Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Other priorities or things that are on the mind of vloggers. So let's start. We have Catherine and Oliver here from the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation. We yesterday had testimony from the Forest Products Association with some proposed I'm not sure if we actually saw language, but we saw here are some ideas to work off of. So welcome to the two of you. Thanks, chair.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: Thanks to members of the committee. For the record, I'm Oliver Pearson, the director of the Division of Forests within FPR and the State Forester.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It's great to be here. Introduce yourself.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Catherine Servideo. I'm the Forest Economy Program Manager with FPR.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: So we're happy to have this opportunity to speak about the wood products manufacturers Permitting Report. This is a technical subject, so we actually prepared some remarks to hopefully avoid error. But this was a very important undertaking, and we're pleased that the committee has expressed interest in hearing from us about this. So as you know, Act 181 charged the Land Use Review Board. The board in consultation with FPR to essentially elaborate this report to convene the stakeholder group on how to address the Act two fifty permitting process to better support wood products manufacturers and their role in the forest economy, examine the Act two fifty permitting process, identify how that process, including the minor permit which had been introduced, has been working and whether there are shortcomings or challenges, And also look at the permits that a wood products business would have to obtain to either operate, establish themselves, expand at the municipal ANR level and active 50 level, how that process was going, and if there's any efficiencies or streamlining that could be done, or even come up with an alternative process for wood products permitting to support this sector. So this was a significant charge for a legislative report. I'll just start my remarks, which are short, by saying that FPR and the Land Use Review Board really worked hard and and took a very thorough approach throughout the development of this report to get input from the sector, from affected businesses, to get expert input, and try to come up with meaningful and impactful recommendations. Catherine will talk more about this process, but it involves review of permits that have been issued over the years, surveys, phone interviews, stakeholder consultation meetings, many discussions between FPR and Land Use Review Board staff and other experts, lots of drafting. And with all that effort, I would say that the report that the Land Use Review Board submitted with our input addressed some of the aspects of the legislative charge thoroughly and others, I would say partially. We'll get into more about that. Importantly, report puts forward 10 recommendations that will group into three categories, and Pat will go into this. Act of 50 rules in line with the report's mandate and potential statutory changes. And so we believe that these recommendations, if fully implemented, will make the Act two fifty permitting process for wood products manufacturers and other forced economy businesses a bit easier and hopefully reduce barriers to expansion of new businesses. I will say that there's some important nuances regarding elements of the recommendations in the report where there's ways to phrase either statutory changes or ways to focus in on certain aspects of Act two fifty permitting where FBR has clear priorities, which were incorporated in the report to varying degrees. And what we'll try to focus on in our presentation is make it clear what our priorities as FBR are for potential statutory change in revisions to the Act two fifty permitting process really to achieve the objective of the study, facilitate what products manufacturers permitting. As I said, we hope that this report will lead to some statutory recommendations and changes. I know that's some drafting underway by the Land Use Review Board already, and we're gonna be working with them on that. And we look forward to working with the legislature and this committee on that task. We're very lucky to have Catherine, who's not only a licensed forester and a forced economy expert, but also worked as an Act two fifty permit analyst.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: And that was compliance.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: Compliance. She was part of the Act two fifty machinery for a while. And so she really has the perfect mix of skills to address the committee on this subject. With that, I'll hand it over to Kathryn.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Yeah, and I apologize. I don't use Zoom very often. Need technical assistance.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Let's do this. We're in presentation mode. You're not alone, Kathryn. I always

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: can I just ask, yeah, go So

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Catherine, just on your bio, we just heard that there were Act two fifty navigators to help inform it Amy? So there's also a team compliance set up this too.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: The people to talk to about the structure of the Act two fifty Board is the Land Use Review Board. But at the time that I was there, there's the district coordinators who are the ones who work the most with applicants, and they also work with the commissions. Then there's kind of a separate group. I was the second permit compliance officer. They now have two. Before me, there was just one, and now there's two. So they work with everybody.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We made it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do this. Now that should work. There we go. I do this.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: Just now the down arrow works.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Thank you, I apologize for technology challenges. So I wanted to start today with just setting the stage for what is Vermont's forest economy. We've been in here before to talk to you guys about that, but I think it's always helpful just to remind ourselves about what forest farming does in Vermont and what it represents. So it is the fiscal leader of Vermont's natural resource economy. So our direct economic output exceeds agriculture and mining quite a bit. So it's at just shy of $1,600,000,000 in 2023. We're one of the big three manufacturing industries in Vermont, so the second largest manufacturing employer. The big three are value added food, forestry, forest products, and then computers and tech. And then it's the cornerstone of Vermont's rural economy and economic identity. We value our working lands, our green mountains, our forests, and the full supply chain going from landowners with forests to the forest products, with products that we use in our homes. Taking and producing those high value products from our local forests as a renewable resource is what sustains our forests. It generates wealth within the state, and it protects that working landscape. Just put that as our base. Then into the report, like Oliver said, it is a pretty technical subject, so I'm going to do my very best to not get too far into the weeds or at least bring you along with me in the weeds. So the report had a pretty specific but broad legislative charge. So it was to look at how permit process could better support wood products manufacturers and their role in the forest economy, look specifically at Act two fifty permit process and identify how the minor permit process was working, and then look holistically at ANR municipal, the full landscape of permits. So before the Land Use Review Board was set, I started work to set up how we would go about creating or looking into this stuff. So the methodology that once the Land Use Review Board was in place, we worked together to finalize and tweak. The big question that came about was really looking at how that minor permit process was working. They were pretty focused on Act two fifty specifically, like how is that working? Are there things that could be improved? Or are there recommendations that can come out of Act two fifty permit process for web products manufacturers? So we did look at our past reports and strategic plans, including the forest future strategic roadmap. We did a broad survey of Act two fifty permit holders just to understand general perceptions and experiences with the Act two fifty permit process. And then we did an in-depth review of with product manufacturing permit files, looking both at applications, the back and forth communications with coordinators and the applicants, and trying to understand what that process was like as they were going through it. Like Laura said, there's 10 recommendations, and they are kind of grouped into different categories here. So first is that applicant assistance. So the fact sheet and supplemental guidance that the Land Use Review Board is working on. They are also looking to create program training and workshops for the sector. So that would be for both their staff to understand the sector, but also for applicants to understand Act two fifty. And then the ANR planning office would be offering permit coordination support. And then they are looking to advocate or promote the permit specialists, other tools like the permit navigator or on board systems to support applicants.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, Nelson? The Ombudsperson, that would be somebody that would help them skate through the Act two fifty permit process.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I don't know that I'd say it quite like that. I think the Ombudsperson is more of a neutral party, not just the coordinator or the commission that can help them navigate. As the Land Use Review Board was describing it, I think they had a vision or intention that it could be both for applicants but also for parties to the permit process, so any neighbors that are looking to have their voice heard as well.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They used to have, each regional district used to have their own people that help people get through the process, so this would be taken place of that or quite Yeah, a bit of a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: back in

