ANR, FPR propose Act 250 edits to align forestry with agriculture and narrow permit conditions

Agency staff from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation (FPR) presented legislative edits intended to align forestry review under Act 250 with existing agricultural exemptions and to clarify permit scope for wood‑products manufacturers.

Billy Koster, ANR director of planning and policy, told the committee the Land Use Review Board’s January memo on wood‑products manufacturers informed the draft statutory language and identified recommendations 9 and 10 as central: extending certain benefits to logging and forestry and reinstating an exemption for log and pulp concentration yards.

Oliver Pearson, director for forests at FPR, said the department does not support creating new statutory definitions for "logging" and "forestry" in 10 V.S.A. §6001 because existing statutory language in titles 10 and 12 already governs forestry operations and new definitions risk inconsistency. "We don't really support the creation of new definitions for logging and forestry," Pearson said, urging reference to existing statutory terms to avoid unintended consequences.

Both agencies proposed edits to limit Act 250 amendment jurisdiction to portions of a parcel that "support the development or mitigation areas necessary for the development," clarifying that harvests or wood‑product operations conducted on portions of a parcel that are not tied to the development should not automatically be subject to broad Act 250 conditions. They also recommended reinstating the pre‑2022 exemption that excludes log and pulp concentration yards from the definition of wood‑products manufacturer, a change the agencies said will narrow permit jurisdiction over those yards.

Committee members raised a scenario (a 100‑acre tract with 10 acres developed and 90 acres in active forestry) to confirm how jurisdiction would be applied; ANR/FPR explained that the Stony Brook analysis can be used to limit jurisdiction to only portions that directly support the permitted development and its mitigation requirements. Agencies cautioned against including references to "findings, conclusions, [or] terms" in the exemption language because those elements can create ambiguity over what portions of an Act 250 record constrain future forestry activity; instead, agencies emphasized that permit "conditions" should be controlling.

Agency staff said they will work further with the Land Use Review Board to refine language and return to the committee. No bill vote or formal action was taken at the hearing.