 Good morning. Today is Tuesday, January 30th, 2024. It is 10 a.m. and then she's meeting a Senate natural resources and energy. We're continuing our work on Bill S-213, an act relating to the regulation of weapons, river quarter development and dam safety. We have a draft bill that we've been working on shared with all of the Swiss parties including the agency and app for resources. The agency has been working hard for the last week to develop a response and so that's really what we're here to listen to this morning. So good morning Secretary Ford, thank you for coming back with your team and that's your office. Great, good morning. So maybe just quickly go around and I can introduce who's here from ANR. I'm going to walk through a high-level set of recommendations regarding S-213 and then we have prepared draft language but didn't do it as a red line break out and I think it'll get a sense as to why as I walk through the presentation. But I'm joined in this morning by what should be a host of familiar faces recognizing the extensive testimony of your colleagues who are already received by Ben Green who's our chief dam safety engineer, Rebecca Pfeiffer who manages our flood hazard area program, Deputy Secretary Gendron, Hannah Smith who is in our legal services section and has been supporting this work, Rob Evans who's the head of our rivers management program. Thank you. We know you're all busy so thank you for all coming back so we can get as far into the week as we want or stay at 60,000. I'm good at the 60,000 date. So just reflecting back that to date the testimony that the agency has provided regarding 213 has included an overview of the conservation restoration and resilience efforts related to riparian areas, river corridors, wetlands and floodplains that we are currently engaged in as well as regulatory programs from the national flood insurance program to the recent updates to our wetlands rules as well as the current rulemaking being undertaken by the dam safety program. And so we really believe that the efforts we currently have underway at ANR make unnecessary some of the proposed sections of 213 and we'll talk about those in a bit more detail here. First, I'm going to start with the sections of the bill that pertain to wetlands that move into river corridors and floodways and possible statewide floodplain standards and then finish by addressing the pieces of 213 related to dam safety. Sure. Can I ask you a high level question to the circuit started? Are we it's almost like a worldview question, but we that I think part of the interest for writing drafting 213 was that there's an integrated natural resource, waterways, wetlands, etc. We're having increasing flooding problems, increasing mud damage related to them. And the sense was that we could use a more integrated, a comprehensive program state led to manage those resources in a more effective manner. Is that I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. I'm just trying to see if that's that was the I think the place from which this bill, the perspective from which the bill was draft. Sure. And I guess I offered that the reason and have a folks come for you with kind of the overview of what we're doing is I believe a lot of that work is taking place. It may feel like it flies a bit under the radar. But it is it is not because it's not being done. Many of those concerns, particularly around river corridors and wetlands are integrated under our umbrella of our clean water work. But certainly all of the programs you're hearing from with I guess the exception of the wetland restoration initiative being led out of special wildlife all sit within DEC. And I would argue are far well coordinated by the agents. Great. I'm confident that I know that there's much more going on and they are not that I ever know about email when we hear on your testimony. And just before I jump in, though, I wanted to reiterate what I said when I was last in front of your committee, which is to be clear, the agency has no additional capacity to implement new ideas or programs unless they are fully resourced. I'm unbelievably proud of how staff have risen and risen and risen to meet the moment with either state or federal legislative mandates like the Global World Solutions Act, Environmental Justice Bill, Act 59 Conservation Bill or the deploying the tens of millions of dollars in federal funding, as well as meeting the challenges in helping Vermont recover from recent planning events. The staff in front of you here, as well as the more than 600 that are back in the office do it without complaint and both serve for monitors unbelievably well. But our capacity is exhausted. The work in this bill is important. I'm going to give you a sense for where I see the priorities and what you've identified. But make no mistake what you've envisioned here is a massive undertaking. And in order for this to be successful, it must be appropriately resourced. And that includes both the time to do the work, which I have some significant concerns about, as well as the capacity provided to the agency to support. Sure. And, you know, for the record, I want to say it again, that I've always said that this committee never wants to ask existing staff to just stretch their handwork to go really hard or do more work. And that we we need to live up to our side of the party, which is providing the resources you need in order to succeed because we don't we like blue prints for not actually building anything. You're building stuff and we need to provide that support. The issue I've seen and I call my own story coming is to be slow to learn how we can generally work with you on a program funded in this room. And then when that appropriation competes with all the other appropriations competing for dollars in the budgets, trim cuts can be made. And then we don't adjust what we've asked you to do. And so I'm working with the program and Chair will post to find a remedy because a lot of those changes happen in the final week of the sessions. And we don't really have a way to prove things back up again. And I don't want to fall into that trap because it's essentially something to operate here. Thank you. So as I noted, starting with weapons, probably the highest level just want to note that we agree that better mapping is crucial for weapons management. We know that it helps developers and landowners understand where wetlands exist. And to the upfront planning needed to effectively avoid wetlands and also integral to our ability to prioritize wetland restoration efforts. We aligned with the goal of the bill, which is a net gain of wetlands and would indicate that or reflect back to you and that gain of wetlands is already occurring at the landscape scale as a result of that significant fish and wildlife led restoration efforts. And we would not support or do not support changes to the wetlands permitting program right now that are contemplated in the bill. In terms of considerations to put out there for you and the way the bill is drafted, wetlands are a water resource. And so unsure, I guess, what the intent was in separating them or making with the station between water resources and wetlands, but that is something we think would would cause more confusion and harm than good. I have a nice figure that shows a little bit about where we are with mapping. Currently, I believe Laura Lafair may have shared this with you previously when she is in, but we are on track to complete updated national wetlands inventory quality maps for the entire state of the Vermont by 2025. This is using resources, a combination of one time and base money that was appropriated to the agency starting, I believe, in FY21. But we are at this point have sort of worked the case out, which is why we started with the Mississauga River Basin, moved on to this partial mapping of the Memorial River Basin and now we'll begin in earnest reflecting the lessons we learned in those initial mapping efforts. There was also changes proposed in 2013 related to our current noticing practices and specifically required newspaper notices and town clerkie notice. This is significant additional cost and effort and we believe for minimal benefit and so just with caution against that. And then finally there are some reporting requirements in the bill and would just ask that efforts be made to align whatever reporting you land on with the reporting we're already doing to EPA in terms of timing and in terms of substance to the extent possible. So I will summarize at the end kind of what we see is the resources that are necessary to support this work but to comply with S213 is drafted. We believe it would take five additional FTEs to implement the wetlands pieces. This is two staff for ongoing mapping and reporting obligations and then three staff to work on the permitting and long-term compensation piece. And that's because while there's value to onsite compensation and restoration of wetlands near where the impacts occur, this approach is much more labor-intensive than the current approach we use the in-loop fee mitigation expensive and can be hard to find parties interested in serving as long-term stewards. My recommendation to you would be to the extent you are interested in investing in further wetlands conservation. I would look to expand the work being done by Fish and Wildlife right now which is largely focused in the Champlain Basin by virtue of the fact that the line share of the resources we are using for that work come from the Lake Champlain Basin program and therefore are geographically limited to that part of the state. They touched on most of these points. And I guess I just conclude by saying that of the efforts contained in this bill this one is a lower priority for the agency. I will touch on the things that I see as a higher priority but to the extent you have to make choices I would go to other sections of this bill first. And the program just asked me to let all of you know that they will be in the card room later this week to celebrate World Wetlands Day and would love to have you stop by and talk for it. Great, we're having a party here. World Wetlands Day. You know that sort of public demand reminds me to check back in and I'll just put a bookmark into this. When we were talking about rivers and how rivers behave we heard an enticing story about the water table and we'll have to follow and see if there's a way to bring it to the for doing it. Yeah well there's many ones that too. I was thinking about that. Yeah, I'm going to give you a forecast. Yeah, we are bringing one from the well. Yes, yes, yes. There we go. Thank you. Thank you. Like our in-residence flumets where our rivers will be. We get on from Monterey's hand and beat. I don't think that they've done a flumet demonstration out of that. I don't think the true rivers after the conservation history or friends would probably not have been used to Monterey, but I