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: so they still have the district coordinators who are the main contact point for anyone looking to talk about or work with Act two fifty in their region. At one time, ANR had permit specialists who would also help people, but they were more focused on the ANR permits. But they did do some coordination with Act two fifty. I will say, so there's a little blue asterisk. That one is a recommendation that is not specific to wood products manufacturers. There are some recommendations that are more holistic abroad that would be available to any applicants.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is it specific though to Act two fifty permits or is it think so. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Catherine, I know it's not highlighted, but I look forward to you expounding on recommendation number nine. It's regarding extending exemptions for logging and ports for operations. Where does that stand and how vulnerable are we in that? And, obviously, 10 is important. We'll get several slides.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: We'll get there. So before we get to those ones, the other group of recommendations are rule based, so updating Act two fifty rules. Administrative rules.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We have some

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: we went black here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Seems like it's a loose wire kind of thing. Don't know.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I reported it the first time it happened on Tuesday. So administrative rules can be complicated and just referring to them by their numbers is I find it quite challenging. So I just added a little bit of description for what these are. So rule 19 just allows applicants to use ANR permits or other permits as a presumption of compliance with an Act two fifty criteria. So if anyone opposes or doesn't agree with that, then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that that permit does not satisfy the criteria. Rule 34 is substantial material changes. This is important for the wood products manufacturers. So essentially, this substantial material changes is trigger for when Act two fifty permits or permit amendments are needed. And what we've found is that some mills, in particular, who are running on diesel generators, are not able to easily transition to other sources of power because it would trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit amendment because it would be a material change to their permitted project. So that's not an ideal situation. And then 304D is administrative amendments. Those are nice and easy permit amendments. They're kind of a paper drill. What we found when we did the permit review process was that they were not being used for wood products manufacturers. There had been none issued in many, many years. And we thought that they could assist or ease the burden for applicants. And then Rule 16 is kind of a policy statement by the board that they will encourage informal and non adversarial dispute resolution, because they don't want to be in the business of having them for growth and having opponents from that matter. They want to try to find amicable solutions. And now to the funds, the statutory changes. So nine is extending that exemption for logging and forestry, and 10 is to reinstate the exemption for log and pulp concentration yards. We'll go into a little bit more. Specifically, it's extended benefits for logging and forestry that are similar to those conferred to farming pursuant to these very specific statutory references, which I've also put up on the screen here. This first one here essentially applies a Stony Brook process for farming applicants. It means that when development is occurring on a parcel where agriculture farming is also happening, the permit will only apply to the boundaries of that development project, not to the entire parcel, which is the standard for Act two fifty. Normally that permit would apply to the full parcel. What that does is it allows agriculture to continue as it was intended, exempt from Act two fifty jurisdiction. And when those permits come out, they include a clause that says that farming and agriculture is not subject to permit amendment jurisdiction and can continue. It's not part of what this permit is. Forestry does not have that. And we have seen in multiple cases where development happens on a parcel that also has managed forest land, and that managed forest land gets pulled into that Act two fifty permit, and they have conditions that restrict their ability to manage that forest. It has led to people having to update their DBA management plans. It's led to people having to get multiple permit amendments to continue to manage their forests. So that is what this recommendation, what our hope is, is that this would address. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: this is what we've heard is called the Stony Brook

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: decision? It's similar, yes. So right now, an applicant can request that there be a determination of Stony Brook, but they, one, have to know that they can request that and then go through that full process. Whereas ag, it's more of an automatic process, where as soon as they apply and there's farming on that parcel, it triggers it by itself.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, Chairman George. Where are we with the lure on this

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: issue? Yeah. We think we just got an email this week that they have some draft language that was shared with ANR. We have not had a chance to fully look at it, but we'll be reviewing it and providing comments to them.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Sharing with our committee. I don't know.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: Yeah, the hope is that the LERB board members and staff are working on this and the ANR reps led by Billy Coster and our planning office with input from FPR can come to agreement on a set of statutory recommendations, statutory reform recommendations that are derived from the report, particularly these points nine and ten, and then present those to committees. Probably this one would be a point of departure. And I look forward to working with Laura on that process and working through some of the nuance that I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are coming at from a slightly different place. Hopefully, we can get to a shared approach. Thank you. Brian?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Dave, I was just thinking, not so important for Oliver and Catherine here, but it'd be interesting on the ag side to hear from the agency or whoever, where this whole Stony Brook comes into play, because we haven't really heard about that sort of, we just think, oh, farming's exempt back February, but clearly, in this case, it's not, you need some permitting or you can So, part of our salt. It has

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to go through permitting, but the rest of your bag doesn't. So to better understand what the implications of that are for bags, especially with Tap Street.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Yes, at one time, What I've got up on the screen here, it wasn't part of the statute. It had the same thing what forestry logging has right now, which is just that it's an example of 2,500 feet in elevation. And at one point in the past, I don't know exactly when it was, these were added because of some situations that occurred where Agate was being pulled into Act two fifty permits. So now these are here, so they have a very clear exemption in where those boundaries are. I And will say that last bullet point is also pretty important. So this one's specific to compost facilities. So if compost facilities on a farm, anything from the farm that goes into the compost facility in a normal Act two fifty world, that would be considered involved land, and it would get pulled into jurisdiction. But this statutory piece specifically says that if product from the farm goes into the compost, it is not considered involved land for that, unless it's used for some other development purpose. If it's on the same parcel? Correct. So in our case, we've seen mills open up or expand that are on farms and they have woodlots, in our world, if a single tree from that woodlot goes into that mill, it's involved, it all becomes part of that

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: 50 permit. Really?

