Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: Probably a good attorney.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: You're live.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: This is a joint meeting with senate natural resources and senate transportation, and we're here to hear about projects and difficulty the agency is having with Act three. Yes,

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: and so we're going be hearing about some of those difficulties and would love to turn it over to you. Yes, welcome.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Thank you, senators, for having me. My name is Jeremy Reed. I'm the chief engineer for the Agency of Transportation and here to discuss some changes to the jurisdictional thresholds as they relate to transportation projects.

[Unknown senator]: Okay,

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: so here's some recent projects and the picture on the left many of you know is the Brattleboro design bid project, and in that project we did not need a accurate 50 permit. A jurisdictional opinion was issued and basically ruled that replacement of the two bridges did not constitute a significant change. And then two other notable projects here to the right is the Diverging Diamond, and that does have an I-three 50 permit, and then the Middleware Tunnel which does not have an I-three 50 permit. Ideally what I did was for you here is that all of these projects have significant impacts, but there are some differences of opinion of whether or not they need active 50 permits.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: How long was the Middlebury Tunnel?

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Couldn't think long it as had.

[Unknown senator]: Like 500 feet?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah. Pretty

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: long.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Yeah, we went through it. Can I ask you a

[Unknown senator]: question about that? So I'm really surprised that that didn't have an active feature permit because it moved a lot of rock around.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, mean, the end of the day, was just a small townhunter bridge project that was then expanded to sort of a greenscape project, right?

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: But there was lasting.

[Unknown senator]: There was

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: quite a bit of lasting.

[Unknown senator]: Yeah, it was like mining, but it was like horizontal mining.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, was more.

[Unknown senator]: Yeah, but big. So I'm just surprised that that wasn't.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: Asked the question trying to figure out in the scope of this, why some isn't, why some isn't.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: I think we've got a project that I'll make later up in Linden, where we really relied on the Rattler decision as reasons for not needing an Act two fifty permit. And basically we were told, well that was a mistake, we probably should have needed an ACTU-fifty to write. And I just want to say on the onset, we're going to talk about the Windham project a little bit, but I've been an ACTU-fifty commissioner for seven years, no longer, and worked with that coordinator, so this was not in any way criticism of that coordinator. Just find him very capable and confident and really appreciate the work he's doing. I think this is just trying to show how some of these terms at the jurisdictional level can be interpreted differently by different people, and we're just trying to establish some consistent expectations for our projects moving forward. So with that, a little bit of history here. Obviously the interstate started before Act 15 came into existence, and long story short, it was essentially deemed immune from those criteria through its completion in 1982. There are two things that largely trigger Act two fifty jurisdiction now, and the one that we're principally talking about is substantial change, which is as lawyers call it a term of our, and what we're looking at is does replacing a culvert to a larger culvert to meet today's environmental standards constitute a substantial change when virtually every other component of the asset stays the same once the project is completed. Meaning we're not adding range, we're not adding off ramps, we are just building a new structure to replace what is the now sixty year old structure. We will also define transportation facility and the involved lands. So again this is largely just talking about the history and how it interacts with Act two fifty. Act two fifty included an exemption for state highway projects for ordering and again that was the mechanism on which they excluded the interstate through or for the after 50 process. And again, that ultimately concluded in their early to mid-80s. So effectively nearly twenty five years passed under those exemptions. We're now at the stage where a lot of those earlier assets need to be either replaced or rehabilitated, and we're looking to effectively continue the same level of exemption or grandfathered for just those level of maintenance basically, because we're just removing one culvert, replacing it in kind, or in kind to the degree that today's standards allow.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair), Senate Transportation (probable)]: Jeremy, when you're on your slides when you reference sections, is that to a bill or that's some hypothetical bill? Hypothetical. You're not, none of this is in reference to

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: any Correct, correct. Well I'll go with language that we can disseminate, but yeah this is just where kind of how it would be structured in any particular bill. Obviously, our interstates, any of these projects are largely funded with federal funds and they go through the NEPA process and all other permitting requirements, which to a large degree makes the Act two fifty process largely redundant. What it does do though is it allows us to save the time and any certainty related to the Act two fifty permit process by not going through it.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Sorry, can you say that again?

