Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, good morning. This is Southern Natural Resources and Energy. And I think it's thirteenth. It's okay. We're good. We're good. We got there. And yeah, I think I said all the things. February 13, it's enough resources and energy. And we are starting this morning with hearing from

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: the conservation districts. Yes. So welcome. Thank you. Thank you.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: Thank you for having us. We appreciate it. We're in the building all day as part of our advocacy day, so please stop by. We're doing storm table demonstrations as well at the LG's office at noon, 12:30.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait, I'm sorry, where? At

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: the LG's office.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: At the LG's office, amazing. I love the screen table. So for the record,

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: I'm Michelle Monroe, I'm the executive director of the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts. And just to give a little background, the legislature created Vermont's 14 conservation districts in 1939 as county scale units of government as part of the National Response to the Dust Bureau. Districts do conservation work of all kinds. Just a few highlights, we remove dams, conserve and restore wildlife habitat, plan and implement storm water projects, restore floodplains, and provide technical assistance to farms to help them comply with the required agricultural practices. In FY25, a couple of highlights. We planted 29,422 stems across Vermont. We assessed 101

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: culverts, restored 170

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: acres of wetland, and treated five ten acres of invasive species.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: One of

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: the unique aspects of conservation districts is that we partner very closely with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, which funds conservation practices of all kinds across Vermont. This year, there's about 25,000,000 that's going be coming to the state for energy use for projects. NRCS, like other federal agencies, has been hit pretty hard with staffing losses. So just wanted to let you know that the districts have been flexing some of our staff, shifting job duties around, expanding hours that people are working, adding more staff to compensate for the losses that NRCS and the key projects and work happening on different things. So we're being here, of course, to talk about our budget ask. So we are asking this year for $948,200 which we ought to, but it's the $612,000 that we received in base funding through the agency of agriculture, plus 250,000 in one time funds that we received for this current year that we would like to have

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: added Say in to again.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Say that again. So

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: we received 612,000 for the governor's budget. Last year, we received one time funds, thank you Senator Watson for championing that, of 250,000. And we would like to combine those and then have a slight increase to account for some of the increased costs that we're all facing, particularly healthcare costs, because we want to be able to provide good benefits to our staffs and routine them. And this money that we receive from the state is the most flexible funding that we receive, because most of the dollars are tied to the projects.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, can

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: you go back to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: that last one for just one Yeah. More

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: It's coming. Thank you. Thank you.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: And so to give you an idea of the breadth of how we use these funds, this is what just one district, Orleans County, did with the state money that they've been receiving to this current, this past year. Jay, help

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: us separate as you go, the ask above the six and twelve.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: The ask above the 612? So we would like to take the 250,000 that we received.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Think, and Pull that in. That $2.50 just more money? No. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: It was one time funds.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yep, okay.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: But we would like to build that into our

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: system. So

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: to just tell you how we used all, we used that money from taxpayers and this is just for Orleans County. So they did septic system inspections and maintenance assistance to residents of a Lake Harbor watershed. They installed check dams on a thousand feet of ditch on a farm where water quality testing had remedial erosion. They partially funded the purchase of a rock picker to visit farmers with crop rotation, and they provided three willow stays to residents to address erosion, and that was just what one district did with that little bit of money you can get. Because by the time you buy it out amongst 14 districts, it's not a big chunk of funding each. And so as you can see, for every dollar that we get in base funds, leverage the additional money. And we've also used this funding to support what's called locally led conservation. Sorry to this. Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: How do you leverage the nine?

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: That we, this is the

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: money that we, you know, this money provides a little bit of base funding for our staff often, and then we use that to provide matching funds or to cover staff time for writing grant applications.

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: Draw it down.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Yeah, federal We

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: draw down federal funds, sometimes state funds. We do a lot of, for water projects funded

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: by the folks. So

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: we, one of the uses of this funding is that we use it to gather public input into what conservation priorities are in each district. And then that we can turn those publicly identified conservation policies are used to inform how NRCS spends its money in the state. That 25,000,000 is coming through USDA. They also funnel that upward to how national priorities are set for NRCS. And in Vermont is one of six states where we can take that, our locally led conservation priorities, priorities we identified through this public process, and request funding specifically to address them. So this year we received 4,400,000.0. So Lauren, whom you'll hear from, her district got 1.5 to go to farmers to address nonquite source pollution from farmsteads. The Memorial District received some, a few 100, a couple 100,000 to focus primarily on projects on headwaters of students that feed into the memorial. So, it really depends on what the district is doing. You draw up premiums funds. It's a really nice thing that this partnership with NRCS can dramatically lead what people in the community say are priorities in their community. Sorry, I have a

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: follow-up question. This is about a topic we were just, this is like a couple slides ago, but how much is the governor's recommend for you all? It's 12. So it's level. Level. Normally it's

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: the past, they cut it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Better than We married.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: Let them know that the legislature was a little frustrated that they had it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then you ask if $9.48 is in addition to the $6.12? No, it's $6.12. Want that total. We'd like to frame that

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: $6.12. Gotcha. Okay. I'm sorry.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'm what

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: I mean.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Was absolutely fine. No, no, Thanks. I, you said it. I'm just, sometimes I gotta like talk about it to make sure I understand it. Thank you. Oh, for minute. Is that the whole

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: point for that? Does that make sense to federal funding?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, no, this doesn't come

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: to the districts. This comes So the districts need a process that identifies the priorities for that money, but then the money goes to landowners in the district.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: And how much money do you get from the federal government?

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: From the federal government, it varies by district, but for the most part, the districts aren't getting direct federal funding unless they've got a grant contract. So you'll steer Lauren's going to talk about a dam removal that that's where they've got a little bit of US fishing well, I think we need to support that. The Essex District had a $1,000,000 project with US Fish and Wildlife in Bloomberg where they're upgrading from Caledonia. So we do get federal, so federal money that we use generally general specifically, except for some money from NRCS to do technical assistance on farms.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So the money you get from the state is actually your base funding?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It is. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: It is our base funding. Okay.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Yes. And

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: of brought, I apologize for rushing your mind, but I wanted to hear from Lauren. She's got a lot of cool things to talk about. I'm going to hand that over and I'll be available to help answer Lauren's question. Okay, come on. Do you want me to take over that or are you going to?

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: You for having me today. I'm Lauren Muston. I manage the Making Habitat for Resources and Conservation District in St. Albans, one of 14 street managers in Haunt, and I just wanted to highlight the projects that we've been working on to kind of give you a breadth of where the funds support us go and how we're able to use those to leverage other funds. So this year, the Franklin County Conservation District led a dam removal in Berkshire, Vermont. It was the top of a reservoir dam, and we took some really great photos that I wanted to show. I don't know if you've ever seen a dam removal, but it's quite the experience, watching it slowly come down the beer store. We were able to fund most of this project using state dollars through the QIPS and ACT seventy six Basin Water Quality Councils, which has been wonderful. Then we also, as Michelle mentioned, we have funding from US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Little Champaign Basin Program to monitor the site and actually have taken lessons learned before and after to see if really what the impacts are to stay on mobile is to inform future dams. Zippia, now it's not video won't work.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I apologize. A question here. Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Dam removal. How about dam repair?