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: Yeah, that can then require amendments to an Act Act two fifty permit just to do forestry. Also a real

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: reason is that they've had to amend a UVA management plan because they had to get an Act two

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: fifty permit with them out. So for road construction or

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I don't know about that. So roads, I believe the land use of reports working on that road trigger, that threshold right now, on exactly what's a road and what's a driveway. But roads used primarily for the purpose of forestry and logging are exempt from road rule. But I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: not want to have a open up conversation about the federal world. Just thinking about not ag now, but forestry, what kinds of operations would be in this scenario than not exempt and would be a concern for a

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: landowner. There's an example that we have in a few more slides for one where someone ended up with a permit and has to have to go back multiple times. Are

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: there instances where I'm thinking almost like a Venn diagram where the wood products would essentially be exempt from Act two fifty if there's a hierarchy of permitting, like the PUC, like you were talking about transitioning from power, if you needed three phase power or something like that all

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the time.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Or you're doing something that falls under municipal zoning, and that exempts you from the tier 1A and 1B, that sort of thing. So does this address some of those concerns?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I don't know. I wouldn't say that it necessarily does. I think this is still about active

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: Just two fifty, okay. You can read in the report, there's an interesting section deep in the report that says, here are some ideas that we considered but aren't recommendations. Because on balance, the group that was working on the report found them to be somewhat problematic. An example is, hey, an exemption for a wood products manufacturing business that had 10 acres or less of a disturbance or a partial size of 10 acres or less. Maybe if it's that small, it doesn't need an active 50 permit because it's not a significant development. For various reasons, we decided not to advance that as a recommendation. But that type of idea was discussed, I think that addresses maybe what you're thinking about. But this, I think the report in and of itself doesn't provide recommendations that address the idea you brought up.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Do you want go? Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson? I'm good. Representative Berkman.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So how much of this is changes made by Act 181 and how much of it is already in place?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm curious. So

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I think what we're talking about with the recommendations and what we hope will come out of this, none of this has been done. This was just out of the report recommendation, not covered in Act 181 or other legislation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So Act 181 did whatever it did, and then there were things that this committee had talked about hoping would happen and didn't in 01/1981. But instead of that, there was language in Act 181, which told the LERB to do this review and make some recommendations. That's, and this is what they've come up with, and we're not bound by any of the recommendations. We can look beyond the recommendations, which I think is partly what we're looking at here. This is one of the recommendations. Just before we go to the next slide, I wanted to just say for Patricia, and I think John's idea is a good one, we could ask Legis Council maybe to start to come in and tell us about 10BSA 6,000 and one-3E and 10BSA 6,081 S, what the circumstances were that you just alluded to, I think, Katherine, And then maybe the agency, if we feel like we've had the agency share their institutional memory.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: And so then this is just the last sixty eighty one S is just that no permit amendment is required for farming. If it won't conflict with permit conditions, it has to have that statement that farming is permitted on those lands. And our hope is that we would get that extension to forestry logging. And then log in pulp concentration yards. This recommendation is just to reinstate the exemption that previously existed. Just a little bit of background because it's a little confusing. In the early 90s, a district coordinator issued an advisory opinion saying that log concentration yards are components of logging activities and therefore exempt from Act two fifty jurisdiction below 2,500 feet in elevation. In twenty twenty two ish, there was a legislative change that included it introduced the wood products manufacturers definition for the Act two fifty statutes. And in it, it included log and pulp concentration yards as wood products manufacturers, which then made it subject to Act two fifty jurisdiction. It was, I think, just an inadvertent just happened, and we just would like to go back to where it was before.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: On the basis that a log and pulp concentration yard is not really a manufacturing site, it's a transportation It's an aggregation yard.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you happen to have at your fingertips an answer to this question? When that definition was put in place in 2022, what else was accomplished? What was the intent, the actual intent?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Yeah, so believe that was when the minor permit process This is when the hours of operation was.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Hours of operation, okay, right.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: So there's some allowance for extended hours of operation for wood products manufacturers when weather conditions need frozen ground to move things. It allows for some additional hours of operation for those facilities. But to do it, they needed to define what those manufacturers are.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Chair Durfee, is there anyone in this committee that needs any deeper explanation of why this is a critical component for logging? We've talked I about it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, let's save that for committee discussion, but I think it would be helpful to have your perspective on that. Representative

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: O'Brien.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I just wondered, has there

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: ever been discussion, or does it come up

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: that the forest economy equivalent of on farm accessory businesses? Because I can see you're getting into this if you were somewhat you had a sawmill, but you also were selling the sawdust or you're making chips for composting, that sort of thing. And there might be a conflict with one part is exempt from permitting and the other isn't. So I wonder just at PR, is there discussion about

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that, or has it been a potential conflict?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: We haven't specifically talked about that. I do think that farm businesses can be pretty different. For a lot of mills that are on farms or on parcels, they may be using logs that are coming from their woodlots, but they're also buying in logs. And that is often, I think, where those farm stands or accessory owned farm businesses are a little bit different, where they frequently are primarily selling what they're producing there on the property. So by definition, I guess, a sawmill is going be bringing in outside stuff. So the next few slides are more specifically about our priority recommendations coming out of the recommendations of this report. So back to number nine, which is to extend those benefits to logging and forestry. Our priority is that any proposed statutory changes from this recommendation need to address the amendment jurisdiction and permit conditions that impede forestry operations or conflict with department approved forest management plans.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Must also address sorry, just reading your language there. You feel that the recommendation the language and the recommendation doesn't quite go far enough?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Correct.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Well, I think it's a little bit, there's some nuance that isn't entirely captured in the recommendation and it could be written a lot of different ways. I think this is just what our priority to see any language coming out, we would want this in there. And then this is an example. So the screenshot there, it's taken from the Act two fifty database. I did that yesterday. In the 1990s, there's a landowner that had received an Act two fifty permit to subdivide. They had more than a thousand acre parcel. They subdivided it into five lots. They still own that thousand acres. There's been one house, one single family home built, I believe, in this time. Since getting that subdivision permit, the landowner has had to get at least four permit amendments for forest management. The parcel, this particular parcel, is enrolled in use value appraisal. It's also part of Forest Legacy, which means that there's a conservation easement on it that both the Department, US Forest Service, lots of government agencies have put their eyes on and approved of. This is a parcel that is being managed at the highest levels, but they still have to go back to Act two fifty for a permit amendment when they do forest management. And I think this is really the example of what we're trying to address. So when they do forest management,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: does that mean when they're doing some logging? Yes. So then if they're going to do some logging, they need to get an F-two 50 permit, and they have to satisfy all 32 or whatever it is regularly. Either a permit or

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: a permanent amendment. So when alleged counsel was in here on the subject during the week,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: and she'd sort of confirmed logging