[Unknown senator]: I am interested in how NEPA and Act two fifty work together because it seems like there is overlap. So do you do them sequentially, or can you use the reports that you do for NEPA?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: So I think frequently what we do is we use the NEPA process to satisfy many of the 10 criteria within Act two fifty, but they are the same processes. And again, this Linden project, we had Clear NEPA, we had a contractor, and we saw a jurisdictional opinion, what we thought to be a formality, and then realized, okay, we are now under back to 50 jurisdiction, and that causes issues at that late stage in the game.

[Unknown senator]: Well, just wanna make sure I understand. So the normal procedure is to coordinate NEPA and ACT-two 50?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Well, typically what we do is we take all of our NEPA requirements, and once those are obtained, those will satisfy many of the criteria within the ACTU-fifty process, but they have to happen sequentially, not concurrently.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Sorry, what is

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: It's the National Environmental Policy Act, and it dates back decades. And basically it says if you use federal funds, you need to follow and ensure environmental compliance both at a state and federal level, and that touches everything from endangered species, water quality, name it. Historic preservation. Historic preservation, sensitive archaeological sites, the entire gamut of anything that could be impacted through our projects from an environmental or cultural lens, shall we say.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: That's helpful, thank you. So actually, before we leave that, so you're having to comply already with For any federal funded project with all of these regulations ready. Interesting. Okay.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Thank you. Yeah. And then obviously any state requirements as well. We'll get stream filtration permits, storm water permits, etcetera.

[Unknown senator]: Right. And there are things

[Unknown senator]: I a quick question. So given everything that's happening, are the Feds still actually enforcing the Utah?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, that's happened.

[Unknown senator]: Okay. I wonder how long that will happen.

[Unknown senator]: Right. And then, so I just want to point out, so there are things in Act of 50 that are not in NEPA. It might, would be good to have a chart. Somebody somewhere has a chart about that. But Vermont has additional requirements are

[Unknown senator]: meaningful.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: And I would offer that through our permits that we get through principally agency natural resources, but also the State Historic Preservation Office, those largely ensure compliance with NEPA. So it's not like that's the additional step, we take our current regulatory framework and apply it, and generally that ensures compliance. So just a quick listing of projects that we have in the program right now. So for example, the Linden project's kind of the participating project for this effort, and it's tough to quantify projects that aren't yet through that design process, so that's the unknown. But Linden, we used some alternative contracting where we worked collaboratively with the contractor to reduce constructability issues, but also that allows us to see what the various things cost. And if Linden was it was deemed to be jurisdictional, and if the staging area, because it was contiguous to the project site, was deemed to be an involved land, the property owner basically said we're not going to let you use the staging area because we don't want our property encumbered in perpetuity. So the contractor put a price tag of about $2,000,000 to lose that staging area. In addition to these four projects that are in the program, we certainly anticipate over the next seven to ten years that there'll be a handful of other projects that come to light that aren't currently identified that would probably trigger active 50 jurisdictions under the thresholds established with the Windham project.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: So let me back up. So the staging area where you might have been holding equipment and materials to do the project, because you have a staging area, it has to go through active 50 and so that will track with the property. Once

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: lands are deemed involved under a permanent project, are ineffective under active 50 jurisdiction in perpetuity.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: So And the place that you were going to have a staging area for this was not owned by was not on state land. It was a private landowner, so they said no.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: If their land was to be jurisdictional, that is correct. Now I will say we have since refined the scope of this project, so this is no longer a problem. We've migrated to rehabilitation instead of replacement, but this is the most recent example we have. And largely we've chosen rehabilitation because of some of the costs associated with the project and not strictly active 50, but other costs as well. So again, these were just a snapshot in time.

[Unknown senator]: So this is not an issue anymore?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: This is not an issue anymore. We do believe some of these other projects will absolutely be an issue. And certainly the Senate Transportation Committee has heard, but we've got dozens, if not hundreds of deteriorating deep culverts, and ultimately to access those deep culverts require a significant amount of earthwork, a significant amount of gaping area, and so we do expect those to trigger Act two fifty under the current sort of thresholds and lens.