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Well, that's an excellent question. We are not repairing dams right now. It's my understanding there's not there is a several plots of money in the state to remove dams. I don't believe there's any public funds to repair dams. We do do a full analysis in our agencies of design to basically look at if we do nothing with the dam, what will happen? If you remove the dam, will happen? If you repair the dam, what will happen? So there is that study done. It's usually the most, it's usually the cheapest to take the dam out. These dams are derelict dams that are going to fail on their own, typically, with intervention.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So you're working with Anne and

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: our physician boards? Yes, there's another Nancy AG program and the stream alteration from the engineers as well. And then another project we're working on is our flood resilience study in Montgomery. Montgomery, obviously, five gs peak in the headwaters area of the Trapp River. They haven't been hit hard in the last couple of years by the flooding that everybody else has, but the Halloween twenty nineteen storm really did a juicy on Montgomery. And so we worked to secure emergency hazard bottoms through the city and through FEMA to model flooding through understand where the impacts would be. And so here's a small flood extent during a fifty year flood, what we think would be inundated in Montgomery. And then we were able to also show what it would look like in a medium flood in the village and try to identify projects to do that reduce this impact is the goal. We've been able to advance many of those projects towards design, which is great. Can you go back to a small, just a comparison? Just small, medium, and then a large. I didn't put that on the slide. No, no. Cool. It looks worse. Yeah, sure. More blue. More blue and darker blue because it's deeper waters.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, the darkness is the depth. Yes. Okay.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Yes. So I'll do a video where that I think was linked in testimony as well. You can see it actually flooded and receded, which is a really good communication tool there. And then the last project we'll talk about is Lake Carmine, our favorite adventure. As I'm sure you know, Lake Carmine is probably a leading in Vermont, and we spent some time trying to make sure that there are projects identified to reduce the phosphorus loading into the lake so that the aloe treatment that would then continue to be successful. Superment that the cyanobacteria from the salmonella are problematic at best. And we're using our funds from the legislature to really get to know our communities really well, attend select board meetings and consultation meetings, and also to figure out the federal funding process and have time to file FEMA applications for a lot of these projects that just take a lot out of you. So it's very helpful to have the space and time to figure out these processes.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: Thank you very much.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: To that last point, working with towns to apply for FEMA funds, for federal funds just in general, that seems super important because some of these tiny little towns just have no staff or have a halftime clerk or something like that. Yes. So do the districts across the state do that kind of thing? Yes, yes. Yes. And the towns up in the Northeast Kingdom that got flooded that have been in the news a lot, those are used as your district up there helping to was apply for federal funds.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: It impressed me. I know that the Caledonia District has been helping hard with a lot of funds and also some public engagement Better things. Yeah. Sleeper. Any other questions for either Michelle or Molly?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you for being here.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: So good to get this update. Thank you. If

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: you were to not bet that extra money beyond the governor's record balance, the 43,000 improvements, what would that do to you? What's the effect?

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: It would give us less flexibility to go after these projects and support Specifically, the smaller projects that take a lot more effort probably would have happened.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: The ones that are really helpful but require a proportion more work and so you have data directed and sources to.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Especially the colleagues that may hear newer types of the province that just are a seat or a computer based province.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay, super. Thank you so much. All right, so we are going to move to hearing from folks who are part of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Coalition. As I understand it, it's VHCC day. Yes. Yeah. So, and I think we have a few folks who are testifying or BHCC or who are a part of being interested.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: So, we have Kate. We had some changes due

[Lauren Koch (Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy; Co-Chair, Vermont Housing & Conservation Coalition)]: to the short window and illness. I'm gonna share my screen. Okay. And do a very quick intro. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for making a little bit of time for us since VHSC day. If you go upstairs, ballet stickers and candy hearts, happy almost done, I'd say. Your name. Oh, Lauren Coch, Director of External Affairs for the Nation Conservancy and Co Chair of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Coalition, which is a coalition of 60 plus members of both housing and conservation advocates that come in once a year and advocate for full funding for the HCB. This year, hopefully it's an easy ask. It was recommended in the governor's budget, so we're just asking for a co signing by all of you. I'm here today to tell

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: some good stories from out

[Lauren Koch (Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy; Co-Chair, Vermont Housing & Conservation Coalition)]: of state. So I'm going to share my screen, can you just tell

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: me when you want me

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to do slide changes for

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: you? Sure. Hey.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Hey, Seth.

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: Good morning. I'm Ron Chadi, the town manager for the town of Dorset. Made the track up here. It was about as cold everywhere in the state of Vermont today as you would imagine. A little cooler than I thought it was gonna be, but I'm, you know, here from Dorset, here to talk a little bit about the ACD funding and its impact on the communities in our part of the state. You know Dorset is in a geographic location where the Green Mountains and the Taconic Mountain Ranges actually meet. If you know where Emerald Lake State Park is, it's probably the spot of Vermont where those two mountain ranges are kind of most approximate to each other. So we'll get to the first slide. So for Dorset, there's a project that the Trust for Public Land has been stewarding, which the town of Dorset has put our wholehearted support behind. For Dorset, Conservation and Recreation are some of our kind of core values for the community, and we're really excited about this. This project is on the Ridgeline, it's about Emerald Lake State Park, it creates a lot of natural partnerships with both state, federal, and local potential properties and trail connectivity. In our case the select moratoriums lead to support it and the VACV funding has already been awarded for the state acquisitions is around $322,000 And in this Ridgeline itself there's about a hundred year history of Dorset residents utilizing it so it's really important to This slide talks a little bit about the economic piece. I know that last week the outdoor rec folks were here, you know speaking all the good things about outdoor rec economy. The Ridgeline itself has some really unique features in terms of it's part of a landscape in the Taconic Mountains, it's underrepresented and only about 19% of it is currently conserved. The outdoor rec numbers you've probably seen those it's big boost to the state's economy and it's a big deal. What else can I kind of move on to? This is coming at a time where it's positioning Dorset and kind of the state through the potential laying out of the Belmont Trail which is a cross state mountain bike trail that we feel pretty excited about because there seems to be there was a federal earmark that Vermont Hutts Associate Hutts Association got a couple years ago that's starting to really lay the groundwork for this to happen. It's a legacy project and the idea is

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: that it's gonna go right through

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: the middle of Dorset which we're really excited about. A lot of stuff about the mountain biking tourism is just how important it is and how it can play a role in economic development in rural communities which is really important.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: You

[John Goodhammer (Real Estate Transactions Director, The Nature Conservancy — Vermont)]: go the next slide, Lauren.

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: This is some really

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I'm starting to get into some

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: of the ecological value of the property that is on the ridgeline which is significant. Mount Aulus itself is only one of only seven locations in the whole state that's designated as critical habitat under the Vermont Endangered and Threatened Species Rule. There's a I talked about the mountains meeting each other, there's a wildlife corridor that goes through there. I personally live in this area where you have national forest that connects to Emerald Lake State Park and part of some of the recent conservation efforts on the hillside by where I live is related to wildlife. Go ahead, Terry.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You mentioned wildlife corridor, and we've had this conversation a little bit in a different context. So how do you define wildlife corridor?

