Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're live. Alright. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are taking up age 70 and act relating to the inclusion of the use value of appraisal land and conserve land inventory, and our first witness is William Sergeant. Both.

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: Good good morning. Before I get started, I'll just let you know that I'm here on behalf of the Vermont Forest Products Association. They asked me a couple days ago to come up. As members of this committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of you. I consider it both an honor and a real opportunity to present my views on this legislation and more specifically, how I believe this ties to what has already happened in Bennington County over my fifty plus year career as a forester. Public land ownership, the 30 by 30 and the 50 by 50 legislation, and other similar proposed legislation that would create more wild lands already have had or will have a direct impact on the forest products industry. Bennington County is I believe a bellwether for the rest of the state on the impact of public lands to the working forest landscape in Vermont. I feel that it's of the utmost importance that current use land be added to the definition of conserved and protected land statewide. To quickly summarize, I'm a native Vermonter, originally from Worcester Vermont and up the street and lived in Chatsbury since 1977. I'm a '74 graduate of the University of Vermont School of Natural Resources. And as of this May, I will have made my living for fifty two years working as a forestry and wildlife manager in Vermont. This includes ten years as a deputy game warden for the Vermont Fish and Game Department. I couldn't have asked for a more intensely rewarding outdoor career. Most recently, I published a book about my career, fifty years a dirt forester, always outside and never behind a desk. I've enjoyed traveling and speaking to my fellow Vermonters about my book and advocating for forestry and wildlife issues. Now I'll get started.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Actually, it would be great if everyone could limit to about ten minutes. Yeah, I'm gonna everyone on the agenda in an hour.

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: Thank Last summer, I was speaking about my book at the Vermont Veterans Home in Bennington, an old friend and business acquaintance by the name of Don Lewis, who was a former owner of a Bennington County sawmill. And as a resident was a resident of a home visit me afterwards, he said my presentation and talk about change over my career had gotten him thinking. He suggested I take a closer look at the reasons for the disappearance of sawmills with a focus on Bennington County. He suggested there might be another big story there. I knew these things to be facts. Within the fifty years since I've moved to Bennington County, 10 major sawmills had gone out of business. Along with the 10 sawmills, three major furniture manufacturers had gone out of business. This doesn't include the other mills scattered along the New York and Massachusetts line. The economic loss was huge with a loss of over 500 jobs just in Vermont that did not even include loggers and truckers. What caused the loss of the mills and the manufacturers? Anybody wanna guess how many mills are left in Bennington County today? Zero. So do you like statistics? Not me, but I'm gonna throw a whole bunch at you. Bennington County sawmill suffered more than any other county to from in Vermont from the very things that contributed to the beauty around us today. Consumers in the area now pay for it every time they go to their lumberyard, where the material comes from the other side of the globe or from Canada. I would offer that the US Forest Service land purchases probably contributed more to the demise of sawmills within Bennington County than any other factor. This statement is not without controversy. Hear me out, and I'll keep digging into it. I was gonna read you a whole bunch of statistics. I'll skip over them. I'll just go on to say that Bennington County is now made up of 42% US Forest Service lands, the largest percentage in the state of Vermont. Bennington

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: County also has almost half of

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: the wilderness area already in Vermont. All this land was purchased or most of this land was purchased within my fifty year career as a forester. I won't bore you with all the statistics.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You can submit your written testimony. Yes, absolutely.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Great. Yep.

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: Early in my career, the Forest Service harvested large steady volumes of timber on the land within the county. Previous to US Forest Service ownership, these private lands are produced large volumes of timber for many years. Both sawmills furniture manufacturers and loggers depended on that log flow. By the early nineteen eighties changes and how timber sales were appeal became law. Our industry was changed overnight by decisions made at the ballot box This change was predictable. The easiest way to cripple an industry is cut off their raw material. Volumes being harvested crashed. US Forest Service stashing staffing was cut back substantially. Mills that depended on that volume had to look to private ownership for their wood supply. But that land base had also been eroded and fragmented. The Hale Company in Arlington, Vermont, Reedsboro Chair Factory, and Cushman Furniture in North Bennington, Vermont were big. They had to find different places to purchase their material all further away. Pause for the raw materials rapidly escalated. Was this the only reason for the loss of the mills? No. I call their demise a death by a thousand print pinpricks. Every mill had its own story, but the one constant was the increase in raw material costs. I'll spend a lot of time in a second book writing about the demise and consequences of the disappearance. Bennington County is already shot by the acreages in the 30 by 30 legislation, and is nearly approaching the 50 by 50 acreages. There have been economic consequences of public land creation in Bennington County that nobody anticipated. Additionally, research has shown me that there have been consequences even to the wildlife that live on these public lands by the timber sale cutbacks. One thing I've heard often was that wildlife fries on disturbance. It's the exact opposite what some folks would like us to believe. As my retiring fourth grade teacher's wife says, you are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequences of your choices. The choices you make his legislators today will have an impact on our little state for many years. I'm currently writing in my second book that every small act has consequences everything we do outdoors is interrelated. Changes in wildlife and the forest products industry seem to be tied to things we do today and things that happened fifty years ago. We can go back I don't want to. But I'll write in the second book that hopefully people are that are making the decisions today have the hindsight to look to the past and the foresight to look to the future. I'll make the point that a conserved or protected land inventory needs to be as accurate as possible so that we can predict and anticipate these consequences. Current use lands need to be included. That acreage has been a major part of the continuation of improving forest management practices and the protection of land in Vermont since the creation of that program in 1978 by your legislative predecessors. Please continue their important work. Please make the changes requested in H 70. Finally, we must continue working hard to ensure that Vermont folks have the land to grow, harvest, and make a living. The forestry and farming communities of Vermont with their working lands are what make our state beautiful. Please recognize that land that can't be used is a death sentence to rural Vermonters. Every piece of land that forestry and farming are be being restricted from using is one another one of those thousand pinpricks to our future. Thanks again for giving an average Vermont the important the opportunity to be able to express his opinion. Part of what makes our state

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: great. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. Members have questions? Not seeing any, but thank you again.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: You're welcome. Chair?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sam Lincoln.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Morning.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Thank