imagine there might be two rivers. But there are tables around and we would love to bring one in. It's not already in root. Okay, thank you. Yes. While since there have been a flumet in the states. It's 10 o'clock. Instead of some of the work envisioned in the bill that we're set to build signs to your shop, we would do better to go to the beefish wildfire. Well that's also my shop. Okay. That's it. No, it's in your correct. But you don't want it. So this is like emphasizing kind of the the regulatory programs, right? And we have a we permit some amount modest amount of wetland filling every year. Usually on the order of one five acres of wetlands are lost through permits issued by DEC. On the other hand, fishing wildlife through the clean water funding and basin program funding is restoring an average of about 100 acres in here. And what I'm saying is the sort of framework envisioned by this bill is labor intensive and expensive. And to the extent there's resources committed to this work, I think the impact would be far greater if they were combined with the existing of the fish and wildlife from our wetland conservation. If they're doing a work over anywhere. They are. But it's heavily biased towards the leaching from the basin because most of the funding we are able to access for that work comes from the leaching. Just in a little constituent context to be about something I don't want to put the time and energy into it. I mean, I say, well, Senator Wiley is really Well, listen, since it's all me, so I am Senator Wiley, number one, I think it's really up there. And I forget the number, maybe you know it. It's something like 146 towns are in the Lake Champlain. Yeah, it's about half the state. And so, and the the it's also the Lake Champlain flyway. So there's some real habitat components. The the initial concept for that restoration effort was it brought together clean water funding, as well as some of the habitat dollars we have access to. But you know, that doesn't mean there aren't great wetland restoration opportunities elsewhere in the state. We've just been opportunistic in what we've done today. How much of a monitoring sensibility and how much of an impact? It's roughly half and half. There's a small portion that goes to Lake Manchamayag and the small corner of your close quarter. Yeah. Yeah, I'm sorry, Southwest and Southeast. But yes, it goes into the back and kill nuts. And I think it's more than 45% of the state goes into the Lake Champlain. That's not like the Connecticut watershed is nothing. No, it is. It got the well over 40% of the state. We're I'm just trying to put people know that when we say the Lake Champlain, they said it doesn't mean Sydney County. No, no, it absolutely doesn't. But it but it's a geographic area program and federal those federal dollars access state within that geographic. Okay. So moving on to the state blood hazard state blood hazard area standards. As drafted, the expansion of the flood hazard area rule would effectively flip the responsibility for the regulation of all land use within the FEMA flood hazard area in the 274 communities that currently participate in the national flood insurance program to the state. This is will be a really significant undertaking. It is not just for new development, but would include modifications to existing buildings, including repairs to any facility taking flood damage. Our best estimate is this is about 210,000 acres of land and 12,400 structures that are located in or immediately adjacent to these mapped flood hazard areas. And just so we're all clear that trigger for what constitutes development is any human aid change to improved or unimproved real estate. So permitting would be required for development at any scale on those 210,000 acres. Thank you, Chair Bright. This is an important piece to me. And I understand what you're saying that this is a big change. And I don't think that that's unknown to the committee. It is a very big change. However, the change is required often when we have major natural disasters that continue to escalate. I'm wondering if you could just, because I haven't heard a good case yet. So I'd love to know what the good case is. Why should our small communities and volunteers be doing this? And are they doing it effectively? So I think there's a regional component too. I know that. Yeah, I mean, I think there's absolutely a way to better support our small communities. I think there are challenges in that system. And there would be enormous challenges in a state level approach. Are they doing it well now, though? I haven't heard that yet. So I'm trying to, if it is true, I want to hear. They are meeting the obligations necessary for them to continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. So I don't know what your definition of well is to my mind, which I've heard Rebecca hear. Folks, communities were being exited from the flood insurance program, meaning community members could no longer access flood insurance. That would be a sign of abject failure. That is not happening. Great. And so beyond that, I think it's a little, the definition of well is a little bit more subjective. Is it labor intensive? Yes. And so what we're proposing is an alternative here is to develop a statewide flood hazard area standard. It will be consistent right now. Most, if not all of those communities have their own flood hazard area standard. And so to the extent the agency provides a clear set of standards that are implemented across the state that are consistent with what's required by the National Flood Insurance Program, it allows us to provide better technical assistance, training, and support to communities in a way that we can't write back. So I appreciate you taking the time to respond to that. Do you, but I don't, I don't think I'm quite understanding your response, which is to put a consistent standard would open up the ability for you to offer technical support as a state. Correct. So, but you don't need more staffing to help. Oh, no, we'll get there. Okay. Both all of this requires resources. And some of it requires far more resources. And what would you say to a town that potentially this would go into effect? Who is, you know, we had towns come to us and say, this is not, this system is not working for us on a lot of just fundamental, we are on a river at a different point than the town above us. So we don't think about them the same way. So how would that stand? To be clear, this isn't river corridor. This is blood hazard area. Sure. And we need to separate, I think, those, those two concepts. This is fundamentally about the regulation of improvements to develop and develop plan. This is about which can have implications. It can, but the communities. Correct. Yes. Okay. So what would you tell a town that what would you say if we do your plan? What would you tell the town is the improvement for this? That they're all going to be templates and technical assistance and tools made available to them to support their work in this space, as well as training as they bring on new people responsible for administering blood hazard area standards in their community in a way that we can't provide right now because everyone is different. If I may, if not in my name is Rebecca White from the State National Fund for the Program Corner Coordinator and I'm in their blood hazard program. I think some of the questions that I could be asking is, this is really hard for towns to do in this. Back when our office was originally developed in the 70s or so, I'm guessing state statute, we were towns are required to submit proposals for development to our office for review before they can issue a local blood hazard permit. I think the intention was to help provide the technical assistance that you're speaking to. And we do that and we issue, you know, 40, 60, 70 of those a year to different communities that submit them to us. So I think part of what the secretary is speaking about is that we are so thin, yes, trying to provide that support, especially in post disaster situation where we're helping them to meet their post disaster allegations. One of the things that makes it difficult that every single town has different standards. So before you have any conversation with a landowner or the town, they're having to open up to see what do they have, how's the different, I think the benefit of a statewide blood hazard standard is that there's that consistency. So the town next to each other, you know, there are different points in the watershed. If all the towns had a higher standard from a serving point that is more protective of the flood clean, we're trying to reduce those impacts that go downstream. That consistency of regulation also allows us to provide tools. And so that counts could potentially in the proposal have a higher standard, but we know the starting place. And so we can, we spend a lot of time doing a lot of basic low land use zoning. So some of our kind of spent talking about flood clean development, but a lot of our times by spoken to like speaking to the town, how do you wish you were a permit? Yeah, you know, this is your, this is how you wish you were a permit to warn if there are any that form a flood. So, you know, under under a DRB type of format. And so this I think can help us provide more of those basic supports because we have a level starting place. Yeah, I think I really appreciate your response. And I'll stop asking questions. Yeah, I think it's fine on this topic, but I do think it is a harder lift to ask tiny towns to do this and to build a structure in that direction than it would be to ask the state, which is kind of functioning as a county as most other places experience it. So I appreciate your response. And thank you so much, Ms. Viper. That was very helpful. Thank you. Is in having a statewide standard to stat, I hear that it would raise the standards for a lot of towns are the places where that would actually because the state a lot, I wouldn't actually lower. It's intended to be a floor, right, not a ceiling. So to the extent, probably the best example, I heard now from Rebecca from Robert Rebecca was following the 2011 flooding along Lake Champlain shorelines, several late communities. I think we advocate for two feet of a base flood elevation. They wanted to go more because obviously they'd seen three. And our intention is not to say those communities know you can only have a two foot elevation, but it is intended to create this consistent framework for foundations that show all of the local regulations are built up. So I'm not necessarily against this idea. But with that, I'm worried that we're not actually getting the standardization that it's going to continue to be a lot of work. You're still going to have to look into life and what does this town do? Is this the standard or is this more? So with currently, we have probably about 10% of our towns that have a standard that is equal