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: and fortuary art zen from Act two fifty. But what this shows is, practically speaking, there are elements of an Act two fifty permit that impede forestry operations as under the current text, and therefore, think referring back to the text in Catherine's last slide, what we would like to see is is statutory reform so that this type of, you know, permitting responsibilities just to do good forest management is somehow removed from from the responsibility the landowner must undertake.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. And, Nelson. So

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: number three, third permit down was a subdivision for two one point ten point one acre log for single family, so you wouldn't say that that shouldn't have Act two fifty review, it's just the logging component change from not salvage to 35, is that the under the forest management plan which is under? Just like if we change a practice on in agriculture, we're under the rats. You're under the AMP. AMPs

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: are UVA management, which is approved by a licensed forester and a

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: There county are a lot of rules and regulations and practices that govern forest management in Vermont. We've got AMPs, UVA, the heavy putt. There's lots of eyes on these types of activities. It really is that's what we're looking.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So of the six permits they had to get up there,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: really the

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: only way you envision it is scratched to sell the two lots and then the subdivision of the nine acre and 92 acre.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: The two subdivisions, that's clearly within Act two fifty. It's when it's the forest management that's getting roped into it, that's where we like to see some change.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: There must have also been additional costs, because this required five forest management plans. If you have a contiguous forest and you cut it up into five

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: lots, does each one need its own special forest management plan? It depends. So it really can depend on what the forest is like, what the landowner objectives are, and what the forest is doing. There could be one overarching plan and then individual harvest or operational plans. But I do know that when permit amendments are involved, often there are lots questions, and it's entirely possible that a landowner may need to pay for additional hours from their consulting forester to answer some of those questions or provide additional details in order to get that amendment.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: This just of made me thinking that we have the 2500 foot rule, and it prevent logging from happening above that elevation. You just have to go through the process. Yeah, and

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I will say this entire parcel, the entire parcel is below 2,500

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: feet in elevation.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: And then number 10 here, the log and pulp concentration yards. Again, our priority here is that we just turn that clock back and go back to the exemption that was there before that wood products Manufacturers definition pulled them into jurisdiction. And then an additional priority for us is that Stony Brook determination. It is very important to us. We would like that process to be automatically triggered, that they would look and see how or if Sony's work can apply automatically when there's an applicant, as opposed to right now where an applicant needs to know that it's an option to them. They need to know how to request it. They need to provide Right now, it just is a burden. It's another step that could be eased if it just was triggered when an application is submitted that has Managed Forest land involved in the application.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How does looking back at number nine and the recommendation there, if we were to move ahead with that and align forestry operations with agriculture, do we need to have this last step done also?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: It might depend on how it's worded, yeah, might depend.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: They're addressing the same?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: In some ways, yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: In some ways, okay.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: It could be a part of that number nine recommendation. That's, I think, where it kind of depends on how it's worded. If it's not specifically there, then it still remains its own priority of triggering.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Peter, if you,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: in those I know that FDR was deeply involved can you speak to the entire group's discussion about this and why it wasn't explicitly included in a recommendation.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: Maybe we'll talk a little bit about the stakeholder coordination process and then get to your question. So we did have two stakeholder meetings. The first one was very well attended. The second one had a bit fewer people there, there were still great attendance. And I think that the report itself does a good job of reflecting a lot of the ideas that were brought up during those stakeholder group meetings and also recognizes that not all those ideas made it into the report as as recommendations. I think I was looking at the report this morning, and the word Stony Brook is in the report over 50 times. So there was definitely deliberation about this point. I think the Landius review board, who was the final author on the report, had some concerns about automatic triggering of of of Stony Brook. And and while it's it's it's mentioned in the report, it it's something that they didn't feel 100% comfortable endorsing as one of their 10 recommendations. I think even if you look at the first recommendation, they allude to working towards this. But I think there's a nuance there. We're using the term triggered automatically. And I think they were more in the, let's make sure this is available and folks are knowledgeable about it. And they may have had some concerns about triggering it automatically. I've just bought you some time in case you have any more specificity to answer Cher's question.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I don't have a great I think it could be a potentially pretty complex process to look through and try to draw those boundary lines in Stone Eagra to see exactly where development starts and where it ends. And that may have been some of the concern about anything automatic related to Stony Brook, because they have to look at quite a bit of stuff. But it might be a question to ask the land use from people.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So as it stands right now, if an applicant happens to know, happens to have the information, the applicant can request this determination. And then it's up to the district to decide whether or not to allow it?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: That's correct, yes. So there is a relatively recent example of a sawmill on a farm that went through the Act two fifty permit process. I had spoken with them in advance and told them about Stony Brook. Strongly encouraged them to request the Stony Brook determination because it was a very large farm parcel. They lived on it. Their kids lived on it. So it's important to ask for this. And they did. And so some of the farm did get excluded from Act two fifty jurisdiction, but they do have a substantial woodlot, and they do occasionally harvest on that property, and they bring those logs to their mill. And so all of their woodlot got included into the Act two fifty permit, and they did have to make a change to their VBA management plan as a result.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: When you talk about this example of a farm with a mill on it, could it be a portable mill with a building above it, or are these more traditional sawmills as we know?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: This is a true sawmill.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Okay.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: So I think it probably started with a Lane's Hall Mill. It's not a portable, it's not a wood miser. This one's a sawmill. It has a structure over it. But we do see people with portable sawmills that are

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: under structures. When does that then become a permitting question?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: It could potentially, depending on the circumstances. Because of the structure, John? Or the sales, there's lots of ways that

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: they might look at it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We anything about do we have any data on how often Stony Brook was requested and then how often it was granted?