[Unknown senator]: Just something I think about Act two fifty, it's very rare to have a project, a property, not have jurisdiction anymore, but that has happened. We had one in my district. So, it's very rare, but a property can go out of Act two fifty jurisdiction if there are certain circumstances.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: I guess I would also add that, you know, given the volume of material we have to remove for this, this isn't necessarily even staking areas, it could be waste sites, you know, where we are depositing excess material and things like that. And I think, one of the things I want to stress is it's a land use permit under the Land Use Review Board and the land use is a way of changing into a large for restoring the site to its pre existing condition.

[Unknown senator]: When you mentioned deep culverts, I don't know if you're familiar with this project, but it was after the twenty twenty three floods on Route 116.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: That one. That one.

[Unknown senator]: Did that require active thinking? No. Okay, because that's a deep, huge culvert.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, that actually wasn't that deep.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: We look

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: at it through the

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: three deep, yeah, no, well,

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: it is true too. And I guess I'm not saying that just in context of some of these interstate projects that are like fifty, sixty feet deep, whereas I think Del Pond was 20 something. So as massive as that may have felt and seemed, we're talking things two or three times deeper on the interstate.

[Unknown senator]: Okay, but that's an example of a major culvert replacement that And did not trigger that was in wetland areas.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yep, but we did have to go through all those other environmental risks.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: Yes, exactly.

[Unknown senator]: Just what it's worth, I don't know how it's in I would want to put the nipple back to 50, but both culverts, given what's happening today, are too small, And the same is true of bridges, and so we wanna ensure one way or the other than that. And we also know that there is a five life corridors. And so we wanna, as the replacements are taking place, make sure that we are making them significantly wider so that there's room on both sides of the river in normal times for animals to grow, to use it as a transportation. I know you're I'm sure have no doubt you're aware of that and keeping that in mind, but it's just something that there's an opportunity every time we replace over to a bridge to make it much more fun to the wildlife.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: And that's one of the crux of the issue is that by expanding the either waterway opening or create connectivity by expanding that span, we trigger active 50, right, because the footprint gets bigger. Now it's a footprint on previously disturbed areas, and once it's finished, it will look largely the same for the user, but it does require a lot of temporary work.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: Well, and we're under borders, particularly within the Champlain Valley for the cleanup of the lake, and a huge piece of changing these culverts is all related to the cleanup of the lake. Yeah.

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: Go ahead. Are these FEMA standard size culverts that you're putting in, do they direct it?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Under the federal aid system, all of this falls under Federal Highway, so we have no interaction with FEMA. My guess is the design standards that we've adopted as the agency and the manner in which we collaborate with the agency of natural resources, these would exceed FEMA standards because not only do we look at hydraulic capacity, but we look at aquatic organism passage, some other terrestrial passage, and we even then go to what level of redundancy beyond those hydraulic standards. So my guess is that anything we install would exceed FEMA standards, but we don't look at them for any review or consultation.