[Sam Lincoln (Logger and landowner, witness)]: you for the opportunity to testify on age 70. For the record, my name is Sam Lincoln. I'm a multi generational landowner and business owner from Randolph Center. Our family's land is enrolled in the Use Value Appraisal Program or UVA as it's commonly known. I've worked in the woods since I was young, my first chainsaw given to me at 12 years old. As an adult, my first logging job was salvaging timber on the Wakesfield Gap after the nineteen ninety eight ice storm. I've been a certified master logger since 2016, serve on the board of directors of the professional logging contractors of the Northeast, and I previously served as deputy commissioner of the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation from 2017 to 2020. I've harvested timber for more than 60 landowners within 15 miles of my front porch, and most of those properties were enrolled in the use value appraisal program. I support H70 and the inclusion of UVA enrolled land in the conservancy conserved land inventory and in the definition of natural resource management area. Science, experience, human curiosity lead us to continuously improve how we interact with the environment. One of those improvements is our increasing value and appreciation for keeping land in an undeveloped state for a multitude of reasons. UVA has been an incalculably valuable tool for improving our stewardship. It has also been essential and responsive to addressing a significant cost of ownership, which is property taxes. Act 59 calls for conservation at all scales and maintaining ecological connectivity. The most recent draft states that the entire connectivity network is needed for ecological function. That network already exists, and those diverse scales exist, in large part through UVA and rural land. UVA provides landscape stability. It provides flexibility for families. It allows working stewardship while keeping land intact. Permanent conservation works for some landowners, but it does not work for all. We hear about trends in forest loss and biodiversity decline due to development, but we rarely ask private landowners what I believe is the most important question: Why did you subdivide your land? Understanding root causes is essential to enacting sustainable solutions. For many families, the answer is economics. Permanent conservation does not solve the economic pressures landowners face. Meanwhile, mills are closing, markets are shrinking. The forest economy, has supported stewardship stewardship across rural Vermont for generations, is under enormous strain. That strain contributes directly to fragmentation when landowners lose their ability to generate revenue. UVA connects the dots between tracks of permanently conserved land. UVA enrolled landowners already own the land. They pay property taxes on it. They follow management plans developed by licensed professionals who and they are approved by regulators. They pay the cost of implementing those plans out of their own pocket. They steward habitat, water quality, and forest health. They are doing conservation work today. The financial cost to support an enhanced UVA in a process of continuous improvement will be far less than purchasing development rights of such a large portion of Vermont's private lands. UVA is not the only conservation tool. Permanent easements are also not the only solution either. Vermont needs a mix of tools, and we should recognize the landowners that have already chosen to conserve their land, many for generations, through the Use Value Appraisal Program. Including UVA does not dilute conservation, it strengthens it. Not having these landowners at the table since the inception of this effort risks missing the full picture. One example that I'll give of a missed opportunity in land use policy is that under act a one eighty one, five and ten acre house lots remain part of the regional planning conversations. In my view, nothing has fragmented rural Vermont more than those scattered lots. Orange County doesn't have large housing or commercial developments threatening our landscape. We have spaghetti lots up and down our rural roads with single family homes. A generation ago, my town was dominated by 100 to 500 acre farms with forest tracks. While those of us that work the land have watched the increasing fragmentation fragmentation that limits forest access and agricultural viability, the land use regulations modernization process has not taken up suggestions for provisions such as implementing conservation subdivisions as a broader tool with smaller clustered housing lots with larger portions conserve. Without input from boots on the ground landowners, I'm not sure how the trends in fragmentation will be redirected other than using the full weight of Act two fifty being applied to as a deterrent only to those who can't afford the cost. If we're serious about connectivity and landscape integrity, we must align policy with the way Vermonters have actually protected the land, and UVA is central to that. Our demonstrated actions and definition of conservation should count too. I respectfully ask you to advance age 70 so that other committees in full legislature can debate this amendment to act 59, including UVA land in the inventory equitably equitably recognizes the stewardship of a broad cross section of Vermonters as we work toward a common goal of protecting our landscape. It's not a partisan issue. It's a rural issue, and it's an equity issue that's being raised by constituents who have invested in conservation for generations. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. Representative Satcowitz.

[Representative Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Sam, thank you so much for being here. This is really great testimony. I share a lot of your concerns. We don't have time to discuss them now. I would love to follow-up with you and have conversations over coffee back in Randolph sometimes in the near future, explore some of our common ground, which I think clearly exists. But I do have a short maybe question. You very quickly said something about enhanced UVA, but I'm not sure what maybe you meant by that. I was wondering if you could maybe just quickly tell us maybe what you meant by choosing that word.

[Sam Lincoln (Logger and landowner, witness)]: Thank you for the question, representative. Would say that the the UVA manual, the UVA program standards have evolved. I mean, it started out as a tax program, and there's all types of it's a it's it's become a big program with a lot of requirements to maintain eligibility. And if if there are concerns about how that meets the definition of conservation, then then include the the the people that it run, the foresters that manage the the landowners in a in a in a way to say, what do you need, and how can we how can we reduce the risk that you decide to withdraw your land and make it make it a better program for to meet all these goals? I guess that that's what I would how I would quickly respond to an an enhanced PPA.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin and Tagliavia.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Do you have any idea how much Vermonters pay for the current use program keep the current use program going and what where that money comes from in terms of our taxes?

