reports on how to address fragmentation to planning community has been very strong in acknowledging that because of these jurisdictional gaps we are not addressing fragmentation from a jurisdictional perspective in Act 250. And so that's a little bit of the history. I certainly personally support doing something to address those jurisdictional gaps and Brian can hit on the policies that have been considered over the years including the history of the road rule and why the 926 proposal is what it is and how it would work. Thank you very, very much. Just to go through a little bit. Well, as an aside, we know that whenever there's a boundary condition there are in law we write people come right up to the trigger line. So in education there's a high spending limit. When it's 125 budgets come in at 124 and less move down to 123 they come at 122 and less. So we know wherever you set the mark it becomes sort of a de facto in or out for regulation. So we should try to avoid those sorts of unintended encouragements to do certain things that fall just under a trigger. Yeah, and it's right. And we do know if historical abuse of that roads that could be 799 feet instead of 800. And therefore you keep on having those on the landscape and all we're doing is cumulatively fragmenting without potentially review, especially in towns if they don't have zoning there's not much to look at as far as mitigating those impacts. So I did want to say that before I forget that we do support the billback as it relates to the criteria. It is important for the A&R to be engaged to be participating and to provide their expertise. And we supported the billback in the house in age nine to six. I think it is an important mechanism for the agency to be participating as the forest block and connectivity criteria hopefully becomes part of law. And so I just wanted to let you know that that is a third part of our platform of supporting work on fragmentation. In regards to the criteria as has already been alluded to, there's been, you know, the three reports from the agency, multiple VNRC reports. And then there's age 233 as Ellen highlighted. And then your committee, you know, also passed out criteria improvements to act 250. So kind of a long track record. I think that actually the forest fragmentation criteria improvements in nine to six have is the policy that's been vetted the most out of any of the active 50 policies that are in play right now. It has, I think the longest history of consistent legislative attention right now out of any of them. And of course I'd enjoy to be corrected on that, but I just feel that this is an issue that's already been really vetted. There's been some consideration as you, as you've done this morning as to whether you go with the 233 approach, which basically, you know, was clear. You like, like wetlands impacts, you try to avoid, you try to minimize impacts and then you mitigate impacts. And you do that based on guidance. H 233 had a lot of specific recommendations as far as how you can minimize in particular fragmentation impacts through good site design. The difference with nine to six is it basically works with the existing criteria that's in criterion eight, but adds a robust rulemaking component to get at those details versus putting them all into the legislation. And so it sets up a standard. There'd be no undue adverse effect. And the way that that would be done, then as it's clear in the rulemaking in nine to six would be to come up with standards to avoid minimize and mitigate impacts to forest blocks. And so if you haven't seen the rulemaking that's articulated in nine to six on pages 60 and 61. It's really helpful because I think it provides the detail that you all have been asking through some questions today, such as what are the role of maps? How do you define these, these areas? What are the standards to minimize and avoid fragmentation impacts? How would mitigation work? The rulemaking anticipates answering all of those questions. What would not happen is there's not any triggers. There's no maps in nine to H nine, two, six that creates a jurisdictional trigger. The maps that have been alluded to are a resource to help applicants to understand are they potentially in a forest block and the rulemaking anticipates. Walking through how those maps could be helpful, but they don't have a trigger effect. They're a resource to help. And the rulemaking would not come into, I'm sorry, the rule, the new criteria wouldn't come into effect until the rulemaking is done. That was a request from the regulated community so that the rulemaking gets things right. And the rulemaking anticipates that there's a working group with the right stakeholders, including folks from the regulated community to work through the rulemaking so that there's comfort in how it would be designed. So I think if you have any questions about how it just worked, the rulemaking anticipates answering them all. Before that goes into effect. Senator McDonald. Mr. Chair. Half a dozen or more years ago, the. There was a committee that went around the state of Vermont looking at dealing with the. The current use and the penalties involved in current use, and it had a specific task and it interviewed throughout the state. And that issue was dealt with. But when the committee got back to Montpelier, one of the biggest surprises and of the entire. Visitation and the committee's work was the number of individuals that came in and told us how many years their land had been in current use. And it was often 30 or 40 years. And the forest work had been done. And we had testimony that the people that own those forest box. Are old. And are dying. And what was happening was that. When they died. Their. Their kids or grandchildren inherited