Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Food and Resiliency and Forest. I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning on House Bill seven thirty nine to provide a high level summary of the process that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency utilizes to regulate pesticide registration, and most importantly explain the ongoing relationship between U. S. EPA and the state regulators to help ensure that pesticide products are approved for use in the state. I am Doctor. Manajeet Basu, the Vice President of Science Policy and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America. I have a PhD in biological sciences. I held adjunct professor position at Johns Hopkins University teaching regulatory policy and other courses to graduate and undergraduate students. At CropLife America, we represent the developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of pesticides used in agriculture. As you know, pesticides are a critical component of any agricultural system and are amongst some of the most heavily regulated products in The United States. These products are governed by the federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Endangered Species Act. FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act was enacted in 1947 and governs all registration, distribution, sale and use of pesticides in The United States. Each approved pesticide must undergo an extensive human and ecological and environmental risk assessment requiring registrants to generate extensive scientific data necessary to address the identity, composition, potential adverse effect and environmental fate of each pesticide before they can be registered. FIFRA also governs the pesticide label requirements outlining the precise language and location for warning statement approved uses and application information. All pesticides used in The US must be approved and registered with EPA and exposure tolerances exemption established prior to a registration decision. After EPA registration is issued, each pesticide then needs to be registered with the state lead agency for the use in that particular state. Our regulatory framework is of cooperative federalism and works collaboratively with state regulators such as the Vermont Department of Agriculture who approves and enforces state and federal laws on the use and application of pesticides. Registrants must register the pesticide with the department before sale and distribution in Vermont. This process between federal and state regulators ensure that pesticides on the market meet high health and safety standards for the approved uses. The work doesn't end there. Once the pesticide is approved and it reaches market, EPA scientists continue to review data and studies to ensure the ongoing safety of existing products. EPA must re review each pesticide registration at least once every fifteen years. Within those fifteen years EPA can request new data and information from manufacturers as needed. Passing house bill seven thirty nine could undermine the existing robust and long standing federal regulatory framework on pesticides. It would disadvantage Vermont farmers by limiting access to effective tools for pest management resulting in a patchwork of policies jeopardizing farmers, farm workers and consumers safety. And for those reason, we express opposition of this bill. Thank you and happy to take any questions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Doctor. Bartholomew, thank you very much. May I ask where you're calling from today?

[Speaker 0]: I am calling from just outside Washington DC in Northern Virginia.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And CropLife America is, we should know this, but maybe some of us don't.

[Speaker 0]: Can you just explain a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: little bit about the business CropLife America is in?

[Speaker 0]: Sure. CropLife America is a national trade association representing the pesticide industry in The US. So as I mentioned, all formulators, manufacturers, distributors of pesticide active ingredients that are used in agriculture are members of CropLife America.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Let's start with representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Sorry, I meant to have that hovering over the mute button. Thank you, chair. Doctor, how has the label on Paraquat changed since it was first registered was it early 70s or back in the 60s that EPA first registered Paraquat?

[Speaker 0]: I am not sure about the exact date on when EPA registered this particular pesticide product But every time EPA does registration review fifteen years or prior to that, what we have often seen in general is the number of users could go down. There could be further restriction because there are other products in the marketplace, companies may have different requirements. So the label every fifteen years as registration review happens, the label does change based on use pattern and a lot of other factors.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So you're not particularly sure. I mean, I know if you want to use Gramoxone from Syngenta you have to take a course.

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I believe a thirty minute online course on how to use it and there's also a lot of restrictions on PPE and other stuff that perhaps wasn't on the label fifty years ago?

[Speaker 0]: Absolutely those are the things that continue evolving with registration review. Any new information that comes to the agency, any additional requirements the agency can put in during registration review or even before that. And those kind of label changes we continue to see. We could also see label updates in between if there is a new use or a new pest that the registrant is requesting for this particular pesticide. So it continues to happen all the time.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Bos-Lun.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, thank you. I don't know if you can see me. Hopefully, you can hear me.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I can see you. I can hear you. Yeah.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay. Great. So I have a question. You were talking about EPA and how it does certification. And I guess I'm wondering, maybe you can help me understand, how does the EPA determine what is a safe location or a safe use for something as opposed to a not safe use? Like, for example, with paraquad, as I understand it, it's banned from use on golf course. Okay? So if it's not safe to have on a golf course, how do they determine it's safe in an agricultural setting? Like what can they do to make it safe in one setting when it's not safe in another setting?

[Speaker 0]: So there multiple things going on here and there are nuances. What are the uses the applicant is requesting for? The applicant may be requesting for a use on a golf course, they may not be requesting a use on a golf course and they may only be requesting use on some specific crops and pests. So that's how a use or not use is identified. The applicant in this case, if it's Engenta or another manufacturer formulator would apply for a specific use, EPA will do the risk assessment and then we'll say, okay, this passes the risk assessment and we will approve this particular use. However, if the registrant has not asked for a different use, EPA is not automatically going to allow them to use in golf courses. I don't know if EPA, if Syngenta or someone else requested those golf course use or not. We don't specifically go into each product label. So that's one part And of then also the agency would see what does the use pattern look like? What are the risks And keep all those into consideration when they are reviewing each and every use.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, so I guess I have another question. I mean, one maybe is more complicated. So, I mean, I think it feels like there, from what we've heard in our committee, there's a pretty clear connection between paraquat use and Parkinson's. And nobody wants that. And with protection, maybe you can reduce that, but there still are potentially negative consequences. As I understand it, there have been, I think, over 6,000 lawsuits have been put against Surgenta and and millions have been paid out in damages. So I'm wondering, I mean, we're trying sort of from our side to figure out what is the best thing for public safety safety. I'm wondering from your side, something that is potentially harming an awful lot of people. Is there a possibility that you will stop manufacturing that product because it is proving to be so complicated? Know, I mean, 30 ago, DDT was on the market and now it's not. And there was a mix of reasons that that was taken off. But I guess I'm wondering from your side, does this feel like a thriving and useful product that's going to be continuing indefinitely without legislative parameters or might the market naturally pare it back?

[Speaker 0]: So multiple ways to answer your question. I have no legal qualification to talk about lawsuits or anything. So I'll stay clear of that. What we look into is what is the science that US EPA uses to evaluate the safety of the product and the safe uses that are then approved at the label. These parameters that are set on how to look into human health safety, ecological safety, environmental safety are based on processes that are from a US point of view that are developed through the OECD countries. This is the organization of economically developed countries, 13 primary members, including several EU members as well. So they all sit together and say, okay, these are the different tests. These are the criteria that we need to evaluate each and every pesticide. Now there could be reports on what we see from a specific outcome and linking to a pesticide. However, the agency does a thorough review of the science that is in front of them and it reviews the data that has been available. As per EPA's decision making, they have found that there are safe uses of Paraquat and the label has been approved. So again, I can talk about the process that the agency uses to review not just this particular pesticide, but any pesticide to make that determination whether they can grant a label or not for a specific use.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You're muted now. Yeah,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: thank you chair. Michelle I'm not so sure that Sagena has paid out any damages yet over Paraquat, I haven't heard of any. They may be in suit but they've paid out zero in damages and haven't been found liable to anything on that yet. We wanna be careful with our allegations.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There could be settlement. Maybe we let's double check this. We can certainly have have sources.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I can can look up the sources that I've got right here. I have some some facts and figures I can follow-up with later. Hang on a second. I I have to get on my computer and I've got two screens going.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. While that's happening, representative Bartholomew here in the room has a question.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Well, I'm wondering, you said that there's extensive testing that's done to verify safety and impacts to environment and human health and wildlife. I'm wondering, so if these, if, is it FDA or USDA or both? I guess it depends on what the chemical is, but

[Speaker 0]: Pesticides are predominantly EPA.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So so EPA is looking at data. Where do those data come from? Are they provided I mean, this research done by the industries. Right?

