A proposal to limit forest fragmentation was thwarted by developers who oppose using the state’s land use and development laws as a tool to keep woodlands intact, according to the lead sponsor of the bill that was gutted on the Senate floor Wednesday.
“There are developers in a certain corner of the state that are very concerned that nothing gets in the way of their planned development,” said Sen. Peter Galbraith, D-Windham.
The Senate scaled back a bill Wednesday to use the state’s Act 250 permitting process to prevent forest fragmentation after the Shumlin administration called for a study on how to preserve the state’s forests in harmony with the forest products industry and future development.
The Senate passed a strike-all amendment on second reading to let the Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation study the issue and report back to lawmakers next year.
Vagueness, lack of clarity and possible unintended consequences were among the administration’s chief concerns with the bill that passed a committee vote last week, according to Michael Snyder, commissioner of the department.
“It’s really a complicated issue,” Snyder said. “Our interest is trying to get it right.”
Through the study, the department will look at how to preserve the state’s forests in balance with other uses and interests.
“Working forest values, habitat values, connectivity, outdoor recreation – forests are extremely important to Vermont,” Snyder said. “But so are people’s livelihoods. And we understand that development will happen.”
The Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee approved a bill, S.100, to use the state’s permitting process to prevent forest fragmentation – a process in which development creates isolated patches of forest and can disrupt natural habitat.
The bill would have required development already undergoing the Act 250 review process to maintain forest integrity. If development must alter forests, the developer could purchase a conservation offset at another site to balance the impact.
“It had 19 co-sponsors and then people were shocked to discover it did something,” Galbraith said. “The trouble with any legislation is that the particular interests always trumps the more general public interest.”
The state’s Act 250 permitting process is a quasi-judicial procedure to review development according to several criteria.
Foresters successfully lobbied against the original version of the committee bill that would expand the scope of Act 250 to include certain kinds of development in the state’s forests. The bill was later revised to only require that forest fragmentation be considered for development already requiring an Act 250 permit.
Environmental groups and the forest products industry were unable to compromise on the legislation between when the committee passed the bill and when it landed on the Senate floor. The bill’s second reading was delayed twice.
The Vermont Natural Resources Council worked with representatives from the forest products industry to iron out differences in the bill. This discussion will continue as the department drafts a report, said Jamey Fidel, forest and wildlife program director for VNRC.
“What we would like is what has happened here, and that it’s taken the issue of forest fragmentation seriously,” he said.