to our state flood plain rule or make see that so 80, 90 towns or so. Okay. If if we're going to some level rulemaking for proposal for statewide minimum flood plain, some of those rules or some of those town standards are what may potentially be convenable. And so we may need so the handful of towns that may have rules that exceed what a state rule might be, I think will be relatively small. And I think in those towns, they are towns that we've been waiting for years because of a higher state climate. So we kind of already know when I step into this town, I already know they don't allow new structures and we feel we're about to be carried. Yeah. Okay. So it'll be even though there may be some exceptions will be more I think so. That is neat. Yeah. So I'm hearing that basically you're interested in having a statewide standard, but not doing the regulatory piece on either. Correct. It would allow state law for the standard to respond to the state law. Correct. Exactly. Then we would be able to provide those sort of administrative resources along with education training to support a statewide standard employee. And is it a mandatory adoption from the statewide case? Yes. By date certain. Correct. Correct. Do other states do it this way? So what I've found out kind of eating the bushes, there's two states that have a state permit. Michigan and Kentucky. There are several states, 57 or eight, that have higher standards in the floodway, which is a part of female floodplain. In Vermont, we have maybe less than five percent of towns that have matched floodways. So it would be limited in where that potential higher standard could apply. And then there's many states that have adopted international building code, which if they adopted full code, there are higher floodplain standards, but they're relatively minimal, like extra free board, like a footer free board. But they're not, it's more about the protection of building in buildings. Most states do it as the towns do the permitting and the state says standard. Yeah. And I think some of the, even in, I can't speak to Michigan, I know in Commonwealth of Kentucky that they issue a state permit, but the towns also issue permits. And part of the intricacy of this is that each town joins the national flood insurance program as separate entities. So the town of Ethel joins the flood insurance program with the town of the city of Montpelier. So I think that there would, we as a state are our community, but if we were to take over permitting, I think there would still be, like the town would still be issue permits because they are the individual entities that participate in FEMA's national flood insurance program. So to make them eligible flood insurance in our community, each town would still be issuing a permit. And so there would still, there would be redundancy, I think, but if there was some sort of a state program would work for a permit, then they would still have to issue a local permit. Um, Secretary, so I just want to do sort of a time check, I don't know how long the back is, and I don't want us to rush. I also don't want us to get far in the weeds and not to pure your presentation. Thank you. Probably keep moving. Wow. I just wonder if, like, that as drafted, we project as 213 would take 20 new SAP people within that agency, whereas this, this modified approach could be accomplished with far fewer. Senator, you'd asked a little bit about a proposed timeline for how this work could be accomplished. And this is, this is what we think is, is reasonable, that we could start the outreach and consultation that would be needed with municipalities and RPCs who are really an important partner in this work to develop that set of recommended statewide standards, resubing bill the effective July 1st. And then with the goal of moving into rulemaking, about through the rulemaking process in 2025, and then starting the work in early 26 needed to update bylaws. And we would prioritize this based on planned FEMA map updates that are scheduled to occur statewide, starting in early 26 and being completed in 27. And so that that timing makes a lot of sense and that folks are going to need to get into their, their NFIP or their bylaws anyways. And so we can take advantage of that moment. The rule being with, I think, six months long puts things at risk. Well, it's intended that we're going to do 12 months of sort of pre rulemaking and stakeholder engagement. That's our preferred approach is to try to deal with deal with as many of the concerns before we get into formal rulemaking as possible. Right. Then in terms of the expanded river corridor regulation, want to start by recognizing the critical importance of river corridors. Excuse me. And the expanding jurisdiction over river corridors, we believe really requires significant upfront public engagement and a much longer term effort that's envisioned as part of the flood hazard area regulation or as S13 is currently drafted. It would require, currently it would require us to regulate all map river corridors as I applied that's about 210,000 acres of land. That's five times the area that's regulated by the shoreland encroachment, which is a staff of four. And obviously, before we entered into shoreland encroachment, we did a shared roadshow with the legislature went out and met with communities, heard feedback, but frankly raised awareness that these rules were going to be put into place. Obviously, this will affect an inordinate number of landowners and the absent really thoughtful upfront public engagement process. It is likely to result in a series of compliance related concerns that are no fun for anyone. Roadshow sounds more fun than I remember it. Fair enough. So we would propose to phase this work. The first phase being mapping. So looking at in particular infill areas for dense development sort of taking into account our existing settlement patterns and then designing a river corridor map and revision process. Next would come education and outreach once we have the maps to work with the public to understand the maps and then finally building a rulemaking process and recognize this is a longer timeline and the committee had envisioned that said, I think it is essential to our success to have that kind of longer runway leading up to this work. Do you have any work that your team has done to I know predict is not the right word, but to consider how many plans will happen within that timeframe? I mean, I know it didn't I don't know do I mean we kind of saw some of the hurricane increase coming with like raising of water temperatures. Do you have how many do you think or how many does the agency expect will happen before 2030? I think that is an unknowable question. Certainly the national climate assessment makes predictions in terms of the increase in frequency of events, but the chance of an event occurring in any particular year is simply a probability I don't think. Do you have any what would the what did they say the probability is? I'm happy to share that information with you. That would be great. Like in the one year? I don't know. I believe in the slide that Dr. Dupini Juru presented yesterday to the climate council. She indicated that it's somewhere between one and two events per year. Okay, thank you. And I think and have rocked correctly if I'm wrong, but we've had 40 ish federally declared flood disasters in the Vermont since the past 1990. So there's at least one year. This is this is not to diminish the risk associated with flooding. This is being realistic about how we can be successful with this one. We heard the disaster analyst folks and that was pretty concerning. Thank you. So as I noted, to comply with 213 extracted, we believe we would require about 20 additional FTEs to raise a seamless responsibility for municipal land use regulation. We have done some initial outreach to VLCT both about the bill, but then specifically our statewide flood hazard areas standards approach. And if you have not heard from them already, I think you should be expressed some concerns about that, how that intersection sits between the state and local regulation. To implement the alternative approach suggested by A&R, we would need two additional FTEs to support the statewide flood hazard areas standards. So this is really that technical assistance and capacity we would bring to bear for municipalities and immediately two FTEs to support and coordinate the river corridor mapping and contract consultants. We would need additional employees beyond that. Once a permitting program came to pass though and we're proposing 2030. And at the end, I have a summary of all of these requirements. So there's a lot of different sorts of mapping going on. Are they, I don't know, to what degree they're complementary or the same team can sort of go from the focus on wetlands or hazard areas for river corridors. So we have contracted for the wetlands mapping and that's a particularized expertise. I would look to Rob to speak. I think we have to, the way we've shown it in the budget you'll see at the end. So we're proposing to contract for those services. I don't know if there's an alternative to hire staff to do that directly, but there's capacity needed to do that mapping that doesn't currently exist. I'm happy to put a little bit of a finer point in the case. So for the record, Rob Evans River's program. The good news is we now have a statewide river corridor map, you know, we developed in-house after Irene, it took us seven years to do it, four years to create the first version, then additionally years to refine the map with our field data. So we have that map. There's the mapping around infill areas you've heard about that will take time, but our existing GIS specialist that manages our river corridor map is maxed out right now with modifications to the map that come from regulatory views. A huge part of the mapping really has to do ahead of a new regulatory program with people understanding what it takes to challenge the map. As I said, I think previously in testimony, once you put lines on a map that tell you where you can and can't build, people want to challenge those lines. Those lines also get challenged in compliance and enforcement context as well. And it's vastly different than challenging the theme of map. The type of geomorphic assessment data and analysis that you need to submit to us to review and consider, we may refine the map, we may not. And I think there's a big misconception, perception out there that you could modify the map and cut it down by half. If there's a bedrock gorge, perhaps yes, but more often than not, after a lot of back and forth with consultants and education, you might contract the map by 14 feet on each side, or we might look at it and say, oh, thanks. You just showed us that this river is more sensitive and needs to be wider than we have this amount. So landowners need to be aware of that reality. And our