[Speaker 0]: Yes. That

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: is We're

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: not talking independent research. So I guess what I'm wondering is then if it's not independent research, we, how can we be sure that that information is valid? And if it's true that there's such extensive testing, why do we keep having time after time these chemicals coming out and we find out later what the environmental damages or the health effects to humans and other species? I'm just, I'm not convinced that this testing is quite as extensive and effective as you make it out to be?

[Speaker 0]: That's a great question. What actually happens is the study protocols or the guidance studies as we sometimes refer to them, those are established by the agency. Then actual study is conducted by the registrant. That is the normal process for any regulated industry around the world. We wouldn't want taxpayer money to be used for these studies to be conducted, which in many cases for a pesticide could cost close to $300,000,000 to bring a new AI to the market. But the key question is how do we ensure that the data generated is accurate and is a true testing of the actual product? That is done through something called good laboratory practices, GLP, which talks about documenting each and every step that happens during the testing of these pesticide So EPA could require up to 150 studies for a new molecule to go through EPA's registration process. Each of those studies need to be GLP certified, where there is a study director who is signing their name. They are saying that this study is accurate. One of the main reason for that GLP certification is to make sure that this study is replicable and repeatable. If someone else was interested in carrying out the exact same study, they would be able to follow the protocol that's been established by the study director in this case and have the experiment repeated and get exactly similar results. So that's what the GLP standard sets and around the world, whether it is for pesticide product, pharmaceutical product, or any other chemistry, GLP methods are the one that are being used to maintain the standards of the study that is being submitted for regulatory approval process. And what usually happens is science evolves, we learn as we go on, and there are new things that we know. And as we learn these things, we adopt our regulatory methods and our standard testing methods. How we were testing pesticides, pharmaceutical or any chemical back in the 50s is not the same way we do it today. And I'm sure in another fifteen, twenty, thirty or one hundred years, things would change. We do see a lot of computational testing coming in, we will see maybe AI coming in and doing some more advanced studies. Science evolves and as science evolves, the regulatory system keeps up to require more data, additional information, additional testing.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Nelson, back to you.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, thank you. I just checked on with some of my sources and Michelle, you're correct. So Jenna Dean has indeed paid out some settlements on Paraquat. So I'm sorry for the misinformation. You are correct.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright, thanks for that clarification. Back to representative.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: A little bit confused when you introduced yourself. You're with a company that represents other companies, is that right?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, we are a trade association and we represent pesticide manufacturers, formulators and distributors here in The US.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And does that include Syngenta?

[Speaker 0]: It does.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And Syngenta is one of the main manufacturers of Periquot, do I have that right?

[Speaker 0]: I wouldn't know that information because we don't usually go into the product and the chemistry who owns it, what users are there. We primarily focus on EPA's risk assessment and the process and the science and data. We don't look into members' products.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So we don't know if they're the main, who owns Syngenta? I mean, gets so confusing when you start looking at corporations. I saw something online that said Syngenta is actually owned by Cino or Cina, Caledonia Holdings, is that?

[Speaker 0]: Couldn't give you the answer correctly, so I would rather not answer that question. I don't know what that corporate structure looks like.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: All right. Thank you. Representative Burtt.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thank you, Chair. I'm just wondering, I don't know if you can answer this or not, do you know whether or not chemical companies such as pharmaceutical companies might go through the same type of guidelines for testing that pesticides go through? Is it like for instance, a pharmaceutical company is testing or the Food and Drug Administration is looking for data on particular drug. Is it the company itself that produces the drug? Are they the ones that are doing the testing that informs the Food and Drug Administration?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, that is correct. So any pharmaceutical company which is bringing a new pharmaceutical product or a drug or even medical device, they do the testing. Again, these are on the similar to GLP. There are other standards as well, good medical practices, the manufacturing practices. So they have to follow those standards and they generate the data and submit to FDA for review. It's the same process followed by US EPA.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So if we have concerns about how pesticides are being tested, we should have similar concerns about how the pharmaceuticals are being tested.

[Speaker 0]: Throughout the world, this is the system that's used. Otherwise, it would be using taxpayer dollars to conduct these studies, which are millions and billions of dollars.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien. Doctor,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I'm gonna kind of figure out the GLP you mentioned. Yes. So if Paraguay is banned in over 70 countries, and I assume those decisions, policy decisions were arrived at through science, through GLP, I assume. You know of in the industry, is there a lot of, I guess debate about why say 70 countries came to a conclusion with science that karapwat should be banned while the EPA using science here says it still should be used in restricted areas?

[Speaker 0]: So the regulatory systems do vary from country to country. One of the main factor is also the use patterns. Agriculture in some of those countries are very different from agriculture here in The US and the pest pressures that we have, which may or may not exist in some of the other countries. It's not uncommon to find something which is approved in US, not approved somewhere else and vice versa. We have instances where a product is approved somewhere outside The US for use, but it's not approved in US for use. So we see that in case of all kinds of chemistries and categories, you will find it in pharmaceuticals, you'll find it in pesticides, you'll find it in food ingredients as well. That doesn't necessarily mean that there should be a global harmonization on the risk assessment decision. Risk assessment is a component of two things, the inherent hazard of the chemical itself and the exposure to the chemical. The exposure and the use is where things may vary as per the geography.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: It sounds like Syngenta has stopped selling Gramoxone in Canada. Is that correct?

[Speaker 0]: I can't give a answer to that question. My purview is looking into The US processes. We don't look into what the Canada market or outside US market looks like. So sorry, representative, I cannot answer accurately.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: That's just what I see online. What's interesting is representative Nelson lives in Northern Vermont in Derby as a farm right on line with Canada. And in a restricted use, he could use paraquat. If we go one mile north, the science tells us not to use paraquat. So you can see how confusing this is to our community. Any thoughts on that?

[Speaker 0]: I'm trying to think where we have something that's available in one state in The US but across the border it's not available in another state. That's where I'll leave it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I guess my last question would be, there was a pesticide called chlorpyrifos.

[Speaker 0]: Chlorpyrifos, yes.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Right, which was okay by the EPA, and then years later it was banned. So what happens when their extensive tests prove to be inaccurate or they didn't go deep enough. And then later new science proves that it was actually very dangerous and the risks were very high.

[Speaker 0]: Chlorpyrifos is still approved for use in The US. There are limited uses as far as I remember there are only about 10 or 11 uses where chlorpyrifos is approved. What the US EPA is looking for and in fact all regulatory agencies based on the need and the best pressure is what are the safe uses that can be approved and those 11 or 12 uses that the agency has identified perchlorperiphosphate could still be safely used. And as I was mentioning earlier, what we do see often is for multiple reasons, over time as the pesticide goes through registration review every fifteen years or even before that, you could very well see the number of users being reduced. Not necessarily always because of the science evolving and the safety concern, but it could also be market driven where other new chemistries have come in.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Sergeant Bartholomew. Yeah, I did some research on my own question after you didn't know the answer. And if you can believe artificial intelligence when you do an internet search, it's it's saying that Syngenta is the main manufacturer of paraquat and that although it's it's they're based in Switzerland, it's now owned by the Chinese state owned conglomerate, Chem China. So I guess what I'm wondering is with the band in so many countries, including the country that owns the company that makes this stuff, why in the world would we wanna keep using it here? They banned it in China and it's a Chinese company that's essentially bringing this stuff to us. It's not making sense to me.