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: I don't define it. I your biologists, I think, define that. I I think you if you look at the the geology and the the geography and the contours, you got two habitat blocks, mountain mountain, they're pretty close together. There's pretty good anecdotal evidence about bear and deer, moose and all that frosty.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: There's a picture that's behind you above your head where where is where's yeah the painting.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yep so

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the where is the wildlife border?

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: Sure so the it's a you're kind of looking from the South to the north. The mountain on the left hand side is Mount Eulis and slopes of Mount Eulis. Okay. The green mountain side is just to the right. You can kind of see the tree in the foreground.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep.

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: But the mountain the green mountain side is right there.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, so is the valley the corridor or is there a a corridor between the two mountains?

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: There's a corridor between the two mounds.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, is it a road? Is it a road?

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: There's a road that crosses right through it, yes. Thank

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you. But

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: there's the way kind of functionally Emerald Lake rebuts to the base of the foothills of the green side, so there's actually they go

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: over the road, they go over railroad tracks under the road. Interesting,

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: okay. So

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: kind of carrying on, the the at Mount Aeolus is home to the Aeolus we call it the Aeolus Bat Cave, but it's the largest bat hibernaculum in the Northeast United States. It's home to four different species of state and federally mandated bats, and the wintertime population is 70 to 90,000 bass, which is really significant. And then kind of adjacent to this, anybody that knows Dorset maybe knows the swimming quarry on Route 30, that's kind of billed as the first large scale commercial quarry. The actual first quarry that was really like test pits on the side of the mountain is not far from Mount Aeolus, these properties that are being conserved. And the last slide just gets into that, you know, none of this really would be possible without Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. You can see that it already for this project constitutes a really significant portion of the funding, and to kind of bring it all home a little bit, Dorset has a good history with VACB, where we actually expanded our town forest about a dozen years ago through an effort to capture a community forest grant and then Vermont Housing and Conservation Board conservation grants. And the way that that's worked out, as Seth knows, is that that created an asset. The town has now done a pretty significant investment in terms of trail work and it's really beloved by the community. But through that process we actually created a relationship with the owner of a neighboring of the neighboring parcel which we call Draptor Lane and a couple years later that owner reached out to the town we did a bargain sale and Raptor Lane is an eight lot subdivision that's adjacent to Room 30 and we're actually actively talking about housing being on the lower slopes of that property. It's kind of because of the VHDD funding, it opened doors and created relationships that where the town was able to now potentially have a project where, you know, we're probably will see some kind of VHCD support. It's probably gonna include both conservation and housekeeping aspects of the project, which I think are pretty, pretty exciting. Thank you. Thank you. I realize you guys have a busy day today.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: It's a really Yeah. Thank you.

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: That's great. Thank So it's it's a great help.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So you're run off the day. What's that? Run off the day? I'm gonna

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: run off the day. Yeah. Yep. Run off the day.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I'm gonna hang out. Six straight all the way up. Yeah. Yeah. Two Two part part of of it. Get right back in the dark. Yeah.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: At least

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: it's funny. I own some property right on the end of the two times. Yeah. The the NBA. Know? It's I'm I'm familiar with the wildlife corridor you're talking to me. So Yeah. It's kind of where the plates all came together. The the tectonics end and the greens kinda took took over to the east. Yeah.

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: Yeah, I personally, I live in East Dorsey and I own property that about sounded like state Forest and the national forest. Pretty intimately, like when I was telling you that the animals go down there, yeah, you can see it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So thank you so much, really appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. I apologize because we have to keep moving, we do have a tight schedule. Who is next? Johnson. Okay. Okay. Welcome. I'm an anthropologist, so if

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: you have the wildlife corridor, you might be the Okay. All

[John Goodhammer (Real Estate Transactions Director, The Nature Conservancy — Vermont)]: right, well thank you. So my name is John Goodhammer, I'm with The Nature Conservancy, and I am the real estate transaction director for The Nature Conservancy in Vermont here, and I'm here to talk to you about our North Pauwala Hills project, is partially funded with VLCB funding. And over the last thirty, almost thirty five years of my career here with The Nature Conservancy, I've had the opportunity, the privilege really, the opportunity to apply for funding from BACV, it's a competitive process, apply for funding from BACB to help us achieve our mission at The Nature Conservancy, is to conserve the lands and waters for all of us to thrive. Actually, on which all life depends. So the latest project, and you can change the slide, oh good. So this latest project that we embarked on is conserving and adding to our North Bald Hills natural area in Pollet, not too far from Doris' actually. So at The Nature Conservancy, we're an international non profit organization, and we use our science to find those critical areas that require some sort of conservation, and we work on biodiversity conservation, aquatic conservation, and wildlife connectivity, and then we work with willing landowners to conserve those areas that we have identified. We also work to conserve freshwater resources, and we also do policy work. That's a nice job. Our funding is mostly through private funders, donors mostly from Vermont. Next slide please. So in North Pollard Hills, we conserve over 1,600 acres in eight transactions since 1998, and all the lands you see in the dark green are lands that we've acquired over those years. And our conservation work at this site is aligned with the goals and the priorities of Act 59, which is prioritizing ecological reserve areas to protect highest priority natural communities and maintain or restore both forests. While we engage in some forest and species management at some of our other natural areas around the state, At North Walnut Hills many of these natural communities are intact, and you don't need to do any management interventions that just fine. Next slide please. Here's our latest acquisition, 192 acres on the southwestern flanks of the mountains, the Moore property. The project is actually in partnership in a way with the Vermont Land Trust, which will be conserving farmland at the base of the slope here with Lacking Child Farm. You've probably had some of their sweet potatoes, seven of Manhattan's the best organic sweet potatoes state. Where is this?

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: This is in Pollock.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, is also in

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: Pollock, This is Pollock, this is all.

[John Goodhammer (Real Estate Transactions Director, The Nature Conservancy — Vermont)]: And now for some pretty pictures. So next slide please. So here's the property, and the view from the top of Haystack Mountain overlooking the property, the Norman property. And Haystack Mountain is where we have a trail to the top, it's got like two seventy degree views, it's fabulous. And then next slide please, here's one of our rare natural communities, this is called dry oak woodland, it kind of looks like an oak savannah or an African savannah on a very steep south facing slope, and home to several rare plants. Next slide please. Another rare natural community that we find here is the Brio Hickory Hopland, which is a really open forestry, kind of grassy understory, very different from most of our forest forests state of Florida. And it produces lots of food for everything from berries, vodka and chitlins. Next slide please, and here is a breakdown of the costs and sources of funds for this project. So without BHCb, we would be needing to scramble to make this project work, and so over the time that I've been around, we have really relied on BHCD funding. And obviously we're conserving these places where people can hike and roam and fish and do all those things, and at the same time we support the local economy by hiring appraisers, attorneys, ecologists, and surveyors to help us do our work here. So I encourage you to support the pillars of the line items. And if I could have just two more slides, so next slide please. I was told that one of our housing partners is not going to be here today, so I wanted to talk about a housing project that we had done at Port Hill. So the HCB likes to have these dual goal projects, as Rob talked about, these dual goal projects of both land conservation and affordable housing. Next slide please. We did a project here at Quarry Hill in Halmell, and we're actually working on another project there. So there will be two affordable homes built by Habitat for Humanity, and we're involved with both of those. So what you see here is the first home that was built, so we're pretty excited about that. This is all I had. Thank you.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: That's wonderful, thank you so much. Any questions? Okay. All right. Super, thank you. Morgan, checking in. Anyone else? No, we're all good.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, all right. Well, Well, thank you for being here.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm so glad that, I'm speaking for myself, so glad that the money is in the governor's recommend. That makes it very easy. So you support the work that you all do, so thank you.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Okay, so we're going to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: transition to We S-two 20 got a new draft of that yesterday. And we have a series of folks who want to speak to this new draft. And we're going to start with DEC, with Conspirator

