Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We're going to continue taking testimony on S-three 25 and hear from Billy Coster at the Agency of Natural Resources. Welcome.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Thank you. Thank you for having me. My name is Billy Coster. I'm the director of planning and policy at the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. For context, ANR is a statutory party in the Act two fifty process, and we provide evidence of recommendations to Act two fifty district commissions on many of their criteria, all of the primary and sub environmental criteria. So we review every Act two fifty major and minor Act two fifty application that gets filed in the state and review them across dozens of different technical programs within our agency and provide written comments to district commissions and participate in hearings for major projects. So we're intimately involved in the Act two fifty process, have been for many, many decades, and have been working closely with the LERB as they work to implement ACT-one 181. So I first want to acknowledge and appreciate the hard work and commitment the LERB has brought to the implementation of ACT-one 181. LERB leadership and staff are doing the best they can to manage complex issues on an untenable timeline without the benefit of meaningful public engagement around Tier three and the road rule prior to passage of Act 20. LERB has been receptive to public feedback and is working to find a path forward for Tier three. Concept the new deadlines provided in S-three 25 could provide the time necessary to complete that work. I do want to pause and note here that the new deadlines proposed in S-three 25 closely resemble the implementation timeline that then Natural Resources Board indicated was necessary for successful implementation of Act 181 prior to its passage. Hopefully, this experience will serve as a future reminder to advocates and legislators that new complex things take time, and that time and appropriate resources should be provided or requested by implementing agencies. As I was saying, while S-three 25 could in concept provide a path forward with its extended timelines, the proposed date extensions for Tier three and the Road Rule are at this point likely insufficient to remedy the harm caused thus far by the process. Public trust is greatly diminished, and the fallout from Tier three and the road rule are beginning to seep into other priority areas from my agency and our efforts to protect natural resources across the state, threatening their long term success. Therefore, the agency appreciates the value of potentially repealing those sections of ACT 181, and if necessary, restarting the public dialogue from the ground up around where, why, and how to increase land use regulations outside of Tier one areas to address forest fragmentation. Last week, this committee heard extensive, well researched and compelling testimony from Vermonters facing potential impacts from Tier three and the road rule. Many of those voices came to Montpelier from our rural communities. They came to this room from communities that support Vermont's 4,500,000 acres of forest, a forest that represents over 75% of the state's land area. Of that 4,500,000 acres, over 3,600,000 acres are in private ownership, meaning that 80% of Vermont's forests are owned and maintained by your neighbors and friends. These Vermonters, often for generations, have done the state and the region a great service by keeping our forests healthy and intact. As your witness, Neil Ryan, explained in detail, these are the same folks who are likely to bear the brunt of increased Act two fifty regulation under Act 180. In 2022, the Vermont legislature enacted and Governor Scott signed Act 154, an act related to environmental justice. Act 154 establishes an environmental justice state policy that declares, It is the policy of the state of Vermont that no segment of the population of the state should, because of its racial, cultural or economic makeup, bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens or be denied an equitable share of environmental benefits. It is further the policy of the State of Vermont to provide the opportunity for meaningful participation of all individuals with particular attention paid to environmental justice focused populations in the development, implementation and enforcement of any laws, regulation or policy. Many rural communities have come forward with legitimate questions as to whether this policy has been adequately applied with the implementation of AC-one 100 and The very communities where our forests and significant natural areas thrive have lost trust in the process. Implementation of Tier three and the rule of rule has not moved at the speed of trust for these impacted areas of the state and has instead exacerbated a simmering divide across the state. We are now seeing that lack of trust impact other critical programs. Concerns regarding Tier three and the rural rule are beginning to undermine support for development of Vermont's 30 by 30 conservation plan. Questions are emerging regarding the role of the use value appraisal program in Tier three, and recently a small number of landowners have revoked public access for recreational trails that cross their land in protest to the Tier three and road rule provisions of Act 181 and associated process. Additionally, ANR has long valued and relied upon the trust of Vermonters to allow us to explore and investigate unique resources on private land. This trust has enabled a growing catalog of threatened and endangered species in significant natural communities across the state. It has also allowed our Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop, publish, and maintain Vermont conservation design, a vision for an ecologically connected landscape in Vermont. The Department has been clear and consistent since the inception of BCD that it will not be used as a means to trigger regulatory jurisdiction. That commitment has been critical to its success and wide embraced by Vermonters. With data from BCD increasingly incorporated in Tier three mapping, we hope that trust and partnership with Vermonters will hold steady. These concerns are unlikely resolved by a simple extension of dates. As a member of the Tier three stakeholder group, the agency is also increasingly finding structural challenges with implementing the critical resource area component envisioned in Act 181. This new jurisdictional class, Tier three, breaks from Act two fifty's whole parcel approach and applies only to discrete portions of a parcel and an area of involved land or infrastructure which is providing challenging to define. Given the permanence of Act two fifty jurisdiction, it is unclear how these restrictions will run with the land as structures are modified, removed or rebuilt in slightly different locations. We are also concerned that with a 2,000 foot trigger for most driveways under the road rule and the current 800 foot buffer for Tier three habitat connector areas, that the combination of the road rule and Tier three may create the perverse incentive to locate new development between eight zero one and nineteen ninety nine feet from existing roads to avoid Act two fifty oversight, rather than to locate that development closer to roadsides, which is by far a more preferable location from both an environmental and economic perspective. S-three 25 also authorizes the LERB to waive some or most Act two fifty criteria in their review of development triggered by Tier three or the roadblock. This is confounding. After years of handling Act two fifty for its comprehensive, robust consideration of impacts, Advocates are now recommending limiting review to as few as one criteria in these areas. Under this framework, whichever criteria ultimately apply in Tier three or World Rule areas, they are likely to be highly technical, requiring significant input and support from my agency and our staff to Act two fifty district commissions to interpret and apply. It's unclear why the state in Tier three and road rule areas would require Act two fifty reviewed by a lay tribunal with high permit fees to review one or two technical environmental criteria that would be better conducted by a professionally staffed permit program at an administrative agency. All that said, I'd like to end on a positive note. Even without Tier three and the road rule, Act 181 expands Act two fifty's criteria to include consideration of impacts to forest blocks and connecting habitat. This is an important update to address forest fragmentation where review is triggered under existing Act two fifty jurisdiction. This is a win for the environment and something ANR and the broader environmental advocacy community has long sought. Additionally, the future land use mapping process, the professionalization of the Land Use Review Board, and the Tier 1A, 1B framework will dramatically improve statewide land use planning, environmental protection, and incentivize growth in the parts of our communities best served to support it. Overall, our agency supports the intent and objectives of Act 181. We see great value in the work that's already underway, but have significant reservations about the substance and overarching implications of how the road rule and Tier three are being implemented. So happy to take any questions.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have questions.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Representative Chittenden. Thanks,