engineering and environment consultants that do this work really need to be aware of that reality. So that's the real, the foundational work that needs to happen in building out a map and then the provision and process and making sure everybody knows what lies in front of us. So when you're doing wetlands mapping now, when you, I'm guessing, you're taking a similar thing, when people look at it as a property that they regard it as unencumbered in a PYA map. There's like there's a wetland there. So is that experience around without maps and challenging maps? Have they been piece mails so far? So right now, it's a great question because it leads to another important point that needs to be made. Right now, we give everybody the benefit of the doubt. If somebody won't propose this, whether it's through local river coral regulation or Act 250 or through our rule, that's those patchwork of jurisdictions that we support, if somebody's proposing to develop in a river coral. The first thing we do is send out in our river scientists to get their boots on the ground and make sure we have the map right. Because sometimes we get out there and go, oh, there's red, there's light, there's bedrock, there's confining features here, we should modify the river coral. Or no, we've got the map right. You can do additional analysis with the consultant and we can tell them what that scope of work looks like. That is retail level resource intensive work we provide. And again, that happens also in the compliance enforcement context. And I think we need to flip to a different model where we have a robust map amendment revision process where there's an application and there's a fee we charge for our services because of the time that goes into that. And again, maybe we reduce the number of challenges because people understand that it's a big deal to change the coral map. Thank you. It's ready for me to move on to Dan's screen. Thank you. So as the committee knows, the dam safety program is undergoing phase two of the dam safety rulemaking process and remains on track for July of 2025. And it is our priority to complete that rulemaking process before legislating on anticipated outcomes of the rule. And so the 213 instructor gets ahead of our rulemaking process a bit. There is a piece of it that would love to work on with the committee, which is building out the formation of a revolving loan fund to provide critical funding for not just removal, but reconstruction and repair, where there is need to reduce risks to public safety. The governor's FY 25 budget does include a million dollars to create a pilot of this revolving loan fund program. A couple other flags that I would leave with the committee, 213 is drafted, makes reference to DEC taking jurisdiction over what are currently PUC regulated dams. That transfer of jurisdiction needs to be clarified in statute. And we believe it's drafted. It may actually have both of us regulating the same portfolio, which would be problematic. And we agree with the broad strokes that that transition should happen, but not on the timeline prescribed in the bill. We are in favor of 2028, recognizing that they be too far out for some. That said, there is an opportunity to have FERC review and potentially take over oversight of some of these facilities. And we would like to leave time for that process to happen before A&R would assume jurisdiction over the rest. And then finally, we're just glad knowing the committee spent considerable time on it. We don't have a position on the section of the bill that addresses liabilities. It does not intersect with our regulatory authority. In terms of our plan schedule, we are sort of in this draft rulemaking and public comment, community engagement process around phase two and anticipating bringing the rules to Elkar in the first half of next year. And as I indicated, adopting those rules by July of next year. So in terms of there are a couple of pieces in the governor's budget related to the dam safety program that million dollars that I flagged to provide initial capital for a revolving loan fund. And then there are two what are currently limited service positions within Ben's team, and it would transition both of those to permanent status. The committee previously asked for some cost ranges related to a dam assessment designed for permitting and construction. And these are figures that Ben provided and for any questions you might have on them. But the bottom line is there is an ongoing investment needed of somewhere between two and four and a half million dollars a year. Okay, in the high hazard, are any of those in poor condition? Sorry, I'm not remembering that as a case in part that there's poor condition and then there's something above it that's less than four but not entirely reassurance. Okay, so LeBang Green, I'm just a second chief DM safety engineer for the record. How the high hazard potential dam is one that in the event of a failure or an incident which is all possible also life. We do have, I believe, nine low damage or poor condition. The one condition very important in that is unsatisfactory, which means essentially the immediate action is needed. And we're not going to have any high hazard dam. Well, sorry, did you say none of them are, none of the nine are poor and none of them are intact? No, there are nine poor conditions but none are unsatisfactory, which is, is there a worse condition than poor unsatisfactory essentially means that we actually need to be taken. If it's raining unsatisfactory, you don't have to spend the money to fix it. So what we'll say, if it's raining unsatisfactory, we need to spend the money to fix it or remove it right away. So if we call it, say it's satisfactory, then you don't have to spend it. So the condition ratings are a satisfactory, fair, or an unsatisfactory. The satisfactory condition dam, if you want a broad sense, we'd all rate it for criteria and design standards. And good operating conditions expect to perform well under all, all, you know, potential flood events or loading conditions dam may have and then, you know, a fair condition dam is one that has some likely unknowns associated with performance or some lingering issues that a poor condition dam is one that you have a lot of unknowns or it's concerns about performance under strict loading conditions and unsatisfactory dam is one that we're concerned about, we're concerned about the condition but under the current loading condition, immediate, essentially immediate actions he is. Forgive me for temporarily narrowing my focus from the all state to my own particular interstatements. We were a little startled to see Silverlake and Barnard at the top of all this. Am I assured that there's no reason that, well, Locust Creek is going to come storming down that valley? So that's an example of a high hazard potential dam that's really important condition largely because it fails to meet the design and standard requirement for the safety passage of a large flood event. So under normal condition, the dam is in decent condition. However, for a dam with a high hazard reading, you have to meet a return regulatory size storm event, which for a high hazard dam is a very large storm event called a colomaxal flood and that dam does not feel immediate without overtopping or driving up. It's going to probably control that size flood so that's quite a large part of the reason why that dam is very difficult to position. I respect that certain charms at particular meetings under certain circumstances under the law a lot of people get angry with me when I think that way and I say no, this is, we have to be clear on what it means, but in the vernacular, high, high risk is there. High hazard without scary term in the vernacular. I know and I have, I mean, we capitalize it to try to make it clear it's a categorization and appreciate it, but it also feels like we're yelling at you, right? High hazard. But it is, it's a categorization and we do take it seriously. It's been indicated. It means that we're that facility to fail. There could be a loss of life, right? So we have to have some way to organize and this is a national framework in terms of dam hazard classifications, but I hear what you're saying. It speaks, it's speaking to kind of the worst possible outcome because of the size of the facility, not necessarily the imminent risk. The condition is more. Did you have the geography of the topography of the valley below that? Both that and how it's narrow and steep and how the water is stored behind the day. The dam itself, the land design looks pretty solid. And it has to do with the location of home. Again, it's, it's hazard potential. So there's a potential under certain conditions. The dam does not meet all the standards, which means that it could have a fragility during a certain flood event because of uncontrolled release downstream and there are homes, you know, based on modeling that would be with the end of the song, it would be flooded to a height that, you know, less than 50%, a better than 50% chance it wouldn't be survivable. So I'm living in that home that that's the standard that And that's because that the valley below Barnard is steep and narrow. Correct. And there are several homes that are near that valley. There are dams that, when we talk about consequences, there are high hazard dams that have, there's a term population at risk means number of people that are potentially within that flood in the nation. So that dam fail. High hazard dam, you only need one potential loss of light to have a high hazard dam. So you only need essentially one home or one road and certification in that flood zone to get high hazard dam. You also have dam like Waterbury dam, where you're looking at loss light numbers in an area of 1000 should you have a similar So there's a range within each of them. So it's something or over the whole location that the high significant law has your classifications, because they're there even within any within that classification system with the gradient of cost-wise levels. And we're going to really reassure them. Yeah, no question about this one anymore. And so just following that next category significant hazard at 59 names. Can you say something about, are any of those in unsatisfactory or poor competition? Yeah, all 59 of those are. This is just the fork. Yeah, this is just the fork. And I do believe I have to pack my notes, but I believe there are a small, some of those that we're currently actually dealing with that are not ready to be unsatisfactory. So when I, which is the total, I'll use the pattern efforts. So it's gonna be million. And we're talking about the million into the revolving loan fund. And which feels like we're, we're not, I mean, I'm not, it's just the math. So how do we address 70 million potentially on the high end and need starting to $1 million loan fund? There must be sources of funding for. Part of the challenge