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Caiman.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: will respond either.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I want to make sure that I get any

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: of it.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: But not come on.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, fair enough. So again, we got a new chapter of this yesterday. And what's this all about? It's a study abroad. Okay. Lake, there's a lot I can say on interdegradation, on Lake quality, on, we'll be better, more balanced. It might be extremely organized, it's gonna be here. Whatever works. Okay, welcome.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: Good morning, So for the record, my name

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: is Neil Cannon. I'm the Deputy Commissioner

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: of DEC. It's nice to see you all. Firstly, happy Friday the thirteenth before Valentine's So I hope you'll have a nice weekend with you and yours. I'm here to, happy to be here to set the table for the S-two 23, which is essentially a really short piece of direction to the department and to stakeholders to go forth and get essentially our heads together around what has been a complex area of clean water law in the Green Books. Essentially what we're asking of you is to bless the creation of the study committee that would have the department engage with other stakeholders that you see here today, and others kind of as outlined in the bill. To go forward and review how we are effectively implementing the classification structure for surface water in Brummens. Let me explain what I mean by that. Different water bodies have different expectations for how clean they might be. And under a completely pristine natural condition, you might have a very different expectation to say Lake Bonnosine or Lake Saint Catherine or whatever, as you might for something like a high elevation, small lake that's way up in them. So just the natural ebb and flow of biology goes with the land, goes with the landscape, goes with the geology. So there are different expectations. The way that we manage water bodies, and that police sergeant who's behind me will come up later and talk a little bit more about that, is to recognize those natural gradations, and then to manage the water bodies so that they don't fall down below the minimum threshold, what we've determined to be acceptable for a water body that we have put in that class. So a water body that's a high class water, you don't wanna let it go down, down, down, down. A water body that's a moderate class water already exists in the lower band, but you don't wanna let that go down the lower band as well. I'm drawing pictures with my hands, but this is the foundation of the federal Clean Water Act, and it's foundation the of the Vermont Clean Water Act. And it's what's behind the team deal for which to play, Memphremagog, all of that. But we do a pretty good job of implementing the Clean Water Law in Vermont. And I have spoken to you at other times about the performance report and other things we've done. This is an area where committees for a few years have wrestled with the intersection of a couple different pieces of the green books. How we do classification, how we allow development, how those intersect, what is allowed in a watershed that we state is higher class, and then through rulemaking, assign to higher class. So we'd like to just go forward and have a conversation to bring a really tight proposal back to you all for the beginning of next session that will bring it all together. And so that's essentially what we're asking here. The department supports this, the department will participate in it. The bill essentially has two components. You can kind of break it down. One component is to look at that sliding scale that I just told you about. The other component is to look at whether that sliding scale appropriately works for lakes and ponds. DEC's understanding based on our history is that we actually believe the classification system does work, but I know there's energy around that and I know there's dialogue around. So what I was hoping to ask you all before I get off the sand and ask Bethany to take over is, through our stakeholder engagements, we're not finding where the energy is for them. So if I understood from you all, what you all who have drafted this still want, it would help us if we have any suggestions to tune the language about the Latham Tons problem. So I don't know if there's, it's kind of nominal you asking me questions, but I wanted to ask this of you the other day when I was here just for the meet and greet, when you get time. Any thoughts?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Sure. I think it's just to We've seen some evidence of the addition of our rates deteriorating, and we want to make sure we've got the right We actually have a meaningful classification system that's actually being implemented on bottom, and that we're creating the proper underlying web of rules of statute and regulation on which we then make decisions about weight health going forward. So like right now, we see a lot of these disparate things happening. Wait quotes. Exactly. And the pools are promising, and there's molecules, the right framework underneath it. And we're actually specifying our rates. And we have, for me, thinking about this, it's the gems that we have, I just wanna make sure they're charge of everything. And I think that's what we're trying to do, make sure that we're, we have the right combination of statute and rules to make sure that's actually happening.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: Got it. Well, thank you for that, senator. And, you know, just to transparency, we spoke around Thanksgiving together about this navigation. But I just wanted to, you know, understand that. And with that, I think Bethany will have, you know, a little bit of suggestion around the language to So

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: are are we gonna look at the dynamic of the economic viability of these lakes and and pounds also? Because we have, you know, our water conventions in there that are affecting I think there's still probably a couple of wetting, you know, continuing to purify the water because that's what they're trying to do. You have a lot of property owners around the lake sometimes are concerned about where we're going.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: Sure. I didn't say this, and I want to.

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: While you'll hear that this is

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: a complex area of law, what we are trying to do here is create regulatory certainty. We want people who are trying to build the things that they want to build,

[Ron Gaiotti (Town Manager, Dorset)]: to do it in a

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: way that protects the resources of Vermont and isn't predictable. And that's why we want to kind of step back, study it up, and then come back. And I'll let others also speak to that. A couple of your witnesses today represent businesses who have interacted with the department. So, yeah. Thank you. I would love to turn it over to Bethany and I will stay for a little bit, but I can do in front of representative Squirrel to speak to our department's budget.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Okay, very good. Thank

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you all very much. Thank you.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: I'm Bethany Sargent. I am the program manager monitoring the subsequent program, which

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: is in DEC's Water Management Division.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: So when I was here a couple of weeks ago to first speak to S-two twenty three, I talked through sort of the structure of the water quality standards, how we classify waters based upon their water quality, how we apply our anti degradation policy to help ensure that that higher quality of water doesn't degrade over time and that that, to whatever degradation occurs as a result of permitting, that it is limited so that we're not managing our waters to that minimum criteria. And I also mentioned the work that the department has done, working very closely with a group of stakeholders to evaluate how do we improve our anti degradation implementation? How do we improve the process of reclassification? As I believe has been mentioned in the committee before, we have dozens of waters where we have collected data that demonstrate that it meets a higher class. So it could be reclassified and reclassification happens through rulemaking in the water quality standard. Our experience to date has been that reclassification, and we have reclassified waters in 2017. Those were waters in the Green Mountain Natural Forest Wilderness Area. So we're not getting a lot of development conflicts there or permitting questions to wrestle with. We also reclassified three streams when we did rule making for the water quality standards that were adopted in 2022. Those were based on petitions. And in that process, we learned that there are some challenging issues in that process, determining what is in the public interest for reclassification. Is reclassifying itself when we have data purely based on that decision in the public interest. And so I see this study group as taking the work from that initial stakeholder group and really honing in on that question. How do we better implement our anti DEC policy? How do we use that classification structure as it was intended? Are there statutory barriers to doing that? Are there regulatory barriers to doing that? And that does bring

