Vermont's legislature passed historic 30x30 and 50x50 legislation in 2023. One year on, the entities in charge of implementing this critical mandate for climate resilience and biodiversity appear determined to maintain the status-quo in the face of yet another calamitous, climate change-impacted summer, even if it requires violating the law.
TAKE ACTION:
The public has until 11:59pm on Friday, July 19th to comment on the Act 59 draft Inventory Report prepared by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) and Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VT ANR). The Inventory Report will be used to inform the conservation plan that is due at the end of 2025. As of July 13th, the only way to officially submit comments is via this Google Form.
Below are the top-level messages that we encourage you to highlight in your comments. For detailed background and context, please scroll down (and click here to read Standing Trees' testimony that will be presented to Vermont's House Committee on the Environment and Energy at a hearing on Monday, July 15th from 10am to noon).
The Report unlawfully includes all conserved agricultural and forestlands in the Natural Resource Management Area category, including those lands that are not required to be sustainably managed, which flatly contradicts Act 59.
As a result of this errors, the Report overstates the current acreage of conserved land that meets the goals of Act 59 (the report claims 27% of Vermont is "conserved" according to the requirements of Act 59, as of July 1, 2024), and thereby precludes the future protection of hundreds of thousands of additional acres of land that does, in fact, satisfy the definitions of conserved land in Act 59.
Aggravating the above errors, the Report lacks transparency about conversion. Did the Report authors limit the acreage in the inventory to parcels that are conserved in perpetuity and protected from conversion, as defined in Act 59, by examining each deed and each conservation easement, or did they rely on some unidentified source for this information? The report neither answers this question nor provides a map or list of properties so that the public can answer that question.
The Report correctly identifies the lack of an Ecological Reserves statutory designation as a critical missing tool in Vermont’s conservation toolbox, but it presents funding and capacity challenges as the greatest barriers to ecological reserve designation without substantive evidence or consideration of the economic benefits of wildland protection compared to commercial timber management. What's more, the report defers a detailed "assessment of how State lands will be used to increase conserved ecological reserve areas," despite the fact that this was supposed to be provided in the draft Inventory.
Standing Trees rejects the Report's suggestion that carbon and biodiversity markets should be considered as funding sources for conservation efforts, or as a metric that would qualify a parcel of land for Act 59's 30x30 or 50x50 conservation goals. Carbon and biodiversity markets have been investigated for fraudulent practices, contribute to the commodification of nature, and create a system by which pollution and environmental degradation are perpetuated, often in historically disadvantaged and marginalized communities.
Act 59: The basics
Vermont Act 59 became law in June 2023, setting a new bar, nationwide, for legislation that simultaneously tackles the interrelated biodiversity, climate, and public health crises rooted in the degradation and disappearance of natural ecosystems. To make Act 59 a reality, Standing Trees and our closest partners worked tirelessly for three years to:
include 30x30 land conservation goals, tied to Vermont Conservation Design, in the first-ever Vermont Climate Action Plan;
educate lawmakers on the importance of ecosystem protection for climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience;
carefully draft legislation with the Chair of VT's House Environment and Energy Committee, Rep Amy Sheldon of Middlebury;
shepherd the bill across the finish line over multiple legislative sessions.
As always, the bill that became law wasn't identical to the bill that we originally envisioned, but - even with its imperfections - Act 59 was an historic achievement, designed to not only set an aggressive target for land acquisition, but also (even more importantly in our mind) rebalance the way that we manage conserved land. For example, Act 59 catalyzes a process for the VT Agency of Natural Resources to reclassify state-owned lands as Ecological Reserves, setting them on a path to recover old-growth forests.
Vermont's Act 59 is unique because it ties big-picture conservation goals to concrete, qualitative outcomes that support an "ecologically functional landscape," the scientifically-informed blueprint for biodiversity that is described in Vermont Conservation Design (VCD). Among other provisions, Act 59 establishes VCD as the guiding light for statewide land conservation; defines categories of permanent conservation that contribute to the ecologically functional landscape; sets measurable, time-bound conservation goals; and requires both a conservation inventory and plan to achieve the vision of the legislation.
The Draft Inventory Report Fails the Legal Requirements of Act 59
The Inventory Report suggests that Vermont has permanently conserved 27% of its land area across the three conservation categories created by Act 59: Ecological Reserves (4%), Biodiversity Conservation Areas (4%), and Natural Resource Management Areas (19%). However, these numbers are inaccurate and misleading because the report fails to distinguish between lands that meet the criteria set forth in Act 59, and other conserved lands.
Act 59 has lofty goals, but it does not intend to address all of Vermont’s land management challenges. For example, it does not regulate land uses, and it does not include the conservation of agricultural or forestlands in its 30x30 or 50x50 goals except where those lands are managed in a manner that meets Act 59’s definitions of "conserved" land and "sustainable land management." This is to ensure that land conservation efforts are directed and funded in a way that will help Vermont achieve VCD's ecologically functional landscape.
Act 59 provides specific direction for assessing which agricultural lands can be counted towards mandated conservation goals: “As part of this review, criteria shall be developed to determine the types of agricultural lands that will qualify as supporting and restoring biodiversity and therefore count towards the natural resource management area category." The Inventory fails to provide such criteria, in violation of Act 59.
Instead, the Draft Phase I report says that "we recommend including all currently conserved agricultural lands in this initial inventory, under the Natural Resource Management Area category, along with public and private conserved working forest lands." This recommendation is an unlawful interpretation of Act 59.
Why does this matter?
For starters, following the law is basic to a functioning democracy and to maintaining trust in government. Act 59 was a hard-fought compromise. The entities charged with implementing Act 59, the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board and Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, do not have the power or privilege to rewrite the law.