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: I'm thinking from an MGRP from my municipal level. Yeah. Yeah.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: That's what Sarah makes. Basically, how are we trying to achieve this objective? So, again, modify the jurisdictional threshold calculation to net out previously disturbed land. So if we look at kind of a trapezoid of the interstate, we would take that fill slope that was built thirty-forty years ago and not include that as current disturbance because it was previously disturbed. So any calculation you would only look at earth disturbance that was not previously disturbed by the building of the interstate or the next basin asset at Weverick. Anything beyond those limits would go into the 10 acre calculations. We would add a definition to a transportation facility, just again so that that's specifically here as far as what assets we are talking about. And in doing that, we're also recognizing that contemporary engineering standards, and that's what we just talked about, require oftentimes upsizing of these assets for any number of reasons, including resiliency, wildlife connectivity, etcetera. Also recognizing that anything we use federal funds for falls under NEPA, state permitting, and oftentimes those are much more strenuous than Act three fifty for the applicable criteria. This just gives us an idea of the process we go through to ensure environmental compliance. So we identify resources and avoid opportunities, and again, not everything from wetlands to archaeological sensitive sites. We do project scoping and largely try to minimize those impacts to the degree possible. Once we give our state and or federal permits, we can get a positive finding under NEPA. And if anything does change, we do have to do a NEPA re evaluation. So as the design progresses, if we make any changes, there's a NEPA re evaluation process. So this is just to highlight that this does not largely fundamentally change what we're going to do from a state and federal regulatory compliance piece. It just removes the land use portion of the process under Act two fifty.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: So just let me and I've got two questions in this. First, in the timing of this. So you can't do NEPA at the same time you're doing Act two fifty. So is there some estimate on a project like some of these projects, but extra time that would add to this because the time is And if we're duplicating between the permits, what's the extra cost for that duplication?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: So there's probably not a lot of extra costs related to the duplication of effort, because typically we can take the existing permit that we already received and use that to demonstrate compliance within that two fifty. So there's not that. The time component is the big thing, and the problem that we have is it's entirely uncertain. Right? So most of these would probably be considered major permits, which then you get out of hearings, opens up the door for public comment. And we don't know the outcomes of that, but if we just say essentially we would be ready to go to construction before we start the ACTU-fifty process, which isn't terribly far off, it's probably a little aggressive, but not terribly, to go through the ACTU-fifty process could take six, eight months, which effectively means construction season. So again, making some broad assumptions here, if we say that there's 3% year over year cost escalation, just the time of the process could potentially cost 3% to the project. Now, if we lose staging areas and other lands, or there's other criteria imposed on us, then obviously that's going to add significantly more cost.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: I

[Unknown senator]: guess, do you have sounds like the projects that you're talking about either Act two fifty wasn't triggered or it didn't become an issue like the Linden project. And that a lot of the concern is about what might happen. Do you have examples of projects that did happen where Act two fifty was a problem? Because it seems like it's somewhat speculative, and I don't want to make policy based on speculation.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Sure. So here's a project that we just concluded that did require an active 50 permit. And essentially this is just the replacement of a bridge over the interstate at Exit 17. There was some reconfiguration of the intersections of the off ramps and then the slight addition to Exit 7 excuse me, Route 7 and Route 2 Intersection, otherwise known as Chimney Corners. So what we are proposing is you would see

[Unknown senator]: Where is this specifically?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: It's at 17 on I-eighty 9. St. Louis. Colchester, It's the one we just barely finished. And

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair), Senate Transportation (probable)]: so this is to the

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: far right hand side, the reconfiguration of Chimney Corners, that's the intersection of Route 2 and Route 7, and then as the bridge goes over the interstate, it goes to the left side of the screen that goes to the islands, just to help orient ourselves. So essentially what we're talking about is all of the green area was previously disturbed area when the interstate was previously built. The purple or reddish shading was newly disturbed areas. And so what this language proposes is that when we looked at Act two fifty, instead of including all of the disturbed area, we would net out previously disturbed area, and that would fall below the 10 acre threshold. Now I think to your point, what did this cost? And that's difficult to quantify because we don't know how the contractor can price this. They don't open up their books to us. We could make some educated guesses on what the time cost, but because the contractor didn't open up their books because of the contracting method, we don't know specifically what some of these things ended up costing us. And that's why I'm using the Linden example, because with that contracting methodology, we collaboratively worked on what that target cost, and they were able to definitively say, Look, if we lose this staving area, this is what it'll cost, and they broke that down to us as far as time for trucking and moving materials and all of that. So yes, some of this is somewhat speculative. That being said, we do have some concrete examples with the Windham project.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Okay, that's just one project.

[Unknown senator]: I mean, this is helpful to see the map and see what you're proposing in terms of what now I understand better what your proposal is in terms of how you calculate disturbed land. I'm just wondering, and I'm totally open to making changes, don't get me wrong, but I'm just curious, it doesn't, Since there's not We don't have actual data to say that this has been a negative impact. If we do, I haven't seen

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, and it's difficult to definitively calculate what does a six month delay to a project cost. As I said, we can say, if you look at construction year over year, let's just say that's 3%.