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: in questions

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: around regulatory certainty. How

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: does a

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: developer know if they're going to be building something in a Class A watershed, what they need to do to ensure that water quality is protected. Right now, as I mentioned, we have a lot of B2 waters that have higher quality, and we need as a department to be protecting that higher quality. But anti degradation only really works when you also are reclassifying. So if the committee is open to it, I have some suggestions to really tighten up a view number four, which is the one that focuses on lakes and ponds. To make that a little bit clearer that what we're really focusing in on is that water class ifications system and the associated statutory regulatory framework. So my suggested language, I bear with me as I just read through what I might propose, So to evaluate the existing water classification system and associated statutory and regulatory frameworks to assess whether they provide regulatory certainty and adequately address current and potential threats to the water quality and ecological integrity of lakes and ponds. So really it's honing in again, how are we classifying lakes and ponds? Is it based on those classifications, what are the statutory and regulatory frameworks associated with those classes? And how are they adequate to address both our threats to water quality and the need for regulatory certainty?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I would rather highlight rather regulatory certainty. I want the primary focus to be ecological integrity. You could have that first So and then ecological integrity is still available.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: It's the driver. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: But you can send me something.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: I can send you, I have not sent it. I wanted to hear a bit more about the committee notice, but I'm happy to follow-up and send the language after your suggested tweet.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: We'll look at it and

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: see. Sure.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sure. No, I think that's fair. We can look at it. So is your concern What I am hearing is taking out the part about that should the states have developed a separate classification system?

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: I think it would be helpful to present the ideas around the classification system overall and whether it's working for Lakes. We do, in essence, although we have the same designated uses and the same A1, B1, B2 classification system, we have different criteria for evaluating whether those designated uses are different criteria for lakes and ponds relative to streams. So I wanna make sure that what is in the bill is really focused on classification overall and not prejudging what that outcome might be with that specific question.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Sure. We

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: can take a look into

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment, VT DEC)]: it. Okay. Also, if the focus is fundamentally on lakes and ponds, I also might suggest the language in the creation section of the study group is still very broad. And while this evaluation or assessment will be informative for surface waters more broadly, it might be helpful just to make that explicit to lakes and ponds if that's really the motivator or focus for the study group.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good. Okay.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Great. Any other questions?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. All right. Yeah. You're comforter. Okay. All right. So we're going to move on to Matt Swazy. Welcome.

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: I'm nice to meet you. The Federation of Lakes and Good morning, I'm Matt Swazy. I'm president of the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds. It's great to be here, and it's everybody in person for a change. It's just really nice. Just a little bit about the Federation. The Federation is a statewide coalition of over 50 mostly volunteer lake associations, as well as many individual members. Since 1972, we have been dedicated to fostering environmental quality standards, preserving Vermont's lakes, ponds, and their watersheds. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about S-two twenty three. Like many others who are going to speak, and a few that already heard, we've been working on the issue of late reclassification and anti degradation for many years. You've already heard a few reasons why this would be important. It's passed to have this study group. I'm going to give you 13 more, so just carefully.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: I'm not going to take the rest

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: of the time, and I'm to read them quickly. Caspian Lake, Coal Pond in Jamaica, Coal's Pond in Walden, Echo Lake in Charleston, Baystone Lake, Newark Pond, Lake Burpondo, Lake Rescue And Ludlow, Seymour, Shadow Lake in Glover, South Pond in Eating, Lake Willoughby, and Harvey's Lake. 13 lakes. In 2021, the agency of natural resources determined that these 13 legs are eligible to be reclassified to A1 Waters. A1 reclassification would better protect water quality, require earlier state intervention if phosphorus levels rise and income priority access to funding for restoration if restoration is needed. Of the 13 listed, four leg associations with the support of their municipalities petitioned for reclassification in 2021 and early twenty twenty two. Those four made Stone Echo, CASB and Shadow. However, since 2021, these petitions have remained unresolved because of the set of legislative and administrative barriers. As a result, the other nine lakes deemed eligible in 2021 to be reclassified declined to file the petitions and further work on the reclassification stalled.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: That's where

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: we are now. Recent data, I just took a look at the score for the other day, recent data for three of the four petitioner lakes show a rising trend in phosphorus levels. Given that phosphorus is a major contributor to cyanobacteria blooms entering these lakes, Such rising levels are a serious concern along with potential of avoidance flooding, intense storms that were happening. So why the delay? To explain this, it's important to note that if a delay is reclassified to A1, its its entire watershed is reclassified. You probably already know that, you probably heard of this already, but that means all streams and rivers as well as the lake and the watershed get extra protection. That's a good thing. And we think we need to protect the streams coming into lakes in order to protect the lake itself. Except there's a catch. A1 classification comes with some limitations, and those apply to the entire watershed. Limitations that were originally meant to protect these A1 waters have actually become an obstacle to their protection. And I'll give you an example. In 2022, seven property owners on the shores of Kaspien Lake worked together to replace their individual and family septic systems with one shared community system. This new system is situated farther from the lakeshore, some 300 feet, so outside of the shoreline protection zone, which is two fifty feet, rather than the 25 to 30 feet of some of the old residential systems. By replacing outdated and family systems, this new combined system better protects water quality and ensures that wastewater is not leaking into the lake. However, here's the catch, Due to the size of the system, it would not be allowed an A1 watershed under current regulations. So again, this becomes this barrier. We can't do something really positive to protect the water because A1 classification has these limitations. So why is limitation there? So we think, it is thought, this was put in place decades ago, so we're assuming, it was created in order to prevent larger developments within A1 watersheds. The problem is though that we have these very high quality waters within large watersheds that in some cases include entire towns. Seymour is an example. In fact, it's not just the Seymour Watershed, it's actually Seymour and Echo Lake, and the towns of Morgan and Holland, for example, in that watershed. So we want to protect the waters. We want to protect these high quality waters, but we don't want to prevent towns within such a watershed from building housing if they need it, or school, or you know, being able to thrive if they need to be. Yet leaving these lakes, B2, which is where they are now, with all the other lakes, also doesn't make sense. Classified as B2, these watersheds are open to all sorts of activities without the guardrails provided by reclassification and stricter anti degradation scrutiny. Our amazing cleanliness and streams are an important contributor to the state's economy, as well as being necessary for the health of our environment and our citizens for providing unparalleled recreational opportunities, and of course providing drinking water for thousands of our monsters. We take our drinking water out of our lake. It is critical that we have steps to protect these waters from deteriorating and from such scourges as cyanobacteria plums. Degradation of these lakes would be an irreparable loss, economically and environmentally. It is possible though to resolve this. We can have both protection of high quality waters and thriving towns. What we need is a thoughtful, and I'm going to emphasize coherent policy, because as you can see, get wound up in this tangle, a clear set of recommendations that we can bring to you, and an implementation plan. To get to that, all the aspects of the issue of legislation, anti degradation rules, administrative procedures, water quality standards, economics, environmental protection, land use, they all need to be explored together. This study group is designed to do just that. It brings together the many perspectives and knowledge bases needed to develop a full understanding of the issues. With everyone in the room, have this time to more thoroughly explore these issues that can be done during legislative session with tight time and how busy you guys are. The solution really is possible, I'm sure it is. Certainly what we have been doing or not doing over the last few years has not worked. So it seems sensible to try a different approach. We all have the same goal, ensure both health of the state's freshwater resources and the health of the state's economy. It is time to make some real progress in creating a system that helps us reach that goal. So we urge you to approve this, get it passed, and to get this going. Happy to answer any questions?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Pardon me? Do we have your testimony?