[Sam Lincoln (Logger and landowner, witness)]: Well, in terms of I have a I I understand your question about the the the quote unquote cost of use value appraisal program, and and the way that I see it as a landowner enrolled is that I'm being maybe taxed more properly on my actual use of the land as undeveloped. The highest and our assessors and listeners look at land as highest and best use for development. I consider my land's highest and best use is to remain forest or farmland. So with that philosophy in mind, I would respond that I don't know, I don't wanna quote a wrong an incorrect number. I'm not an expert on the on the cost and finances of it, but it I believe it comes out of various funds that are that are that are reduced income to rep reduced tax revenue through those equations that are that are sent out to the towns of Vier.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Tagliavia.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Thank you, Sam, and thank you to all the witnesses who've come today to testify. To representative sacowitz, I would like to hear all the questions that you have for the witness right now because this is a very important topic. It brings up another question and a bone of contention I have with the statement, madam chair, that you made that we're gonna restrict testimony to ten minutes. If we're in the people's house, I suggest we let the people speak. We I am a member of the rural caucus as well as many of you know, and we have this time limitation in the rural caucus as well. And there are a lot of people who take time off from their jobs. And when they come to the people's house, they should be allowed to speak. Apparently, only the only bloviating that goes on in here is on the debate floor. Taxpayers need to have their voice heard. They need to believe that when they show up here, they're gonna be heard. So limiting everybody to ten minutes, especially on a topic that is not a fan, you're not a fan of, I find very offensive.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'll just say I'm trying to be respectful of everyone's time and the schedule that we had. We were not expecting the floor to go long today. It's not uncommon for us to share the witness testimony time because lots of people took effort to be here this morning.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: And in the future, in, I believe, the week beginning March 10, we are gonna be spending a lot of late nights here probably. So there's no reason why we can't do a late day today. I can be here till midnight if anybody wants to stay.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I have to leave it alone.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. Thanks for your testimony. Very helpful. It's the beginning of a conversate Thank you, Kia. Peter Tucker.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Hi. So, my name is Peter Tucker. I am the director of advocacy and public policy for the Vermont Association of Realtors. And I'd like to thank the chair and the committee for inviting us here today to talk about changes to Act 59 through this bill H70. Vermont Association of Realtors are about 2,000 members spread pretty evenly across the state, you know, who work with property owners every day.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors, witness)]: I mean, that's what we do. You know, I have a government affairs committee that are members from around the state who review policy and give me direction, you know, as I come here to speak with you guys today. So, you know, we think that the goal of age 70, which is to change, you know, slight changes to act 59 is is a good goal to include use value appraisal properties in the inventory of of conserved land inventory. You know, this proposes to make some small changes. You know, it's in section six, conserve means permanently protected and, you know, to remove those words. And really, you know, the way we've looked at this bill is, you know, the definition of conserve. What does that really mean generally? And then what does that mean, you know, specific to, you know, to act 59? You know, in in this section, natural resource management areas are defined as as something that can be included in these areas. And also in section six, that although other long term land protection mechanisms and measures that achieve the goals of the Vermont conservation design that are enforceable and accountable, and that support ecological function and connected landscape may be considered. We think that this is really pointing to the use value appraisal program. When you consider natural resource areas in section three, which is just slightly above, is a subject to a long term sustainable management plan. And then this age 70 adds language or agricultural lands or forest lands enrolled in the use value appraisal really helps define what those conserved lands should be. One of the concerns that the Government Affairs Committee had with the definition of conserved lands is a common definition of conserved lands, which is land is protected in perpetuity. That's kind of the sticking point here. That's a commonly used definition, but is it the definition that would allow use value appraisal to be involved? Our government affairs committee was very concerned that by adding use value appraisal to using the regular definition of conserved lands would put, you know, this permanent, perpetual, permanently protected designation on the land use, current land use. And that is not at all the intention of the bill, as was clearly described to me by the sponsor of the bill. But we're trying to help reach those 30 by thirty and fifty by 50 thresholds that that, you know, the committee is so interested in. In doing research for this, this this hearing, you look at at the Vermont Fish and Wildlife, you know, on on conservation options. They produce a nice, you know, flyer of different conservation options. And one of them is the use value appraisal program. And they say that the use value appraisal program or current use is a state program that reduces your property taxes in exchange for actively managing your forest land. This program, and these are the fish and wildlife words, is a temporary conservation option. I wanna come back to that in a second. That is in effect until you, the landowner or a subsequent landowner decides to remove the property from the program for a fee. That's the way current use works. Temporary, yep. The temporary option is not in perpetuity for sure. But temporary also can have a much longer range definition, I believe. As part of Act 59, BHCB was required to produce a report, which they did in 2024 for this committee. And in that report, BHCB in their initial discussion of, you know, how many acres had been conserved, points to current use as a, or the state use value appraisal program preserving roughly 2,400,000 acres. And now it's at roughly 2,500,000 acres, because if you look at the amount of acreage enrolled, it has increased in every year since 2010. So it is a positive program. You know, I also did research on, you know, how long do people stay in the land use appraisal program? Because, you know, if they're coming in and going out all the time, I don't think that achieves the efforts that, you know, the committee would be interested in seeing. But current land use appraisal long term commitment program is designed to keep working lands in production. And for many, it acts as a permanent voluntary restriction against development. The other fact that I found was that there is a very low withdrawal rate from current use. Data shows that a very low percentage of land, roughly 0.2 per year is withdrawn, indicating that the land often stays in the program for decades or changes ownership without leaving the program. So I think the committee's concern is, is this a legitimate long term approach to land management that would allow for use value appraisal lands to be added to land inventory, the conserved land inventory. And I think that ultimately is a question for the committee to decide. We believe that it is. It's valuable. It's managed. It meets the requirements of Act 59, you know, although long term land protection mechanisms and measures that achieve the goal of the Vermont Conservation Design and that are enforceable and accountable, which is what current use does, and to support ecological function and connected landscape may be considered. That is the language in Act 59. You know, how you get there, I think is a matter of, you know, terminology. You know, do you want to change the definition of conserved to be conserved both permanently and long term? Do you want to just consider conserve to be, you know, use value appraisal and permanently preserved? I think that's also up to the committee to decide. But we certainly think that, you know, to achieve 30 by thirty and fifty by 50, including land use value properties in that calculation is the correct approach.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: Sure. Yeah.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors, witness)]: Representative Tagliavia. In the past year, do you have any statistics that you could give us with respect to the number of parcels have been taken out of the UVA program and what that dollar amount of that penalty was? I believe I do. Let's see. Withdrawals from enrolled land use. Actually, let me just get it right here. It's a little clearer for me. Yeah, twenty twenty five. Acres developed and requested for removal acres withdrawn from land use were 20,000 acres. Acres developed and a lean removal requested was 1,400 acres. Number of completed withdrawals, five seventeen, which is down from the last couple of years. And that's a let's see. Where am I at here? Sorry. This is a use value or the the the the tax department's report on. Current use. Yep. For clarification, at 20,000 was the number of actual transfers? 20,000 acres. Of acres. Yeah. No. Yeah. 517 completed withdrawals. Representing 20,000 acres. How many probably would know how many acres actually went into the program at the same time? Into? Yes.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: Just see what I come up with here.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors, witness)]: I have the total acres in. So between '24 and '25, it increased by 14,000 acres, 15,000 acres roughly. So, a net gain, considerable net gain. That's correct. Yeah. And it has been a gain ever since 2012, every year.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks for your testimony.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors, witness)]: Thank you. Representative

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Lipstick.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: Breckard, Jed Lipski, chair Sheldon, vice chair of labor and committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today on h 70. As many of you know, I serve on the house committee on agriculture, food, resiliency, and forestry, and I've had a long career as a logging contractor, independent, and a certified master logger. But what you may not know about me is my long and extensive experience as a conservationist. So when I just did to and thank the opportunity when I was invited, if I was interested in testifying, I was want to testify as a conservationist and as a master lawyer. And I would I have been an active conservationist in both Vermont, other neighboring New England states, well as around the world. In the early 1970s, I served as the assistant director of the Conservation Society of Southern Vermont. During that tenure, we can serve Pikes Falls, Hamilton Falls, Halifax Gorge, and 8,000 acres of river corridor along the West River in Wind Wyndham County. The CSSV also received status as interveners and licensing of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which I looked at the table with the national rig nuclear regulatory committee and the EPA down in Brattleboro with federal hearings. We're mostly advocating for the impacts on the environment, the ecological communities surrounding and specifically the impacts on the Connecticut River ecology. I also served and authored as the first planning board chairman in the town of Wynn Hall and the zoning administrative officer and authored the first ecologically based town plan in state of Vermont that occurred within six months of the passage by our legislature of the act two fifty. Many years later, I volunteered as a pilot for numerous conservation initiatives in The Congo, Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa. These included air support for mega transect in nineteen ninety nine to two thousand for National Geographic and Wildlife Conservation Society and EcoFact and other organizations. In 2003 and 2004, I flew as a bush pilot on the most extensive elephant count in the Akavango Delta, Botswana neighboring countries to create the first and largest branch frontier wildlife conservation corridor in the world. And I know this committee has taken up. It's very much concerned with wildlife corridors. This conservation program was for elephants without borders under the oversight of the Conservation International Bank. I highlight these credentials and experiences to demonstrate that conservation and active timber management are not the need to. They are indelibly connected. When I speak today to the Vermont Forest Strategic Road Map also, which was legislation passed by this body prior to my service in 2022 and all of its goals to be in support of the both the the forest economy sustainability as well as all the other complex values that Vermonters acquire from our forest land. So I will be very specific now on my points regarding age seven. I believe age 70 is a critical necessary measure to ensure Vermont can achieve its conservation objectives without diminishing productive farmland that rural Vermonters rely on. Vermont has pledged to protect 30% of the land area by 2030 and fifty percent by 2050. The problem with conservation from the logging industry's perspective is not conservation itself. Loggers are probably Vermont's oldest conservationists. However, if conservation takes productive forests out of production, it is counterintuitive. Each acre of land removed from product production contributes to the reduction in wood supply and opportunity loss for many facets of the Vermont forest economy. Mills, foresters, loggers require a stable, predictable supply of timber. As the working land based areas reduce, the pressure on the remaining acres increases, making it more expensive, less sustainable in the long term. It also forces the wood supply and or manufacturers to be sourced from farther away. Economic viable markets for all class of timber are are necessary to ensure sustainable forest management. Logging contractors are already operating in a reduced margin scenario, inconsistent weather patterns of reduced annual harvesting season, and all of the costs for contractors have increased. Contractors are being asked to accomplish more with less, less markets, less time, less access, all the while paying more for everything. Similar to farmers, loggers are price takers, not price setters. Working forests are not the problem. They are part of the solution. Forests provide the greatest long term climate benefits when they're actively managed and regenerated. Young growing forests absorb carbon at higher rates, sustainable harvesting, followed by replanting and or natural regeneration ensures continuous carbon sequestration while also storing carbon in long lived wood products. Use value appraisal land is already doing the job of conservation. Use value appraisal requires professional forest management plans and effective long term management to conserve forest lands and keep it forested rather than develop. These areas protect wildlife habitats, water quality, ecological connectivity, while still allowing sustainable timber harvest, which are all goals of of conservation. Age 70 properly points out land enrolled in UVA should be counted toward Vermont's conservation goals because it it is already protected as conserved land. This recognition is vital to ensure that UVA land has greater benefits beyond taxation as being considered conserved. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. Representative Austin?