here is right now, we don't know if people will take us up loans, right? What we have heard from Dan orders is they don't have resources to invest and or have difficulty accessing capital. This calls the question. Now we have capital you can access. Does anyone sign up? Correct. And if not, then we may have to look at alternative solutions. But this is to me, this is a proof of concept that that's the feedback we've heard that folks don't have access to the capital needed to make the improvements. So let's see if we can create a revolving loan fund that works. It's not to say we're fully capital, that this fully capitalizes the need, but it's a start. Right. It's only year one. So there's even if we do the same thing for a decade or so, but I don't understand the issue here. Just because you happen to have money to build the dam or repair it that is an old mill on dam, whether 25 or 30 or 40 houses, why would you do it? Why would you repair the dam? Because there will be there. We are in the process of rulemaking that requires that work to be done. We're going to do that. I'll give you the dam before I go back. Well, and at times it does call the question, right, in terms of people removing dams rather than making investments in repairs and replacement. We're trying to make some decisions on what to do and it's been suggested that well, the folks had the money or could borrow everything would be okay. I don't. I did not intend to suggest that. I'm saying that is one of the responses we received today. And this is an effort to see how real that lack of access to capitalism in terms of folks decision making. When you try to push solutions, there are all sorts of best solutions that you've had to date. And I would cross that one off the list. We have problems. You're sharing with us that things are going well enough and that there aren't the resources to tackle the issues out there that you have to imagine. I'm sorry. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. One of the ways to save money is to declare that things are under control and the dam is satisfactory. I don't think there's any attempt here to sugarcoach the fact that we have some very significant needs in terms of the overall dam inventory of the state. The fact of the matter is most of these are privately owned. And so not fully within the control of the agency outside regulatory authorities and we're looking at ways to get the improvements made or to provide the pressure. One of the lists of ways to get improvements made, if that's what you're looking for. What are the lists of things we can do? That is the purpose of this revolving loan fund is to create access. I have a deal. I don't want to revolve. But I'm going to give you the dam. I'm skeptical that anyone will be unwise enough to invest in a revolving loan fund that's made available to them for something that they don't have to do. They do have to do it. Right now it's just a matter of, frankly, in some instances you can't get blood from a stone. If people don't have resources available to make the necessary improvements, they are unable to make the necessary improvements. Understood. So if they're not able to do that, what's the state's position on what we will do next before the summer coming up to miracle when we've just had? What would the discussion be here today here for now? Ideally that we have gone out to a number of these four condition dams been able to put together a financing package and improvements are underway. But I think Senator McDonald's point is if they, the financing package we're talking about is the revolving loan fund. So what would happen in the instance that it is unlikely that someone would take that? So I think that's where our rules kick in ultimately on summer of 25. Okay. I don't have a broader swamp that I can mention, but most of the way along. So under current, I know you're in the middle rule, Mikey, is there an obligation under the current rule or the rule that's coming is going to be the one that makes it clear that you have a obligation to maintain the dams and right now that's not clear or not asserted at all. I was afraid of that. So historically the program has not had that authority, but the phase one of the rule does clearly state the responsibilities of dam ownership, maintaining your dam and compliance with the rules. Phase two of the rule is all technical standards for which the dam owners will have to meet. So we sort of need that part of the package to be able to pull in the bell owners to take action in situations where you have a high hazard dam, that's important in addition, and if an issue continues to deteriorate and that owner's not taking non-definite improvements and things like that, we'll start to look at other alternatives that can grant the reservoir a still temporary measure that at least reduces the risk of all the flood conditions essentially. That's still going to be viewed as a temporary condition. They still have a dam. They still have to make a decision on a permanent fix of time, whether that be removal or rehabilitation as far as an owner's decision. There's a lot of people on all sides of the fence on what the right thing to do is, but in the end of the day, we need that these facilities have a state condition, whether that be a rehabilitated dam is up to standard or one that's a permanent goal. We have one of those two solutions. And I don't want to make light of the Windsor County Delegations Dam. So not that we're doing it right here, but what's the best way, if any member of the committee or anyone listening just, anyone in the committee has a concern about the dam, what's the best way to follow up and learn more about the details of the munition and the risk and state plans to if any, instead of the dam. That's a great question. Thank you. I think it would come to your team. Correct. You have to reach out to the dam safety program. Can you discuss in the answer there? I'm afraid of Florida or California. Okay. So we would email you. Yes. Did I understand correctly the term high hazard has to do not with the likelihood of the dam failing, but with the consequences of a failure. So you can have a unsasked primary condition dam that's if high hazard or low hazard potential has entirely to do with what's downstream of the dam should be over regardless of the probability of failure. Okay. Should I derive from that? Can we learn and barn it? The dam looks pretty good to the length of those. Right. What Ben was saying is the concern of that facility is during a major flood event, it could be overtopped and would have the release would occur in the control. And it's also a dam that we're actively in a comprehensive assessment of the dam to identify alternatives to address that issue and ultimately to have that dam be in sass tracker conditions and we're certainly nearly set for that, but that we're moving through the process. Over top as opposed to dam collapse. Correct. Correct. It doesn't have to go over bombing and then a roadie and then a method. Okay. One other question. Again, there's a stream of lakes in town and there that's basically an old string dammed up in various places. I've heard I've got complaints from constituents that one of those dams is privately owned of female nurse not taking care of them so that you have an entire lake of stream in which everybody involved. And the public is, what do we do with something like that? I assume I imagine maybe talking referencing the Amherst Lake. That's an example of a significant hazard dam where the conditions continue to deteriorate. The private owner was not able to find to take on the rehabilitation project at that time. So we had them actually come to lower the level several feet to reduce loading on the dam to carry by time by reducing the risk temporarily to make that decision on what their next moves were going to be. The dam was since I guess sold for a dollar to a lake association that's trying to raise funds to restore the dam. So that's a positive forward movement, but that is sort of the unfortunate consequence of dams is many of them are, we were not privately owned, they impact people well beyond just the dam owner themselves, yet the dam owner holds all the risk and liability and ultimately especially responsible for the facility. So it becomes a very large burden on a private person. The lake is a public asset. The lake upstream of the dam is a public asset, but the same doesn't can't force the owner. The rulemaking. And our rulemaking will be able to impel the owner to repair or ultimately move to a permanently stable and safe condition which is ultimately the vertical heading is the system going to be removed or going to be restored and rehabilitated. But I don't think we quite know the answer yet because they're still kind of working through. It's like they're moving the rehabilitation route at this time, but I think that they're trying to raise funds. I think that's a challenge for us. That's one of the challenges there. The money was in the pocket. I think the construction project priority is done. And I think that's an important point. We're sort of frankly agnostic whether people repair or remove in most instances. And that is maybe a challenging conversation with other property owners around a particular water body. But Ben's team's interest is public safety as opposed to recreational access or other concerns that may arise in the future. Okay. Thank you. I'd like that we have at least a million dollars, hopefully that we can put into this revolving moment. Just so you know how I'm thinking about this, I appreciate that it's looking for concept. Will this actually motivate change? That's great. My head is already two, three years down the road. It doesn't matter whether or not it is a proof of concept because either it works and so now we need a lot more money. Or it doesn't work and we need a lot more money. Right. So I'm thinking about like where, like what is the mechanism and how are we going to because we need to either it's this either through the damn revolving loan fund or it's some other strictly like grant oriented tool. But either way, we need to generate a lot more funds. And I realized, like asking you like what should that make it doesn't be right? That's not a useful question. But I just want you to know that like that's something that I'm thinking about. And I think about the logic of tying costs to those who benefit from the service. And that's not a great, that would be a huge thing to say, you know, people downstream are benefiting. And so do they have a role to pay in paying for the upkeep of, let's say like what you told me how that connection is made in terms of paying for a service? They don't know. I'm not even sure that's the right tool. And I hesitate to even say it like on the record because I don't because I don't know if that's the right tool. But I just want to put out that that is important. And I think