[Unknown senator]: But is it always a six month delay? I mean, aren't you simultaneously doing a bunch of things?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Generally speaking, we need to get our other permits before we can go to Act two fifty, because we rely on those other permits to demonstrate compliance with those criteria.

[Unknown senator]: Got it, okay.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: So it definitely adds time to the process. Is there some overlap? Is there always a specific five month, six month, one year delay? No, it's entirely case dependent, and if it's a three month delay between November and January, it's largely inconsequential. If it's a three month delay from May to June, it is consequential.

[Unknown senator]: Okay, it might be helpful for me, because this is new to me, I'm not a transportation company, to understand your project timelines and how this would have been for this project, how it would have been impacted.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: I would just say we have limited crews to do work and we have a very short construction season.

[Unknown senator]: Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: The

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: thing that I find striking is why can't we do permits simultaneously?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: So typically the way I-two 50 works is you rely on your ANR, your federal permits to demonstrate compliance with the 10 criteria with I-two 50, and without having those permits in hand and having the final design done, it's not even a complete application under Act two fifty. So you've got to sort of have that final design done, you then have to have your permits basically in hand before you even start an Act two fifty process, because the permit's not complete. So these are examples of projects that would still require an Active 50 permit. So if we're fundamentally changing the use, it's new interstate vamps, those are probably unlikely, but any major realignment or quarter projects where we're adding climbing lanes or additional turning lanes, those would still create a RAC two fifty. Examples of those projects would be the Champlain Parkway, the four or five segments of Route 7 Pittsford Grandin, and the three or four projects associated with Route 2 Cavett, the Endo project. So this isn't total park launch. If we are making fundamental changes to the asset, we would still fall under Act two fifty jurisdiction. Examples where ACU50 would not apply, the Colchester Exit 17 project that I just showed, general maintenance on state owned rail cradles, certainly some of those culverts are very lean as well, reconstruction of roads on existing alignment, intersection updates, replacement of existing culverts and bridges, which we spoke a lot about, and just minor upgrades to sidewalk, rails and pathways. So essentially maintaining the asset through current standards would, in all likelihood, result in all jurisdictional finding. And the Exit 17 project. So we just have some starting language here.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Where do you, Can I assess what bill are you placing this in?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: We don't have a bill in mind at this point. I think we're talking about how to incorporate this into a bill, and that's where we don't have specific addendums to a bill, we just got some generic language that can be inserted.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Okay, but can I ask why do you, guess maybe I'm just thinking obviously, but doesn't this make sense in the T bill and why not start it in the House's T bill that you presented?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: I guess that would be we could have that discussion. I don't know if the House has

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: No, but why didn't AOT propose it in the T bill? I guess is my question.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, I don't know the answer for that. I think we were looking at this multiple approaches, and we thought of maybe a standalone bill. We thought about accruing the key bill. If there's another bill coming out that's not enough

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair), Senate Transportation (probable)]: resources, maybe that'd be the appropriate slot.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: I don't think we have a preference on the vehicle, it's just a matter of here's the language.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Okay, thank you.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Quickly to run through what we're talking about here, and this is really the crux of the land bridge. Land that was previously disturbed as a result of the construction of a transportation facility will be excluded from computing the amount of land involved provided that the project is subject to this exclusion. It's a transportation project and it's funded whole or in part by federal agencies. Again, the exclusion will not apply to new additional points of access or exit the interstate. So again, we're saying we recognize that's different. As used in this subdivision previously disturbed means the land that has been changed by previous installation of transportation facilities including roads, railroads, unways, taxis, airport, apron, trails, sidewalk, vision, greener features like removals, utility door, clear zones, and other features associated with that facility. Here, to provide more context, redefine transportation facility, meaning highways, sidewalks, bicycle paths defined under GSA two thousand three and one, state railroads and rail bank lines, noise act rate to the airport, stating meaningfully on airports. And then basically saying no permanent amendment is needed for maintenance projects on the interstate system. Maintenance meaning resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, state system, roads, including functional basement bridges, culverts to meet modern engineering environmental standards.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: So just a question on that. It's a little bit surprising to me that transportation facility doesn't have a definition in statute, so this is creating a definition?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Correct.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Interesting. Okay.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: And this is specific to Act three fifty. May be some other definition for some other applicability, but before Act three fifty, this would create a definition.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Okay, and it is referencing 19 BSA, another part of statute. Yeah, did you? But that must be referencing just the highway sidewalks and bike paths.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Right. And that Right.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Okay. And then it it expands on that.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yep. Okay. Yeah. It depends.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Did you work with Damian Leonard on this language or is this kind of okay.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: There there's something we use often.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: But obviously, that would be the next step.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Yeah. We might have alternatives to that. Well, I have some questions. Go ahead.