[Unidentified member (referred to as 'Representative Chittenden')]: Billy. It's great to hear that succinct statement from you. We appreciate that. I have a bunch of questions. I think I'll start with just I think a lot of us are questioning why Act two fifty is the right regulatory tool for these particular critical resource areas. We needed to hone in on exactly what those were that weren't already well protected by other programs? And just from your perspective, with a suite of different permitting programs within ANR, is there an opportunity to look at other permit programs that could be simply expanded in their jurisdiction as opposed to something so robust and aimed? There must be permit programs that are aimed at single family home construction level type of construction versus our Act two fifty tool, which has been largely into much larger development?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Certainly. So AC-one 181 in the rulemaking provision for tier three identified a half a dozen resources for the LERB to consider as potentially identifying as critical resource areas. Part of that analysis was to identify if other regulatory programs already or could be adjusted to protect them. Very early on in the leverage process, ANR conducted a gap analysis of those six, and we found that the only two that didn't have meaningful existing programs were habitat connectors and significant. All the other ones were typically water based and had some sort of nexus with existing DEC programs, or those programs could be slowly modified to address them. So we didn't, in that process, recommend that Act two fifty was the best means to address those gaps. We just provided that information to the LERD. And through their stakeholder process, I think they began with an assumption that Act two fifty would be the tool to do that. I think they pulled headwaters in. I think they may be considering dropping those. But they have yet to really, at least in my experience, discuss whether there's other means to get there.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry, whether what?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: There's other means to address those gaps in the regulatory framework.

[Unidentified member (referred to as 'Representative Chittenden')]: One follow-up, and I'll save some of my other questions for later. So you may have been listening in to our discussion with Laura just now. At the end, they were talking about the tier two report and how that report, that's coming eventually back to us might address what do we

[Unidentified member]: do if we're not on the call.

[Unidentified member (referred to as 'Representative Chittenden')]: And my question is really, is the LERB the right entity to make those recommendations? They have the right expertise and process.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah. Thank you for that.