[Speaker 0]: As I said, the use of the pest pesticide and the approval is based on the US EPA processes that are in place and the needs we have from a pest pressure and crops point of view here in The US and how it could be safely used in The US with their appropriate PPEs, the protective equipments that are required, as well as the training requirement. As far as I recall, paraquat is a restricted use pesticide. That is a RUP we call it. Some pesticides fall into that category. Only those who have training and registration and meet some of those licensing requirements are the ones who can buy it and apply it. It's not available for general use. Some countries have a really good enforcement and compliance policies and structure in place like we do in The US, Other places may or may not have that. And they may make a very different regulatory decision based on their system versus the system we have in The US.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So I guess really what I'm hearing you say is I should have faith in the regulatory processes of our federal government.

[Speaker 0]: All the pesticides

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'm not sure I can do that. Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Yeah. You're correct. Representative Bartholomew. So Jenna is owned by Chem China. Well, and remember China has much more labor to hand weed than The United States does but that being said since and to wasn't banned in Canada, so Jenna pulled their registration. So and that you know that's an option we could try here if we wanted to pull the registration but anyway, so Jed pulled their registration out of Canada and that's that's how that's landed.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And John, John, I'm not gonna use bare quad on my firm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Glad to hear it.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Chair Durfee, I don't know if you see my hand. It's been up for a long time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you for calling it out. I didn't see it. So go ahead, representative.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So I'm wondering, one of the things that we learned recently in our committee was that in October, EPA issued a report about the volatilization of Paraquat and that it was able to volatile volatilize know, move through space up to I think it was 2.7 miles. And this is far different information than what was reported before. And I'm wondering, does this change anything in terms of your process? I mean, process, as I understand it, is to look at EPA information and then move forward from there. Well, is a really different level of movement from a very toxic substance. Is this changing anything for you?

[Speaker 0]: It is what the agency has done initiated the process every time, anytime new data or new information is available and registrants also have a requirement to provide any new information or data that they have about the chemistry to the US EPA under something called section six eighty two of FIFRA. The agency then could require additional data, would revisit the assessments that have been done, may require changes in the label of the product. This is the FIFRA process and the registration process that we have in The US playing out where the EPA was made aware of a new study or new data and the EPA then taking additional steps to ensure the safe use of the pesticide.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So is it possible EPA will issue some different guidelines about whether or not they think it's appropriate to use?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, once the science is evaluated, all the data is submitted. I again, wouldn't know what kind of data the registrants is providing and what's going on on the specific chemistry. But once the due deliberations are done on the scientific technical side, there is a possibility that EPA is satisfied that it isn't a concern or yes, it is a concern and there needs to be more restrictions or reduction in label users. We do see that from time to time. That is the due process.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Doctor, I am thinking about the question a couple of minutes ago with different approaches taken by different countries, based on science and the point you made that there may be different pest pressures and different climates that I'm I'm wondering within a country as large as as The US, does the EP ever distinguish between different parts of the country in offering its assessments and apply different restrictions or different rules in different parts of the country?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, not all pesticides are approved for use on all crops and in all states. So the pesticide may only be approved in five out of the 50 states for six crops of all the crops we grow in US. There may be specific timing requirements on what time of the day you can spray to make sure it's not impacting unintended species, pollinators. So there are all those requirements in the pesticide label. It's not a single generic label which allows all users, all crops across all the 50 states.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Since we're talking about Paraquat, and that's why you're with us today, as far as you know, is Paraquat treated the same all across The US from the EPA standpoint?

[Speaker 0]: I don't know accurately if it is same or not, but I do know that it has limited use. So you cannot use paraport for all crops in The US. So there are certainly some areas where it is not used at all and then there are some places where it is used.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Based on the crop?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, there is a crop restriction on the users and also the licensing training requirements to purchase and handle paraquat are different compared to other pesticides.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: I Yes, representative. We were just talking a few minutes ago where you were saying if something comes up where they're suspecting it's paraquat, so the EPA would go back and do more tests or the company would instruct the company to investigate that more.

[Speaker 0]: The agency as in case representative Bos-Lun was mentioning around the volatilization would request or not request, would do a data call in is what the actual term is. And as they do a data call in, the registrant is then required to submit the additional study and conduct those testing as required by the agency. And those testing and studies need to meet the GLP standards.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just based on your professional opinion and I realize that there's only so much you can say, but do you have any reason to suspect that the EPA is going to make any changes to the way it regulates ferroquat?

[Speaker 0]: There are about three fifty scientists at US EPA with very diverse background from toxicology to statistics to hydrology, human health and other fields. They review the data, they do their due deliberation and after that if the US EPA concludes there needs to be changes, then they make those changes. Again, we don't always agree with the US EPA decisions but we do support a very strong robust scientific method that the agency should be using for those decisions. And if the agency finds that they need to make changes, then the agency will go in that direction and make the required changes. We have seen that happen so many times in the past.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. I think we've got one more question. Representative O'Brien. Yes, Doctor. Eisz, just looking

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: at the record. So it sounds like on Clopirivos that EPA suggested a ban and CropLife America took the EPA to court challenging their science. So it sounds like even CropLife America doesn't necessarily always trust EPA science.

[Speaker 0]: So as I said, we do push for robust science. Asking for, and again, I'm not the legal person from CropLife America, there is a legal department. I cannot answer all those questions accurately, but what we ask for is the data and information based on which the agency makes any decision, whether it's a denial, cancellation, whatever that decision is. And we are looking for that scientific justification. In the case of chlorpyrifos, there were certainly concerns around that scientific justification where EPA in its interim decision said there are 11 users and suddenly those 11 users were canceled.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Doctor. Bartholomew, thank you very much for making time to speak with us today. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for the opportunity and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, I think we're going to move right on and the committee members, we're going to switch over now to a discussion about the Wood Products Manufacturing Report. I know that we had legislative counsel on the agenda first. But Ellen, I think I might ask the language reviews if they wouldn't mind speaking first since they came a little early. It might make more sense. Okay.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We've got several new folks who have joined us online as well. Would you just like to say hello and introduce yourselves? Kristen.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Hi, my name is Kirsten Sultan. I'm one of the five members of the Land Use Review Board. Nice to see everyone.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, welcome.

[Jenny Ramas, General Counsel, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: I'm Jenny Ramas, I'm General Counsel for the Land Use Review Board.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Welcome, Jenny.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: And I'm Brooke Bingledean. I'm a

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: member of the Land Use Review Board.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Thank you for having us. And I'm here, hopefully bringing gifts to you today. Thankfully, the board was able to meet, and we were also able to have time with ANR and Forest Parks to be able to discuss the language differences that we were proposing. And so we do have a an agreed upon collaborative work product to provide to you and share. I'm sorry it's been sliding into home plate here for you. It's hot literally hot off the press. So if we can answer any questions, we can give you an explanation of where we landed versus the other language.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That would probably be helpful. Yeah. If you just wanna talk. About Believing or if there are specifics that you wanna draw our attention to. I think we have this on our committee page too.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Yes. I think Patricia was kind enough to get it up lickety split

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: when we said Certainly no need to apologize for the time that you've got into making this, get to this point.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: It was really wonderful being able to have the opportunity to talk with the ANR and FPR. That was really the difficulty. We just didn't have that opportunity to all get together and work out why there were differences. So I think the easiest thing to do is to look through the actual proposal. And then because we've done things like eliminate the definitions, so I don't think we necessarily need to go over a lot of, crossed out language. But what we're initially proposing and I'm gonna ask Jenny and Kirsten to jump in, to bing and bang with me if it needs further explanation or clarification. But in the first section, this is when we are making sure, like in farming, that when the tract of land is being used for those purposes, farming, but in this instance, logging and forestry, that only the portions of the parcel or the tract that support the development shall be subject to regulation under this chapter. What that means is that when we say that support the development, the portion of the tract where I want to go make my commercial or industrial development and the areas that are supportive of that, like I gave you the example the other day, like the road to get to or the driveway area to get to that commercial building. This provides assurance that it is only those portions of the tract that would be that are part of that development. That's part of regulation. But there would not be conditions, on the other portions of the parcel that don't support the development or that restrict or conflict with the AMPs. What we're trying to do is say, there are two separate areas. And what we wanna make sure of is the area that's subject to the regulation is the development, not the balance of that area that would be logged or forested. So we think that we've come to the correct language. We agreed with ANR on their changes. So that section, we think, provides the right references that we needed to the AMPs, and so we tightened that up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And this is the language that ANR had presented a couple of days ago in committee here.