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yes. Thank you. I'm just, like, thinking of the worst case scenario. So we put current use plan into the equation of, let's say, 5050. Everybody decides to sell their land at some point in twenty, thirty years. What happens to the fifty fifty?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: Representative Austin, it's a good question. Worst cases are important to consider. And during those following thirty or twenty years, it's maybe twenty three years or so from now, there were some of that land may be put in permanent conservation.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: May.

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: May. Yeah. Meaning,

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: that's another option, and there are other, you know, farmland. We are finding farmers regularly rely on selling conservation easements to survive and hopefully thrive or, know, transition into a new generation. So that's a projection I can't Right.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I do appreciate

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: responsibly answer.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Sort of bland now. You know, all of you, I appreciate that so much. I'm not I'm concerned about the future and, you know, kind of it's it's just on the unknown to me that's concerning to me. And I apologize that I have to leave for, like, an hour. I think I'll be here. Thank you for

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: your help. Representative

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: North.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, representative for sharing your professional experience with us today. Just wondering, in your professional experience, boots on the ground experience, what what is the actual difference between land that's in current use conservation and land that is conserved in perpetuity? In terms of actually how it's used, what the regulations are on the land, in your experience, what have you seen?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: These are these are my experiences and observations. That program was set up to keep forest connectivity in for the long term for all the benefits it brings to

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: What were you referring to now?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: The use value appraisal program. And I what I have observed in my the breadth of my career is an incredible evolution and expansion of the risk the demands and responsibilities for a working forest or forest land. The role it plays, you know, since the Clean Water Act of 1974, clean water, you know, the turbidity and protecting the soils from erosion in the Champlain Valley watershed, all the connected watersheds that, you know, whether it's meant for Magog to connect a river valley or the Champlain, which eventually drains north. You know, the demand from sportsmen for for hunting and wildlife habitat. The demand for songbird habitat, a real bellwether of how we're doing in in our greenhouse gas challenges. Critical importance, and I've watched timber harvest from the time when I was working with Bill Sergeant fifty years ago, how we manage where wildlife habitat and songbird habitat and climate resiliency considerations have all risen high in the responsibilities. And we, as timber harvesters and foresters, have adapted to this, not begrudgingly. We are trying to sustain our responsibilities. But there are other forces, you know, within the markets, and and Forrester Sargent pointed out that the demise in our lifetime of the loss of of marketing of, pardon me, processing Vermont logs in Vermont and and going direct to the the wood chain that served Vermonters. That loss has been catastrophic. And

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: if I if I might You know, I I believe that the UVA,

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: to narrow it down, the difference is that UVA owners sign a contract to manage for the complex benefits that are demanded from the forest, whereas conserve land, I've sat on land trust boards for many years, many of which have never cut one stem, whereas private landowners are motivated for a whole variety of of values to manage. So in that way, I feel that UVA program has been very beneficial to the broad demands and help sustain this industry. Now when there's a tornado, and I've done salvage all over the Northeast or a wind event where it flattens recreation outdoor rec is a big demand for Vermont Forest. UVA members voluntarily contribute. In fact, I think 70 plus percent of all mountain bike and trail systems are because forest landowners are willing to share their land for these other broad demands of forest. But when you have a very severe weather event and all of Katy Hill mountain bike regionally renowned system is flattened, it's people like loggers, my son and myself on the northern end, another Orleans County logger that spent seven days a week all winter, you know, environmentally responsible way cleaning up, opening up so the trail restores could go and complete the work by June of that same year. So we're heroes then, but when we go to try to harvest a woodlot, that appreciated status drops way down on the value chain. Just anecdotal.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I I understand it. I totally understand you're extolling the side effects of of current use, but I was really trying to understand

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: practically

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: on the ground, what is your experience in attempting to work or working with land that is either permanently conserved in perpetuity versus land

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: that's in UVA? It's very different. It has to do with covenants. In some cases, let's let's talk about state lands, which are, by nature, can serve. One small wildlife cut on Little River Forest, which our committee visited. It took twelve years to get this tiny harvest through the process and public input and litigations. That couldn't support one logger for three months.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: So I don't wanna put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to understand. Are are you saying that the the current land and current use programs are better managed than land that's in perpetuity preserved in perpetuity preserved in perpetuity. Is that I don't wanna put words in your mouth. I'm just trying

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: to understand. I'm saying they are managed.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: They are managed.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: They are managed by professionals and held to the highest standard. And are they meeting the goals of conservation?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Is lands

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: Yes. Because they are so the trees in Vermont on UVA land are getting older and doing more for what I would say the the carbon cycle for both storage, you know, and sequestration.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Right. Thank you.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Appreciate it. Last this

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: is the last question. We're gonna move on to other witnesses.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Just so I'm sure that I heard you correctly. You said something about people putting their land in a conservation easement, farmers, I think you said, just to survive. What did you mean by that?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: Well, when you sell or choose to place a permanent conservation easement on a portion of your farm, that is a source of revenue. And that may be the difference between going bankrupt, auctioning off your cattle and assets, and and surviving for another generation. That's what I meant by that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: You're very welcome. Thank you, committee.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have Laura notes.