[Unidentified member (referred to as 'Representative Chittenden')]: And if not, who and how?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Right. I think Valeria is an important voice at the table. I don't know that trying to answer that question in the context of a tier two report that's really focused on active duty control is the best means to get there. I think it may repeat some of the same missteps that got us to where we are right now. I think they should be part of that conversation, but it likely should be led by a broader group of regulatory agencies that have that full breadth of experience to see what the best tools are. That would be my initial suggestion. I'd certainly think more about it. I do think also the framing of how is tier two working, are there gaps, is maybe not ideal either. I think backing up to say, What are we actually trying to solve for here? What is the problem? Is it royal sprawl? Is it forest fragmentation? Is there a concern that we think is not sufficient or a gap in our existing system that's not sufficient? And let's get people to weigh in very broadly at that level. I've been quite involved in development of the Climate Action Plan, 30 by 30 conservation plan. What we hear consistently from Vermonters, from stakeholders, from advocates is they want to frame the question. They want to be at least at the table when the question is framed. They don't want to enter a conversation where those cyborgs have been established concretely. And that's a challenge as a regulator, as an administrator. Just saying to a group of people, What do we do here? Doesn't necessarily work either. But I think there's a growing body of work that creates pathways for that level of buy in from the ground up for these sorts of questions.

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

[Rep. Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: Did I understand you correctly that to help tamp down the level of mistrust and anger at the process that you think that repeal the road rule in tier three at this point, and starting from scratch with that and expecting those two shouldn't be off the table and is probably a good step to take. Is that correct? That's correct. I don't know that simply extending the timeline for those processes at this point would be constructive. The issues that the road rule and Tier three are trying to address are important ones for our agency.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: They're concerns that we've shared for a long time around the impact of scattered growth on our environment. So we want to see progress made where necessary and appropriate. So kind of stepping back, taking stock of where we're at, and finding a way to move those conversations forward in a more inclusive way would be our recommendation.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Further questions? Representative North?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll now take the bullet for your testimony.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Been involved in the Act 50 permitting and reviews for for a long time. What percentage of Act two fifty are approved? My understanding is it's remarkably high, north of 96 or north of 90%, certainly. So,