the property. And their grandchildren often lived in California, Florida, Washington DC, Connecticut. Overseas. And the kids. Didn't know how to deal with the management. If you had six airs, you had. You had a problem. What happened to that land? And what we learned was that, that. Often the inheriting. Children and grandchildren. Would pay off the penalty on the land. And once they paid off the penalty, they could subdivide it amongst themselves and they could all get their inheritance in cash. And that this, this problem was, was growing as the number of people who own Vermont land. Are getting older. And many, many of their children and those who will inherit the property. And if when Jamie tells us that the forest are being divided up and cut in a way that is unprecedented and is a new trend. I submit that the. The road show that we went on to listen to what was going on. Detected that trend about six years ago. And unless we do something. That trend is going to accelerate. At a. At a rapid basis. You know, I know how old I am and I own some forest blocks. And when I pass on. Before most of the people that are on this screen. Something's going to happen to them. And you know, my kids don't all live in. I have one that lives here and one that doesn't. And I'm getting too personal, but. This is a problem that is coming upon us. And we can either deal with it now or shake our heads and pull our hair. I think that's a good thing. Two decades from now and said, what happened? How did we miss this opportunity? Thank you. Thank you for. Reminding us. That challenge, which I think. It has came up then and it's been repeated. Pretty much every year since, you know, how do we, how do we manage succession successfully managed succession? Mr. Fidel, do you want to say something or. Mr. Are you ready? I am. I guess Brian, if it's all right with you, I just have maybe two more points quickly. And then I'll quickly turn it over to you. You have an excellent report that the agency and natural resources did on intergenerational transfer and the statistics of how much land is expected to be turned over in a short amount of time. Based on the demographics of forest land owners. And so that is an absolutely correct observation. That's documented. So I'm not sure we presented the data that we've done from compiling grand list information. From 2004 to 2016, but if you look at the crack categories of land. In the grand list. That undeveloped forest land. Categorize this woodland had the highest rate of decrease across any category in Vermont, a 15% decrease. Over that study period. And so that's a good point. Now, a small portion of that may be because land went into public ownership, which is a good thing. But by and large, we saw undeveloped woodland moving into residential status as the most alarming trend. Much higher rate of lost in farmland. And again, the statistics are documenting that the trends happening. We do have subdivision. Contrary to the. In Vermont, we do have subdivision and that's what our reports have, have highlighted. And during that same study period. There were more than 20,000 parcels that had a new dwelling or residents on it over that study period. So we are developing our land. I did want to just finally round out just a couple of quick points on the criteria itself. Again, as committee, as chair Sheldon said, the criteria is not set up to prohibit development in forests. It's an avoid minimize and mitigate concept, which will drive smart growth in forest, which we think is a good outcome. Again, it wouldn't go in effect until the rulemaking is done. So the rulemaking would address a lot of the questions that have come up. And I just wanted to be clear that there's been a lot of tension over the years that recreational trails and forestry and agriculture have been determined to be compatible uses to fragmentation criteria is not meant to try and prohibit those activities, but to see them as compatible, if not favorable activities in our forest blocks. And so we think that the criteria itself itself has really been narrowly designed to look at the effects of, of subdivision development and address the gaps that are currently in the law right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Campion. So. We heard from the commissioner earlier that, you know, the, again, the roads piece that needed, it just needed to be more of a comprehensive package, et cetera. You disagree with that. You believe the roads piece could go in. As is. And bring it back and put it into law. Correct. Yeah. If it's possible, could I address that Senator Campion? Well, yeah, I just want to ask, I'm asking Jamie. So. Absolutely. I think it's critical component. Okay. Great. Thank you. A quick side question. I don't want to take us off track for long, but in what way to, to Senator McDonald's point about, you know, energy, intergenerational transfer and the kind of vulnerable place we're in, what is the role of the changes we're proposing or considering right now in terms of maybe mitigating that kind of transfer. How do you connect those two? Yeah. Well, I think that if there's criteria and act 250 as all too often, the default happens that somebody passes on children, inherit the land. And the person managing these states has let's subdivide. If they're going to do it with a long road, let's say, that's going to impact. Large intact forest blocks. If they're going to do it with a number of lots that would trigger act 250, then at least now there'll be attention to doing smart growth and mitigating impacts in forest. And so hopefully for those folks who want to choose the development path, at least now we've put a marker in that forest matter. And while we've addressed all the other important resources. For by