Environment

Draft rule gives state agency more control over state land uses

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Guy Page

New proposed state regulations would establish one statewide plan for all land owned by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and the creation of special ecological reserves.

ANR has released a draft rule to guide the management planning process for lands owned and managed by ANR. The public is invited to comment on the draft rule until November 1, 2024.  A public hearing will be held Thursday, September 19 at Hazen Union High School in Hardwick.

ANR owns and manages approximately 375,000 acres of public lands including state forests and parks owned by the Forests, Parks and Recreation, Wildlife Management Areas owned by Fish and Wildlife, lands associated with dams owned by the ANR or ANR Departments, and Streambank Management Areas owned by Fish and Wildlife.

According to ANR, these lands support diverse wildlife habitats, offer recreational opportunities, preserve natural resources, enhance the state’s resilience to climate change, and contribute to the well-being of the environment and the prosperity of communities.   

Two major changes are proposed in the draft rule: the establishment of a “Statewide Plan” for all ANR-owned lands, and the creation of ecological reserves on ANR lands.

The proposed statewide plan would give ANR the power to create a Long-Range Management Plan for selected parcels on an as-needed basis. The LRMP’s would allow ANR to apply “a variety of uses and purposes that are in the public interest and are consistent with Vermont statutes and ANR policies.” Without such a plan, the state’s powers over these lands are more limited, the draft rule says.

The Long-Range Management Plan would require a ‘Resource Analysis’ on state lands for these criteria:

  • Legal Constraints
  • Ecological and Wildlife Resources
  • Forest Resources
  • Water Resources
  • Fisheries
  • Forest Health
  • Cultural Resources
  • Recreation
  • Infrastructure
  • Climate Change Risks

Under the new Statewide Plan, ANR could designate for “Highly Sensitive Management” an area with rare or outstanding biological, ecological, geological, scenic, cultural, or historic significance. “Human activities and uses should not compromise the exceptional feature(s) identified” in state lands with:

  • Rare or exemplary natural communities or species (as defined by the Nongame & Natural Heritage Program).
  • Sensitive wildlife habitat (communal breeding sites, bat caves, RT&E habitats).
  • Ecological representation areas, including associations of natural communities or geophysical settings
  • Exceptional cultural features, including State Archaeological Landmark Sites. 
  • Exceptional geological features (cliff, rock-walled gorge, flat rock outcrop, river channel ledge, cascade or any other substantial or unusual bedrock exposure).
  • Exceptional scenic resources (undeveloped mountaintops, scenic vistas, high elevation/steep slope areas visible from state and federal highways).
  • Exceptional water resources (lake, pond or stream side buffer areas).
  • Natural Areas
  • Research Natural Areas
  • Areas protected by deed restrictions or conservation agreements

The draft plan also identifies state lands to receive “Special Management,” allowing timber harvesting, wildlife management, roads, and recreational activities only if they do not compromise these special resources:

  • Biological, cultural, and geological resources (important but not exemplary as determined by state experts
  • Critical plant and wildlife habitat (important bear feeding and foraging areas, wildlife travel corridors for black bear, bobcat, reptiles, amphibians, deer wintering areas, migratory bird habitat, wetlands, fisheries, presence of edge of range species, mast stands).
  • Long Trail/Appalachian Trail corridors.
  • Wildlife and forestry demonstration areas
  • Areas protected by deed restrictions or conservation easements or agreements.

An Intensive Management area is easily accessible and characterized by a high level of human activity and high intensity development on or adjacent to state land. Aesthetics and safety are the primary management considerations in these areas. However, more sensitive resources may require consideration in these areas, which include:

  • Ski areas (leased acreage).
  • Camping areas (State Park campgrounds, designated camping areas on ANR lands).
  • Day-use areas.
  • Trailhead parking areas.
  • Electronic communication sites (leased sites).
  • Buildings and structures (houses, maintenance facilities, fish hatcheries, barns).
  • Railroad rights-of-way (rail trails and railroad beds managed by ANR).
  • Major utility rights-of-way

A public hearing will be held September 19, 6-8 PM at Hazen Union High School, 126 Hazen Union Drive, Hardwick. Another public hearing was held last night at Okemo Mountain Resort in Ludlow. 

Much of this news story was derived from content published by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 replies »

  1. More taxpayer funded zoo monkeys on the state payroll. We do not need any more government owned land to fund make work projects.

    • It certainly does smack of a ‘jobs program’ with the soon to be added fees.
      It certainly takes copious amounts of tax dollars to write ridiculous rules and administrative decrees.
      Look for a new fee for fishing access use, similar to Maine and NH.
      20% increase in F&W license fees? Nah, the legislature will give them 50% whether needed or not…

    • Personally Frank I would welcome a fee levied against those who now use Fish and Wildlife fishing accesses for free. Those accesses were purchased with money from our fishing licences, and the Dingell/Johnson excise tax. I’m sick of going to a fishing access only to find that the lot is being used by those who do/did not contribute to the purchase, and maintenance of said accesses, forcing me to go to a different lake. Canoers and kayakers come to mind. (although they are by no means the only squatters on these properties) They more often than not, are not fishing, but their vehicles monopolize spaces which means fishermen have to look elsewhere.

  2. Why do we insist on fixing things that are not broken ? This looks to me to be a land grab that in the end could/will benefit more targeted (woke) groups that are anti land use (logging/hunting) groups. Pay attention, and beware !

  3. This is a way to restrict our public lands for public recreation and use .We the People say no this land belongs to us .We pay for it in multiple ways .Another back door land grab and regulatory slippery slide.