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: I don't know about that. Yeah, it's possible that the Land Use Review Board might be able to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: do Okay, but that didn't come up during the

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: It did not. No, it wasn't something we specifically looked at. Guess I'm a little

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: so anyway, it sounds like for whatever reason there wasn't unanimity around the idea or it would have been explicitly included, I'm a little confused because it does feel like number nine, as written generically, would include what we're talking about here with stone. I

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: think when you read the report, the number one, number nine says is extend these exemptions. But then there's two caveats that the Land Use Review Board felt strongly about. So that says, extend these exemptions to forestry and logging similar to ag on elevations under 2,500 feet. Then here comes the two caveats provided existing permit conditions for permitted projects limiting tree cutting to address act two fifty criteria not invalidated and provided tree removal limits are available conditions for future projects to address Act two fifty criteria. And and Laura had some reasons for that. And so we had some pretty healthy discussion around that. And and I think this was a compromise to get there. But I I I think that there are elements of why the Lane Street View Board staff felt that those caveats were important that we think could merit from some further discussion. For example, they cited some of these permit conditions protect deer wintering areas. And it's true. There are deer wintering areas within forestry lots that are important to protect. But Agency of Natural Resources with Fish and Wildlife and FPR are working together, we think, have other ways that we were successfully regulating deer wintering areas and protecting them inside of Act two fifty permits. And an act two fifty permit, which is focused on development, may not be the best way to protect deer winter habitat. It's kinda like, is that the appropriate tool here? Is there a more efficient tool than the agency of natural resources to do that? So that's why we'd like there to be you know, we we felt that there's further discussion. But in the interest of compromise and getting that language into the report, we ultimately signed off on it. No idea we'd have the opportunity to discuss this with committee in the future.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you for reminding us of that language. What other questions?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Func.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Happy to answer any other questions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you very much. We're gonna ask Dana, I think, next then. Dana from.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Is there going to be some legislative statutory language Yeah, coming our

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: my

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'll say what I've been thinking, how would you know otherwise, I've been thinking, that once we've heard the testimony that we're gonna take now, we just heard, I think Dana is going to speak a little bit to this topic as well, and then we've invited Ben Lincoln to come in. I think we're also going to ask some of the other stakeholders who may have different take on recommendations to come in and then put together a committee bill. And I know that just as with the other topic that we're working on, some of the stakeholders may have language that they share with us as their input to that process. So good morning, Dana, and welcome back to the committee. Thank you. I guess we haven't had you in this calendar year. Not yet.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: All right, I've got my presentation. Let's see if I can figure this out.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, you're trying to figure it

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: out. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Good.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Perfections at the moment. I know

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you're in the meeting. The the public and the committee can also find Dana Duran's presentation on our webpage. That's true. Continue to share. Okay. You've got it. I'm there.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Yeah, we've made it. Alright, I think we're on. Okay. Good morning. My name is David Durfee. I'm Executive Director of the Professional Wagging Contractors of the Northeast. I've been in this committee several times over the last few years and Chair Durfee reached out, asked if I would speak to the manufacturer's report and its impact upon the logging community. I also had a couple of other things that I checked in with him. Last week, you heard a presentation from FPR on Slow Camp. So we are the contractor on that program. So I thought I would add a little bit more color to that presentation. They did a wonderful job on some details and thought I would just add a little bit. I'm not going be redundant and then I've also got something for the consideration of this committee. Perhaps if you do put together kind of an omnibus bill that might be of consideration for you, I'll talk about markets, etcetera, and what's going on. So I'll try to be as brief as possible. Know I have a half an hour.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If we go a little long, will probably be okay, but try to keep it to within half an hour.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Appreciate that. So again, just background on our organization. So we are an educational nonprofit started in the state of Maine in 1995, represented timber harvesting contractors there, expanded in 2023 and so our mission is to educate and promote and advocate on behalf of the logging and trucking community. So we represent our membership is basically from the stone to the mill. We don't represent landowners, we don't represent consulting foresters, we don't represent mills, large landowners, small, etc. So, stone to mill and the folks that work in between in the forest and then trucking forest products to various markets. As I mentioned in 2023, we expanded beyond Maine, so we have about two fifty contractor members. We now have 30, actually it will be about 34 next month when we have our next board meeting. We're accepting another four contractor members from here in the state of Vermont. We now have eight contractors in New York and that will rise to 12 as well. So we're starting to slowly expand throughout the Northeast, but we've got 30 going on, 34 contractor members here in the state of Vermont. We do a lot of different things. Advocacy is kind of A number one, but we also do training and education for our members, CDL education. We have a discount purchasing program. We have an insurance program for our members and we run a philanthropic program called Log A Load for Kids. So you just received a wonderful presentation from FPR. You have Sam Lincoln, who's one of our members. He's a board member of PLC coming in next week. So Sam was on the stakeholder group this summer. So I'm going to allow Sam to kind of get into the nitty gritty of his business and how Act two fifty impacts him and Lincoln Farm timber harvesting next week. So I won't get too far into the weeds. I'm just going to stick with how does Act two fifty impact the timber harvesting community? How does it impact the market development for the timber harvesting community? And also maybe allude to the situation in Maine because we obviously have a presence in Maine and can kind of tell you what happens in Maine with respect to permitting of projects and how it works a little bit for comparison. From our perspective in reviewing the process, Sam was part of it. You obviously heard from Gwen yesterday. And so the big picture for us and the key takeaways are what's impacted by Act two fifty. Facilities that loggers and forest truckers deliver forest products to, logging and forest trucking businesses themselves may operate equipment, machine shops or accessory activities, including firewood mulch, wood fuel chips, or sawmill operations that allow for off season diversification. But the minute that you disturb that soil, the minute you add concrete, now you're subject to Act two fifty. So that's where the rubber hits the road and where it becomes very complicated. For us, as you just heard from FPR, it's that dilemma of below 2,500 feet and the parity with the agricultural community that I think is the rub with our community. And I'll give you a pretty good example of how why this is so complicated and why on the one hand, and again, I'm getting a little ahead of myself, you can do certain things with farm that include forestry that are exempt and then when it comes to logging and or the development of markets, you can't. So again, I'll get to that in a moment. I'm also on the tier three stakeholder group as is Gwen And so we are going through that process with respect to the tier three situation as well. So let me kind of cut to the chase. I'm going to stick with the asterisk pieces behind me that you see up on the screen that we wanna see change that were potentially referenced in the report, but don't necessarily get to the point of making recommendations on actual change, whether that's statutory or rule. So number one, review and pursue update of Act two fifty rule 19. So let me just move my screen here so I can see this. So current ANR permits be streamlined and reduced duplicative review. So we'd like to see allow applicants to submit ancillary permits after an Act two fifty approval takes place. Right now, you have to have all of your other permits taken care of before you can move forward. Why can't you do both at the same time? So that's number one. Going to number five, and you just heard about this from FPR, Act two fifty permits should not impact routine forestry practices or permitted parcels. There is no direct link between Act two fifty reforms and the Vermont Forest Future strategic roadmap. So in statute is the roadmap process, in statute is a clear declaration from the legislature of what needs to be done. I'm on the forest future roadmap committee, but yet there's nothing that links the two together. You've got the wood manufacturer's report, it has some recommendations, but how does that mesh with the strategic roadmap? I think that's something that has to be taken into consideration because if we're going to move forward with a strategic roadmap and we don't have Act two fifty reform, we're basically cutting off our nose despite our face. Number seven, so restore clarity and exemptions for log and pulp concentration yards. Again, just, and that's his years, that's a typo. You just heard from FDR, so I'm not going to belabor that one. But the last one, that parity situation. So I'll give you the example that I referenced. So maple syrup, you can tap a tree, you can produce maple syrup, you can sell maple syrup from your property, and you are exempt because you are considered agriculture. The moment you cut that tree down and want to add value to it, you're now subject to Act two fifty. So just think about that for a moment. So that same tree, you're exempt on one hand, but you're not on the other. And that's what's limiting growth. I'll say something further, and I mentioned before, the state of Maine. So the state of Maine doesn't have anything like Act two fifty. It has local zoning, so you have local permitting. And then if you have stormwater discharge, you have to go to the state for a DEP stormwater permit if necessary. You may have to go to the state DEP if you have an air discharge situation and you have to get an air permit. That's it. So effectively, what Act two fifty in Vermont is doing is forcing Vermonters to send their wood elsewhere to add value. You want to get into a climate discussion, you want to talk about diesel fuel and movement and transportation and markets and value add and forest economics. That's effectively what Act two fifty is doing, is it is forcing Vermonters, especially loggers and truckers who produce wood, to look elsewhere for value added manufacturing. So I guess if I'll finish with a point and summarize all of it, having the same exemptions as ag is effectively what it's forcing this community to do. It's discouragement. So again, that's all the time I wanted to spend on this because you've obviously gotten a lot of information and Sam can bring you his direct business perspective, but that's the example I wanted to kind of set here with respect to below 2,500 feet.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Representative Brian? Dana, anecdotally, there cases where one of these operations gets the right Act two fifty permitting, but then is stopped by A and R permitting, or vice versa, they have the A and R permits, but then Act two fifty says no. They're not really, if you get one it's not a green light to the other, right?

