LAND and WATER CONSERVATION STUDY Report Submitted Pursuance to Act No. 76 of 2019, Sec. 9 Submitted to the Vermont General Asse

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION STUDY Report Submitted Pursuance to Act No. 76 of 2019, Sec. 9

Submitted to the Vermont General Assembly

Submitted by the Agency of Natural Resources January 15, 2020

Table of Contents

Authorizing Statute...... 3 Introduction and Vision Statement...... 4 Executive Summary...... 5 Land Conservation in Vermont...... 7 Public Land Acquisition and Private Land Conservation...... 8 Evolution of Land Conservation Organizations and Priorities Over Time...... 9 Conservation Investment and Return Over Time...... 11 Leverage and Matching Funds...... 12 Importance of Conservation to Rural Community Development...... 14 Clean Water Funding and Land Conservation...... 16 Benefits of Maintaining High Functioning Ecosystems for Water Quality...... 16 Spectrum of Clean Water Conservation Opportunites...... 17 Existing State Clean Water Funding Sources...... 19 Transition to Future Clean Water Service Delivery Model...... 21 Assessment of Clean Water Cost Share for Conservation Projects and Implementation...... 22 Conclusion and Recomendations...... 23 Appendix A – List of Workgroup Participants...... 25 Appendix B – Case Studies...... 26

No. 76. An act relating to the provision of water quality services (2019)

Sec. 9. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION STUDY

(a) The State’s success in achieving and maintaining compliance with the Vermont Water Quality Standards for all State waters depends on avoiding the future degradation or impairment of surface waters. An important component of avoiding the future degradation or impairment of surface waters is the permanent protection of lands for multiple conservation purposes, including the protection of surface waters and associated natural resources, according to priorities for multiple conservation values, including water quality benefits, natural areas, flood and climate resilience, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation.

(b) The State’s success in achieving and maintaining compliance with the Vermont Water Quality Standards depends in part on strategic land conservation. To assist the State in enhancing the benefit of strategic land conservation, the Secretary of Natural Resources shall convene a Land and Water Conservation Study Stakeholder Group to develop a recommended framework for statewide land conservation. On or before January 15, 2020, the Secretary shall submit the Stakeholder Group’s recommended framework for statewide land conservation to the General Assembly. The recommended framework shall include:

(1) recommendations for maximizing both water quality benefits and other state priorities from land conservation projects, including agricultural uses, natural area and headwaters protection, flood and climate resilience, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, and rural community development; and

(2) recommended opportunities to leverage federal and other nonstate funds for conservation projects.

(c)(1) The Land and Water Conservation Study Stakeholder Group shall include the following individuals or their designees:

(A) the Secretary of Natural Resources;

(B) the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets;

(D) the President of the Vermont Land Trust;

(E) the Vermont and New Hampshire Director of the Trust for Public Land; and

(F) the Director of the Nature Conservancy for the State of Vermont.

(2) The Secretary of Natural Resources shall invite the participation in the Stakeholder Group by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, representatives of farmer’s watershed alliances, representatives of landowner organizations, and other interested parties.

INTRODUCTION

Section 9 of 2019’s Act 76 directs the Secretary of Natural Resources to convene a Land and Water Conservation Study Stakeholder Group to recommend a framework for statewide land conservation that maximizes both water quality benefits and other state priorities from land conservation, and to recommend opportunities to leverage federal and other non-state funds for conservation projects. A complete list of stakeholder groups that participated in the development of this report is included in Appendix A.

As this report documents, Vermont has a long history of highly successful land conservation projects and partnerships that have protected critical natural resources and recreation lands and provided significant support to our working lands economy. The conservation community – comprised of public, nonprofit, municipal and volunteer organizations – has effectively evolved its priorities over the decades as new natural resource and economic pressures and opportunities emerged across the landscape and evolving science and understanding has further informed decision-making. Consistent with that adaptive history, this report highlights both the opportunity and the need for the conservation community to play a key role in protecting the integrity of the state’s waters, broadly, and more specifically to address water quality concerns, most notably phosphorus pollution.

For the purposes of this report and the intended scope of the study, references to land conservation are intended to focus on strategic acquisition of land or interests in land, such as easements, for conservation purposes. Conservation, more broadly, represents a suite of tools and strategies, including land acquisition, available to operationalize a land ethic and maintain wise use of healthy lands.

