by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com

At Friday’s meeting of the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee, lawmakers received an update on the ongoing development of Act 181 “Tier 3” areas under Vermont’s evolving land-use framework — a category that could shape where and how Act 250 applies in certain parts of the state.

Department staff and Land Use Review Board (LURB) representatives outlined a two-part effort now underway: drafting statewide spatial maps identifying Tier 3 areas, and developing the accompanying rulemaking that would determine what types of development within those areas would trigger Act 250 jurisdiction and what standards would apply.

How Tier 3 Areas Are Being Identified

Officials described Tier 3 as encompassing mapped areas of “critical natural resources” and key habitat connectors. The mapping effort relies on statewide data products intended to identify landscape-scale ecological features rather than parcel-level characteristics.

Staff emphasized that the approach is not designed to evaluate individual backyards or isolated natural features. Instead, it uses broad datasets to identify larger forest blocks, significant habitat areas, and corridors that connect them across the landscape.

The mapping and rulemaking processes are proceeding in parallel. An initial draft was released last fall, and revisions are being made based on feedback received. Officials indicated that further refinement is ongoing before final proposals are submitted for formal rulemaking procedures.

Habitat Connectors Along Roads

One of the most discussed elements during the meeting was habitat connectivity — particularly where wildlife corridors intersect with developed or developing areas.

Department staff acknowledged that habitat connectors often occur along roads, which are also common locations for residential and commercial development. Legislators raised questions about how these overlapping uses would be addressed.

In response, officials said they are refining the connector layer to focus on the “highest-priority” road segments rather than applying broad buffers along all roadways. The intent, they said, is to concentrate regulatory attention on areas where fragmentation would have the greatest ecological impact.

The discussion highlighted the practical tension between maintaining connectivity across landscapes and accommodating existing development patterns, particularly in rural areas where roads frequently run through forested land.

Excluding Areas Around Existing Homes

Another issue addressed was how Tier 3 mapping interacts with existing residences.

Officials stated that the current draft includes exclusions around existing homes to avoid capturing routine residential activity within Tier 3 jurisdiction. The purpose, they said, is to ensure that normal improvements or small-scale development immediately adjacent to existing dwellings would not automatically trigger heightened Act 250 review solely because of the surrounding mapped designation.

Lawmakers asked clarifying questions about how those exclusions are drawn and how far they extend. Staff indicated that refinement is ongoing to balance ecological objectives with predictability for current property owners.

Outreach and Uncertainty About Impact

A recurring theme during the discussion was outreach — and the uncertainty surrounding how many landowners might ultimately be affected.

Officials acknowledged that until the Tier 3 maps are finalized, the state does not know how many parcels or landowners will fall within designated areas. That uncertainty complicates planning for notification and engagement.

Staff said they intend to conduct outreach to landowners in Tier 3 areas, but noted that if the affected population is large, direct mailing to every landowner could become cost-prohibitive. Legislators asked how outreach would be structured and when it would occur relative to map finalization and rule adoption.

The response indicated that public engagement is anticipated as part of the rulemaking process, including formal hearings once draft rules are filed under Vermont’s Administrative Procedure Act. However, precise details about scale and cost remain unresolved until mapping is complete.

The exchange underscored a key practical issue: the state is developing a regulatory overlay whose geographic scope is still being determined, making it difficult to quantify its reach in advance.

Calls for More Time

While no legislator explicitly proposed halting the Tier 3 effort, there were discussions about timeline adjustments.

Representatives from LURB suggested that additional time could help refine the rules, conduct outreach, and provide education before Tier 3 provisions take effect. Lawmakers discussed the possibility of aligning effective dates or extending implementation timelines by a year or more to allow for a longer “runway.”

The tone of the conversation focused on ensuring adequate preparation and coordination rather than suspending the process altogether. Nonetheless, the discussion reflected recognition that Tier 3 implementation is complex and that sequencing matters.

What Happens Next

The Tier 3 map and rules must proceed through Vermont’s formal rulemaking process before taking effect. That includes filing proposed rules, preparing required impact analyses, and holding public comment periods and hearings.

Until the final maps are adopted, the exact number of landowners affected — and the extent of any new Act 250 triggers — remains unknown.

For Vermonters, the significance of Tier 3 will depend largely on how narrowly or broadly the final maps are drawn and what development thresholds are established within those areas. As state officials continue refining both the spatial data and the regulatory language, lawmakers have signaled interest in ensuring clarity, outreach, and adequate time before the changes are finalized.

The coming months will determine how those goals translate into the final version of Vermont’s Tier 3 framework — and how it reshapes the relationship between statewide conservation priorities and local land use.