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: Good afternoon, everyone. I will try to be really brief. I don't have any photos for you today. Lauren Oates with the Nature Conservancy in Vermont. Nice to see you all. Happy Friday. I don't typically read, but I'm going to. First, I wanna be clear that this conversation today is not an argument about the value of the use value appraisal program or current use. It is an incredible tool that can be applied to both permanently conserved and non conserved lands. You'd be hard pressed to find any conservation organization in the state of Vermont that is opposed to use value appraisal. In fact, many of us have been in this very committee year over year advocating for the protection of current use and, in fact, the expansion of it. All of us probably have come in at least once for that. And just so just it's this isn't a value about UVA. It's a phenomenal program that Vermonters should be proud of and continue to support. Second, it's important to note that a significant portion of permanently conserved lands are in use value appraisal, acknowledging the important role of our working landscape and its ability to support ecological function too. So this a Venn diagram. It's not an either or. So you have permanently conserved lands. Some of those lands are in use value appraisal, and then you have non conserved lands that can be in use value appraisal. The conserved land inventory that's been part of the act 59 process to date estimates about 19% are in that natural resource management area category. Close to nearly all nonstate owned lands in that category are enrolled in use value appraisal. Nearly all of the land that The Nature Conservancy in Vermont owns and steward, which is about 30,000 acres, is enrolled in current use. It's a program that we regularly highlight with landowners. A recent example from Bennington County, we were down with the landowner who was really interested and even signed an agreement to confer her land to us. She decided she was interested in permanent conservation at the moment, and so we directed her towards the different categories of UVA and helped her figure out enrollment into that program. It's to say I I agree with representative Lipsky that conservation and forest management are not mutually exclusive at all. We, at TNC Vermont, spend a great deal of our own strategic work and time in forest management. Working forests are absolutely part of the conservation solution. Third, let's be clear that UVA is, however, not a permanent conservation tool, which is okay, and it's even important for greater enrollment and access to the program for Vermont landowners. When Act 59 was just a bill moving through committee, several committees, those of you around at the time heard many of us testify about the suite of conservation tools that are available to Vermont and Vermonters. We all use in varying capacities for achieving myriad conservation and economic outcomes. That is still true today. The various categories of current use apply to different landscapes and protection levels allow for a diverse suite of management practices, which yield important ecological and social outcomes. In fact, we can overlay UVA across both conserved and non conserved lands in an incredible and noteworthy part of its utility and success. The overlay allows for different types of forest management practices that create diverse forest and forestry outcomes. So h 70 is not about the value of UVA, but it is about the issue of permanence. The Nature Conservancy in Vermont stands by act 59 goals and vision, which aim to develop a plan to get us to 30% permanently protected by 2030, including a significant portion, again, that is open for management, around 19% of the inventory currently. Therefore, we oppose age 70 as drafted, specifically the removal of the word permanent from the definition of conserve for twenty thirty goals in statute. We feel doing so undermines the intent of act 59 and the thoughtful planning process that is currently underway and being led in good faith by the Vermont Housing Conservation Board and the Agency of Natural Resources. The good work of inventorying existing conservation tools and developing additional solutions for our natural and working landscape is underway via this process right now. Listening sessions are happening across the state. We fully suspect that this process will address the issue of UVA and how it counts or doesn't towards 2,050 goals. And we appreciate how robust the process has been to date. I encourage you, actually, if you continue to hear testimony, to invite in folks from DHCV or ANR to talk about the work that they're doing and the inventory and how UVA is being addressed there. That's all I have.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Thanks for your testimony. You're welcome. Representative Pritchard. How how much land does the Nature Conservancy have enrolled in VA?

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: So we own ish 30,000 acres and steward that. Basically, any acre that isn't swampy is enrolled. The vast, vast majority, I would estimate, 98%, probably, in the various categories. So there are different tiers of EVA.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: How much have you withdrawed from that program? We have not. Zero.

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: Yeah. Permanently conserved. That's the Venn diagram. Right? So there's a permanently conserved that isn't enrolled in UVA. Permanently conserved and UVA, not conserved UVA. So we we're mostly in that middle bucket right there. Thanks

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: for your testimony. Oh, representative. You, chair. Thank you for

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: your testimony. So what is the effect on property taxes that's due for land that is put

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: into permanent compensation conservation act with the the Nature Conservancy?

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: Like adjacent parcels, landowners, or

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: actual land that's that's purchased by the nature conservancy or putting an easement. What is the actual effect on the property tax for that?

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: Well, would depend on the level of enrollment and the type of conservation work that we're doing there, but I can get you those numbers happily.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: But it is reduced. The property tax gets reduced. Yeah. Just rough figures, is it like what, 2% reduction or half? Or I mean, is significant?

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: I would guess, and I would be told by staff that I'm wrong. So I'll get you the number. Happy to speak to you.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: So what is the primary reason why most people put their land into land trust easements for permanent conservation?

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: Oh, I don't think there's a I don't think there's a primary reason. The goals of permanent conservation can go all the way from purely agricultural to all the way to wild lands and everything in between. It really just depends on working with the landowner to understand what they want from their land.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Is that a tag, maybe? How many farmers who put their land in the land trust have said that's the only way that they can figure out that they they could stay viable?

[Lauren Oates (The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, witness)]: I don't know the answer to that, but I would definitely invite you to bring in Vermont Land Trust to answer it.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony. Thanks. Next up is Jamie Fidel.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: Yeah. It's good. Just Yep. Want to load this. Good morning. Great. Okay.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Good.

