Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Morning, and welcome to the House meeting. This morning, we are going to do a reminder walkthrough of h two seventy six with our Legislative Council. Welcome back, Ellen.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning. Ellen Chittenden, Office of Legislative Council. So I'm here on h two seventy six, an act relating to the designation of state wildlands. I think I may have done a walk through this last session.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, I want to remind folks is that we, first week of session, took some testimony on this one from Zach Porter and John Davis. We're hearing from other witnesses later this week on this film. Thanks.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So starting on page one, section one is a short title, so this act may be cited as the Vermont Climate Resilience and State Wildlands Act, And section two are the findings. The general assembly finds the planet is facing the consequences of climate change and the catastrophic loss of biodiversity, both globally and locally. Intact and connected ecosystems reduce flood risks, mitigate drought, sequester and store carbon, and support Vermont's biodiversity and clean water. On to page two. Vermont's most effective and efficient contribution to conserving bio biological diversity and maintaining a landscape resilient to climate change is to conserve an intact and connected landscape. The Department of Fish and Wildlife, working within the Agency of Natural Resources and with Vermont Conservation Organizations, has developed Vermont Conservation Design, a framework to sustain the state's ecologically functional landscape into the future. Vermont Conservation Design finds that. Historically, the vast majority of Vermont's landscape was old forest, and it is the original habitat condition for many species. The state's native flora and fauna that have been here prior to European settlement are adapted to this landscape of old, structurally complex forest punctuated by natural disturbance gaps and occasional natural openings such as wetlands and outcrops. Complex physical structures of old forests creates diverse habitat habitats, many of which are absent or much less abundant in younger forests. As a result of the persistent structural and vegetative complexity above ground and the diverse biome below ground and associated complex biotic and abiotic relationships that develop over time, old forests also protect water quality, sequester and store carbon, provide opportunities for adaptation of species, and community relationships to climate and other environmental changes. Onto page three. And set an ecological benchmark against which to measure active management of Vermont's forests. Although there are small patches of old forest scattered around the state, old forest is absent in Vermont as a functional component of the landscape. Allowing about 9% of Vermont's forest to become old forest will bring this missing component back to Vermont's landscape and offer confidence that species that benefit from or depend on this condition can persist. And in most forests, passive restoration will result in old forest conditions. Only approximately 4% of Vermont and 3% of New England are managed as ecological reserves, as defined in 10 VSA Chapter 89, to assist with restoration of old forests. State lands provide only 2% of Vermont's average annual timbis harvest volume. 90% of state lands are located in forested headwater settings, which are particularly susceptible to generating runoff during storm events given their topography and geologic setting. On to page four. Twenty twenty three acts and resolves number 59 called for prioritizing ecological reserve areas to protect highest priority natural communities and maintain or restore old forests. To meet the goals of 2023 action results number 59, the state of Vermont requires a statutory landscape designation to facilitate the establishment of ecological reserves on state lands. So on page four, section three,