we need to start thinking about it now because we need to capitalize this significantly. Yeah. Well, we've talked about funding off and on just in general. I don't know if you've given any, so that's a general fund million dollars goes to the, you know, no fund. Have you given thoughts to any funding mechanism other than just a general fund allocation on annual basis? No, I mean, we can jump to my last slide, which is sort of the summary of resources necessary in terms of as 2013 is drafted with our recommended changes. And as I said, Hannah's got language that we're happy to share with the committee, although it may be then submitting already that would capture all of these pieces. But in either instance, there is a significant base meeting within the agency to support implementation of either version of this stuff. Either version or version or version versus fast version. Correct. I know. We can add an extra column to my table. I was like, let me look at the house duration. But just in terms of sort of staff within the agency, particularly in the report or species Roswell to there's also need for significant contracted support around the mapping components. And then the recognizing some additional capitalization or investment safety as well. And just want to be clear that there are more people needed when we get to a harmony program when it comes to river corridors that aren't fully reflected in either one of those budgets. And maybe just closing thoughts for me is that I really appreciate the intent of S213, the importance of weapons regulation and restoration, river corridor and floodplain protection and dam safety as the need to become more resilient and respond to the impacts of a changing climate feels really urgent in this moment. This bill is with so many other pieces of legislation that are currently under consideration here is full of really important ideas and good intentions. And frankly, if resources were no constraint, a lot of things we would love to do. However, we are resource constrained. And our staff, my staff are stretched really been right now with with no capacity as drafted. And as you've heard from the experts in my shop, S213 is unmanageable. And I hope we will take seriously that feedback. I brought to you a set of recommendations here as a to a more stepwise approach that supports for monitors and becoming true partners in this work. And that still requires a significant investment of resources. And maybe to go full pedophile sounding afraid with your opening remarks as you work towards the version of the bill that you will ultimately vote out of committee. I am sorry to do so the clear understanding the actual resources that general assembly office committee, but the general assembly is prepared to commit to supporting this work and match the scope to that reality, as opposed to the resources we wish were available. Well, you know, I'm thinking a lot with the committee, if you'll make a release, but you know, maybe the bill can take into the availability of funding just to see it in the fund again. So that's where we're here. So that in our proposal, can you explain again the total there? Three million days and seven million one time. What those two are? Well, so is envision here would be a general fund to ask we haven't proposed any alternate source of funding. That about $750,000. These are just rough round numbers for staff costs. We budgeted $150,000 of staff person. So this would be funding sufficient for five new FTEs spread across wetlands, but hazard areas and river corridors, as well as a larger investment, much to your point, Senator Watson, more on the grant side of the dam safety needs to ensure that we are able to deal with all four condition facilities. In addition, so those are face those are annual needs. And then in addition to that, as Ross spoke to, there's some significant mapping needs around river corridors. And this would be an investment of one time funds in creating those maps. So one time they're going to be ongoing. What's the base? You know, I think we're going to need to do mapping. So the whole series of mapping, I guess I would say it's a base approach, right? And this is that $750,000. If we go back to it reflects sort of the first phase of that work. This 24 to 26 work. I can't, until we get to the other end of that, it's a little hard to suggest that there would be additional contracted or staff support needs other than knowing when we get to an extended permitting program, we'll need more people to administer it. I hear two things. Secretary asked what resources would the legislature suggest be committed to this work? And as a member of the legislature, we're saying to secretary, Madam Secretary, what resources is the administration willing to commit to this work? And when we make suggestions on what we might commit, they don't seem to be welcome, so we're saying to you, why don't you make some suggestions and see if we welcome them? But right now, we're speaking right past each other, the people in Barrie, the people in Montpelier are saying, what's the matter with these clouds? They're just they ask the other side a question and fold their hands and expect the other side to answer when they themselves will answer. That's for both sides of this. This is not being critical of you. It's where what is causing the failure of us to come to the resources that we would be willing to commit? Where's the hold up? There are other competing priorities that sit outside the agency of natural resources that are consuming the capacity within the general fund of the state of Vermont. We have made investments in the pieces that I have advocated for with the governor, including a base appropriation for wetlands mapping, the million dollars to capitalize the state revolving fund, the creating full time positions in the dam safety program. And to the extent there are priorities that go beyond that, I'm saying I support them. I have the luxury of focusing on one piece of the overall work of state government as does this committee, and they're going to be competing demands for those finite dollars, and they would need to come at the expense of something else. Well, they are. That's a gentle way of saying the long way of saying the problem that we look at, which is we both talk about how it will be hard to work with the money available, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but no, it's called credit. It's a past, I don't know whether it's a past, too. It does feel it was, I wouldn't say either. Well, to just get a finer beat on what you're talking about, when we go back to your final slide and say the task of the total that's down to three million days, seven to one time, how many of those things are in government, the governor's trip? None of these days. And, and then outside this is the one million for the bottom line, and that is addressed. Correct. Along with the money for wetlands mapping that I think was prescribed by your bill that I would argue is already underway on its way to be completed. Thank you, Chair Bernanke. That was my exact question was, I haven't seen your budget yet. I don't know if it's been sent to us from Anna, or when we received that, but I'd love to see that when it's available, if it's done. Yes, I mean, the governor's budget dropped last week. Okay, I didn't get that. I didn't get the budget. I used to get how we got copy of it. Yeah, I mean, generally we come into the committees of jurisdiction and provide a budget presentation. We've been invited into the House of Appropriations Committee and to my knowledge, the only committee we've been asked to provide testimony on our budget. Can we ask them to chime in? Yeah, I think we'll come back to budget. The tradition has changed lately. We have budget books when we came out of the budget address, and I know there's no online available budget summary, which I downloaded, but I don't know that they got distributed on that. May I request that as an individual members and something I'm allowed to request? It's all on the JFO website or the finance and management website. So I should instead ask legislative print. I mean, I'm happy to just I'm asking. I could eat a million. Yeah, I guess I always love when we get the transportation budget, but because I like to go through and bring it with me to public meetings when people ask questions. So it is helpful that I'm pretty happy. I don't have to pay for a printed copy, I guess is what I'm saying, but we used to get one. So that's beyond the point. The point of the question is, I don't know what's in your budget. And is there any, what is in your budget? What is the comparison for this charm? If I added another column here, it would say in wetlands that we are still drawing down the balance of $250,000 worth of one time money coupled with a $100,000 increase to our base deal with mapping. And that is a dam safety space in the, so that $100,000 will be part of the FY 25 budget in addition to having them part of the 24 and 23 budget. So that is the same. The top line is the same as for your ANR changes is where you tell me you have grant funding for the wetland piece. It's not grant funding. It's state general fund. Oh, I apologize. Could you explain it again then? Yes. So what I was saying is if you're looking for where we have resources that have been placed into the budget to get at the priorities identified by this bill, I would argue on the wetland space we're doing much of the mapping work in addition by the bill using resources that were provided by the Governor and General Assembly, I think starting in FY 23. Okay. So the $250,000 you just referenced. Was that FY 23 one time? At the same time, we received a $100,000 increase in our base appropriation in our office of waters. And that is being used to fund the mapping on the ongoing basis. Okay. So you, the person who is in the wetlands park remains temporary and then they go away. There is no staff. This is contracted support that we're using to perform the mapping. That one MTE is a reflection of trying to suggest a compromise of what the committee has laid out in terms of doing this very close to pant mitigation, some fairly extensive reporting obligations. And I think assuming we would have some stewardship liabilities. We downsize that you just focus on the reporting and monitoring obligations. They indicated in my remarks, I would not put that wetlands position as a priority compared to the other things shown on this chart. So currently there is no staff person doing this work now. It is a consultant. Is that the mapping work? We have, I'm just, I'm really just asking questions because I want to understand. So we have a program staff in the wetlands division that are responsible for administering the regulatory program, including in instances where there are permitting impacts to wetlands to direct them to the in-loop fee mitigation program for those impacts to wetlands