and large in act 250, we have neglected how to be proactive about development of forest. And that's why I appreciate your attention to this issue so much. Great. If there are any more questions for Mr. Fidel, then I think we should jump over to Mr. Shoup. Great. Thank you, Brian Shoup, executive director from unnatural resources council. I had several things I wanted to make sure I get into the record, but I guess starting with the question, I'm glad you're going to be правда. And I'm glad you could be a part of this, but I don't think we're going to be talking about that. I'm glad you could be a part of this. If you're not, I don't think we're going to be talking about that. I guess we'll catch up as the governor. His campaign just ask in the issue of governance. While we did work, spend a lot of time working with the administration and the district commissions on governance, especially as it related to appeals and oversight of act 250, we do not agree in any sense that. Those issues should prevent the road rule from going into that's that's part of their process while we would agree with the administration that we'd like to continue discussing how to improve the administration of act 215 the appeals process that that we just we don't see the need to hold off indefinitely on addressing those kind of other issues in order to deal with the jurisdictional challenge that we're facing now so we we disagree with that and with regard to your recent question chair bray I I think that the intergenerational transfer and the development pressure that will be brought to bear on vermont that we're already seeing from other parts of the country the exactly the reason why we need the criteria and the new jurisdictional trigger because we're going to see the development of our forest lands and that needs to happen in a thoughtful careful way or we'll lose the land base that's so important to us and all the values that that commissioner Snyder has documented so well so just right off the start we think that the arguments against the road rule we just don't agree or accept them in fact I think that those comments about are the transfer of land in the existing kind of ability of our district coordinators to issue jurisdictional opinions especially on a criteria that as you characterize senator bray as a quantitative criteria it is something that doesn't require a lot of interpretation or objectivity it will result as you said in some instances of people going right up to the brink to avoid act 250 but we feel as though that will have a positive impact on avoiding forest fragmentation because it will ran in development a little bit of background on the road rule it was it was eliminated at the same time that the 10 acre loophole was eliminated they were kind of seen as companion pieces the 10 acre loophole refers to the fact that until 2001 a lot of 10 or more acres um did not require a septic permit so a 9.9 acre lot had to be permitted by the state um municipalities had the option of regulating septic disposal but the state didn't as a whole so regardless of soil types or the capacity of the land to accommodate wastewater a 10.1 acre lot was allowed it could go forward so the thought was at the time well you don't need the road rule anymore that was kind of a trigger to get at those subdivisions that had large lots and therefore large roads associated with them and it turned out that you know the road rule which we prefer the new version to refer to it maybe as the forced integrity rule the old road road rule um served a bigger purpose than that and that's why it was a mistake to have eliminated it um it served the purpose of dealing with water quality on private roads and driveways and also addressing forest fragmentation and wildlife habitat impacts so um those are important goals that we hope you will move forward in considering that um commissioner walk I think did a good job of explaining the various uh other alternatives that were that were looked at um the commission on the future of act 250 and the house in particular looked at um other triggers like ridge lines uh changing the elevations um using steep slopes or wetlands as kind of sensitive resource areas um all of those involved mapping all of those involved uh kind of an automatic jurisdiction of any development including a single family home what this does is it looks at the scale of the development um like like we have 10 units or more or a 10 or one acre town this is this is an easily administered um provision for a district coordinator to apply um and it doesn't have the kind of the impact of making everybody have to go through act 250 regardless of the impacts of the development it looks at it provides a choice to landowners with regard to how they um how they move forward with their land subdivision and development um we would suggest one change to the uh to h 926 the road that there has been some concerns raised that um a 2000 foot road in a compact development in a designated area um uh in a smart growth location so-called um should not trigger the road rule we would suggest that you exclude all of those designated areas from the jurisdiction that it applies to to address that concern that would be growth centers downtown village centers etc i actually don't believe that that that um that would trigger many developments in those areas because a 2000 feet is a lot of road and if you're serving compact development you can get a lot of um you know a lot of development in on a small amount of road and driveway which is what we're hoping to accomplish with the uh the forced integrity rule um but that said um those areas i think would address some concerns that have been raised in the in the planning community um one other thing i wanted to get into