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Act two fifty doesn't prevent development. Just requires paying lawyers and engineers and experts to complete the application and get through it. Is that true?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: In some instances, does. In other instances, I do think that the Act two fifty process does potentially put in place conditions and require modifications to projects that either make them impossible to achieve the objective of the landowner or diminish the outcome in some ways. So, while it's true, Act two fifty does not decline a number of applications, it certainly modifies proposals significantly. And often that's for the best. At its best, Act two fifty is adding value. It's taking something that someone wants to do on their land, in their community, looking at it through a wide range of considerations, and bringing resources and information to the table to make it better. But there are certainly instances where that process is restrictive and where issues that are more neighborly and less technical have a bearing on the ultimate outcome of what folks can do. But even in those cases where modifications are made, the development still ultimately occurs.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: It just might be a move over here, a little smaller footprint over there. Typically, yeah.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: There's certainly instances where people don't choose to move forward, but that's a minor argument.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So it seems to me that that activity is completely the wrong tool to use today to protect these natural resources when 90% of the time, it won't work. Permits get approved anyhow just with some modifications. It's just a matter of money to get through it. What it means is just a massive displacement of people who already own the land, because they're likely less fortunate, wealthy from a lot people. And they'll just be replaced by wealthier folks who can come in and pay for it all and get through it all, put there maybe a mini McMansion in a place where they would like on that same property.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: I would say Act two fifty is not entirely dissimilar to other regulatory programs, most of which don't say yes or no. They say, do it differently. So I don't think Act two fifty is unique in that. Our stormwater program, rivercorder program, those are similar reviews where something is proposed, there's a resource that we're concerned about, and we say, do it a little differently, and if you're able to, then you're good to go. But those are typically more binary technical analysis. It actually introduces a level of discretion and this broad breadth of criteria that unique. And there's real value in it, but there's also a cost in impediment in some instances. I think we're agreeing. Yeah. And But but I don't think we're disagreeing. Sorry. Good for an ounce or something. Representative Logan?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. I would like to, you know, directly respond to what rep North said here and maybe just frame the question a little differently. I I mean, I would first like to object to the statement that just having money means you're gonna be able to do projects that'll harm natural resources, And you'll get an Act two fifty permit. I think what we're hearing is that going through the Act two fifty permitting process or any number of other permitting processes means that you substantively change the project in a way that it protects the natural resources in question. It's more of a consultation process that results in an approval of development that doesn't, you know, harm the rest of us in the process, because that's what we're really talking about. Like the limitation on what somebody can do on their property should be whether or not it harms other people. And we're talking about resources that are crucial to the survival of humanity. And so it's really important that we have a policy that gets it right, especially as we're looking like two and three decades out when we can't replace resources once they're lost. And we're gonna need to sustain the life of a lot more human beings in Vermont probably in two or three decades than we are right now due to climate freeze migration. And so I think it's you know, I think I'm a little resistant to just entirely giving up on tier three or the road rule without having some plan in place to achieve the same policy outcomes. And I think it's our responsibility to do it. And I guess my question is, because you've anal because you've done the gap and analysis and recognize that there are these there are no permits that can deal with forest fragmentation and critical resources. Like, why wouldn't Act two fifty be a good I know it's an unusual way to use Act two fifty, but why it's a development review process. And we recognize the usefulness of Act two fifty is primarily due to the lack of capacity at the municipal level to do regulation on-site in the way that better resource municipalities can do because they have their own staff. But I'm curious, like, why is that not? It's an like I said, it's an unusual path to take for, Act two fifty because it isn't on the parcel level. But, like, couldn't we find some way to manage the development review process through Act two fifty in a way that has a similar result? And I also think what we're hearing through public feedback too. So, just before I ask that actual question, I think what we're also hearing, in terms of public feedback is a lot of complaints about other permitting processes, actually. People will say, like, well, f two fifty means I can't build like, we can't build a, you know, house on this property, and then you find out it's actually a wastewater permit that's holding them up, that they think it's Act two fifty. So it does seem to me like there's there's, like, a complexity to our our permitting process around really, really crucial natural resources that is making it difficult for like a normal person to navigate, a person without a ton of resources. And like, I'm curious about how we make this entire process simpler and Act two fifty has the benefit of being more holistic in the first place. And it seems like that's what people are looking for is a place where they can go, like one place where they can go to deal with all of these development issues on their own property, which is aside from the question of whether or not we should be telling people that they can or can't do something on their property. But I think that's a legitimate thing to do when it has a huge human impact off that property. But, yeah. So what are your thoughts about her? Why not Act two fifty?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: I would say I don't think that it's impossible or completely inappropriate to use Act two fifty to address some of the concerns that you've articulated. I think my concern with the specific approach using it now with the road rule in Tier three is that, as you heard last week, there's just based on facts or fiction, there is a dynamic in the state right now that's going to make that conversation very difficult and productive. So, I'm saying let's take a step back and assess. And maybe through that reassessment, Act two fifty emerges as one of the tools we use to address whatever problem statement we identify. I think the other reason why Act two fifty would be unusual to use in this instance is because of a couple of factors: its comprehensive nature and its permanence. When Act two fifty jurisdiction is triggered on the parcel for most forms of development, it's there forever. So, any activity that occurs in the future on that property that's a material change, a substantive change requires going back to a district commission, getting an amendment. And that's unique to, I think, any other permit I can think of. Typically, regulation addresses the impacts at the time of construction or the operation of it. And the operational permits need to be amended or updated from time to time. And those other permits are often referred to as media permits, in that they focus on a very specific issue, and it's usually a fairly technical, ideally binary analysis. You have X amount of earth disturbance, so you need Y permit. You've got this much of an impact on a resource, you do or you don't need a permit. ACT two fifty, both by the nature of their criteria, which is much more qualitative, opens it up to a lot more discretion and interpretation. And then the breadth of criteria, it's both its value. If you're looking at a major development in your community, you want to know if it's impacting municipal services and consistent with the town plan. If you're looking at one house in one place, that breadth of criteria just may not be necessary. So I think that's the big distinction. The permanence, the overarching nature, it's really developed as a tool for big things. And many of these impacts to these critical resources and fragmenting impacts to forests are not big things. They can be small things with an outsized impact that traditionally media permit programs are more adept at addressing. It's not to say either or. It's just that's the reality of how we've typically done stuff.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Question. So just a follow-up question on that. It sounds to me like we need to have fairly intensive conversation with Vermonters about their property and their communities and how to achieve our our policy goals around preservation of our natural resources for the sake of all of us. And I'm cure you know, I I think one of the things that we struggled over when talking about f one eighty one was making sure that there were adequate resources available to do that engagement. I did not feel like we had the support of the administration to put those resources into process. I'm curious if the administration would support, or has the resources itself to conduct public process around these issues that we are surfacing, or would support us making some appropriations to be able to have the land use review board hire a consultant or have the agency of natural resources lead a process out or something like that?