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: This section where

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: you do it.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Right, the bulk of

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: it we had provided and then they made changes to it. We have accepted those changes. So we're in agreement on this version.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: May I jump in here quick So ANR had suggested language that focused on mitigation areas and that those, would be part of the land that supports the development and we concur. And, that's the application of act two fifty. That's, you know, there's different ways that applicants can identify land to mitigate, to satisfy various Act two fifty criteria. And so we agree with the agency of natural resources that such mitigation lands would be part of the land that supports the development. And we agreed that it was unnecessary to include that detail in the final wording of this section of proposed statute.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. So we're so we shouldn't be looking for any language that reflects what you just said?

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Correct. It was within this paragraph as suggested by ANR, but it's been removed in a couple locations.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Represent with Thank

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: you, Harrison. For examples, a privacy buffer from possibly a highway might be an example of one of those mitigating areas or a storm water retention case in our system might be another example of what is supporting mitigating

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Yes, under that's under criterionate aesthetics. One of the factors that's considered is whether or not the applicant has included, you know, reasonable mitigation and that could be an aesthetic buffer. It could be an, you know, an area that's has a restriction on removal of vegetation, of that type that's that the commission finds is needed to satisfy the criteria. So those are great examples.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Now let me explain why we took that why we suggested to ANR to remove the language because later on, they had also asked us to focus just on the conditions of the permit that we needed to hold the you know, that's where you looked to determine that you couldn't conflict with what was articulated in those conditions because there are different documents within the Act two fifty database. We have findings of fact, conclusions of law, and then we also have permits that have conditions that are enumerated. ANR talked about not wanting to also go into the record and having to look at other documents. So what we were trying to accomplish by removing that language, all of those buffer areas or mitigation areas, whether it's even off-site mitigation for primag soils, they will be included in the permit conditions. And so we felt that this was duplicative language. It was like talking about portions of the permit instead of just talking about the more general term. So that's why we thought it was unnecessary. We thought it might also be somewhat confusing because mitigation and buffers, something you know, you don't necessarily talk about buffers as mitigation per se. It might be something that is just referred to as a buffer. So we thought simplicity was better not to add additional language that would then require additional analysis when in fact it was already covered.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: So if I can jump in again, quickly to mention that this first paragraph of proposed legislation also included, a last sentence that you may remember Brooke testifying when she was in commit with his committee last that it was not understood. And so we did agree similarly with the Agency of Natural Resources that this and of course, we'll you know, we would let them speak for themselves, but we did meet today and jointly agree that that, sentence was thought to be unnecessary because it was sort of duplicating the whole premise here of logging and forestry being exempt. And when occurring on a tract that that would also be put forward for commercial development, the portions designated for logging and forestry would not be regulated. So it was we determined and it was the land use review board's position that that, somewhat lengthy sentence was unnecessary. So that's also been removed not included in the this language that we're coming forward to recommend.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Right. And the conversation that we had centered around the notion that there was concern because there were two particular cases, one from some time ago, but one more recent, where and and it was explained that if there were forestry activities going on on the property and then those products were then used by a wood products manufacturer on the property that was commercial, that somehow that logging activity or forestry activity would be brought into as supportive of the development, the commercial activity. That was what the concern emanated from. And the language that ANR had proposed in that sentence is actually mimicking some language that exists in the agricultural exemption area. But it's not the farming exemption, it has to do with an analogous situation if there were mulch being produced on the property. And there there is some similarities to it, the analysis breaks down because here, this is clearly and we want to make sure and represent that what we're talking about here is something that is exempt. The logging and the forestry is not jurisdictional. Therefore, it could not be supportive of this development because it is not triggering any kind of it's not a commercial activity. So it is not part of what is the basis for becoming any supportive activity like the driveway was, something like that. And, Kirsten and I looked back at the one older case, and we will be also reviewing the newer situation to make sure that if there was jurisdiction asserted, was done correctly, but to ensure going forward that this should not be a concern. Because if we have no jurisdiction, that's the end of the story. And there's no way to we are not we do not in any way interpret the statute to allow act two fifty to bootstrap in an exempt activity into something else happening that's a commercial venture on the property. That would be violative and completely opposite the entire opportunity to I don't want to use Stony Brook too often, but to segment the activity. We don't want to talk about that word anymore, but sure. So we want to make sure that that this committee knows and the public knows that that is how jurisdiction works. It is not any kind of there is no mechanism here to try to bootstrap any kind of forestry or logging that's exempt into a commercial supportive role. And Kirsten and I will also look at the more recent one, but I will tell you that the old case is a very complicated site plan map that is vastly complicated, but I will go back and try to understand exactly what took place. Because we don't want any perception that Act two fifty is trying to assert jurisdiction. We're trying to clarify this and make sure that Wood Products manufacturers have the benefits that they are entitled to.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So, thank you. Representative O'Brien has a question.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I just wondered how granular sometimes the activity permitting is. We can use our example of 90 acres of forest used for logging road. It's improved for that 10 acres of development, say sawmill, the back of the parcel. Does that improved road then become part of the permit, even if it's continued to be used for logging on that parcel?

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: We're working on the road rule or the road construction jurisdiction. I don't want to call it road rule. That's the old one that was different. And we are working on that presently, but we have actually asked for that deadline to be extended as well as the tier three, trying to coordinate those in criterion 8C. It's very important, first of all, that the road construction jurisdiction does not get triggered on July 1 of any year. That makes it completely just not logistically possible to When does Google Earth take their photograph? It would be much easier to do that during the non construction season, not smack dab in the middle of it from an enforcement standpoint or being able to establish when were roads built and when they were not. But those definitions of what a road is, what a driveway is, that is literally what we're working on and we'll be taking up Monday at our board meeting. But the notion there is a provision in that statute that is conversion of farm roads or logging roads. And if there And so if there's a conversion of the road for the purposes of this road construction rule, meaning, okay, it's being built or perhaps improved, that's what we're trying to figure out, for access to a develop. That's you know, so it's a different it's and then you figure out how long are you constructing this road or improving the road. But the board has made it very clear that existing roads are existing roads, and we are not read we are not reading the statute at this point, and this has been conceptually discussed by the board. We are not using that to try to seize any kind of jurisdiction over existing roads. If existing roads exist, we don't go into an analysis like you do. There's some provisions about class four roads if a nonmunicipality is improving. So we it's coming attractions literally within two weeks or so. We should have some guidance decided on, and we are trying to be very careful about understanding what the purpose of the road of the road construction rule is, about cluster development as opposed to sprawl, and really trying to give a lot of thought to how do we implement this in a way that accomplishes that, and also understanding how concerned people are about how this may play out in terms of their properties. So we're taking the time to try to figure that out and are working on guidance that we must issue shortly. But gosh, it would be wonderful if the legislature would push that date off because it really is problematic.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I'm going to just ask that we

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: I'm sorry to get so off

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I know there's a lot of interest in this committee, and I already see a hand that I'm not going to acknowledge. We'll wait for any further discussions on the road rule, tier three, etcetera, etcetera. Let's try. I'm sorry. I'm going to get through this. I want to make sure that our legislature counsel can stay. Yeah. Okay, good. So if you if there's a question or if there's something, yes, go ahead, Jenny.