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: Thanks for having me in. Jamie Fidel, vice president with Audubon for Vermont. And just wanted to run through some slides. I'm gonna do this very quickly. And just from Audubon's perspective, as we think about this opportunity, we're thinking about utility of being able to look at how do we maintain a landscape that works for resilience purposes and that works for the species that we have here, and that works for communities, and that works for us as we interact in our communities, both from economic perspective, ecological health perspective. Audubon is definitely tracking this very concerning trend that we're seeing right now that we have massive bird declines happening, and birds are a very important indicator for overall wildlife health, ecological health, ecosystem health. And so, many of you may have seen a very important this was in Science Magazine. This was a comprehensive study that was done that shows that we're close to 3,000,000,000 birds being lost since 1970 here in the Eastern Forest. We're not immune to the effect of of this biodiversity loss. I was struck by this, headline just yesterday that I saw in the New York Times, just from a couple of days ago. New studies coming out that birds are declining even faster than was expected. And so we need to look at this, and we really need to think about how do we how do we maintain our landscape into the future so that we can we can hopefully do something about these losses that we're seeing. I really it was helpful for me to just go through act 59 because I guess I wanna start out by saying that I I agree with a lot of the sentiment that's been expressed here. The UVA program is extremely important. It's probably the most important conservation program when you think about the acreage that's been enrolled, the flexibility that landowners have to come into the program, the effect that it has on the landscape. And it's not the only conservation program, but it's of paramount importance. And as a member of the technical advisory committee working to inform the conservation plan through act 59, it's it's on my mind as an important part of of the process. I just wanted to go through, highlight a couple parts of the language of act 59 because I guess I feel like act 59 already accommodates a lot of what I've been hearing this morning. And so I just kind of want to quickly walk through that. As is recommended or recognized in the legislative finding, findings of Act 59, we need a full range of conservation approaches in order to implement Act 59. That's acknowledged in the findings and that includes supporting private landowner programs and easements. I often look at Act 59 and I'm struck by sometimes the focus just on the conservation goals and not the vision of Act 59. I feel like for me, there's three important categories in Act 59. There's a 30 by 30 goal, there's the 50 by 50 goal, and there's implementing the vision of Act 59. And all of those are in play through the conservation planning process and the inventory, which I'll point out. So it's important to remind ourselves that this is the vision of act 59, and it's to maintain a lot of different values, including supporting working farms and forests and sustaining biodiversity. And then there's the the 30 by 30 goals and the 50 by 50 goals. And as you've already been talking about, as Alan talked to yesterday, there's different sort of you there's an emphasis on permanent conservation and 2,030 goal, predominantly permanent, but then the opportunity to look at other durable programs for the 2,050 goals. And so that's important to acknowledge. And the inventory shall include a summary of the totality of conservation practices, both permanent and intermediate. And so if I read Act 59 correctly, the a program like UVA should be included in the inventory. That's what act 59 authorizes. And so that's that's why so there was there was a deliberate recognition in the beginning of the drafting of this bill that we don't just wanna look at permanent conservation when we're conducting an inventory, both intermediate and permanent programs are important to understand. And then furthermore, the act instructs over time, as we continue to attract the land that's in the inventory to track progress toward meeting both the vision and the goals, not just the goals, but the overarching vision for maintaining an intact and resilient landscape for a lot of different values and the goals shall shall be updated by annually. So it's a very comprehensive approach. The plan itself is supposed to include both strategies to meet the goals and the vision of the bill. And the strategies for achieving the vision and goal while continuing, and this is specific language in the conservation plans, protect very much agricultural land, working forest, recreational land, surf surface lands. So the plan is supposed to be very comprehensive. It's not at the exclusion of of working lands at all. It's very inclusive of thinking about their utility. And then I would just finally say here, again, underscoring that it's in multiple places. The act 59 underscores that the plan has to have recommendations to implement both the vision and goals while enhancing the state's current investments and commitments to working lands enterprises and working forest in this language. So as I read act 59, I always seen it as an important endorsement of all the principles that have been expressed this morning. And it's centered on trying to maintain a landscape as has been outlined by the agency of natural resources through Vermont Conservation Design, which really looks at all the important features on the landscape that we need to maintain to have ecological health, which is directly related to our economic health in the state. I won't go through all Vermont conservation design, it's about 72% of the state. The overall vision of the act tries to get at strategies to maintain our landscape at that level, a whole diverse suite of strategies. As has already been highlighted by Lauren, that if you look at this chart coming out of the inventory, the predominant majority of lands that are being conserved in Vermont, if you look at both the biodiversity areas and the natural resource management areas, are working lands. And so as conservation happens in Vermont, permanent conservation and enrollment in current use, it's benefiting working lands. As working lands are permanently conserved, we're helping to maintain the overall viability of forestry enterprises and management on our lands. And so that's the trend as conservation plays out in Vermont. And, yes, there is a portion

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: for

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: Wildlands, and that's valuable too because this is all based on landowners' values and their their election to exercise what they see as their property value, their property rights, as far as do they want to conserve their land and what are their values for conserving our land? But just the trend is that it overall benefits working lands. And then this is really important report that I was recently reviewing that the Agency of Natural Resources did on implementing Vermont conservation design, and it talks about the complimentary role of both UVA and permanent land conservation. Because I'm short on time, won't get into the pie chart here, but you can look at it in the report. And, but what it highlights is that if we look at Vermont conservation design, highest priority forest blocks, our most important forest blocks in the state that about 43% are enrolled in UVA, about three quarters of these acres do not have permanent conservation. So this is both talking about the importance of the UVA program in keeping these forest blocks functional and working and productive, it also highlights that recorders of them don't have permanent conservation, and so they could be subject to fluctuation over time as far as their status. I think this other statistic is really helpful because this is a trust for public land analysis that was done back in 2022. So this needs to be updated. But it, it, it looks at if you take the categories that are in act 59 right now, ecological reserves and biodiversity areas and the natural resource management areas, we're at what you already know, close to 27% conserved. If you look at the UVA lands that overlap with those, it's about 500 and close to 541,000. So there's already a pretty strong integration of UVA lands. And then there's a lot of lands that that are enrolled in UVA that are not conserved. About 30% of the landscape. So if you add that up, the important story is that when you consider UVA and we do need to consider UVA, we've got over half of the landscape in some kind of conserve status, whether we call it intermediate or permanent without getting into the semantics. It also highlights that we are already at the 50 by 50 goal. And so I think for us, a big concern is what does that mean for the whole planning effort? Do we then sort of walk away from it? Do we say we're there? And we shouldn't look at all the other strategies that we need to meet where landowners are. We don't think about the future trends of what's going to happen on our landscape. After COVID, we saw a lot of lands coming out of UVA at a rate that we hadn't experienced before. Will that happen again when the next crisis happens and people start thinking about moving back to Vermont as climate change impacts are occurring more and more, and people are actually literally moving to Vermont because we have a very attractive place to live as a refuge from a lot of other places that are going to see impact, what would be the impact to our our conservation programs and and land development opportunities. And so we just have to be aware of that volatility. So this is all to say that I would end by saying that don't think it makes sense to, as age 70 suggests, to weaken taking a hard look and supporting permanent conservation as part of the conservation goals in the act. The act 59 process as the language I've shown you takes all of these issues that we're discussing this morning into consideration. And I think there's going to be a very robust conversation on where does UBA fit in to the overall conservation plan? How does it help implement the vision? How does it help implement the goals that do have some flexibility into 2050 to look at whether programs are durable or not? We need to continue to recognize the value of the UVA program in the conservation plan and continue to track enrolled acreage in the inventory as is instructed and authorized. Need to continue to support the UVA program and its financial stability in the state and continue to celebrate that has a lot of flexibility and that's works for a lot of landowners. And that is a very important intermediate conservation program in Vermont. And then I'd say we should, through the act 59 process, look for strategies or incentives to perhaps promote longer term enrollment in UVA. I I, you know, had to call when I started at Audubon last summer. I received two calls from landowners who I know at least one of them was enrolled in UVA, and they want to conserve their land permanently. They're very concerned about what's happening to their land when they are no longer owning it. They reached out to a lot of land trusts. It's a 100 acre parcel, and they don't have an opportunity to conserve their land. They they want it's working lands. They want to conserve it permanently, and they can't. They actually don't have an option to do it. So we need to look through Act 59 at all the opportunities for that landowner if that's what they wanna do. Could we perhaps look at a voluntary election in UVA to enroll for permanent status or long term enrollment? What would that look like? There's gonna be pros and cons to that. What kind of incentives can we put into UVA if a landowner actually wants to enroll for a durable period of time? And keep it voluntary. That would not be something that's required, and we need to really understand the pros and cons of what that looks like. So that has to be studied. That's just an idea of the kind of creative thinking I'm hoping can occur through act through the act 59 process. So with that, I'll I'll end there. Happy to yeah. If there's time, answer any questions. Thanks.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony, representative Tagliavia.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Thank you. Could you give a little bit more detail about this 100 acre parcel where there was somebody who was interested in conserving their land and they were unable to? How how is that possible? What what conditions exist that would prevent someone permanently signing a conservation a conservation easement?