[Unknown senator]: So this is very interesting. Did you did act one eighty one impact this? Because some of your facilities are going to be in here

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: in the different places. Not going to do something in a tier one or tier one B area that has 10 acres. I mean, I guess I won't say we absolutely want it, but it seems unlikely.

[Unknown senator]: Well, the tier 1A doesn't depend on 10 acres.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: That's my point.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Right, so that's not fundamentally changing the paradigm because the only part of 01/1981 that would change our jurisdictional would be anything in a tier 1A or 1B area. And I just can't imagine that we would have 10 acres of disturbance there.

[Unknown senator]: Right, but the town, in theory, would have more authority over development.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Well, it was actually 50 oversight.

[Unknown senator]: Right, but it would have its own processes.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Well, we don't need town zoning permits to do our projects.

[Unknown senator]: So then maybe that's something that we should consider. So how it would be helpful to know how much of your facilities are in what would be in 1A? I don't know if you can figure that out. You probably could.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: I still think they're all defined yet, but once they are, we can probably find out that. My guess is it's not a lot because a lot of those areas in town or in one a areas are probably class one down the highways.

[Unknown senator]: Well, there's, like, Route 5, Route 9. I mean Right.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Those could be like, Rattleboro, that's a class one down highway.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Yeah. The whole way it's a

[Unknown senator]: class, I thought only in part of.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, there is boundaries, right? And I don't know where that aligns with the Tier 1A boundary. But if we look at the 3,300 miles of state highway system, there's probably not a lot within the Tier 1A or 1B area.

[Unknown senator]: Probably mostly to Tier two.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: There's certainly some tier two, but I think the tier threes are sort of along the boundaries of the right of way. So yeah, I think you're absolutely right, mostly tier two.

[Unknown senator]: Yeah, I think it's worth knowing, and I think the tier 1As are the areas where most people live, know, a general amount of people live, right, a high amount. So they're pretty impactful. I mean, this is interesting. I just for some I've heard of it. But we also need to think about how roads typically are next to rivers. I mean, that's how they were that's how it was done, and reasonably so, because the rivers were the original transportation. Yeah. This is a big deal, is what I'm getting And so I would like more details on

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, I mean, so again, within Tier 1A areas, can't think of a project off the top of my head that would figure out two fifty for us now because it's not a big enough project to disturb 10 acres. So I think that's tough to do in 01/1987. Related to your concerns about how we've got for Rivers, I mean, we're still getting stream alteration permits, we're still getting construction and operational stormwater permits. This doesn't change that in any meaningful way.

[Unknown senator]: And so A and R is regulating that?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yes.

[Unknown senator]: Right. And I'm aware of that. It's just all connected, so it'll take some conversation. Yeah.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Yeah. Can I just say, it sounds like you're kinda shopping the language around, to find the right home for it, if I'm understanding correctly? And I guess I would just say if we do take this language up or if Senate Natural Resources takes it up, that it would be nice to see it in its final form again, I guess, is my request. Like if we could do some kind of walk or if you We're gonna need to have some conversation as to what direction you wanna go with this.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: And we have initially had the conversation knowing that you've expressed to me that you may do an F-two Right, 50

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: right now. Okay. Exactly.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: Therein therein comes the what vehicle is would get his Awesome.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Absolutely. Appreciate

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: it. Yeah. Because he just answered it. He's thinking about state aid highways. If, you know, to tell the municipality is responsible, but you still have oversight on the projects. Right?