[Jenny Ramas, General Counsel, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Okay. I just wanted to add in response to the question that was asked, how granular the, delineations are for act two fifty permits on these types of properties that have less than full jurisdiction. I believe Kirsten, in her infinite experience as a coordinator prior to her position on the board can correct me, but we typically require specific mapping and the permits themselves will describe, you know, the first you know, the the the the not quite a meets and bounds, but that sort of level of detail of which portion of a road or which buildings, you know, how far parking will extend in that window, those portions. So it's not the goal is to give under current processes that people walk away with a permit that very easily helps them understand which parts of their land become jurisdictional and which are not.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: I agree.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: What I was wondering about is if road say crosses a parcel that nine tenths of it was exempt,

[Speaker 0]: at some

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: point, does that development then rule out this exemption of the nine tenths of it?

[Jenny Ramas, General Counsel, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Mean, I'm gonna give you my favorite answer in the world, which is it depends. And it's also important to remember that there could be potentially multiple reasons a project triggers Act two fifty jurisdiction that might affect that. So I'm not quite ready to opine on how the road rule would, but say you've got a situation where you've got your commercial operation in in right on the road, and there's a driveway, and then you drive around behind the commercial operation. And then that same without without leaving that low road, you've you connect into logging roads that access the rest of the property, those would not be jurisdictional because they don't serve the commercial operation. So even jurisdiction lands on the part that connects the public access to the original, that doesn't sweep the entire network of roads automatically into active jurisdiction.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah. And

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: I will tell you, in terms of how we have been contemplating it, we are not of the opinion that there's gonna be any jurisdiction on the existing road. We are tying our analysis to the construction of improvements or new road. So it's not like just because there's a road and now it's serving something else that automatically the distance of that road is somehow jurisdictional. There must be physical action on the land. That's really important to the way that we're looking at this.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I do appreciate sensitivity to No, there is a lot of interest throughout the legislature and in this committee, maybe particularly to these other issues that you've been working on. Thank you. I think if we can just get through the rest of this document, then we can get an early start on our, I don't want to call it a vacation, but our week off and time leading weekend.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Certainly. So the next section, it's 6,000 and one(three). C is a section that has some information about how to calculate jurisdiction in, like, particular subject matter contexts kind of things. Some of the sections have been deleted. But we thought that this was a good instead of doing those definitions. One thing that we just wanted to be sure of is, because we're not defining forestry or logging, and there are other definitions like forestry operations in in statute, but we thought that this part of it was important, and that is to put in forestry as referenced in, and this is the exemption area that's that's in this section. It's below it. Does not include conversion of land for nonexempt uses, such as for a commercial or industrial purpose constituting development as defined in this chapter. And maybe Kirsten can give a good explanation of this better than I. We just wanted to make sure that well, Kirsten, jump in and explain this if you could. I don't wanna bumble through it.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. So there can be some activities that, could be part of a forestry type operation. I guess the example I'll give would be operation of a of a portable sawmill. And it's common as as I'm sure representative Lipsky or others, you know, who know more about logging and forestry than I do, but can attest that, you know, people operate, portable equipment to produce firewood, to produce, lumber. And this happens at properties where logging has occurred or sometimes that other off-site locations. And if there's no construction of improvements, Act two fifty does not regulate those kinds of activities. However, there can be some cases where, for instance, someone might put up a building and be using equipment, including that kind of equipment. And there could be Act two fifty jurisdiction depending on the facts, like depending on the acreage, does the town have zoning and subdivision, etcetera. So we just wanted to underscore that, if land is converted for that kind of commercial, like development is already defined in Act two fifty, that that's not an exempt activity. And this was part of, working out the removal of the definitions that we've agreed to.

[Jenny Ramas, General Counsel, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Yeah. I'll I'll jump in and add to Kirsten. It it kind of it serves on both ends. Bluntly, it prevents people from claiming the logging exemption for activities that are clearly pretextual to major development. And then on the other end, it prevents act two fifty from exerting jurisdiction in temporary situation. You know, like like, Kirsten was saying with the, with, like, operations that don't have any long term impacts on the land because the equipment comes in, it goes out, it's done. They didn't build anything. They didn't create any any kind of commercial development. So it it it's guardrails on both sides of those circuit circumstances.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: then we have 6,144, which everyone has been in agreement, which I understand Kirsten had identified early on. We're pulling log and pulp concentration yards out of wood products manufacturing so that that can happen as forest and log logging in forest. And then the final, section, we came together on the wording of it. That's the section where we simplify things. Instead of findings and plans and all that stuff, we use just the you can't violate a condition of the permit kind of language. So it's very simple. You look at one document. You know exactly what's going on. And but the first portion of it is to in 6081, we have, you know, a permit or permit is needed or not needed. That's sort of what's in that. That is what's in that section. So it reads no permit or permit amendment because we wanted to be sure that we covered land that was not under Act 50 jurisdiction or land that was under Act 50 jurisdiction. So neither a permit or a permit amendment is required for logging and forestry below the elevation of 2,500 feet that will not conflict with or violate any condition of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter. Nice and simple. And then, to ensure clear clarity, we have permits shall include a statement that logging and forestry activities consistent with this section and below the elevation of 2,500 feet are exempt from amendment jurisdiction. The only reason why there's only amendment jurisdiction in that section is that you're talking about a permit issuing and having actual language in it, so you would only need it as amendment. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yes. Thank you, Robert, counsel Burke. Going back to the upper paragraph, there's a cross outline that's The d. Of pseudo and d or just d and a semicolon. So I would is there a period after be a would?

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Yes. So if the period is all the way at the very end, we did we just got that a little bit. We caught the d and the One second. Semi well, the d should not be caught. Kirsten, if we can change in wood products manufacturer, the strikeout caught the d of wood before the semicolon.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Gotcha. Thank you. I concur.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: And then

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: If I can also mention with respect to this last paragraph, thank you to ANR for catching that we had inadvertently omitted the reference to forestry in the second sentence and also the reference to below 2,500 feet. We had some different versions of this floating around and we had caught the error ourselves. And then, anyway, I think what you're looking at is now been corrected, and thank you to ANR and FPR for helping us with that.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. Then my finishing my question was after the new period, fuel award does not include firewood. What does that mean? Is it ethanol product? Fuel that's derived from processing wood? And, yeah, that's what is steel wood. We've we have a before that, wood chips are

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: This it is the existing statute. So in the existing statutory language, you know, the d we were just talking about that we accidentally struck through. So that is from fuel wood. What the question is, what is fuel wood? Zinc. Because if if it's They're pallet wood.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That'd be pallets.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: We're not talking about. What you're what are we talking about?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Witches are four words uphill from that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I I you know, one way of interpreting this and, again, this is an existing language. Right. So so you've you've identified the fact that we've enumerated firewood, wood chips, mulch. But what if there's some other kind of wood that you wanna burn for fuel that isn't any of those? It would it would at least be captured here. And rather than

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: try and No. Don't wanna mess this up

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah. That like

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: was a four year ago definition. Okay. Yep. We can talk about it afterwards too, but this is not language anybody's proposing to change. It's already existing. I will change. You

[Jenny Ramas, General Counsel, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: may wish to ask Billy Coster and ANR. There may be a specific definition in their regulations that helps identify what the distinction is.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: I guess it's pellets.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Commissioner Fitzgerald is allowing it, maybe pellets? Could be.