the record and and this is not necessary but i i do want it to be part of the record yesterday we spent a lot of time talking about smart growth in the downtown exemption and as that being kind of the key to smart growth i would want to um um ask you to take a look at at the state's definition of smart growth principles which are in statute have been for about 14 years in 24 vsa 2791 um and those principles say that smart growth means growth that um among other things protects the state's important environmental natural and historic features including natural areas water quality scenic resources and historic sites and districts and serves to strengthen the agricultural and forest industry and minimizes conflicts of development with those industries and it goes on to say that um smart growth reflects a settlement pattern that it full build out is not characterized by scattered development located outside compact urban and village centers that is excessively land consumptive in the fragmentation of forest land and farmland so just just want to want to put this in the smart growth context you have um done a good job i believe of of over the years of vetting the issue of forest fragmentation and looking at the different uh uh ways to address it i think that this is really a moment in time where we found the right tools and we can move forward um with the the piece the the the forest criteria and the forest integrity rule the revised road rule as a way to um as a way to administer that to apply that to scattered development out in our forest lands and then i just want one other thing um the difference between this and the old road rule and why the old road rule really kind of resulted in and um um most problematic it was not cumulative and it would did not apply to driveways so you would have subdivisions with three 790 foot roads you'd have subdivisions that have a 790 foot road with eight 300 foot driveways shooting off in all directions which was really counter counterproductive um it caused scattered development and by making it cumulative applying it to driveways and making it a little bit larger to accommodate the you know it's not going to get the the two three acre lots that that folks are going to be cutting off for their for their kids or whatever for for extra income you know maybe unfortunately but um it's going to allow a certain amount of residential development in subdivision to continue outside of act 250 jurisdiction but it is going to get those large scale developments that really have a potential for for fragmentation water quality wildlife habitat impacts and other other impacts on natural resources okay okay that's very helpful um anything else that we you've been following the work with us for days and weeks actually anything that we haven't asked you that you uh you want to cover um no you've asked great questions and i i'm hope that we've we've been able to answer them i i am again thinking that that uh the road rule and the forest criteria uh are definitely companion pieces um one is the the you know the the the criteria that we apply to development and the other way is the other the rule is how we get there and how we apply it um while we think the criteria as a standalone issue is an important step forward it's it's made much much more meaningful um and much more uh will be much more successful in addressing forest fragmentation with the road rule provision as a as a companion to it okay um we'll be coming back to trails tomorrow but so i'll just tee up ahead of time for our council and any any of the other folks who are going to be on that uh meeting tomorrow uh to revisit the question of um the consideration of putting in a moratorium on implementing the jos as they relate to trails in the state whether that's a advisable or inadvisable and why um so okay uh any other uh i just want to sort of loop back around the room here and see if we uh didn't include someone i don't always see a hand up or something like that okay so i want to turn to our own council who's been listening to everyone and for an hours now um i don't know if you have anything as our legal council that you're hearing come up uh and you would want to flag it for us as there's uh something that bears more scrutiny on the part of the committee based on the representations we've heard um i guess one thing i would flag that was mentioned was um the h926 language um does involve uh has an involved rule making process that will take time so there will need to be um delayed effective date on that um so that's just something to consider something that you haven't talked about is at one point h926 when it had the h233 language in it the committee spent a long time talking about the value of mitigation and um whether it was appropriate for this kind of um fragmentation of force blocks and uh connecting habitat um there is a section we didn't look at the exact language but in 6094 uh laid out a process for the formula for mitigation um so we haven't spent much time on it but that's another issue about whether or not mitigation should be um part of the process um and that was the part with the ratio the land ratios and then invoking rule making and right and that's pretty similar to the primeg soil um analysis that's done under nine uh under nine b currently okay um great so thank you for highlighting that so all right well um if there's no other questions or comments for our guests uh just want to thank everyone for a rich discussion this morning and we will we have a slightly compressed session tomorrow we have 10 to 11 25 uh a florid 1130 so uh we'll be coming back and doing force products and uh touching base on trails again if there's nothing else uh thank you everyone uh for your help today and we are adjourned