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: this

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is where the statutory language starts. So section three creates 10 VSA chapter 90. The chapter on state wildlands. Section 28. Question. Yep. Speak to when we create new chapters. If there aren't other existing statutes that are directly relevant or related to the topic, and there's going to be more than one section on the topic, creating a new chapter is appropriate. It's a little bit more art than science. But in creating its own chapter, I didn't necessarily think it lined up easily with other chapters where it needed to use other specific, definitions. Yeah. So the purpose section. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure for the benefit current and future generations of Vermonters and for the entire community of life in the Green Mountain State, an enduring resource of publicly owned wild lands. Definitions. As used in this chapter, conversion has the same meaning as in section 2,801 of this title. Core area means an administrative land management designation used by the Agency of Natural Resources in long range management plans for state lands. Highest priority natural communities and habitat features means conservation targets critical for an ecologically functional landscape that are identified in ANR's Vermont Conservation Design. Onto page five. Land management classification one point zero, highly sensitive management, means an administrative land management designation used by the Agency of Natural Resources in long range management plans for state lands. Land management classification four point o, intensive management, means an administrative land management designation used by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources in long range management plans for state lands. I do think those are both technically the definition. They for those land management classifications, they may need more detail, because clearly, are two different types of management styles.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're gonna hear from the commissioner later this week.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I was looking for them. They're they're not mentioned in statute elsewhere, so you perhaps wanna consider defining them a little bit more. On page five, line nine, natural area has the same meaning as in section 2,607 of this title. Subsection seven, skiable line means the path taken by a skier or rider as they ski through trees or around obstacles. And wildlands means a land management designation within the category of ecological reserves, as defined in 2,802 of this title, of any size and current condition, permanently protected from conversion, and explicitly intended and managed to allow natural processes to prevail. 28.12, designation of state wildlands. The following areas are designated as state wildlands except as described in twenty eight fourteen, which is coming up after this. All state managed natural areas and core areas. All areas designate designated as land management classification one point o, highly sensitive management as of 01/01/2025. Onto page six. All highest priority natural communities and habitat features identified by Vermont conservation design on state lands. And then this list of specific forests and parks.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. It's me to read them all.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Onto page seven. So so twenty eight twelve is saying these existing state owned lands as they're laid out here are being designated as wild lands, which is a management style with minimal human intervention. On page seven, section 28 13, goes into a little bit more detail about what that means. Management of state wildlands, notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, ANR shall manage state wildlands as follows. The area shall be permanently protected from conversion. ANR shall allow natural processes to prevail with minimal human interference. There shall be no vegetation management, including timber harvesting, pruning, cutting, herbicide application, salvage logging, or removal of diseased or infected trees. There shall be no alteration of search surface waters, groundwater, or wetlands, including damming, draining, filling, diverting, or channelizing. Subsection b, this chapter shall not govern ANR's management of trail based recreation, existing class a and b roads as of 01/01/2025 designated according to the Department of Forest Parks and Rec policy number 13, designated backcountry ski zones as of 01/01/2025 where vegetation may be managed to maintain existing skiable lines. Onto page eight. Hunting, fishing, foraging, gathering and medicines or practicing ceremony, and vegetation management in areas not listed in 2,812 of this chapter or designated pursuant to section two thousand eight and fifteen of this chapter. Just coming up. That's the yeah. And so nothing in this chapter shall prevent the state from authorizing measures required to respond to emergencies involving the health and safety of persons. So this is setting up that they're on these wildlands, minimal vegetation management or human interference, but there are some exceptions, including recreation, some existing roads, backcountry ski, hunting, and then vegetation management in areas not specifically listed. On page eight, section twenty eight fourteen sets out exclusions. The following areas are excluded from wild lands designation in twenty eight twelve of this chapter. Areas designated in a long range management plan as of 07/01/2025 as land management classification four point o intensive management. Areas within a management unit for which a long range management plan does not exist or for which the long range management plan predates ANR Land Management Classification designations, but meets the definition of intent and intent for land management classification four point zero intensive management, and any areas where management as a wildland is legally precluded by deed or easement. And then finally on page nine, future designations of wildlands. Upon future acquisition of parcels that adjoin any area listed in section twenty eight twelve of this chapter, or that are separated by those areas only by road or right of way, the Agency of Natural Resources shall manage those areas as wildlands unless after opportunity for public comment and public hearing based on substantial evidence, the agency finds that doing so would not be consistent with the purpose of this chapter. So if ANR is coming into ownership of an adjacent a parcel adjacent to a wildland, that area should also be added to the wildland designation unless there is substantial evidence that it would not be not be contributing to the purpose of this chapter. And there's a note there's a public comment and public hearing associated with that. Subsection B, upon acquisition of future parcels that do not adjoin any areas listed in 2812 or that are not separated from those areas by only a road or right of way, the Agency of Natural Resources shall inventory the qualities and characteristics of the acquired areas and shall manage these areas as wild lands, if doing so would be consistent with the purpose of this chapter. So, for other lands not directly adjacent, ANR should review them and determine if, know, taking into consideration Vermont conservation design and the other things mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, if these lands should be wild lands or not. And then finally, the state shall not refuse to purchase or accept donated areas with a conservation easement, including a forever wild easement without just cause. And then should you take this bill up, this would be need to change the effective date for this.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do members have questions? Representative Chapin Just that very last line without just cause. Can you just explain what detail what that would mean what the process would be for