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: How it's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's keep going. I'm gonna have to keep us on track here. Representative Burtt has a question.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, it's kind of it's all in the same area, the next sentence after fuel wood, wood products manufactured does not include facilities that purchase market based self finished goods such as wood furniture, wood outlets and milled lumber without first receiving wood products from forestry operations. I have a few questions here. First, what are we talking about? What category of manufacturers? Because some of you are

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: my first question, I have another one.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: I think what this section does is it tries to create a a definition for what's a wood products manufacturer, but then they're they don't want Home Depot to be able to say that they're a wood products manufacturer. So I see this as a line between wood products manufacturing, which is commercial, versus, like, straight normal, you know, retail sales of stuff that they buy from a wood products manufacturer. So that's what I think the different silo is that they're trying to keep separate.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So you could it says without first receiving wood products from forestry operations, does that mean it's someone who maybe makes wood furniture, but starts with a log?

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Would mean like I get milled wood versus like-

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I mill it myself. Jenny,

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: can you help on this?

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: I can help a little bit I think if you want.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Why don't you bring

[Jenny Ramas, General Counsel, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Kirsten because she's. So

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: this definition, as I understand it, was put into the statute concurrent with the other changes that were made to provide, special benefits for the sector around, and I don't know if these were the ones that happened in 2022, but one to one Primax soil mitigation, special consideration for operating hours. And so I think what that second sentence is saying is that a wood products manufacturer would be, a category of, development that would receive wood products from the forestry operation, like raw logs, for instance, and then manufacture them and add value into some other product. And that is the wood products manufacturer activity that is entitled to the benefits defined elsewhere in the statute. And as Brooke indicated, these other ones that are excluded are retail type businesses that purchase market and resell those goods. That they're not manufacturing them, they're doing that purchase market and reselling activity.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I guess I have another question alongside this. Uses says wood products manufacturer does not include facilities, Whereas the definition of wood products manufacturer right above this means a manufacturer that aggregates wood products. I'm curious as to why we might use manufacturer in that definition, but in the one below it which we're going over uses the word facilities not manufacturer. And that's one place where I get a little confused because a wood products manufacturer may or may not include a facility in my mind.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I'm just going to say here that I feel

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: like this is important to me because if somebody is able to manufacture things and I prefer the idea here is to make sure that wood product manufacturers get a carve out, make it like agriculture. That is my, I would love to see that happen. But I'm confused as to when we're triggering Act two fifty in terms of, is this a mobile unit? Does this require a small concrete pad like the case in Kirby, Vermont, where it's looking to put a pad underneath what is a mobile unit, but in order to stabilize a mobile unit? And then here we have a, we're saying manufacturer that doesn't imply a facility necessarily, maybe it does, I don't know, I'm confused. And then we have wood products manufacturer does not include facilities. So it's using facility in one part of this manufacturing another. Should we be using manufacturer for both, facility for both?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So here's what I'm gonna say. This is all existing language, and we have really asked the board here to come and explain the changes that they're proposing to exist to existing language. And and this particular paragraph is only here because the proposal was to remove the language that struck out. I think if we want to have a conversation about the things that you're bringing up and maybe that you're bringing up, Tujit, we might better have those with Ledge Counsel, because I don't think that the board has necessarily come prepared to dig into all the nuances of our language essentially. Not to say that we don't have three people who are very fluent with all of this and that we couldn't have a good robust debate, but just in terms of the task in front of us, which is whether we want to fully understand the proposal that has been jointly made here, and then we can break Legis Council up and ask, I wanna have Legis Council weigh in on these changes, but we can also then talk about those things.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: And we can certainly look at this and get back to you if you'd like any opinion about it, but you're right. It's a little bit We may have our individual opinions, but coming together as a group is how we really can look best at this for you. And ANR certainly can.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And all of which isn't to suggest that existing statute can't be looked at, revisited, revised, and fixed. Cases like this where you found there's something that needs to be fixed, so we're fixing it. Not sure whether we got through to the end, to the last, we finished that last section. Makes sense. So unless there are other questions, thank you very much for joining us today, for all the I time we've put into applaud the efforts and the two plus different entities to come to some agreement. That's great. And I'm wondering if Ledge Council who's been listening, would you be able to join us now and give us some feedback, if any, on this, what we've just heard?

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: Sorry, I don't think I have much to add.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: Thank you for having us.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. And you're welcome to stay if you'd like, but if you need to leave, that's fine too.

[Kirsten Sultan, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: I'll stay and listen. Thank you.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: L. N. J. Gas Gas with Legislative Council. I provided the committee today a draft 3.1. It's fairly close to what the board has given you, but it's not the same. So my initial reaction to what they have provided is that it is well drafted. And if it meets your needs, think it works.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So a lot, right. And I didn't even post 3.1.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, you did? I'm sorry.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. I realized that we were, I was hoping anyway that we might get this. And rather than confuse things, I figured a lot of this is identical, but-

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: It's pretty close, yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But there are a few things that have been added. Nothing jumps out at you as this could be, you'd want to think about it more.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Additional thinking is always good, but so far, it all makes sense.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're not going vote anything today, so we all have time for additional thinking over the break, and we'll wait till we come back.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: But while we have you here, we may have some other questions. And representative Lipsky? Yes, thank you. I appreciate representative Burtt's confusion here because I share that. And he showed an example of curvy right off of Room 2. We had had a long time firewood processing operation, didn't need a permit, had not engaged in any development, quote, unquote. When he set up a mulch operation, acquired him to protect his product, a porous slab. It's in a struck wasn't a building, but the development of that slab triggered an act two fifty review. It cost him it was well in it was in the 6 figures. I've heard 200,000. I've heard over the last but it's in that realm to to go see the process. And it was extensive in mandatory mapping of all of this land as to flood plain. It turned out none of this land was flood plain, but that was a very expensive project. So when we've talked about development of facilities, if to produce mulch out of grindings, I want barks of particular grinding, Even though there's no building or facility slab, you know, that's concerning. But I guess we need to know, and I was thinking that, you know, chick and mulch operations wouldn't trigger with the exams. But if we can understand that it's the the pouring a slab so the molds wouldn't be on the ground, is that enough to bring a root beer? That's my question, chairman.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So yeah. And and maybe Helen can also just make sure that we're clear on the distinction between wood products manufacturers and logging and forestry. So the exemption in Act two fifty, as I understand it, is for logging and forestry under 20 feet. Wood products manufacturers don't enjoy that same exemption. They do not. They do not. So sawmills have to go, as we know, have gone through the permitting process. And this section here that we're looking at is not here because we're giving it an exemption or that anybody has suggested it as part of this conversation that it should have an exemption. But just because for other reasons, this definition was created to several years ago to give some special treatment, not exemption,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: but some special treatment, and inadvertently it lumped in the log and pulp concentration yards. I'm very grateful that they're struck, but you need to understand that chip wood is very typically produced when whole whole tree logging takes place, fellow buncher, dual arched graphical scooters, they bring all the product to the landing. And on that landing, they separate out near logs, saw logs, pulp logs, firewood logs, and then chip wood. And often you'll see a a mountain that might stretch for a 100 yards, 300 feet on a large landing, and they can get a chip contractor to come in with and they can maybe fill a 45 foot box trailer that's going by the Ryegate, Middlebury College, the state offices here, and offload those chips to the market. That only takes place on a forestry operation, log land. So shaping of wood on the laminate is part of a forestry operation. So I, you know, but that's rolled in with mulch field wood. It's not manufacturing. All that typically takes place on the logging.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So and I think that, somebody can jump in here, if it does take place out in the woods at the landing or logging site that it's not considered development. It's part of logging and forestry. It's