that cannot be avoided or otherwise minimized. We've got that. And we have staff in the department of Fish and Wildlife whose job is to do wetland restoration and conservation. And you contract out the mapping piece. Correct. And what is the contract amount for the mapping? And where would I find that in your budget? I don't know what the contract amount is for the mapping. And you would need to get way deep in the leads of our budget. Yeah, that's not below the office of waters. I mean, if you want to get into it, we can go line by line. That's important. It's a $300 billion budget. Yeah, it's important stuff. Okay. So I would love to understand because if you don't need to have a consultant that you can have a staff person do this on more staff people, that seems like a long-term investment versus... I think the consultant is a, frankly, we determined it's a more efficient way to go about this work because once we get through this initial mapping, we had a fairly significant slug of updates that were required and the maintenance of effort is much lower. So it doesn't necessarily make sense to staff up while we improve our admittedly aged and inaccurate maps. Once we get them all up to kind of a current standard, the maintenance of them should be a lower cost effort than what it took to get them, which is what we're in the middle of. Okay. Yeah, I guess I'd like to understand that more. So I won't dig any deeper on this question, but if I could just ask one additional... Sure. I think it'll be helpful for us to get the link to the details. So we can start from shared information. Yes. As opposed to efficient. Is there a way we can get that? Like you could make this chart and show us what the governor's budget is currently with it? Like we can get this slide. So there is nothing on this slide that's reflected in the governor's budget. I would have to add another column that indicates where the governor's budget is making investments related to in particular wetlands and dam safe. Yes. And you're making a very compelling point that you're already doing the work. Great. So I would love to know what the... You just told me consultants is doing that now. That's new information. Okay. If I had that and I could point to it when constituents come to me and say, why the heck is the state doing this? That would be very helpful. Does that make sense? Okay. I'm not trying to argue that you are making a wrong or right decision. I'm trying to explain to you that it is very tedious and hard for us to make a case for the state not funding something when people show up at meetings and tell us that they feel in danger and we don't have a thing to point to that says the state is doing this. So if you're able to do that, it would be very helpful and it would make me less likely to be as forceful in my statements that the state is not doing it. Thank you. And my only other question on the dam safety piece is what is in the dam... What's the dam safety about? Is it because you have... You don't have the stack broken out here and I've seen a few different presentations with different examples of temporary staff. We can provide sort of the current staffing levels for each one of these programmatic areas. This is specifically the plus up required to address the scope of the bill. It does not reflect the work already ongoing in the agency and part of our base budget. Okay. So you don't have the temporary staff in your changes becoming full-time. That's not what the 2.5 million is. No, that is to invest in construction essentially. Moving those two limited service positions to full-time is essentially budget neutral. Yeah, that's what I was understanding. Okay. Thank you. And you were standing for... Thank you. So thank you for... To you, Andrew, for really giving the proposal, coming back with another way to work on the same body of work and will communicate testimony. My goal for our committee is that we will be able to vote on this Friday. So we're going to be down into the black and white between the four corners of the page face. Can we have a strike call or a mark up? Do you have... I can tell that to you this morning. So you have the version. We can give you what is the red line version, but we gave you what our alternative was because it is the actual language versus because it's pretty messy. So I'll give that to you for the red line. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Make sure everybody will post it on our webpage and see who it is and how many members. So, committee, we are going to take more testimony during the 1130. And since we've been churning right along, why don't we take a five-minute break and then you come back to make sure we start by 1130 because we're going to run time. It's going to be tight. We have some committee bills to vote out and that's... Recognize the great work that Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department is doing restoring wetlands and conserving wetlands at Lake Champlain Basin. But this is related to development and net gain is related. So it's that two to one mitigation ratio for impacts and it's looking ideally to restore the function on site of the wetland or within the watershed, that hot gate watershed that I spoke to earlier. So that's really important. And it does... I don't think it's... It does include an in-luffy piece. So there's already in-luffy. It shouldn't change the permitting time piece because the 5,000 square foot threshold is a threshold we worked with Laura LaPierre on. She's the head of the Vermont Wetlands Program. So right now that is the threshold they use. So the permitting really shouldn't need to be updated. So that being said, I'll go into this timeline. The first piece of the timeline is the wetlands reporting. And Secretary Moore did speak to the reporting. So the reporting... The first report would be due April 30th, 2025. That's the lower red bar. And that reporting... I certainly appreciate her comment to align that with the EPA reporting. I don't see a problem with that. I think that makes complete sense. This reporting is more significant than the EPA requirements. So it does require additional detail. But I fully support aligning that with the EPA. Moving on, the rulemaking timeline would be July 1st, 2025. So that's amending the rules to clarify that net gain policy, that statewide policy of net gain that we currently don't have. Following that in 2026, January 1st, the Vermont significant wetlands mapping update. So that would be the first one. And then it would occur annually thereafter. And I appreciate Secretary... Just a note about the mapping piece. I appreciate Secretary Moore's comment about the mapping. In fact, when we first wrote this bill as age 30, the wetland map... That was before the governor's budget had addressed some of the mapping piece. So yes, some of this mapping is happening now. And that's really exciting. This requires an additional amount of tracking and alignment. So yes, we're requiring national wetlands inventory mapping for the whole state. And as you can see, there's a contract already in place for that work to be done by 2025. That's the last thing in my timeline is that January 1st, 2030, NWI mapping update. And I'm switching back and forth on the mapping here because they're tied together a bit. But so yes, this bill and this policy proposes more than that because it's actually requiring that mapping to then be updated every five years concurrently with the basin plan. And I think that's really important because it's when we have wetlands changed. So wetland delineations need to be updated every five years. They can be very ephemeral. And when we don't have accurate information, mistakes happen. Well, that's just... Sorry, so it looks like it's back on. Oh, I don't think I do. No, I don't think you did. It just changed a little bit. Yeah. You just have to... I don't know if you're in or wrong. It looks like your screen... Yeah, it's coming back. I think it just... So that NWI plus mapping goes above and beyond what is currently happening in that we have those updates continuing into the future on a five-year basis. And then related to that, the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory mapping will be updated annually. And that includes more than just the NWI plus mapping that's happening across the state. And you saw the time frame in the slide that Secretary Moore proposed. But it also includes municipal mapping. So certain towns have conservation commissions that have contracted consultants to do even more detailed wetland mapping within that town. So those would be brought in delineations that are subject to permitting would also be brought in. So we're requiring that Vermont Significant Wetland and the advisory layer to be updated annually as new information comes up. So it's just a higher level of tracking and accountability. And I think with that, I don't have... I just wanted to make sure I discussed everything. Oh, the public notice. There was a comment made from Secretary Moore about the public notice piece. I think that public notice is important, but happy to look into that that requirement if it's to laborious public notice piece for the wetlands change. That's fine. And we support the need for the initial staff. I think it's really great to have more staff within the wetlands program. And this is more work. We recognize that. I think it's really important work. We need to recognize the important value of wetlands to provide to society at large and invest in that resilience. So with that, I don't have any more comments. Thank you very much. Yeah, move to next slide. Do you have much time to give me? Two minutes. Oh, oh, thanks, great. No, you're saying... As much as I wish I was the most discussed, I think I can come back on... That's not true. We do have good games. Okay, great. Good morning. Good morning, Jay. For the record, more or less, the record of external affairs with the nature of conservancy is a lot. I tried to take as many legible notes for myself during testimony to the scientists. I'll try my best now, but do want my knowledge that it'll be really helpful probably for all three of us to see the red line version so we can understand the specifics of what's being proposed to respond to. And then we can do that. Great. And so I don't feel rushed to be getting through all that. I know that we just heard of all the long presentation, and we'll provide time for a thorough response. And as soon as we have the red line, as well as the team proposal of their language, sort of graphic and scratch, we'll have both more time. That's great. That would be really helpful for us. So I think I'll start more with areas of strong agreement with what I just heard, and start again with the commendable work of the state employees. That do the work that has been described over the course of several weeks of testimony in S213. Having been one of them, I worked