VISION STATEMENT

The landscape gives many locales a sense of place. It could rightly be argued that Vermont’s landscape plays an outsized role in our state’s identity – environmental and economic. Working lands – both agricultural and forestry – dominate Vermont’s landscape, and are complemented by natural lands and waterbodies. Further, these open spaces support myriad recreation opportunities which has raised Vermont’s profile as a national leader in outdoor recreation. Conservation is an essential tool in ensuring the landscape continues to meet these needs.

Yet ensuring a sense of place is not the only driver for land conservation. There are a range of conservation values – including protecting critical ecosystems and habitats, supporting community needs and cultural values, ensuring species diversity, improving resilience and helping mitigate the impacts of climate change – that individual projects may be designed to maximize based on a combination of local interests and larger public policy priorities. While it has always been a byproduct of conservation, increasingly, clean water is a primary driver for conservation work in Vermont.

There are enormous opportunities to integrate clean water work in the significant land conservation investments made each year in Vermont. Additionally, conservation investments often open the door to voluntary water quality improvements necessary to meet the state’s pollution reduction goals, leading to improved practices and follow-on investments in protecting and restoring water quality.

For these benefits to be clear and maximized, it will be increasingly important to quantify the relative benefits that different conservation opportunities may provide in the context of water quality. While water quality may never be the singular driver, or beneficiary, of conservation work in Vermont – there is both a need for and a desire to bring clean water to the fore in identifying, pursuing and ultimately funding conservation opportunities. Further, there is currently dedicated funding to support conservation projects that prioritize water quality – allowing conservation projects that emphasize water quality protections to enjoy a first among equals status.

This report seeks to articulate the nexus between clean water work and conservation and highlights the need for continued investments in land conservation as part of the on-going effort to protect and restore Vermont’s rivers, lakes, wetlands, ponds and streams.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report includes four main sections:

• A history and background of land conservation in Vermont, including discussion of how the state’s conservation priorities have evolved over time.

• An overview of investments in Vermont conservation, including the return on that investment over time, opportunities to leverage non-state dollars, and the impact of conservation on rural community and economic development.

• A discussion of current and proposed efforts to integrate clean water priorities and funding into Vermont’s existing conservation structure, including a framework to support a spectrum of land protection strategies that reduce phosphorus loading in the state’s surface waters.

In the final conclusion and recommendations section, the report finds that maintaining and leveraging the Vermont land conservation community’s organizational capacity, expertise, experience and diverse funding sources to deliver an expanded suite of conservation services will be a critical clean water strategy in the coming decades, and makes the following recommendations:

1. ANR will convene quarterly meetings of the Land and Water Conservation Study Stakeholder Group to share progress updates on the recommendations set forth below and to discuss relevant topics including coordination, funding, project development, policy and stewardship. It will also evaluate the most effective process and funding structure to pair land conservation projects with on-the-ground restoration or practice implementation, where appropriate.

2. VHCB, in consultation with ANR, will compile a comprehensive catalog of conservation funding sources and identify which sources may best fit with and leverage state clean water funding for different categories of conservation projects.

3. VHCB and ANR will explore expanding the use of VHCB’s pre-application review process to screen potential agricultural conservation projects for relevant clean water funding opportunities.

4. By November 2021, ANR will establish clean water valuation metrics for active restoration of rivers/floodplains, wetlands, and forests and passive restoration of river corridors and wetlands.

By 2023, ANR will establish clean water valuation metrics for other land conservation activities with a water quality benefit.

5. ANR will convene a subgroup of the Land and Water Conservation Study Stakeholder Group to explore ownership models for lands conserved for clean water that may not have other utility or value for private landowners. One task of this subgroup will be to develop criteria to evaluate already conserved lands (e.g. agricultural easements) for their water quality benefits (e.g. farm retirements).

In addition to the recommended actions enumerated above, the workgroup ultimately concluded that an effective clean water conservation strategy will draw on and build off the state’s existing conservation infrastructure – comprised of public, nonprofit, municipal and volunteer organizations – which has been and continues to be essential to Vermont’s success as a leader in land conservation.

