At a joint hearing of the Vermont House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry and its Senate counterparts, logging contractors and trade‑group leaders testified that prolonged wet weather and summer flooding sharply reduced their harvest days and revenue and urged lawmakers to approve targeted assistance and investments.

“For the record, my name is Sam Lincoln,” said Sam Lincoln, a master logger from Randolph Center, describing his business’s experience. He testified that wet conditions and the July flood forced shutdowns and greatly reduced production: "From the period between June 1 and 10/01/2023, I worked 23 days," and he said timber‑harvesting days have fallen from a historical 160–180 days to 104 in 2023, with an overall timber‑harvesting revenue decline he estimated at 22% for fiscal year 2023. Lincoln told lawmakers that those revenue losses — not physical damage to equipment or structures — have left many firms ineligible for existing relief programs and asked that revenue losses be made eligible for any additional relief funds.

Why it matters: logging is a seasonal, cash‑based business; when heavy rain or unfrozen ground prevents contractors from getting machines into stands, production and pay stops. Contractors told the committee those interruptions ripple through mills and the wider forest‑products supply chain.

Dana Duran, executive director of the Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast (PLC), which is expanding into Vermont, outlined a two‑phase policy platform incorporated into H.624, "an act relating to providing financial assistance to the forest product economy." Phase 1 asks lawmakers to fund a targeted benchmarking study with the University of Vermont Center for Rural Studies and to seed safety training and site‑adaptation investments. Phase 2 covers workforce development and career‑promotion programs to recruit and train operators.

Duran said the PLC’s priorities include:
- a benchmarking study (estimated at about $100,000) to measure logging and hauling employment, wages and capital needs distinct from the broader forest economy;
- short‑term funding to bring mechanized‑logging safety training to Vermont;
- adaptation measures such as armoring landings, adding culverts and installing skidder bridges to reduce erosion and lengthen the window when contractors can safely operate; and
- a proposal to use already‑appropriated federal Clean Water State Revolving Fund dollars to establish a low‑interest revolving loan program so contractors can invest in low‑ground‑pressure equipment (Duran cited machine prices ranging from about $500,000 to $850,000).

“We’re not trying to replace income every time this happens,” Duran said. “What we’re trying to do is to look at what can we do to get folks to work so that they continue to produce, to make revenue, to pay their employees.” He estimated adaptation practices could increase operable days by “25 to 30%,” a projection he described as directional rather than based on statewide empirical data.

Longview Forest cofounder Jack Bell described similar impacts from his Putney‑based company: production peaked at 22,000 cords in 2020 and has fallen to roughly 6,000 cords so far this fiscal year; revenues are about 65% of budget while costs have risen roughly 30%. Bell said the company has spent roughly $72,000 over three years on wooden mats and bridge panels and about $25,000 per year for mats and related hauling to protect ground conditions during wet periods.

Committee members pressed witnesses on program eligibility and previous relief. Witnesses said pandemic‑era programs — including a one‑time pandemic assistance program for timber harvesters and haulers and earlier state stabilization grants — provided limited relief and that no current federal or state program broadly covers revenue loss from weather‑driven operational interruptions. Several legislators noted the committees’ role on appropriations and asked for concrete figures to evaluate funding requests.

What happened next: witnesses asked lawmakers to include language in H.624 to fund the benchmarking study, seed training programs and create cost‑share or loan mechanisms for on‑the‑ground adaptation work. Committee members said they would coordinate with appropriations staff and follow up with Vermont Tech and other education partners about workforce programs.

The hearing ended with the committee thanking witnesses and scheduling additional testimony from Vermont Tech and agency staff about workforce and education programs. The committees recessed for a short break without taking formal votes on H.624 during the session covered by this transcript.