deeply with Rebecca and Rob in the trenches following disasters, and it is a significant time burden and workload that is put on agency staff every time these disasters happen. To your question earlier, Senator White, the disasters are happening on 1.4 to 1.6 flood-related disasters that doesn't account for wind and snow related damages, which we do get disasters occasionally and falling. Not that that's what we can expect every year, but that is the historic, at least this century, what we think, what we've pursued each year. I also agree that whatever is recommended or proposed in S213 does need to carry the appropriate appropriations so that these staff who are already overburden are not asked to do even more with less. I really feel strongly, again, in my past testimony, I said that verminar's lives, homes, schools, businesses, roads depend on this, that they are appropriately appropriated to carry forward this increased regulation. As do the taxpayers of Vermont. You've heard me say several times over that flood-related disasters are costing Vermonters tens of millions of dollars annually to recover from this. And as we discuss appropriations and as we look through the governor's budget, year over year, we keep pouring more and more money into the Vermont BIO program. That BIO program is a necessary tool to help flood damaged homes and homeowners of Vermont. But it also is not a sustainable solution. More than 10,000 homes in the flood plain, more to getting built each year because we are allowing development in high hazard areas. So at some point in time, I need to recognize that conservation is critical. I've worked at the Nature Conservancy. I understand that conservation and the absence of regulation is insufficient by a customer for like that level. Part of the reason why capacity is so challenged is because we haven't changed our regulation. Because we have so much damage every time staff and DEC reverse programs have to go out and respond to help municipalities work with the regional planning commissions from whom you've heard several times over kind of navigate this. If there were fewer damages, if we stopped building in these areas, there would be significantly reduced taxpayer burden and faster needs. Let's see here. I heard a quote from the secretary that this would be an extensive undertaking. Yeah, it is. And yet we are currently asking our towns to taste this on. This is an expensive undertaking that they are currently trying to navigate. And you've heard from the Vermont League of Student Towns, you've heard from the regional planning commissions that they are not doing it well. They are not resourced appropriately. They do not have the technical expertise, nor the time, nor the political will, nor social capital, etc. to really navigate this well. So that extensive undertaking is calling on all of our towns and our volunteer town staff. Can I remember, I can't remember, Tim Brady was in and I think he, I'm not trying to see a line. I'm just trying to remember because I heard him say, okay, kind of attention for the pushback of the LCT and the municipality. But the thing that stuck with me a little bit from Mr. Brady being well said was he said, I don't usually ever say this, but I think that we're looking for a larger role in the state to manage the area. Yeah, his testimony, he supported this portion of the bill. And I think he called it and I know he had a response to it. So maybe you can remember, but I think he called it the silent or free labor of our towns, the small and other towns that they go to their 40 hours a week job, they come home at night, they go to their volunteer meeting and they come home and try to figure out what they do with all that information between kids bedtime or 9pm midnight or whatever that is. Five to nine. Five to nine? Yeah, exactly. Oh, I've said before that we have tried as a state wage. That was a response. I've said in his testimony that we tried extensively to use that word again to incentivize towns to regulate their reporters. We have tried very hard through many different mechanisms and we are plateaued at about 10 to 12% of towns that have done this and that speaks to just those towns that have adopted them, not that those that are enforcing them well and actually protecting those areas from development and future damage. So at what point in time do we say the incentives are no longer working? We need to so sure I get three. Again, the part of the bill that I keep, I mean, what I think about with respect to this part of the bill specifically though it is definitely pervasive in the weapons and dance parts to it, the four parts, the public safety, the cost of these damages, municipal burden that we currently have that carry and the natural resource protection itself. Hearing the recommendations, but again, not seeing them necessarily. So trying to re-contain alliance. I think it's fair to say that the groups that have been working on this, if you could protest to me from before, at least from the environmental side, would agree and acknowledge when you see 20 activities for our flood planning program, that is huge. And the flood planning program is very different from river borders. It has a federal agency involved in it. It carries one of the code for federal regulations, CFR, all sorts of issues and needs to meet, I think along the way. So if we are going to phase this, I heard phase several times over, I think it would be acceptable on our end to really do the work on the flood planning side and take the time to do that. The flood plans are again, what I could find are 20% problems. That's where 20% of our damages are happening. Our river corridors cannot wait. They are an 80% problem. That needs to happen. Maybe as quickly as the slide behind me says, I don't know, I would rely heavily on the person behind me to say, that's even realistic. But we feel strongly that again, this is a resource, a hazard area, a cost to Vermont taxpayers that cannot wait until 2030. And again, these aren't new ideas. River border protections are recommended in state plan after state plan year after year after year. Exactly as this exact thing is in the private action plan. And the state budget mitigation plan and TNDL plan, the Licham plan and all the other plans that I said before. Let's see, I saw on this slide one slide that there was a four FTE recommendation with respect to the river borders. That seems like a real steal when you think about how much money and how many damages and how much life safety is at risk in the river border section. 20, I think for flood plans for the river borders, I think that would be an extremely wise investment by this depending by the general assembly. I agree to the outreach piece. If we as a state do not do that well, we are going to have a lot of poorly permitted, unpermitted structures that have to go through when the appeals process and it will be a nightmare. And so to do this well and to actually have the outcome that be assessed, I do think that we should make sure that legislation would provide for the education and outreach moment. There was a resources needed table. And I heard the secretary say I should have added a column and I would love the opportunity to add the public safety cost damages, municipal burden and natural resources columns to that table based on what I see proposed. And then finally, I'll come back to the people. I'll come back to the people. Those are great. And then I'm going to close with the Chris Campanyism from the regional commission. He says for both times over that rivers are apparently in our municipal. One town besides has direct impacts on their up, but especially downstream communities. I cannot think of better opportunity or greater need for state level control, regulation, technical expertise of a board or of a resource that I placed in a state than this one. So I will read that red line edit. You know, come back invited for that's why I sent this to you all. Thank you for your first snaps. That's my address, Mr. public therapy could come and then we'll pick up at our next meeting because we're only a three minutes left. And we have some housekeeping we have to do is move. So thank you, everyone. I was sure if you have three bills that we can move in order again was for bring back. So Friday, I distributed the draft. And then yesterday, how more interesting that our first cut at the next 50 language. So we'll have that or in the water in this room. And so I was the vice chair to move our building so that we'll bring them back in here and continue to work with them are just remind people of how speaking bills that miss our several drafts. And then we can see what you see to and our nations of those codes. Um, would you like to have these all in one motion or force? I haven't, of course, said, but it's okay. Yeah, so let's do all. Yeah, that's right. Oh, thank you. All right. So the other ones last week, Michael really did one of them again. The reason I'm not learning about the details of the language at the moment is because the point is to have them available. Yes. So that that was what I wanted to just clarify as I considered taking a vote now for the this is not a passive of the bill as final. This is just so we can as a committee actually do it as well. The other way I think this is it's a drafting deadline for committee. So we're we're making our drafting deadline. I believe it's true. Then I'll come to the committee and we can continually develop. Okay. So I would move that we we're we're finding or voting out to the floor introducing the committee. Oh, okay. Thank you. So we introduce the committee bill and actually to mislead is changes related to the public utility. What's the draft? Okay, oh, sorry. Right. Any discussion? All those in favor? Who's the other one? Opposed? Okay. Five, zero, zero. Thank you. All right. So I would move that we wanted to say introduce the committee bill and actually relating to changes to clean key standard. She has all the numbers. I have all the numbers, but I don't know which one each number goes with. That's my link. This one's average 50. It would be one of these. Oh, thank you. My eyes. So that we should have done. Thanks. Any committee discussion? All those in favor? We say no. I would move that we excuse me. That we move that we introduce the committee bill and actually to the use of administrative use controls at contaminated sites. Any discussion? All those in favor? We say aye. All right. Opposed? Okay. Five, zero, zero. And I would move that we introduce the committee bill and actually related, relating to miscellaneous changes to that. Thank you. Any discussion? None. All those in favor? Please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Zero, zero. Thank you, everyone. We'll see those back. They'll go to the floor. You'll hear me make a motion to refer to the back committee and off we go. Thank you. For that, we are adjourned.