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: figuring out just There isn't anything specified here. I think if there's not there's nothing spelled out. So if the agency would need to provide reasons if asked by someone why they were not seeking to accept a parcel. And I I don't know what form that would take, how public these acquisitions actually are for this so that people would have notice other than the current owner. So, perhaps the current owner would be able to say, I'm offering to donate this parcel. Why are you not accepting it?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you. So on page eight, line 11, the area or nine, following the lands are excluded from wild lands designations. Areas designated in a long management plan as of January 2025 with these classifications. So what happens land management classification and intensive management not allowed after that time, and below where the agency of natural resources land management classification designations, same as that. If it's past this date, does that mean that that plan can't, another management plan couldn't be put in place? Or does that mean that they're not excluded at all? That exclusion permanent?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me let me take a step back. So all the areas listed, all these state forests and parks have long range management plans that the agency develops for them. They are, I think, about twenty year plans, and they redo them on their regular cycle. And so at the begin when this bill is to go into effect, you can actually consider if 01/01/2025 is still the same is still the accurate date. This bill was introduced last year, so you may wanna consider a different date. But as of this legislation being enacted, things that were designated as intensive management are excluded. As the last section talks about when there's future acquisitions, the long range management plan would be developed after new things are designated. And so I I don't think it is saying that those land management classifications can't ever actually change or be updated, but that this is setting the the parameter by which lands should or should not be designated as wildlands. And if something has intention intensive management applied to it currently, it is not a candidate for the wildlands designation. And I'm not super well versed in how ANR goes about making those designations, so you may wanna hear more about that.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I think I want to hear more.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. And the commissioner is going to come in on Friday. But I think I had a related question about the definition of the permanence of these places permanently protected from conversion. So, the intent is that areas are so, would this cover the list of the state lands that would currently be wild lands in their entirety or the areas that were four o would not be would not be in? Yes. Only the areas that are one o?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think it's only the air so I don't know what the maps look like, but I think it's excluding specifically the four o from those forests and parks, if there are any within them.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yep.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other questions? Representative nothing.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: On the definition of old forest increasing it to 9%, in previous testimonies, I think one of the goals for ANR was 7%. All of a sudden, it's moved to 9%. How did the percentage get arrived at?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe that so that's what conservation Vermont Conservation Design has, I believe, is that 9% is the goal. Yeah. So I didn't I don't think I heard your testimony about 7%. Don't Neither did you hear that?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: It was in one of the readings from Forestry Group. Also on page seven, lines six through 11, they removed no vegetative management, including, and there's an inclusive list of timber removal, pruning, cutting, herbicides, salvage logging, no removal of diseased or infected trees. And I guess one of my problems with that is no removal of infected trees when you look at the emerald ash borer and you look at other species that are subject to infection, beech, bacteria, etcetera. I did not see anywhere in the bill or any other bill that advocated for fire control. Instance, the state used to have in history a lot of fire towers. Most have been declining in efficiency or use. I don't see a budget in the paper to allow the state to recommission those that are fixable or install new towers, you know, our budget for staffing in the summertime and fall. So I don't wanna see a Palisades California come to is what I'm saying. With an old forest, you're creating fuel on the forest floor. The dead, the disease, the blowdowns, etcetera, and not creating good wildlife habitat because of the occlusive crown that doesn't let any small brush type vegetation to grow. So you're limiting the amount of species of wildlife that's gonna be there. There's no food for them for the rest. So I I guess I would like to see this bill fleshed out.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess I would say I see it differently that these are reference conditions. Like, we sort of 10% of the landscape is full of having an area that is left to its own devices so that when we're making decisions and learning about the forest, particularly at a time of climate change, we can understand what nature does on its own and then take those lessons and manage other forests differently based Representative Pritchard.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: On page nine where it talks about future acquisitions of land, two different future acquisitions of parcels that adjoin in the areas listed in section twenty eight twelve and below, upon acquisition of future parcels that do not adjoin or not separated. In in both cases, it says shall manage these areas as wild lands. So does that mean that automatically for a long range plan intensive management is off the tape?

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. So those two sections have different words after shall manage wildlands. So in the first one, it's shall unless there's public comment and substantial evidence that they shouldn't. And the second is shall manage if doing so would not be consistent with the purpose. So in both cases, ANR needs to go through a review process for either type of land. If it's adjacent to existing ones, they need to go through a more formal process with a public hearing and review the evidence to determine if it should be a wildland. There's a sort of a more presumption that an adjacent partial should be wildland unless there's substantial evidence. In the second instance, when they're not adjoining, they only have they don't have to if it would be inconsistent with the chapter. So it's two different types of review processes that they have to go through.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay, I think I understand that. But once that has happened, are those designations above those managements designations no longer apply to those Yes.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The designation of wild lands does not involve intensive management.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Or what was the one below? Is it sensitive? It's here.

[Ellen Chittenden (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Highly sensitive management.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay, just intensive management, I guess. I thought I saw that was another problem. Okay, thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks, Ellen. So members, we have shift gears. Back to solid waste now with Matt Chapin joining us any minute now, but we can take a five minute break until he comes in. To tee up your questions on the bottle bill in this five minute break because that's primarily what we're having Matt in on right now. So we walked through the bottle yesterday. We all had some whatever. Had good conversations with Legis Council, but a number of things were like, it was anorthic. So we're having Matt in.