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: They have to work with a a land trust in order to hold that easement. And for many land trusts and for good reason, there's only a certain amount of capacity to work with with landowners. It's usually at a certain parcel size. So it doesn't usually work for the smaller landowners, you know, and compared

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: to some of

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: the larger parcels, their stewardship costs, not all landowners can can pay for the stewardship costs that are associated with putting an easement on their property. And so certain landowners can do it, who are able to work with land trusts, some landowners can't, they don't have have the option. So the F59 process right now is looking at greater capacity for smaller land trusts, regional land trusts, to be able to accelerate conservation opportunities with landowners like this. But they're enrolled in current use and when they pass on so children who are inheriting the land, they could take the land out and they'll pay a 10% penalty on the fair market value of that parcel. And that's that's what they can do. And so there's no there's no guarantee there. They can't bind their children from taking the land out.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: North and then Pritchard.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: You, madam chair. Thank you, Jamie,

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: for for coming in and

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: giving us this testimony today. And so so you've indicated with the numbers on the screen there that if we included all if it passed age 70, basically we'd be at 56%, meeting the requirements of Act 59 for 2050. So my question before you put that slide up is, why don't we just include age 70 and claim raging success and claim victory and we can all go home and be done, right? I thought that would be awesome. But your answer to that, that you said immediately following, was, well, what would the impact be in the future if people sold off, if people backed out of their UVA? And so my question to you is, don't we know exactly what goes in and out of the UVA program every year? And so it would be very, and for the past twenty years, it's a steady monotonically increasing value in UVA. If that curve ever started to dip down, wouldn't we immediately know that and be able to take action?

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: Yeah. So we can we can track this. Was just looking at the numbers. Yes. As I Yeah.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Exactly. We have that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, the numbers that were mentioned before, there was a decline. 5,000 acre difference.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: As I read the report 15,000 net increase. The the 15,000 was net.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: That's why All is the

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: 20 that's taken out. Am I

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: still sharing my screen? I'll I'll show you. Thousand net increase.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Your

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: so 35 was put in. 20 were taken out. Fifteen nine.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Oh,

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: here. If you just give me one second, I can actually pull this up. I was actually I was just looking at this.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: The question is, we already have monitoring in place. We know exactly what goes out. I mean, you have to get the report. We do It's like, oh, no. We won't know. We won't.

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: So I saw it from twenty four to twenty five. It's not up here. But anyway, based on that property valuation report.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, the

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: total acres was it went from two million five hundred seventy four thousand seven hundred forty two and twenty four to two million five hundred eighty nine nine five six. So let's just roughly call that 15.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: That's

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: 15. That was the annual current use enrollment. But then when you add in the the the lands that came out which we were citing before based on the withdrawal section. It was 20,000 acres. So there's actually a net decline.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: That's the numbers that are

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: are the total in. So that's after the the deduction was taken out.

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: This could be a very good question to ask property valuation and review just so we all are operating on the same facts. I think your point is a good one. I think what you're saying is that over time, there's a lot of land staying in the program, and we should celebrate that. I agree with that. And I think that the plan should acknowledge that front and center. And I think that we should continue to make sure that landowners have appropriate avenues if they want to permanently conserve their land and that we actually plan for a durable future. And I think things are going to change over time. I think there's going to be much more pressure on our landscape. I think there's going to be much more pressure on landowners to develop. We know we have very complicated challenges right now to understand how to how to fund our schools and the relationship of property taxes, and we have a lot of as I was showing you, still a lot of land in Vermont that's not enrolled. And so I would just ask you this question right now. If about three quarters of our lands are forested right now, and we just kinda take the baseline of of the 55% we're looking at, which is not just forests, it's other lands. But do we want to see over time, let's say, a 20 to 25 or 30%, you know, reduction of our of our natural areas in the state, and we don't. So we, if we look at implementing my conservation design, where we have natural areas now, and we try and figure out the suite of opportunities to do that, I would argue we should continue to look at ways to have permanent conservation be a strong option for landowners and factor in the current use program into that and look at how are we doing as far as implementing Vermont conservation design. We need both, but we shouldn't dilute the tools that we need to look at permanent conservation so we ensure into the future that we have enough land that can sustain both the working lands values we're talking about and the ecological values that we need.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Then I'm Tagliavia.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: So did I just hear you correctly? You were concerned. We have currently roughly 75% of our land is forested.

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: I think it's more than that, but yeah.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: But you seem to express concern that possibly a 25% loss in forest was bad. So does that mean you're against any farmland that was farmland being restored to farmland, especially when we're suffering an incredible loss of farmers in this state, and we're looking to do farm to table, feed our own citizens? That I'm I'm struggling with what I just heard. Did I hear that correctly?

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: I think we need to be we need to, you know, pay attention and be aware of helping maintain agricultural lands and forest land. What I'm just suggesting is that we don't look comprehensively at the suite of strategies that are needed, both UVA and permanent conservation. And we assume or I just am assuming that we're going to see land pressures and development patterns that will be very different in twenty years than we're seeing right now. And there'll be much more pressure on the on the landscape, and there will be more lands coming out of UVA, and there will be more pressure on landowners to develop for a whole host of reasons. And we have a housing crisis that we need to address and all of this will put more pressure on the land. And so I'm just concerned about a scenario where we don't plan for enough durability for the future.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Representative Pritchard. Yeah. So I guess I'm trying to understand how how that, you know, putting this land, this UV, and it affects conservation. The folks that are focused on that and have this mission, like The Nature Conservancy, the Vermont Land Trust, that's not going to stop them from preserving land. We've seen her testimony, at least this is the way I understand it, that the overall is 0.2%, and that's what it's been played along. For The Nature Conservancy, it's 0%. That's as close to permanence as you get. So I think to use the to say that this may not, you know, this may fall apart. I just don't believe that. Every trend shows people are going towards it and trying to preserve land. And I think the Conservancy and the Land Trust, this program helps them to take it from conserving to permanence. I think a lot of that happens within those programs. So, there's no penalty for including UVA in the goals. Just don't see how that affects this whole thing. And really, nobody's been able to show that clearly. I think it enhances it. Yeah.