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: In the end, you'll get into mulch and seed.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: But according to this right here, a manufacturer that aggregates wood products from forestry operations and adds value through processing or mining. That

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: includes wood chips. So let's ask Ellen to clarify that.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: This definition was intended to capture the one step remove commercial value added work to these products. I remember very clearly sitting with the advocates on this definition. This was language that was requested. Happy to have it amended for you if you don't like it or think it fits.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: When you say the advocates, you mean advocates for At

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: the time of this drafting. It was a number of different Yeah. I can't remember.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: In this committee?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, it took place in this committee and in house natural resources at the time. And I think it went to a few committees.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I think that just the confusion is that we have instances where wood chips are produced and manufactured out in the woods, no permits required. And then there are commercial operations where wood chips are manufactured, where there is a permit required. This is talking about the second situation. But it is confusing because there are these two different situations, but this is only talking about the second situation.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: We're saying firewood too. Firewood too, yeah, if you've got affordable, yeah.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, you can't read the second sentence in isolation. It comes after the first sentence. So it has to be a manufacturer that's aggregating products from a forestry operation, not a forestry operation itself.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And it's integrated.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: So how does that there's a bunch of these guys with these portable sawmills that go around during the summer and stuff in the process. A lot of times in the winter they bring it home but they've got a whole barn on the roof and they park it in there and saw some of their own stuff. When they have a slab in their pole shed they are automatically thrown into Act two fifty.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Act two fifty is triggered for various reasons under the statute when there's construction of improvements for a commercial operation. So if they have a business and they're constructing something for that business, they may be triggering Act two fifty.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: But

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: not for an existing building. Commissioner Chittenden, while we have you here, do you wanna just come up and say anything about the language that we just looked at with the letter?

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Just wanted to add, I can come up if you want to.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just if you wanna go up and let us know.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Yeah, for the record, Daniel Fitzgow, Commissioner of Forest Parks and Recreation. I do want to sort of address representative Lipsky's question that you just were asking. What we're talking about here, and I think as the chair mentioned, this is the exemption for forestry and logging. There really is not an exemption for wood products manufacturers. This came out of the stakeholder process that happened last year. There was discussions about giving exemptions or some sort of exemptions for wood products manufacturers. We did not come to consensus on that. But I do believe, and after even my conversation today with the Land Use Review Board, I think there's opportunities for the future for conversations. I was really pleased in our conversations today that we all felt like we were pulling in the same direction, that forestry and logging is working lands and should be exempt. And I can tell they were working hard to sort of get that language consistent with that. So this is a step in a good direction. I will also share that some of the recommendations that came out of the wood products manufacturing report was more of a concierge service for wood products manufacturers. They don't have many that go through Act two fifty, but when they do, we want to provide upfront services so that they can go through it with holding their hands, really, because it can be confusing, we know, and it's a lot. And then also, what I heard from the Land Use Review Board is that they're doing internal training. They are training their staff on how to better review permits, be considerate of wood product manufacturer, forestry and logging, and also providing guidance material. So it's what you're seeing here is one piece of the puzzle. There are some other wraparound services to really support the sector better.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Those are some of the other recommendations that you're talking about?

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Yes. So they're not statutory recommendations, but there are other things that the Land Use Review Board is doing. And as far as our departments have been reviewed and supporting A and R in general, A and R's permit assistance, will provide sort of that concierge service, because it's not just Act two fifty, right? You've got to go through the storm water, you've got to go through a whole bunch of other permitting process, they will prioritize providing assistance to wood products manufacturers.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I, for one, am very grateful for these clarifications and your collaborative work, and that there may be some questions and things that may become an issue that sound like there's process for those.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: I'm grateful for the conversation, and I think it will continue to daylight opportunities.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, we have you here, and, well, the committee's all still here in person and online. Any other questions about any of this that you wanted to ask commissioner Fritzka? Anything at 02:50, really. Jeez.

[Brooke Dingledine, Member, Vermont Land Use Review Board]: So can I get a park pass?

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: You know,

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: if you give us $2,000,000 all of our models can have that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Exactly, it's how we go online.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So just to make sure I understand, as of right now, the understanding on when would products manufacture it is that would trigger Act two fifty. It's this sort of operation that operates for a longer duration of time in one place performing the activities that are listed here and may or may not include a facility.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Right, so I'll try, but may need to have others come in. Wood products manufacturers, if it's development that triggers Act two fifty, they are treated like any other commercial development. It's forestry operation forestry and logging that's exempt. So any processing on-site, anything temporary like chipping, that's not considered a commercial development. So wood products manufactured are really treated like any other development right now in the process of Act two fifty. So it triggered based on zoning and acres of impact?

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: It has to a successful action on the land. Yeah. I mean, there has to be a commencement of construction.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: There you go. This is not my area. I do think there's opportunities like the Kirby malt situation that there could be some minimal impact that could be something to discuss. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And this definition is here again because four years ago we did create some special, not exemptions, but like hours of operation or

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: I think it was hours of operation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just hours of operation?

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Yeah, that was a couple of years ago.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So they're treated just for back to 50 purposes. They have to get a permit like anybody else. But once they're up and running, then they can do things that maybe they wouldn't have been able to do before this was added.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: And some of those changes that were made, I know that the Land Use Review Board is now trying to make that upfront knowledgeable that when a wood products manufacturer's going through the permit application process, those sort of I guess they are kind of exemptions or considerations for those industries is known, as opposed to like, you have to kind of know it to actually, like, ask for it. It's up front now in the permitting process.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, Representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well, you asked for it, Chair. You said any questions relating to Act two fifty, but I'm gonna gonna leave them alone because I have a lot of questions in tier three and, it probably doesn't completely pertain to the bill that we've been working on here. Thank you everybody for the great discussion.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I will say I'm sorry, Richard. I'm gonna say I asked I spoke to so I think we've met four of the five board board members now. And one of them who's not here today, I specifically asked the other day because you had raised a question about, and this has nothing to do with this forestry, but about the treatment of agriculture, the exemption that agriculture has always had from act two fifty. Is there anything in Act 181 about tier three and changing that? And the answer I got was no, absolutely nothing has changed about agriculture being exempt as it historically has been in tier three or any other tier. I just wanted to say that because I'd forgotten to tell you earlier, Richard, if that helps.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: John? Just the chair brought this up at the very beginning of this discussion about the word devoted. And I guess, does everybody agree on devoted? I was just thinking, does devoted, for example, if that tract is in current use with a forestry plan, does that by definition mean it's devoted to forestry and logging?