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: So currently you have to have your ANR permits before you can go through Act two fifty. So it's one before the other.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: That's correct.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: So Act two fifty is effectively saying you have to come in with all this other work done, paired, finished, expense, investment, etcetera before we'll even consider it. No guarantee. Having the ability to, I guess, dual track would be a change in the right direction. I mean, obviously from our community, Act two fifty is obviously egregious to us because, again, you heard two years ago, some of you were here two years ago, we had Heath Baugh come in. So Heath, HB logging, he has a logging operation. He lives in Vermont, but he also has a mulch yard. Jed, do you remember? So Keith came in, he has a mulch firewood operation. He had the firewood operations there first. He had no concrete. So he was literally just running his firewood operation because he didn't disturb the soil and put a concrete pad in, he could do that without an Act two fifty curve. He wanted to add mulch, so buy in pulpwood to effectively grind up into mulch, but he needed a pad in which to put that on. So because it was three acres, he had to go through an Act two fifty permit process. It cost him $250,000 in three years to actually get that Act two fifty permit literally just to put concrete down to run a mulch operation. So that's where the rubber hits the road of exorbitant expense and investment and he could do business in New Hampshire in a heartbeat if he wanted to, but he lives in Kirby and that's where he had his fire operation. So that just gives you another example. Concrete is not as well.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Right. So he was trying to create a market for low value timber. Correct. And add value to it, which would help his neighbor walkers.

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: Mhmm.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: And that

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: was and then the need to burn fuel on low value timber. Mhmm. Of which there's about zero market for now. Am I correct?

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Not zero, but it's they're certainly very constrained, and I'll get into that in a in a few minutes about what's going on right now. So anything else on the wood manufacturers report again, I don't want to be redundant. You've heard a lot of testimony, some great points. FBR did a wonderful job. Quinn did a great job. And so I just wanted to add that situation from the logging community. Again, you're going

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to get Sam in here next week. Thank you. But yeah, why don't move on and then we can circle back at the end if there's any more questions.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: All right, so let me talk about we're going to switch gears to slow camp. So last week, had FBR, Dave Wilcox and Oliver were in to talk about Slow Camp. So I'll just give you some success highlights filling in the gap from last week. So project team, you heard from FBR, there was a competitive solicitation RFP. PLC put in an RFP application. We were selected as the contractor so we're working on behalf of the state to run the program on behalf of the state. So our role, we're the primary manager of the program. We do marketing promotion, application intake, eligibility, payments, etc. Field operations, have a team of foresters who we contract with who are out doing the application review, site inspections both before and after the work that is done. And it's a strategic collaboration with Forest Parks and Recreation. I think it's really been a tremendous opportunity for us to work with FBR. I think the work product will show and I'll get to that in just a second. So first I want to talk about how we've developed awareness of the program for the community of logging contractors who would be eligible to take advantage of it. So we've conducted social media. It's generated nearly 70,000 views through Facebook and Outreach. Eight seventy link clicks during the program launch back in July. We've done direct outreach. We've maintained a consistent communication with a dedicated list of 500 contractors, centralized resources on our website. We have a landing page that acts as a one stop hub. That's what the website looks like if you were to go to it. It's hosted on the PLC's website, but that's effectively if you looked up Slow Camp and just type in a Google search for Slow Camp, this is what you would find and that's where it's hosted is on the PLC site. This is the application process and effectively how it works for a contractor who wants to determine their eligibility. So they'll go on our site. We have an entire one pager that kind of talks about eligibility, what the funding can be used for, the practices, etcetera, etcetera. We work very closely with FBR to develop that. There's an online application that's actually fillable for them so they can essentially go down, determine what are the practices, what's the cost going to be, what is the cost share look like, and it automatically calculates that for them. We wanted to make this process as simplistic and as streamlined as it could be because we want to get the money in the hands of the contractors so they can do this good quality work. And so that's why we've made this so streamlined. We have an agreement that is an email to them. They can add electronic signatures. We can get it done very quickly and then effectively determine the practices essentially determine whether or not it requires a Forrester inspection or not before the work can begin, but they can get going almost immediately once that contract is signed, and then once their project is completed, they then can receive the rest of the money and they might have to have a Forrester inspection. Representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: What was the cost share? I saw at the end you get 25%, but what was the total cost share of these projects?

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: You want to know the total amount of money that's available or?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The cost share for each project like if you did a project and it was going to cost the forest, the logger, the harvester dollars 20,000 to implement the projects if that's a realistic number. They receive 50%, 25%, 100%?