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: I just sent it to you.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Other question you're talking about the combined circuit system that was moved 300 feet.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Was it a mound system? I mean, are we looking at maybe hopefully getting some more money so we can put some more wastewater treatment facilities in the ground to use?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That was well, I don't know if it

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: was a particular technical aspect of that particular system. I do know that with the help of the Lake Association of CasBan, this group of homeowners got together and they did it for themselves. But one of the limitations is the number of gallons per day that can be go through conventional systems. So the old conventional systems, 1,000 gallons per day, it's

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: a residential

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: house. Drainage system like that was not, for the seventh house, was not 7,000 gallons per day, but it was probably 4,000 because the thousand gallons is really much more than you would ever probably need in a day in a residential house. The problem is there is this limitation in A1 watersheds, so that can't be done. The other thing

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: is we have these new systems,

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: and I'm sure they're using newer technology on that one. And we have all these new technology and systems that the state now allows that the agglomerate is cleaner than what comes out of the conventions. And we want to encourage that, but they can also have higher capacities, which would allow fewer systems, you know, paper systems that serve more households. And those can also be put into, say, a multi family task in one of the towns, which is far from the picture in many of these instances. So that's just an example. I was just trying to give you an example of kind of where we've gotten entangled with all these different pieces and parts and trying to get everything to align between rulemaking and legislation and all the other issues that come up and we just, we can't just sit on this anymore. We've been waiting five years to be dealt with and they can't be dealt with because of these other things that might be put in place.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Interpretive. Any other questions? No, really helpful. Good articulation.

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: You. I'll have my email.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Just want, are you supportive of the language as it is now in the bill? You guys would have one seat the table.

[Matt Swasey (President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds)]: Seat, which we appreciate. We definitely appreciate the table. It's important for the LACE, you know, to represent the LACE. We're fine with it. You know, listening to what Bethany suggested, I think we could certainly live with that. We haven't had a big issue that changed the classification system as much as get it to work with all the regulations and the legislation, let's figure out how we can make it work. But certainly it's worth looking at. Way more so our first priority is the health of the legs, but we think that's important, really important for these towns. And we're very concerned that if we wait too much longer, these legs are only gonna be beyond the A1 nurse. We want to get that taken care of. We've never worked too many more years. So I'm just putting that on our side. Thank

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: you so much. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And if you haven't said your testimony, I have. Okay,

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: so we're going to move now to Mr. Nelson,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: who's joining us virtually. Welcome.

[Jeff Nelson (Principal, VHB)]: Morning. Can you hear me all right?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Jeff Nelson (Principal, VHB)]: Okay. Thank you, chair Watson and committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning. Again, my name, for the record, is Jeff Nelson, and I have been a principal with VHB, which is a regional engineering and environmental consulting firm with three offices throughout Vermont. I've been working as a professional water resources scientist in Vermont since the nineteen eighties. Much of my work has involved work with Vermont ski areas and other regulated entities over the years working on permitting, monitoring, and assessment for a wide range of water related projects. I've testified in the past before numerous legislative committees on water policy topics and have participated in several stakeholder group processes on water management issues in Vermont. Regarding this bill s two twenty three, I'll keep my remarks brief since you have or will be hearing similar comments from others, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. The topics, as you've heard, that this study group would be charged with addressing, are first, anti degradation implementation, which in the context of our current permitting framework, as you've heard, we're currently operating under a 2010 interim procedure, which predated much of the current regulatory framework that we have for water related permitting. The reclassification of eligible waters, which you've just heard about from Pat, is something that has lagged. Addressing existing regulatory opportunities and impediment for water quality protection, particularly in a one waters. Again, I think Pat did a great job highlighting what some of those problems are. And then finally, reviewing the existing classification system for lakes and ponds. I believe that these topics, involve important policy issues that have been somewhat vexing in the past and have resulted in prior efforts to address them not being successful. However, I also believe that it's important that we develop an approach that addresses the current situation, which is problematic, which I think Pat, again, did a great job highlighting. We believe that the structure and the charge of the study group will provide the right framework to involve the necessary stakeholders and come back to the general assembly in a relatively short period of time with workable policy recommendations to address these these topics. And while I personally have some very definite opinions based on my professional experience about how to resolve some of the issues, I certainly don't wanna prejudge the work of the study group. So in in summary, we support the study group proposal. We believe it's the right approach to take at this time. I certainly, you know, I know Bethany mentioned some tightening of the language, which I don't think is a bad idea. I think that, keeping this as focused as possible on the topics that I just highlighted and that that Pat spoke of is is going to be, you know, the most likely way to get to success here. So with that, I'll stop and certainly, willing to answer any any questions that committee members may have.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Super. Thank you so much. I'm not seeing any questions. And just to just clarify. So you're you have been an engineer involved in in, these kinds of projects over time?

[Jeff Nelson (Principal, VHB)]: Correct. Yes. We've done, a lot of different kinds of projects related to water permitting. And as I mentioned, you know, we've done a lot of work for the ski areas. And, you know, one point there to make is that, you know, there's been a lot of discussion here about a one watershed watersheds and whether or not, you know, people will just still be able to build things, people would still be able to get permits. And recall that for many years, all of our waters in Vermont above 2,500 feet are classified as a one. And, obviously, also, many of our ski areas are located in areas above 2,500 feet. And so, you know, part of what we've done over the years is develop a framework and, develop, permitting strategies and, you know, technical solutions to be able to allow for things like ski trails and lifts and, other infrastructure to be constructed in these a one watersheds and also maintain the a one water quality. So, you know, I think when you think about all the reclassification of lakes and their watersheds that Pat spoke of, you know, it very much involves the watersheds. One example that comes to mind is Lake Rescue in South Central Vermont, where if you look at the overall watershed of Lake Rescue, it is much, much larger than the lake itself. So having the right, technical approaches to managing the waters of that watershed, I think the lake itself is about 1% of the area of the total watershed. So, you know, my view based on all the work that we've done over the decades is that it's absolutely possible and workable to develop, you know, technical solutions, whether it's for wastewater or stormwater or, preventing soil erosion to manage those waters, still have housing development or in things like Pat talked about with schools and and so forth within those watersheds and maintain the water quality at the same time. That's a long answer. That was exactly what

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was hoping for. So thank you. Sure.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Thank you so much. Any other questions?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Thanks, John.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: Super. Okay. And so we're gonna move on

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: now to Mr. Overstreet from Conservation Home. Oh, sorry. We're to go next. That's okay. We'll go next to Mr. Coleman from MMR. Welcome.