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: The devoted language is the current language I think exists with the agriculture exemption. I mean, when I read it, I'm like, oh, not whole property doesn't have to be devoted. Like, say, with the example, I think, that's gone around with, like, you have a 100 acre, 90 acres is in development, but you got 10 acres in forestry. Is the parcel really devoted? I think that that's language that L. R. B. Uses and recognizes in agriculture, they feel like it can extend over to forestry. That's sort of the train on that devoted language. I think it's I'd had the conversation with L. U. B. To me, look at it in like, it doesn't make sense, but there's precedent here and it's working for ag.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Because what I thought also is the new section of reserve forest land is certainly not devoted to logging. So whether that would get into any sort of wordsmithing trouble in the future.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: It is devoted to forestry because it is still an active management program. And so I think the goal is like, we're talking about is the developed envelopes and at least there's what the permit entails, and then the rest of that's forested would be exempt, which may or may not be managed, really. I mean, but forestry work and logging would absolutely not be considered development. I think that's a priority we're trying to achieve. If it's been there, but it hasn't always been fully executed the way we had hoped. And I think there's recognition of that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think we've had enough, we've spoken a lot about the devoted to language and been told, you know, it's gonna be a fact. I think if it turns out that down the road, somebody interpreted it interprets it differently, we will jump right on that. So I I think if both both the parties here have felt that that's good language, then, alright. Let's let's go ahead. And if somebody has a problem with it, we'll remember this conversation.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you. You know, I'm rolling my brain back almost four years, went out of the World Caucus, and part of the, my course, future strategic roadmap implementation, we were trying to be the World Caucus suggested as adding language to this bill, now three years ago, two plus years, that small scale firewood producers, small scale chip or mulch yards, small scale sawmills be exempt from Act two fifty review. It was a not an insignificant ask. We wrote a letter including this. It was sent to the environment committee who was drafting, taking testimony on that bill. They rejected our suggestion, and it never was included. But it was included in a way for the the study committee or where there was testimony that the would consider wood products manufacturing as part of their overall. So I think that's some of the pathway of the beginning history to how that happened.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: You're correct. The study, report did not generate direct priority actions to really legislatively change what would trigger a permit for a wood products manufacturer. I think there's probably some more opportunity for that discussion. There was more of the concierge service and training and education that they are there to support that, which is fantastic. I do feel like there's probably some opportunities for continued discussion.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. Anybody have anything else?

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Talking about the current

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Nothing from me.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: 90 acres of boards and the guys were gonna develop 10 acre site for some. He had to pull that out and try to do some big penalty.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: On the rest of the line. Yeah. That portion.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: On that portion.

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: I ask if about card use?

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: That's correct. You'd have a land exchange tax.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And if you want more conversation, I have had the the fact that the man and I've owned her on Woodbury, Elmore line, had him out to the farm, got some logs, wanna make a horse fence, wanna make a horse stable. He saws them out, there's a pickup truck, takes the mill out after two days. He brings his own fuel can to power the little polar motor. Mhmm. They're That is not a commercial sawmill operations, a mobile wheel might stay two days, might stay one. That happens all the time, all over the world and more. That is not what wood products manufacture. So you might have skidded out a whole bunch of firewood logs. You say, hey, Jed, can you bring your wood processor over instead of me taking a month? You do it in two days and dry it out. That's I'm not I'm sensing that is not wood manufacturing business.

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: I would disagree a little bit. I mean there's a definition of what a wood products manufacturer is, But that doesn't mean just because you're in that category that somehow you're under Act two fifty jurisdiction when you are giving your business sound in the woods. And so I just want to be sure that it's understood that there is that definition that says, I mean, because sure they're commercial, they are selling the product that they're creating, but that has nothing to do with triggering Act two fifty jurisdiction. It's a portable sawmill, so he's not constructing improvements on the land, and so there's no development happening. That is what triggers Act two fifty, it's development for a commercial purpose or industrial purpose on the records of acreage and all of that, or some other trigger. I just wanna make sure that that nuance is understood. It's not a bad thing to be categorized in that area. In fact, it's a good thing because then if he needs to be doing his portable sawmill business at 09:00 at night to be able to finish because he only has two weeks to get it done, there is allowance for that and he is permitted to not have any concern about normal operating hours and then there's definitions about whether it's a nuisance, a civil nuisance. So there's protection to be inside of that definition, but it does not trigger jurisdiction in and of itself.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that protection those protections exist even for a a business that isn't otherwise under jurisdiction? So you talked about hours of operations that would be

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: I don't have it in front of me, but there are provisions about portable sawmills and then stationary ones that are minimally operating during a limited time frame.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: It's also the right to forestry. Similar to right to agriculture that does provide protection from nuisance.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: From nuisance laws. Yeah.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: And that's more recent, too. That was probably within the past seven or eight years.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. And then we've been talking a lot about municipal regulation of agriculture, and municipal regulation of forestry is also a thing that we don't have

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: to worry about because the exemption is very clear there. Towns can't regulate. Are there rules somewhere else that clarified different categories of scale of wood products manufacturing in somewhere besides our statute?

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: I think that the sawmill situation, I think it's titled, is it 10 or 12?

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Probably 10, I'm guessing. So the scale Because right now, I think what's the right to forestry is more like the portable, temporary nature of forestry and logging that is protected under the right to forestry. When you start getting into the manufacturing and really when you have development and a footprint changing the land, there is no scale associated with it, what triggers the it's what's gonna trigger Act two fifty or the other permitting. It may not even trigger Act two fifty, but could trigger a wetlands permit or other permitting. So there's no real exemptions or scale that if you're developing and changing the land, you have to see if you're going to trigger a permit. It's a temporary nature of forestry and logging that has the protections.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: If there's wood products manufacturer development on a parcel that is not owned by that business, but owned by a random, say, an extensive forest, who applies for the time that is to put property on there or the business?

[Unidentified Land Use/Legal participant]: I don't about that, because in my private practice test, I stopped doing actual permits and stuffs, but my understanding from long ago is that it requires co applicantcy or signatory by the landowner as well as the applicant is different from the landowner. That's the good thing about Act two fifty. You will see a road out of the PUC. The landowner doesn't necessarily have to do even basic notice of any type. And here, you make sure that there's accountability because our firm is handling the land. So whoever is the owner of that fee simple ownership, or even if it's less than that, needs to be notified of that.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: We see that on state land with our ski areas. We sign as landowners, but they submit the application.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great, good. Thank you.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Thank you all.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, everybody. Have a good morning. So before we sign off, just a reminder, we're not here next week, And we will be back at ten the following Tuesday. We might have an early day Wednesday and or Thursday in like a 09:00 start. The agenda will get posted. We'll probably post it on Friday, next Friday, I think that's the same routine. Betsy Ann will send that. Betsy Ann will send the normal thing, yep. Well, Patricia and I will figure out an agenda by next Friday and have that posted. Check. Yeah. Check on our committee page. But we won't start any earlier than ten. Normal Tuesday start.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Because we have a lot of jobs to get through.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Can I say

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: one thing before we sign off, chair?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sure. Go ahead, Michelle.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I just wanted to suggest to my fellow committee members next week when I get back from DC, I actually am spending one day going to the local high school and going to the cafeteria and meeting with the nutrition director and having a tour of the kitchen and having lunch there. And so if anybody else wanted to check out what your different schools were like in your area, even just one to pop in and have a meal, have a school lunch, come back and compare notes, that that would be interesting. So just if you have a chance and you're interested, I would love more research from around the state to see what you find in terms of what kinds of foods are being served to our kids.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Not a bad idea?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So I'll have my four daughters do reconnaissance for me.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko, VT Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation]: Can I add something to that real quick? We're looking at doing a large grant called Forest to Tray, which is looking at school lunches and how they are, what they're served on or in, and looking at doing wood product based. It's like the biggest restaurant ever, like 8,000,000 lunches over the year. See So what they're served up to and what they're serving.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So like a paper plate or is it plastic?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Trays or

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: containers that's Wood fiber.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great, thank you everybody. And we will have a lot to do when we get back. I think we're closer on a couple of these bills anyway.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Hey. Y'all have a great