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah, fair question, and I don't know the answer to that. I'm certainly happy to get that for you or have someone higher up in the administration come in and speak to it. But yeah, this sort of engagement is resource intensive, and I think even when we've really done a good job of it, we haven't entirely hit the mark. And I know with the Global Warming Solutions Act, it has a provision that requires an enhanced level of public engagement beyond most rulemaking processes. And we have dedicated staff people at both my agency and at the Public Service Department that are focused on outreach and communication. They go to nontraditional communities. They go to where people are gathering. They go at night. They go to farmer's markets. They do a tremendous amount of work getting to places where they can access folks that aren't often at tables like these and bringing information to them and getting their ideas. And it's a tremendous endeavor. So they do a great job of it. I think that model could certainly be replicated for these sorts of land use conversations. I don't know off the top of my head what the resource requirements would be, but they're not insignificant.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think I know the answer to this, but I just want to make sure before I ask a follow-up. Have you been involved in rulemaking processes in your time at A and R?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: I have not. I haven't led them. I've participated in them.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So I guess I'm curious, as a member of the stakeholder group, the relationship between the stakeholder group and the LERB and what your advice was. We've heard from other stakeholders. I'm curious what yours was in this kind of how the approach they took to providing maps and information on tier three and the road rule and the way it was rolled out?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah. I think thank you for that question. I think Tier three was unique in that the kind of first step of the rulemaking process was to identify what resources the rule would apply to. And I think that's somewhat unique. Usually, the rulemakings I've been involved with, the statute is more prescriptive about what the standard is, and then the rule is more of an implementation document. And I certainly recall during the Act 181 process, there was a lot of conversation about what should be a critical resource area. Is this something we can legislate? Is this something that needs further work? And I think the LERB is still struggling with that. It's just a really hard question to say, what are these places on the landscape that are so unique and important that they need this added level of protection? I frankly thought it might be easier to come to that place, and it hasn't been. So our advice to the LERB was to start small, to really try to focus on areas where there's true gaps, and then build from there. And I think they did that to some extent. I think it's hard when you acknowledge that we have connecting habitat that's really important all over the state. And to look at that seriously, you have to start with somewhat of a wide lens. But I think they've been doing the best that they can. I think there may have been value in pausing longer and engaging the public more thoroughly before subsequent drafts of maps and rules came out, but they were on a timeline to meet the existing deadlines, which were pretty demanding. So I don't think that they necessarily had the time to do that work. They certainly did at least one round of pretty significant statewide public engagement. They've been to all the regions. They're doing the work. But I think for something of this magnitude, just having a little bit more space to, before deciding things, go out to folks with those conversations. And as you all know, whenever you put something on a map, you've lost control of it. So that's a really hard thing with these conversations. When you're dealing with place based, map based decisions, you can put all the caveats in the world that you want on a map, but when people see them, they interpret it in the way that they're going to interpret it. And it's really hard to stay ahead of that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. And I guess specifically, I'm curious if there were ecologists involved or how they were involved in the thoughts behind the corridors. That seems to be one of the biggest things that overwhelms people. And to show a map with folks' houses in it, existing developments. I actually pose this not so much because I want to go backwards, but when I thought of wildlife corridors as a resource there, I was thinking of the top seven or 10, the whole state. Every and and then to put a buffer around that corresponded to the road rule numbers seemed also like, what where did that decision come from? And how did that get even of put on the table?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah, I remember precisely, but we identified habitat connectors as a gap. We suggested that the Vermont Punctuation Design highest priority habitat blocks would be a good baseline for the conversation. Those are, in the broadest sense, significant habitat connectors statewide. And then really encourage the stakeholder group to figure out how they want to refine from there. The ecologists in our agency were reluctant to prioritize Bound VCD. They felt that the entire network is important. For a connected ecological landscape. I think when the had questions and suggestions, we engaged with them, but it was really the LRRB board members who drove how to use that underlying BCD data to come up with the various iterations that they had. There were other ecologists on the group. I'm trying to remember, I believe folks from the Vermont Center for Ecologic Studies was on it. I think Eric and Liz may have been. I've been in so many stakeholder groups, forget. But there was other ecological representatives beyond our agency. Vermont Audubon was there. At one point, I provided some of the stakeholders a copy of the Vermont Conservation Design gap analysis we did for the Act 59 process, the conservation planning process that showed where there was gaps in conservation. And that identified, I think, 10 regionally significant wildlife corridors in the state. I provided that as a reference if folks wanted to kind of narrow in that way. I think we offer the Staying Connected initiative as another resource. So, there's certainly groups and expertise in the state who have taken that statewide network and said, these are the top seven, ten places to focus. Why that concept wasn't embraced by the steering committee, I don't know.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other questions, Representative Labor.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Can testify. I come from the most economically depressed rural area of the state, 12 towns and three gores. And altogether, they only get 4,609 people. That's a Actually, I ran out of space in the iPad to save all of the emails that I got regarding tier three and the road. It's primarily ag and forestry. There are very few industries other than Columbia Forest Products. There are educational systems. They're probably the biggest employers. And I only know of half a dozen loggers spread around through that whole area. A lot of them now are crossing the river to New Hampshire because there's less restrictive regulations. I may be misinformed, but it was my understanding that we were trying to improve our lack of housing and make it more affordable and more reasonable. I think there was a good attempt to do that, but the interpretation by over 500 people on our capital steps in one protest demonstration plus all the emails, Out of several 100 emails, I only have two that come from my district. Over 90% come from much further south, like Route 4 across the state and VLO. A lot of that is Chittenden County. I understand that, and I think that's a good thing. Maybe that'll loosen up some housing on the tier ones. But in our area, there's some three to five generations that own the same plot of land and forest. It's very hard for them to get just even imagine being told what they can and can't do for the grandchild or child on their own land, keep them close to home for adult support in their senior years and to perpetuate the farm and forest ecology. There are no in my estimation, there is no better conservation than a farmer and a forester called forest freedom. So I believe you are right on three. You're three, and the road rule is nonsense. My own driveway is 2,000. It's one mile long.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Thank you for that. Did try to acknowledge in my testimony the important role that our private farmer forest land owners have played in keeping Vermont forested in the way that it has. And I agree with you, those folks need to be part of this conversation from the ground up. I do also want to acknowledge that we've been very fortunate to be able to keep what we've had, and that may persist for some time, but there's going to be a point in the future where we're going to probably see some additional pressures on our landscape. So I think this is not a conversation that should go away and never come back. I think we should have a rational, inclusive conversation about what problems we may face in the future from additional development pressure in different parts of the state and how we get ahead of those in a way that is responsive and respectful for the folks in your district and all around the state. Because I think there's a real shared love of Vermont. And I think everyone would agree that we want to try to keep our economy vital, keep families here and protect our environment. And I think right now we're disagreeing about how to do that rather than whether that's a shared goal. So I just think trying to reset and make sure that we can do that in a way that is constructive would be a great objective for the coming years.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks for your testimony. Do you have a question? Yep.

