Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forest Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forest management can protect water quality, county forester says
Summary
Ethan Tapper, Chittenden County forester, told the Clean Water Advisory Committee that properly managed forests reduce erosion and support water resilience; he urged use of Acceptable Management Practices, noted municipal limits to regulate private forest management, and suggested volunteer monitoring and CWSP funding to address legacy infrastructure.
Ethan Tapper, the county forester (FPR), told the Chittenden County Clean Water Advisory Committee on April 4 that well-managed forests play a central role in protecting water quality.
Tapper said Vermont is about 74% forested and roughly 78% of that forestland is privately owned. He told the committee that living trees reduce runoff and soil erosion, store water and carbon, and that managing both streams and forests for long-term resilience produces more stable patterns of water, sediment and carbon cycling.
Tapper described multiple pathways by which forestry affects water quality: natural background contributions, sediment from legacy access infrastructure such as poorly planned roads and undersized stream crossings, and management practices. He explained that Acceptable Management Practices, or AMPs, address road drainage, water bars, grading and design of log landings; AMPs are mandatory on parcels enrolled in the Use Value Appraisal ('Current Use') tax-abatement program, and fines can be issued for sediment discharges when AMPs have not been followed. Tapper said, "municipalities are not allowed to regulate forest management (only the state is)," citing statutory limits discussed during the presentation.
On the practice side, Tapper contrasted unsupervised logging with forest management led by consulting foresters. He advocated for an "ecological forestry" approach—using management to simulate natural disturbances, retain legacy trees, leave substantial dead wood, and create multi-generational structure—which he said achieves many of the same outcomes that meet water-quality goals. To address current vulnerabilities, he recommended "overbuilding" trails and stream crossings to better withstand extreme precipitation and emphasized "multi-solving," aligning forestry actions to deliver conservation, climate, and water-quality benefits simultaneously.
Committee members asked several implementation questions. Chair Annie Costandi asked whether towns that own forests may manage them like private landowners; Tapper confirmed they may, and said towns typically work with the county forester and should follow AMPs. Dan Albrecht asked Tapper to share the relevant statutes and examples of local work; Tapper described his work at the LaPlatte Headwaters Town Forest in Shelburne (301 acres) and stabilization work in the Andrews Community Forest in Richmond. When Dave Wheeler asked about enforcement, Tapper said catastrophic AMP failures are rare, are generally fixed by reinstalling AMP elements after an event, and that there is no active statewide inspection program—issues generally surface through community reporting or when a forester observes them.
Tapper and others suggested trained volunteers could help monitor old logging roads and other legacy infrastructure; Karen Bates and committee members noted Clean Water Service Provider funding might be available to support such identification and stabilization work.
Why it matters: forest practices affect phosphorus and sediment loads entering surface waters; better-managed forests and upgraded access infrastructure can reduce erosion during heavy storms and support broader watershed resilience.
The presentation included contact information and resources shared in the meeting chat. The committee then moved on to CWSP updates for Basins 5, 7 and 8.