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: I think a couple of things. One is is I don't think I'm suggesting that the whole thing was going to fall apart, but that there are going to be a lot more pressures and changes. And I think the act 59 process, it would be a value for people to consider. What do we think is is a reasonable sort of hedge for the future as far as the utility current use? What's the importance of permanent conservation? What's the right mix of strategies that we need? And we keep on focusing on the goals, but we want a conservation plan that focuses on the vision and focuses on trying to keep our natural working and natural ecological lands intact and functioning, is which a much Don't higher you think we're doing that now? I think we need to recognize and celebrate what we're doing now. And I don't think though, we should just stop at that and say, we're good. I think we need to have a proactive planning process like we're having now to investigate all of the strategies that we need for the future. And we need to understand what's the value of the programs now and how do we plan for more permanent conservation because that's what certain landowners wanna do when they don't have all the options. How do we maintain enrollment in current use? How do we look at maybe opportunities for landowners flexibility to enroll in current use maybe for a longer period of time? All these conversations are important. And I think that if age 70 was passed, my concern is then that will deflate all the good work that's happening by saying we're there, and then we'll think that we've got what we need, and then time would tell whether we were right or wrong. And I'm concerned that we should not lose the opportunity that we have right now to think about what's in act 59 and come up with a plan. This is a planning process. And so what what's you know, I would say, why not plan and have opportunities and a plan for the future?

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

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, chair. I'm not who do I who to direct this question to? It may be Lauren and B are professionally trained foresters. Back when I put my land and use value, it's a 175 acres initially, Primary question I was asked was, alright. Is this going to be active management, or is this going to be ask? So I

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: selected active.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: I'm on my third renewal. I turned it in April 25. So that's thirty years of management. At the time I put it in, the growth rate of my forest was estimated to be about 4%. The previous owner cut at about 3.4%. If I stay in active management of my oversized garden, am I still gonna be sustaining 4%, or has climate change changed that? I've seen explosive growth in my softwood trees in the last three years. I have no market. I don't wanna cut it unless I wanna ship softwood browns to Maine because of political differences between two countries. They're not going about the canopy. And my hardwood, I'm just gonna let it grow. So my question to forestry side, is the growth rate versus the cut rate throughout use value experience in the other part of the state different, or is it the same as mine?

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: I answer. Please. Sure. My guess is you're way over 4%. And your management that you've done actively has increased the growth rate. It's just a guess. But I suspect you hit a point where it skyrocketed.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Well, I have my own skidder, and I only put the ground put it on the ground, frozen ground in the winter. There you go. But I've been here for three and a half

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: years.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Damn. I've got Almost five years. So when I look at that, there's been no cutting

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: done. You've done it.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Until five years ago. So when I when I come to the management of my land, I said, I'm getting behind on my cut description, and I'm advancing in my age. Maybe I ought to look at this in a different manner. So I interviewed foresters. Yeah. I picked one who agreed with my plan. K. And I had to go and search for a professional logger because the part that I was falling behind on was the hard work, and I don't own any flatwood. Okay?

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: That's perfect.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: So I had to find somebody that would do it in the winter on hard ground so I wouldn't see a rut in the spring. Yep. I did find them. They professionally followed the forester. I I'm very pleased with the outcome, but but I would like to see the UVA be considered conserved. Did your forester tell you what the growth rate was? I never asked him. K. I just take a look at the tree, wanna go up and give it a hush.

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: I suspect the information is there somewhere. It's in your pen.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: You let our other witness.

[Sam Lincoln (Logger and landowner, witness)]: Comment? Brief brief comment.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And if you wouldn't mind, just for the record saying No, sir. And then Sam, comment.

[Sam Lincoln (Logger and landowner, witness)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand you're over time, and everybody's busy again. Jamie, I just want to respond to the dialogue between representative North and Jamie. I, as a proponent of age 70, don't think that the bill passes and we walk away. I don't think we ever stop looking at the trends and the issues in our natural lands. To me, that's not my goal, to count that and check a box and walk away. I just want to make that. And then my comments, I hope, reflect that too, that there are a lot of pressures and a lot of issues that need It's just a matter of encompassing more of what's going on.

[William "Bill" Sargent (Forester, witness)]: I'll let a couple of things set.

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Alright. I I we in

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: the interest of time

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: alright. Last question.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Thank you. On your number two of 15 slides, you've got you've showed the birds and stuff like that. My land has been in current use, I believe it's twenty three years, ten of which we signed the contract for. I've got at least two vernal pools or ponds. Tell me the difference in value of all the wildlife and biota in and surrounding that area, because mine is in UVA versus permanently conserved. Are they different? Is there a different value?

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: I think it's a wonderful question and one that would probably you could examine for, you know, days through testimony here. I mean, understanding the ecological, you know, value of different habitat types and communities. Well, if

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I no. And I think you're misunderstanding my question. I have two different contracts. One says I'm in UVA. One says I'm permanently conserved. Yep. The land doesn't change. The biota in around that area are though because of the two different contracts, is what's physically on the land more valuable one over the other?

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: I think you'd have to look at the terms of how the easement is structured. You'd have to look at your management plan, and you'd have to do some comparisons as far as the management that's happening. And there could be differences. There may not be. How so? You may have an easement, and I'm you'd be better to talk to somebody from the land trust community as far as how easements are structured. I don't know if there's certain buffers that are required in those easements.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: As far as I know, I think through DEC, there are buffers anyway that doesn't need to be in a program to have a buffer. That's why I'm asking. We've got land right now that's sitting with no UVA contract or a conservation easement. It's just free for whatever the landowner wants to do, but those particular areas are still virtually untouchable because of setbacks. That's why I asked, how is the land based on a contract different, especially for 23? Twenty three years of life cycles, of breeding cycles, and all of the birds, whether they be migratory or not, the salamanders, the reptiles, and amphibians. All I'm saying is that contribution to the conservation of all the biota that's there is the same. None of those birds know that I have a contract.

[Jamie Fidel (Vice President, Audubon Vermont, witness)]: Don't think it in the in the conversations I've been participating in act 59, I don't think anybody's disputing that there's a utility for both of these conservation options in helping to manage for biodiversity. They're they're they're valuable options. I think it's a question of durability, and you could take you you could decide to take your land out and pay the penalty, and we don't know what will happen to that habitat.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: And it's It'll be a clean water violation if I go too close to it. That's what'll happen. Jamie, you know that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I I'm gonna end this here. Conversations are gonna continue outside of the room. I appreciate all of you coming in today, sharing your perspectives, and having this time to talk about this.

[Representative Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Sure. Thank you. Thank you.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Adjourn. Before we adjourn before

[Representative Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: we adjourn, will

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: we have time to continue this conversation in this room?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I can't answer that question right. Next week.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Next week? Not next. The the week we get back. I

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we will be taking up a lot of bills that are coming to us.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. So there's no guarantee that we will be able to continue this conversation?

[Representative Jed Lipsky (House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry; witness)]: No. There's not. No. I

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: make a motion that we take a vote on age 70 right now. Second. If that's according to

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: the quorum. Or the quorum. Yeah. Do you have to warn votes? No. We don't. We did this last we did this last session.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K. We're gonna then take a break. Right?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: The same people showing back up afterwards. We have a quorum right now.