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Yeah. Let me So if

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: if we are doing, say, a class one paving project that we are doing, yes, we have full oversight. If a town just wants to work on either Class one or two or three, then no, we don't have oversight. Now, we potentially were to issue them a grant that would then still fall underneath by all that. And obviously if it was state funded or town funded, if there were any regulatory requirements within the agency and have the resources, those would still apply. So there's layers of oversight here, but ultimately this does not change the regulatory framework as it relates to the agency NAPA resources or any federal requirements under NEVA.

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: So I was thinking of a project on Route 140 in Pullman. I think Pullman Milltown where the road sloughed

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: out into the river. And

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: the town ended up contracting to fix it. It could have been 10 acres, if they let it go any further.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Yeah, and I don't know the details of that specific project, but my assumption is that whoever was funding and or providing oversight of the project still had to work with stream operation, public construction storm water, if it's of any significant side on an acre. So there's still that regulatory framework that we've got.

[Unknown participant (possibly municipal perspective)]: Okay, thanks.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair), Senate Transportation (probable)]: Thanks, Jeremy. This is a good presentation. I mean, the clearest presentation on this issue that I've seen. I think in all eight years the secretary has come in every year and said, there's a problem with me. Is the first time you've kind of provided a detailed language. I think that's it'd be helpful in the discussion.

[Unknown senator]: I just want to All the examples you've given have been highways, and the language also includes railroads and airports. Those often are in areas that are not obviously along roads. So that-

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: I

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: say railroad would include something like the Lamoille Valley Rail Trail that goes 93 miles across. And there were a lot of very deep old culverts along that rail trail that don't meet any of our environmental standards now. I'm not sure, I have no definite, but it does raise a concern for me. It's what do you do? And that's mostly for, in my area, mostly along the river.

[Unknown senator]: Yeah, I mean, the railroads go through some really sensitive areas. In my district, they go through extensive wetlands, which is one of the reasons why the train is always canceled and they use a bus instead. But it is pretty sensitive land. And so having an exemption through that kind of land would be concerning.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: So I believe, and we could certainly have the folks in rail team come in, that if it's an active rail line, we've got VM chenanue active. And again, if it goes to a wetlands, then it still has jurisdiction otherwise. So it either had preemption or if it doesn't have preemption, we still have to follow the wetlands requirements or any other agency and not resources, late in tolerance permits, things like that.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: We see a hand from Michelle too.

[Michelle Windhammer, Vermont Agency of Transportation]: Thank you, sir. For the record, Michelle Windhammer from our Agency of Transportation to specifically address railroads. They do have federal preemption. However, we are required to get federal permits for those. They're So federal wetlands permits and that sort of thing that do apply federal section 106 archeological for those projects. Airports are already all jurisdictional. So no matter what happens on the airport at this point in time, they all fall under Act two. It's the jurisdiction. So while we put it in here, it's essentially covered in helping to prevent their social attack. Okay.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: I do have a follow-up question. So the definition that you have in here is not for its own sake. It's because it's being used elsewhere, I assume somewhere in your language, particularly on the for the netting of land. Is that accurate? Is there anywhere else that having a definition of a transportation facility would be useful in terms of Act two fifty definitions?

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: Off my

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair), Senate Transportation (probable)]: head, I don't think so.

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Okay. So Great. Thank you. Yes. Thank

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Natural Resources chair)]: us the opportunity to raise the issue for all of us. I would say to Senate Transportation, We're now late for our next

[Unknown senator (likely Senate Transportation member or chair)]: Very small. We gotta go. Well, thank you so much. You're welcome. I've learned a lot actually from this presentation. Not aware of some of these conflicts. So really appreciate you taking the time to get us at least get our committee educated. So thank you.

[Jeremy Reed, Chief Engineer, Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT)]: My pleasure. Happy to come back.