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Based upon the practices, the majority of practices are 90% cost share and there are few practices that are a 50% cost share. The 50% cost share really has to do with permanent crossings in some cases if there's a permanent bridge that's going to be installed so there's going to be a benefit back to the landowner over decades, that's where that 50% cost share comes into place, but the majority are 90%.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Seating down the land and seeding down roads.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: It's all 90%. Putting in

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: the water bars. Correct. All 90%.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Correct. And each kind again, you heard this last week. So a contractor can apply for up to $30,000 per project and they can apply for up to three projects. So a total of $90,000 if they so choose over this pilot project. Over how many? One year, two years? The original program was designed for one year. It started in July 2025, it's supposed to close out June 30, there's still about half the money available so we're working with FPR and I think they talked about this last week about a potential extension. Likely right now, again, we have to get this finalized but likely it'll go from July 2025 until November 2026 and then close out by the end of this year and the project will be done by March, just so that we can make sure all that money gets out, alright, as a pilot.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And this money isn't used on state lands or

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: We talked about that briefly.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I think you said you had your own.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: We are using it on private lands. Private lands. Primarily.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, down plan. Yep. So,

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: standards based reimbursement is what it essentially is. Quality first, we pay for the installed practices that meet the state standards rather than requiring contractors to track every individual receipt. Again, it's about speed but accountability at the same time. It's a reward performance, the system rewards high quality work in the woods rather than administrative capacity and it aligns environmentally, the reimbursement structure ensures the actual outcomes happen.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien had a hand up there.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Dana, just quickly, of the standards in slow camp run afoul of permitting with Act three fifty ANR or municipal bylaws, because they're sort of above what's required in Walrae. So I'm just thinking, if you had a yard and you put in a really nice road from a flat three road to that yard and armored it to some extent, does that whether it's the upcoming road rule or something this will It certainly could.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: And again, it gets into that Stony Brook exemption, and it certainly could be without a doubt. It's a case by case basis whether there's an two fifty permit already in place or if it requires an Act two fifty permit, none of this is going to happen until that's done. I'll get into that time continuum looking forward in a moment as project forward for this committee's consideration and I know FPR kind of mentioned future funding last week when they were in. All right, real outcomes. In all the photos you see here are actually from slow camp jobs. So everything before this isn't stuff that we just made up and added in nice pretty color photos. These are actual projects that have been constructed as a result of slow camp funding. So operational resilience, the program increases workable days by reducing wet weather shutdowns, sediment risk, achieve tangible protection through hardened approaches, stabilized landings, and compliant stream crossings, and long term stability of building roads to much higher standards that will withstand weather events. Accountability, I mentioned before and you heard last week from FPR, effectively the contractor once approved, if there's a site visit required beforehand, once the contract is signed, they receive 75% upfront, then the project takes place and once the entire project is closed out, meaning the logging job is completed, the closeout has been completed, then they can submit for that final 25%. So again, we're getting money out there but they don't get the full amount until the project has been completed and in most cases, it requires a forester to go out and do an inspection out on the job first before the last 25% will be released. As I mentioned, we've got the forester oversight and then verified results. The final payments are released after the Forrester confirms the work has met the standards. Contractor satisfaction. So I think this is a big piece of what we're hearing from contractors. We have them all supply an evaluation when they complete their projects so we can get feedback from them on every step of the process and then we feed that information back to FBR. We've had 100% satisfaction. Every participant surveyed has stated they would participate in the program again. Financial feasibility, contractors reported that without this funding, the work would not have happened or would have been significantly reduced and then staff support. The highest ratings and evaluations were given to PLC's responsiveness and the practical guidance that's been given by the field forester during the entire process. So I think it's a win win all the way around. And this kind of is a unique table, which I think kind of gives you an idea of where the money has gone and what the practices are and then the breakdown of the practices. I wish representative Nelson was here. So this was based upon December 2025. So we've had a few projects approved since then. But in December, there was $376,291 allocated, 113 individual practices funded and the funding focuses were on high impact areas. And now you'll see the breakdown of the practice type. 75% of the total fund spent was on hardening truck roads, 13% on skid trail improvements, including water bars, Portoroy, etcetera, 8% on temporary stream crossings. And then the last 4% was on permanent stream crossing. So this gives kind of a good visual breakdown of where the money is going and the types of practices that have been impacted by this. Obviously, truck roads and landings is the biggest area and I think that is with the greatest wear and tear during a log job, during trucking, that's where the money's going and I think in the long run, that's probably the exact place it should go because in order to armor a landing or to produce an adequate road that's up to speed to haul a 100,000 pounds to enter that site, you need to do that pre work and that has always been the problem that the contractor has to make sure that's done correctly, they have to make sure the AMPs are installed, but there generally is no funding available from the logging situation to actually do that work. So they're eating all of it and I think this has been a great example of kind of the upgrade in practices as a result of the funding.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Very nice slide by the way, Dave.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: I will give credit to our staff for producing that and frankly to We can talk later on that one. Alright, so lessons learned, think this is my last slide on slow camp, so managing variability, logging as you've heard in this committee for the last three years, highly sensitive to weather, market shifts, landowner decisions, factors that are often outside of a contractor's control, increased flexibility. So we've talked about potentially going to a two year horizon. Right now, the way this program is run as a pilot is effectively we had one year to start and finish and in most projects they could have as little as two months because the funding right now under contract has to be out the door and contractors have to be completed with their work by June 30 of this year. So they could apply in May and have to finish their projects by June. So again, the timeframes are quite short and very limiting. So if it does get funded, if this committee decides to support further funding in the future, having a two year continuum so that someone could plan, they can work with a landlord. If the markets change, if the weather conditions change, they have more flexibility in which to utilize the funding. So that would be a tremendous change going forward but it's not something that has to be done in statute, it can be done literally by FPR. But just again, it's when that funding has to be available and used. Operational sequencing, that multi year window enables better sequencing of pre harvest preparation, maintenance and final closeout. So looking ahead, I think having that sustainability of funding, moving from a pilot to an ongoing funding situation, that's the purview of this committee. I know Oliver was in last week, talked about potentially 600,000 as a great starting point. That could be a starting point. I would probably advocate for more because if it's going be over a longer continuum, you want to be able to impact more projects and if it was a biennial appropriation so to speak, I think that money has to be a little bit larger in order to impact over a larger time continuum. So I'll say that on record. Continuous improvement, future phases should refine practice standards and expand that Forrester capacity to meet strong contractor demand. Obviously, the more people know about this, the more use it's going to get. So it's going to require further contractor, excuse me, forester capacity and then proactive resilience. Slow camp helps longer stay productive while meeting high environmental standards under increasing climate constraints. So I think that wraps up my location. Just quickly, who in most cases would the verifying licensed forester be? Would they

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: be the county forester or could even be the UVA forest management plan forest or who would verify the work?