[Warren Coleman (Partner, MMR)]: Hey. Good morning, everybody. It's nice to see you. Is the audio coming through okay?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Great. Too.

[Warren Coleman (Partner, MMR)]: Great. Great. So Warren Coleman with with MMR. I'm a partner there. You don't see me much in the building these days because primarily I'm working on projects for clients and helping them through the regulatory process. But I'm here really because I've got a long history with this topic. I was with the agency for ten years as as general counsel in the the interim procedure that we've been working under since 2010. I basically drafted, I think, probably 95% of that of that document. So very familiar with it, and then I've been obviously working, with the regulated community for the past fifteen years in my work with, with MMR and been participating as part of the stakeholder group with ANR and others since since 2021 to work on this revised anti deg rule. And it's I have to say it's it's not a it's not a huge sea change in terms of how it functions and what it does, but it's a much clearer approach and document so that people can as Jeff has said, people can understand what the expectations are when they're going to going to seek a permit. So it's really important, I think, that we get this right. It's it's a very complicated area of the water quality standards and the clean water act. So it's it there's probably a small group of people that really have dug it, you know, into this. And to me, that's part of the value of this of this study group is there's an opportunity to help educate the legislators that will be part of this study group and to evaluate the various evaluate the work that's been done quite frankly to date with the the borders that are proposed to be reclassified with an update of the the anti degradation. In this case, it would become a rule, and looking at some of the, some of the impediments that we've been bumping into over the past several years. So I I look at this as time well spent to get these move. There's several moving pieces here that we actually need to coordinate and quite frankly build a level of understanding and and also quite frankly trust so people will understand what this what, you know, how this works and what it's and what it's going to do. So that's I mean, that's that's really it in a nutshell. I don't wanna, you know, repeat what, you know, what what Jeff said, but it really the anti deg rule and all these pieces do touch on really any of the permitting programs that we have in the state. So whether it's wastewater or storm water or it's a hydro facility or any of those things really have to be in compliance with anti DAG, which is basically we wanna maintain the water quality we have when we know it's meetings we know it's meeting standards. And we do that through our permitting programs, whether it's through best management practices or if it's conditions that are put in a permit to make sure that water quality is, maintained. And that's fundamentally what it what it does, and, it's an important piece, of the water quality standard. So, not here necessarily in protect in in in representing any particular client, sort of looking at this more as coming to you as a sort of a subject matter expert with a particular perspective as as Jeff is, and more than happy to continue to to work on this and make sure we, make sure we get it right. So happy to take any questions if folks have any for me.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you so much.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Okay,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: and so now we'll move to Mr. Obascheek, Conservation Law Foundation, welcome. Good morning.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Good morning, Chair Watson, members of the committee. So first, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on S-two 23. For the record, my name is Mason Overstreet. I'm an attorney at Conservation Law Foundation. My work focuses on water quality and climate resilience. And I think, I don't want to repeat what's previously been said, but I think there is some background that's probably good for this committee to be aware of as it relates to 02/23 and why we see it as kind of the most prudent and best path forward. And I think first as CLF and many of our partner organizations and folks that you've heard from today, we've engaged on the issues in S-two '23 for decades. More recently, we participated in the agency's anti degradation pre rulemaking stakeholder process in 2022. That led to a draft proposed anti degradation rule in 2023, which stalled in LCARB. This committee spent weeks working on the complexities of anti degradation and reclassification in a bill that was then called S-one 146. That passed the Senate stalled in the House amid significant misinformation related to much of what actually Pat mentioned earlier. The following year, and again, looked like quite a procedural history saga, a second amended, what we call the 2024 draft anti degradation rule, was also basically introduced. And again, paired with quite a few, I believe it was a half dozen, what I call quick fix legislative attempts related to the prohibition of indirect discharges related wastewater systems in Class A waters, which you also heard Pat reference. There were quick fix legislative attempts. And again, that's just resulted in stalemate and pretty staunch disagreement. Why the history we think is relevant is again, this is exactly why the study committee is the most prudent path. In a focused study committee with the right expertise, we believe can untangle these interrelated issues, recommend a practical path forward that both protects Vermont's natural resources and provides regulatory certainty. I don't think it's necessary, I thought Mr. O'Grady did a nice job yesterday, as did Pat and others today, including the agency explaining kind of the three different buckets in S-two 23 that the study committee would look at. I think we can largely name them as anti degradation, which is the federal Clean Water Act requires. I think the important part there for the committee to know is it has taken forty plus years, as you heard, for the state of Vermont to actually promulgate a anti degradation rule, right? That will implement the anti degradation policy

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: under the Vermont Water Quality Standards.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: As you heard, Mr. Coleman was the one who wrote and drafted the 2010 implementation procedure that's currently on the books. In our opinion, that procedure is pretty porous and it does need to be overhauled. Then you've got the water reclassification system, and again, I think the point there that that's a reason the study committee really needs to look at, is you've heard some of the complexities associated with reclassification, the need for reclassification, and also some of what's called the apprehension or hesitation about that, as it relates to Class A waters and what is what we call the thousand gallon prohibition in Class A waters. I guess I'll run through a couple quick points just to clear the error. From our perspective, I'd like to emphasize that S-two twenty three will not slow or impede housing, like full stop. S-two twenty three is not just another study committee. We hear all the time, right, in

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: the news, like people love

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: to laugh about study committees, but that is actually like the issues at stake here are exactly the type of complex cross cutting policy questions that require a focused expert group to work through and return to you with actionable recommendations. Third here, in my perspective, the history really matters. Senator Beck noted this, I believe yesterday, Vermont struggled for decades on this across multiple administrations and multiple parties who adopt an anti degradation rule, and reclassification has also progressed slowly, even where strong data supports it. And at the same time we're hearing, you know, declining water quality in places that we all love and enjoy, know, Vermonters enjoy recreating in. And then we've also got these outdated policies that have created real frustrations for residents and businesses who can't install and upgrade wastewater systems in certain areas. So my point is that this long record shows how one, complex the issues are, and then two, again S-two 23 offers a path forward that, from our perspective, moves past blame and hopefully towards workable solutions. I think the other point is that's why a study committee with the right expertise, personally from our perspective, the makeup of this study committee in addition to the duties is perfect as far as the makeup and the expertise that's necessary, and hopefully the study committee will be able to gather perspectives, evaluate