Hundreds of thousands of acres of conservation are at stake. By counting all agricultural and forestlands towards the conservation goals of Act 59, merely because they are conserved from development, VHCB and ANR are replacing the Act's focus on the "ecologically functional landscape" with status-quo land conservation, and they reduce the amount of conserved land needed to meet the Act's 30x30 and 50x50 mandates.
Each percentage point of conserved land in Vermont equals 61,537-acres. The difference between finding that 24% of the state is conserved and 27% is 184,611 acres. If 24% of Vermont is conserved according to Act 59, an additional 369,222 acres must be conserved to meet Act 59's 30x30 goals. To put that acreage in perspective, VT ANR currently manages 345,000-acres of state-owned land, primarily in State Forests, State Parks, and Wildlife Management Areas.
If the Inventory Report finds that 27% of Vermont is conserved, as it currently suggests, VHCB and ANR will be robbing the biodiversity of Vermont and our natural ecosystems of hundreds of thousands of acres of additional conserved land.
Putting Act 59 Back on the Right Path
To come into compliance with Act 59, the final Inventory Report must present criteria for distinguishing between agricultural and forestlands that count towards Ecological Reserves, Biodiversity Conservation Areas, and Natural Resource Management Areas, and those that do not. The criteria should address, at a minimum, whether or not agricultural or forestlands meet the following three tests for inclusion in Act 59’s conservation categories:
1. Conversion
Natural Resource Management Areas are prohibited from “conversion,” which is defined as “a fundamental change in natural ecosystem type or habitat, natural or undeveloped land cover type, or natural form and function of aquatic systems" (Act 59 at 6), such as draining a wetland to turn it into an agricultural field. If a parcel is not protected from “conversion” (either a majority or in totality, depending on the conservation category defined in the statute) it can not be counted towards the conservation categories defined in the legislation.
2. Sustainable Land Management
Natural Resource Management Areas must also be managed according to the definition of “sustainable land management,” or “the stewardship and use of forests and forestlands, grasslands, wetlands, riparian areas, and other lands, including the types of agricultural lands that support biodiversity, in a way, and at a rate, that maintains or restores their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality, and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic, and social functions at local, State, and regional levels, and that does not degrade ecosystem function" (Act 59 at 6).
A recent paper led by Jonathan Thompson at Harvard University, focused on Maine, found “that the establishment of the WFCEs [(Working Forest Conservation Easements)] overall had little impact on the rate of harvesting. This is consistent with the stated goals of many easements to maintain harvesting, but disappointing given that rates of harvest in the region are ecologically degrading the forests.” Rigorous scientific studies, such as Thompson et al 2023, should be used to determine which actively-managed forestlands count towards the Natural Resource Management Area conservation category.
The same rigorous assessment should be applied to agricultural lands. Numerous studies have demonstrated that intensive agriculture degrades ecosystem services, endangers biodiversity, and threatens public health. A research team from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health noted in a report that:
“The industrial agriculture system consumes fossil fuel, water, and topsoil at unsustainable rates. It contributes to numerous forms of environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, soil depletion, diminishing biodiversity, and fish die-offs. Meat production contributes disproportionately to these problems, in part because feeding grain to livestock to produce meat—instead of feeding it directly to humans—involves a large energy loss, making animal agriculture more resource intensive than other forms of food production... The pesticides used heavily in industrial agriculture are associated with elevated cancer risks for workers and consumers and are coming under greater scrutiny for their links to endocrine disruption and reproductive dysfunction.”
3. Contribution to the Ecologically Functional Landscape as defined and described in Vermont Conservation Design
Act 59 section 2802, Conservation Vision and Goals, establishes that:
“The vision of the State of Vermont is to maintain an ecologically functional landscape.”
“It is the goal of the State that 30 percent of Vermont’s total land area shall be conserved by 2030, and 50 percent of the State’s total land area shall be conserved by 2050.”
"Reaching 30 percent by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050 shall include a mix of ecological reserve areas, biodiversity conservation areas, and natural resource management areas. In order to support an ecologically functional and connected landscape…, the approximate percentages of each type of conservation category shall be guided by the principles of conservation science and the conservation targets within Vermont Conservation Design.”
Vermont Conservation Design seeks to maintain and restore an ecologically functional landscape that “contains all the native species in Vermont, and the full range of native habitats and natural communities known to occur in the state.” VCD continues:
“Maintaining and enhancing ecological function across the landscape is fundamental to conserving biological diversity. Ecological function—the ability of plants and animals to thrive, reproduce, migrate, and move in response to land-use changes and climate changes, and the ability of ecosystems to function under natural processes—is served by high-quality terrestrial and aquatic habitat, natural connections across the landscape, a wide variety of habitat features from low elevation to high, clean water, and healthy rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands.”
Vermont Conservation Design is clear that the only agricultural lands that contribute to the ecologically functional landscape are specially-managed grasslands and shrublands that support certain “wildlife species—particularly birds—that have become more abundant in Vermont since the start of widespread agriculture" (VCD at 30). VCD provides guidance for grassland and shrubland management that is compatible with supporting biodiversity.
Act 59 asks Vermont to rethink conservation. Climate change gives us no choice.
We are barely one month into summer, and extreme weather has already devastated northern New England in a near-repeat of last summer's floods. Restoring high-functioning ecosystems and their resident biodiversity is the right thing to do, and it's essential for human wellbeing and community resilience in the face of climate change. Act 59 and Vermont Conservation Design are showing us the way. Do we have the courage to follow?
Vermont can't afford for Act 59 to be hijacked by VHCB and ANR. Please submit a comment by the July 19th deadline to make sure that your voice is heard.
Comments