This approach will allow clean water work to benefit from existing, robust partnerships that support active outreach to landowners, leverage private and federal resources and assure the state is able to maximize the benefits of its on-going investments in land conservation in service of a range of public policy priorities, such as: support of the outdoor recreation economy, resilience in face of flooding and climate change, enhancing Vermont’s agricultural and forestry sectors and supporting the next generation of farmers and forest land owners, protecting wildlife habitat and enhancing rural community development, while also preventing the degradation of the best natural resources in those parts of Vermont that do not yet have an active TMDL obligation.

Maintaining this broad conservation infrastructure requires continued support; therefore, the workgroup recommends sustained state funding for a wide spectrum of conservation priorities including those supported through the Vermont Farm and Forest Viability Program, the Working Lands Enterprise Initiative and the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.

LAND CONSERVATION IN VERMONT

Vermont has long been a national leader in land conservation, which reflects the deeply held value that Vermonters place on natural areas and the working landscape. Land conservation in the State is accomplished by a suite of public, nonprofit and volunteer organizations, each guided by their own conservation mission. Individually, these organizations pursue conservation to protect, and many times also restore, Vermont’s working landscape of farms and forests, natural areas and wildlands, outdoor recreational opportunities, and lands with community, cultural, or aesthetic value.

Vermonters have repeatedly stated support of these conservation values over time. A 2009 public opinion survey by the Council on the Future of Vermont1 indicated Vermonters saw the working landscape as the number one value contributing to the State’s identity, with 97% support. This affirmed public sentiment dating back to the 1930s Vermont Countryside Commission which also identified compact settlement surrounded by a working landscape to be a value of importance. These land use values have been reflected in a number of public policy initiatives, including the 1936 fight against the parkway proposed for the ridge of the Green Mountains, the establishment of regional planning commissions, the establishment of Act 250 in 1970, the creation of the Vermont Housing & Conservation Board (VHCB) in 1987, and more recently investments made through the Downtown Tax Credit Program, the Working Lands Enterprise Board, as well as the 2019 passage of Act 76 to address improvement in Vermont’s water quality.

Science and planning at multiple scales have played an increasingly important role in informing conservation action and investments in Vermont over the past several decades. At the smaller/finer scale, these include efforts such as the field-based documentation of specific natural communities and habitats for individual species (as compiled in the Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory), and conservation planning for individual sites such as a town forest, state park or wildlife management area, natural area, or parcel of private agricultural or forest land. At the other end of the spectrum, very large/ “coarse-filter” science and planning that also helps to inform conservation work in Vermont has been done at much larger scales including statewide, multi-state, ecoregional, binational, and continental. In between those ends of the spectrum are other valuable science and planning efforts at scales such as town-wide, multi-town, sub-watershed, and watershed. Ultimately, each scale of science and planning provides a critical part of the overall picture, and ideally conservation action statewide is informed by a blend of information from those different scales.

Two recent additions to the coarse-scale science available to inform conservation action in Vermont are worth highlighting: The Nature Conservancy’s Resilient and Connected Network analysis (RCN), and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources’ Vermont Conservation Design (VCD). The RCN analysis, which encompasses the entire U.S., identifies sites across the landscape that are most likely to be resilient to climate change due to their enduring topographic and physiographic features (diversity of elevation and aspect, etc.), the intactness of the local landscape, and critical linkages that connect these sites together. VCD identifies the highest priority lands and waters in the state for maintaining the ecological integrity that is essential to sustain our natural heritage, and in turn a range of environmental services that provide other valuable benefits to Vermonters such clean air and water, flood protection, and

1https://www.vtrural.org/sites/default/files/content/futureofvermont/documents/Ch_4_Working_Landscape. pdf

absorption and storage of carbon from the atmosphere. Together, these new tools provide powerful new information to help identify priority areas for conservation investments.

PUBLIC LAND ACQUISITION AND PRIVATE LAND CONSERVATION

Since the first official state forest (L.R. Jones State Forest) was acquired in 1909, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has acquired over 400,000 acres of land, beginning what has become a long, rich history of land acquisition. Vermont has long been a leader in land conservation, with Sandbar Wildlife Management Area being the first wildlife management area east of the Mississippi River in 1920. Today, the diverse holdings managed by ANR include state parks, state forests, wildlife management areas, fishing and boating access areas, conservation easements, river channel management rights and river corridor easements.

Altogether, approximately 20% of Vermont’s land area is publicly owned and managed for open space, conservation or recreation purposes by the State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (7.5%), the federal government (11%), and municipalities (1.5%).