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Currently, now we're contracting with consulting foresters. So the consulting foresters who can obviously do the UVA plans, that's who we're working with. We have three on contract with us and they're meeting the needs currently. I guess it's up to FPR going forward what design model they want to employ. I don't know the capacity of the county foresters. Again, that's a question for them, for their consideration.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: That's interesting that you're contracting right now. We are. We're doing enforcement,

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: evaluation and they're working with the contractors on implementation. Okay. Jed Lipsky. Just for representative of Brian.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Foresters say a contractor are very experienced, really deemed industry in forestry. I'm going to have

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to ask at some point, and I honestly don't know the answer, does the governor's budget include new funding for this program? Anybody know? I can answer that question. No, it's the government's budget.

[Oliver Pearson, State Forester and Director, Division of Forests (FPR)]: It's not included additional funding for smoking. I think the government recognizes this is important, very important, and we're going start to focus on other priorities in the government and the budget will be submitted to the legislature.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Any other questions before? I know that this is not it

[Catherine Servideo, Forest Economy Program Manager (FPR)]: looks like the last slide, but it's not One last one.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Any other questions on Slow Camp? What was the budget for it? Originally, the original budget was there was a million dollars that was appropriated by the general assembly two years ago and effectively small amount for master logger practices, small amount for admin at FPR. You've got the contracted amount to PLC to do the administrative work and there's about $700,000 available for contractor practices. All right. Almost on schedule. So last thing I wanted to bring to you, which is not the purview of this committee, but I would have you consider it. And let me just preface this by saying markets. So you had me in December to talk about the impact of tariffs and what's going on both with contractors with markets because of tariffs and also with equipment. So I sit here today and saying, we're not in a much better place. We probably could argue that it's worse even in just a month's time. So last week, there was a company in Maine called Pride Manufacturing that announced they're shutting down and moving all their production to China. They make Lincoln Logs, which we all are probably familiar from our childhood with Lincoln Logs. They make cigar tips and they make golf tees. It's a hardwood mill, there are a lot of Vermonters who rely upon that mill to send white birch, they're shutting down, I think effective April 1 and moving all of their operation to China. So that has occurred, they announced that at the beginning of last week. Number two, Sappi has not made a full announcement yet. Their wood room had another fire this week on Tuesday, which impacts their ability to chip wood. It's not the end of the world, but what the major announcement is going to be is that their number one paper machine, which they just invested a half $1,000,000,000 in is not going to run until June because the order that they thought they had for that machine did not come through. So what that means is all long distance wood, unless it moves through a fiber supply agreement, in this case, it's Weyerhaeuser in Vermont, they will not be buying any hardwood pulp. So just kind of telling you what's also happening out there. Anyway, Sappi is South African pulp and paper there in Skowhegan, Maine. They also have a manufacturing facility in Westbrook, Maine. They consume 2,000,000 tons of wood a year when they're at full production. So Sappi buys a lot of wood from Vermont, just so everybody in this room is aware of that. There's a lot of hardwood pulp and spruce fir pulp that comes from both Weyerhaeuser's ground, but they also buy what's called gatewood from other contractors here in the state of Vermont. So all of that wood other than Weyerhaeuser is not going to flow east to SAPI until maybe June, maybe later, depending what the situation is. So I just wanted to give you a quick update on what's going on with markets out there. Not

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: sure that it's clear to me anyway, why tariffs would be impacting Lincoln Logs, the Lincoln Logs actor?

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Well, the tariffs went away between yeah, great question. The situation with tariffs, basically when tariffs were announced, there were going to be tariffs on China. China stopped buying all hardwood exported. Now the tariffs have gone away on China. So China can now manufacture and then ship back to The United States at a competitive situation. So it's not as a result of a tariff, it's as a result of the non tariff action on China that's now created a new opportunity.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Is there a tariff on Chinese being,

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: it's forbidden China. No. There are no tariffs on Chinese goods.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Back and

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: forth right now. Yeah. So that brings me to my last piece just for consideration of this committee. So H85, an act relating to the taxation of vehicles used for forestry operations. So this is representative Lipsky's bill. Representative Lipsky's bill is essentially sitting next door on the wall in the Ways and Means Committee. They've taken no action, taken no testimony other than Jed introduced the bill, I think in April or March. There was a Senate companion bill. I believe it's Senate Bill 46 introduced by Senator White that was considered in Senate transportation. It made its way all the way over to House transportation and is now sitting on the wall there. There are two pieces to that bill. It's effectively a tax exemption on truck and parts associated with trucks used in the logging industry. It's a tax exemption on both new used trucks and trailers as well as parts. The way the tax works in Vermont on the purchase of a truck or trailer, you pay a purchase and use sales tax. If you buy repair parts, it's considered a sales tax. So the bill that Jed introduced would exempt both. And again, that's the bill sitting in ways and means that's sitting there. The bill that's sitting in house transportation that was acted upon by the Senate got rid of the sales tax exemption, so meaning it did not move it forward with that exemption for sales tax on repair parts, but it did move it forward with the purchase and use but only at a 50% clip. So we know that there is extreme pressure upon the transportation fund. We don't expect that there's going to be any movement on the purchase and use tax this session. What I would ask of this committee is to consider potentially in whatever bill you may move forward to move forward with the sales tax exemption on repair parts just as a lifeline to the community right now. So I'm bringing you before your committee just to let you know if you're looking for things that could really help the industry, this is one of them. Repair parts are significant for this community. And if we can try to get that moving in some meaningful way, I thought I would enlighten you on the bills, where they stand and if there is potential bandwidth to consider that.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Are they exempt in ag? They are.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's the final point there on Ebola.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Yep. So I know I've given you a lot in thirty five minutes and I want to be respectful of your time and bandwidth.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We started late, so thank you, Dana, and appreciate all that information and recognizing you drove a long way to get here, so thank you.

[Dana Doran, Executive Director, Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast]: Always, anytime I can help. Thanks for having me in.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We will stop there for lunch and be back at one for the annual