[Unidentified member]: So I don't know if you've read the speeches report or not, but it talks about how Vermont will need to build 40,000 homes houses by 2030. No one's moving here. I think our population increases point zero three. I think it's one of the lowest growing states in the country. We have the lowest birth rate in the country and the oldest demographic in the country. And so that would equate to, I think around, I don't know, 8,000 houses a year or something like that. So I always saw 181 as a housing bill, a bill that along with lowering healthcare and dealing with education would make them unaffordable, you know, it was kind of like a solution to me, this three pronged approach. Can you see how we can get that housing built and still preserve, you know, our most precious and irreplaceable natural environments?

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yeah, I'm not an expert on this issue, but I think the work that ACC one hundred ninety one does to incentivize growth in our existing communities and areas that have infrastructure and where we've traditionally seen our villages and downtowns and broader communities making it easier to grow in those places so that we can get those units faster and more affordably in places where it makes sense, I think is something that ACT 181 is already doing, the HOME Act, the interim exemptions, we're seeing real benefits from that. My hope is that the future land use planning that the regions are doing to help identify not just those traditional downtowns of Village Centers, but the kind of areas of future growth around them and put the tools in place to promote density in those places will hopefully help with that as well. And then I think there's a piece that isn't part of ACT 181, but really trying to maintain a robust farm and forest economy and recreation economy in the rural parts of our state, those are the engines that kept those communities alive for many generations and have kept keeping intact forests economically feasible for private citizens in Vermont. So the more we can do to kind of support and innovate in those spaces so that farms can stay farms, forests can stay forests, that will hopefully protect those resources through market forces. And then to have this broader conversation about what are the risks to our environment going forward, what are the best ways to address that in a way that works for as many of our models

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: as possible.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Thanks.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks so much for your testimony.

[Billy Coster (Agency of Natural Resources)]: Thank you for the time.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Shall we take a break? It's still 03:30 and come back for discussions.