What happened: Environmental and land‑trust witnesses, including representatives from Mass Audubon, The Trustees of Reservations and The Nature Conservancy, praised the bond bill’s land‑conservation and coastal resilience allocations but urged legislative changes to speed ecological restoration. They asked the committee to consider enactment or incorporation of separate legislation (cited in testimony as House 1052 / Senate 557: the “Accelerating Wetland Restoration” bills) to clarify permitting for restoration projects.

Why it matters: Witnesses said salt marshes and other coastal wetlands are rapidly degrading and provide natural flood protection, carbon sequestration and biodiversity benefits. They argued that permitting regimes written to prevent harmful development — Chapter 91, MEPA and the Wetlands Protection Act — are sometimes ill‑fitted and costly for low‑impact restoration projects that return tidal flow to marshes, remove obsolete dams on rivers, or repair wetlands hydrology. Trustees and Mass Audubon urged either exemptions for bona fide restoration work or streamlined general permits to reduce time and cost barriers.

Funding and tools requested: Panelists supported the bill’s $200,000,000 for coastal zone management and other restoration line items but asked for more predictable, larger grants and faster project permitting to scale work. They also recommended the committee consider dedicated funding for voluntary buyouts and to capitalize a “blue carbon” approach where marsh restoration might access carbon markets to support projects.

Debate and technical detail: Restoration practitioners said engineering‑level requirements, Chapter 91 licensing and lengthy MEPA processes can add months and tens or hundreds of thousands in costs to otherwise straightforward restoration projects. Several witnesses asked the committee to prioritize projects with high public benefit and to allow more nonprofits and regional entities to apply for funds so that local capacity differences do not block action.

Next steps: The conservation groups offered to work with the committee and the administration on draft enabling language and to identify pilot projects where streamlined permitting and funding could be tested across multiple towns.