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: how to

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: balance regulatory certainty with strong water protections, and most importantly without placing unnecessary burdens on their monitors right now. The other point I would make is it's clear, but you've heard from a very diverse group of stakeholders, including business, industry, environmental organizations At Conservation Law Foundation, should add that there are numerous environmental organizations closely watching this that I am in touch with on basically a daily basis, and they're aligned with basically the path forward in S-two twenty three. But again, I think what's really uplifting I would say is, I believe in this increasingly polarized world that we're living in, their alignment is pretty rare, and there's alignment here again from a whole diversity of stakeholder groups that underscores the need for the approach in S-two '23. Last, I think I would say a good question in my mind if I were sitting in your chair would be, is this the right time? We're dealing, at the legislature, we're dealing with all of these existential issues, increasing costs, etcetera, and the answer is yes. These issues are incredibly important, you've heard about the delay, and S-two 23 is a good use of resources and time in a study committee to take a close look at these issues and come back to the legislature with what I hope would be common sense practical solutions. So I'll stop there.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: It was really helpful, good job, Seth.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It is me too. I can get the nail on the head here. That history was really helpful because this is all new to me. So I was like, don't know if you didn't know about all the lakes and ponds or whatever you want call them. Given how complicated this seems to be, is this timeline sufficient for the parties to actually figure it all out and make recommendations?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I mean, it's basically four months or something.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Senator Hardy, thank you for that. So we've spoken about this pretty extensively and all the folks that you heard, like Warren at the end is one of the top experts in the state. Mr. Nelson has worked on this for decades as well. We, all of us personally, I feel comfortable saying that we've got conversations and we are okay with this tight timeline. And I think again, it's about getting everybody in the room, untangling the issues. I won't go into the history of S-one 146, I think the good thing about that, this committee almost spent a month on that, actually I think it was a little over a month, we were so close to basically resolving some of the issues, which a lot of which I will just say hinge on, there has been a lot of finger pointing from the environmental organization's perspective, that thousand gallon prohibition in Class A waters, the history there is that was enacted in 1984, kind of in the same vein as I-two 50, and it was, let's call it a somewhat backwards land use tool to prevent development and sensitive errors. Whether or not folks like it, it has been effective, and so from our perspective on all of this, our perspective has been, if that prohibition or policy is going to be lifted, it's what do we put in place that's thoughtful, effective, and realistic, kind of for all the folks here. That's not easy, but I guess to answer your question, I do think that we can resolve that in short time period and come back to this committee and the greater general assembly with a really solid recommendation for next session.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay, that's good to know. The one thing I would say about the timeline is December 30 is a really bad time to have a report due. And I can speak from experience with being on these committees, like you're writing it and to have it due in that holiday period is really kind of cool to members. Yeah, so I would say either make it December 15 so you can get it done before the holidays or January 15, so you can have a little breather after. I just think it's more humane to whoever has to be writing that report. And then my other question, don't know if you're the right person to ask, but you're a lawyer, and maybe this button, this might be more of an upgrading question, is on the top of page three. We reference the Clean Water Act, the Federal Clean Water Act. And last year we had conversations about, do we want to freeze the references to federal law in where they are now in case they get destroyed? So I just don't know if that might be helpful or if that's not necessary, but that it just occurred to me seeing that federal reference there at top of page three. Maybe we might- There were armed extremes. Yeah, mean, there are, they just did a whole bunch of horrible things, so we want to make sure that I mean, I don't think it would you all would probably move forward with what you know to be the current Clean Odd Water Act,

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: but just in case, maybe, we

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: could ask about that. Well, I'm wondering about a potential fix for that to say under the federal Clean Water Act, etcetera, as of this date. Yeah, something like that. I think Michael had language that he worked up last year that worked fixed, that kind of thing. Just those were two notes I had about him.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: I think two quick responses to that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: First,

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: I feel pretty confident. Of course, I can't speak on behalf of everyone. I feel pretty confident in with the folks that you've heard from that we would be okay with December 15. December 15. Fifteenth. I think that's very realistic and doable in my opinion. On the second point, I would certainly defer to Mr. O'Grady and happy to send along suggestions to this committee about that and appreciate the sensitivity to it.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation)]: Thanks. You so much.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: One other question for you. So how are you feeling about the language that Ms. Sargent proposed? I realized maybe, I don't know if you've had a chance to actually look at it, but

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: curious if

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: you have any questions.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yeah, think generally we're okay with it. I do, a subject matter standpoint, I am of the opinion that the logical step in this would be one for the state to promulgate a formal anti degradation rule, alongside with that is two for the state to reclassify its waters, and then at that point to actually evaluate over a series of years, how is that reclassification system working? Now to back into your question, I guess on that point, generally, I'd like to see it in writing just because that's my but simple line generally I'm okay with it. I do agree with Senator Bongartz, again from the environmental groups perspective of the focus on ecological integrity and regulatory certainty. To Senator Bongartz point about, we're seeing, it's again striking that balance between we're seeing the decline in some of our pristine lakes, and at the same time we do want and need regulatory certainty and for local economies to thrive. So put another way, generally it sounds okay. I'd like to see it in writing. I agree to Senator Bongartz on kind of switching the words of ecological integrity. Thank you so much for your Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So before we transition

[Lauren Muston (Manager, Franklin County Natural Resources Conservation District)]: to Room 10 for

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: joint hearing with Senate Economic Development. Just thoughts coming out of the testimony you just heard. Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'd like to see some of the, you know, just give me a link of the degradation language that we have currently. Sounds like all the ingredients of this cake are there. Just but I'd like to see it. Maybe part of the other. I like

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: change. That's disgusting.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I think we look at language from methamines, Doctor. Golden after, whatever, and I'm ready to go. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Any other thoughts? No. I'm fine. Yeah. So I would anticipate that we would look at that as a proposal. Yes, go ahead.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Then there's also the issue that Senator was saying.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, about the federal law records. Yeah. Anticipating, so Tuesday, we would have, we would look at that new language, look at any potential edits that we want to make, have micro grading in, have that discussion and then have a potential vote on that later in the week. That sounds all right? That sounds very kind of good. Super. And then just to, so we'll plan on that and then just to frame up what we're heading into. And then I do want to talk briefly about what to expect on Tuesday. So with this joint meeting with economic development, we're going be hearing mainly about tier 1B or tier one areas and this idea that as of right now it is an opt in and there are some interest from some folks about changing that to an opt out and so we'll we'll dig into that next Tuesday. So, we'll be looking at 02/23 again. I mentioned that about 02/24, I was feeling unsettled about where we're at with the aquatic invasive decontamination stations, boat wash stations. I will just say, so I had adopted Fish and Wildlife language into the draft of the bill. I just want to say, I probably should not have done that. We'll hear from Fish and Wildlife about why they think that's the right move, and then we can decide to continue to go with that or not. I know there's another proposed language on the table, so I want to hear about that. Then later in the week, we'll have a discussion about what we want to do, particularly with that section and with other sections of two twenty four, where we're at and how we want to move forward with that bill. And then Tuesday also we have another joint hearing with economic development. That'll be our last one. That's further getting into the eight zero two homes as it's been dubbed by Wright Design. What does that look like? What would that entail? I've been to