HARTFORD โ On a spring morning earlier this week, the Hartford Town Forest was teeming with life.
While the woodpeckers in the trees might be obvious company, a peek into a small shallow pond revealed masses of frog and salamander eggs floating in the water and, to the very observant, Eastern newts swimming around in the mud. In a few months, the pond will be replaced with a dry depression filled with roots and leaves.
Vermont Center for Ecostudies Staff Biologist Kevin Tolan led a group of about 13 people out to the vernal pool in the Hartford Town Forest Monday. He fished out samples of salamander and frog eggs to show those gathered.
Certain kinds of salamanders and frogs breed exclusively in vernal pools in the spring, making them crucial habitats, Tolan said. If vernal pools dry up too early or disappear, the amphibians that rely on them will suffer.
VCE has been hosting educational walks at the temporary seasonal wetlands around Vermont throughout the spring as the organization has been speaking out against a proposed change to Vermont development rules.
The change would allow homes to be built in unmapped wetlands without a permit and within 25 feet of mapped wetlands with a special permit in certain areas. It also would do away with in-person review to identify wetlands, instead relying on state wetland maps for proposed projects.
VCE, a Hartford-based nonprofit conservation organization, maps and monitors vernal pools in the state through surveys by staff and citizen scientists.
Vernal pools are โmore likely to be unmapped than other types of wetlands,โ VCE Science to Policy Manager Emily Anderson said in an interview last week.
โTheyโre seasonal, they dry up, they can sometimes look like a big puddle,โ Anderson said. โTo an untrained eye, itโs hard to tell which ones are actively being used as habitat and which ones are not.โ
Tolan identified an estimated 174 unmapped vernal pools in areas that the new development rules drafted by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation would apply to, Anderson wrote in an op-ed published by VtDigger in February.
After laying their eggs, salamanders and frogs leave the pool and spend the rest of their lives in about a 600-foot radius nearby, called a “life-zone.”
โIf you imagine this pool, 50 feet away is a doughnut of concrete, thatโs not going to be good for the pool,โ Tolan said to a gathered crowd Monday.
The department drafted the proposed rule โ currently being reviewed by state senators and representatives on Vermontโs Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, or LCAR โ in response to an executive order that Gov. Phil Scott issued in September.
Scott’s executive order aimed to promote housing growth in Vermont and reduce regulatory barriers to “infill development and responsible growth.” He identified reducing wetland buffers and permitting requirements as key to the process.
Under current regulations, a certified wetland scientist has to review wetlands before residential homes can be built. If a wetland is identified, projects must avoid the wetland and a 50-foot buffer zone around it, or obtain a special permit from the state.
The new rules would only apply to about 3% of the state, including downtown districts, village centers and areas along municipal water and sewer lines, Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Misty Sinsigalli said in testimony to LCAR last week.
The proposed rules represent a “trade-off that I believe minimizes Vermont’s overall environmental footprint” while addressing a “genuine crisis” of housing, Sinsigalli said.
“The housing status quo threatens our economy, our workforce, our healthcare system, our schools, and our tax base,” Sinsigalli said. “This rulemaking is one part of Vermont’s answer.”
While she said concerns for Vermontโs wetlands are โcompellingโ and โlegitimate,โ not moving forward with the rule change would cause other environmental challenges such as increasing greenhouse gas emissions and habitat fragmentation.
Building outside of areas where there is already housing could also threaten municipal water and sewer systems โthat only make financial sense when enough people live near them,โ Sinsigalli said.
But, the majority of about 200 Vermont residents and organizations who provided written feedback on the proposed rule raised concerns.
Many conceded that Vermont needs more housing but feared that the rules would threaten important habitats or increase flood risk and questioned the adequacy of the stateโs current wetland map.
Allowing construction in and around these vernal pools would threaten important habitats, Tolan and Anderson said.
Though she recognizes that Vermont is facing a housing crisis and protecting all vernal pools is “not feasible,” Anderson said the rule change is lacking because DEC has not outlined its impact.
โOne of our biggest concerns was that as far as we could tell there wasnโt much evidence showing that rolling back these wetlands protections would make a significant difference in Vermontโs housing crisis,โ Anderson said.
Rod Coronado of Orange, Vt., attended Monday’s walk to learn more about vernal pools after hearing about the rule change. He is opposed to building closer to vernal pools and wanted to find ways to protect them.
“We should be this sensitive about everything and not just wait” until habitats are threatened, Coronado said.
For Rose Fairley, of Plainfield, Vt., building in wetlands does not seem logical, regardless of the environmental impact.
“I think that places that flood seasonally aren’t the best places to build anyways,” Fairley said. “(…) I think it might be more of a boon to developers than addressing the housing crisis in a real way.”
A natural garden designer who moved to Vermont from California last year, Fairley said the state has many already cleared and under-utilized places where houses could be built that are not wetlands.
Most Vermonters and organizations that provided feedback on the proposed rule echoed these concerns.
Others said the rule would be an important way to address Vermont’s housing crisis and takes a balanced approach to limiting environmental impact.
For Matthew Lyons, of East Thetford, the benefits are straightforward. The rule change would remove regulatory hurdles, allowing him to build an accessory dwelling unit on his property for his brother to live in.
“I care deeply about the environment and wish to live in harmony with itอพ preserving it for the future generations, such as my son and daughter to enjoy,” Lyons wrote in his testimony. “The proposed changes for the Vermont Wetland Rules do just that.”
The Vermont Chamber of Commerce also supports the new rules.
“These changes reflect thoughtful modernization, reinforce environmental protection, and critically support Vermontโs ability to build housing and foster vibrant, walkable communities in the exact locations where the State has already directed growth,” the Chamber wrote in a letter.
Because the rule would apply to a limited area and encourage development in denser areas, the rules are in line with Vermont’s needs and goals, the Chamber wrote.
“The current wetland regulatory framework has directly contributed to reduced density and increased costs in designated growth areas,” the Chamber wrote. “These conditions have made housing development more difficult and, in some cases, encouraged growth outside planned areas.”
In response to public comments received between November and January, DEC amended the rules to remove about half of the eligible area, and added features such as best management practices for building utility crossings in wetlands and a January 2030 sunset date for the rule, Sinsigalli said.
“These are not cosmetic changes โ they reflect genuine engagement with the concerns raised,” Sinsigalli said.
The LCAR has until May 21 to complete its review of the proposed rules. The group is set to meet again to discuss the proposal and hear testimony Thursday. The final rule must be adopted by July 7, according to the DEC website.