The majority of Vermont, however, is held in private ownership (80%). These privately held lands also provide opportunities to fish, hunt, bike and hike, attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors to our state each year to view and enjoy our landscape. As a result, ANR and its non-profit partners have developed and continue to implement a robust suite of conservation easement programs that work with private landowners.

A conservation easement is a legal agreement that limits development and subdivision and protects land for farming, forestry, nature, and/or recreation. Landowners who sell or donate an easement continue to own and pay taxes on the land and can use the land in ways that sustain its resources. Conservation easements are tied to the land, whether the land is sold or remains in the family. Conservation easements protect natural and agricultural resources. For instance, a farmland easement will require the sustainable management of erodible soils and may include provisions that ensure the farm remains affordable to future farmers.

In addition to fee ownership of land, ANR also meets many objectives through conservation easements, including working forestland conservation, wildlife habitat conservation, public access, flood resiliency and water quality, and currently holds easements on more than 100,000 acres across its three Departments. In addition, organizations like Vermont Land Trust have focused on conservation easements as well, holding more than 1,500 easements on farm and forestland. Conservation easements will continue to be an important tool as we consider land conservation strategies into the future. State funding for the purchase of easements is largely available through VHCB which also brings substantial federal resources to Vermont including through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The Federal Forest Legacy Program is also a significant contributor of federal funds supporting working forest easements in Vermont.

EVOLUTION OF LAND CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIORITIES OVER TIME

In the 1950s, the Vermont Soil Conservation Act (Title 10, Chapter 31) created the Natural Resources Council to provide for the conservation, development, and use of Vermont’s natural resources, stating that: “…the lands, water, forests, and wildlife of the State of Vermont are among the basic assets of the State, and that the preservation of these lands, water, forests, and wildlife by conservation, development, and use is necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its people.”

Many of Vermont’s nonprofit conservation organizations were formed from the 1960s through the 1980s, part of a land conservation movement that has since spread throughout the US and around the world. This early group of organizations included The Nature Conservancy’s Vermont Chapter, the Vermont Land Trust, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, and regional and local land trusts, who used a variety of tools to protect natural resources and ensure the vitality of our working landscapes, recognizing the implicit and enduring value of these lands to the future well-being of Vermonters. This early period of conservation in Vermont depended almost entirely on donations of conservation restrictions, volunteers, and charitable giving.

While the state had been acquiring land for more than seventy years, new state funding commitments and investments into land conservation began in earnest in 1985 with the Vermont Duck Stamp Program. In 1987, the passage of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust Fund Act, which established VHCB as a funding body, formalized a structure for state investment into affordable housing and land conservation by allocating proceeds from the property transfer tax. This innovative approach, which combines state funding for conservation and housing into a single funding mechanism, remains a model and example for states and municipalities throughout the US, codifying state support for responsible development patterns, investing in downtown development while simultaneously protecting the surrounding landscape. Since its founding, VHCB has leveraged over $148 million in total investment in conservation in Vermont, through more than 1,200 projects developed by the network of conservation organizations that are active in Vermont today. These organizations bring complementary capacity to this effort, ensuring a wide variety of conservation outcomes, across all Vermont communities.

Today, conservation work emphasizes impact, using a variety of science-based tools that help direct funding to address our most critical needs. Vermont Conservation Design, The Nature Conservancy’s Water Quality Blueprint, Resilient and Connected Network analysis and other tools help inform and prioritize conservation project planning. Increasingly, emphasis is also being placed on projects that provide community-wide and state-wide benefits and access; town forests, public recreation areas, landscape-scale wetland restoration and protection, and community supported agricultural projects are all examples. This emphasis is also leading to enhanced collaboration between organizations (and state and federal agencies), which can contribute specialized skills and expertise to large and more complex community projects.

Since the early 2000s active support for the business side of Vermont’s working landscape has emerged amongst the conservation partners. Farms and actively managed forestry operations have a much greater capacity to attain high management standards when they are thriving economically. Vermont’s broader conservation efforts include business and technical assistance, including through the VHCB’s Vermont Farm & Forest Viability Program, to strengthen farm and forest enterprises. Conservation

easements present an opportunity to complement, but not duplicate, natural resource and water quality regulation, creating conditions for voluntary best management practices to be implemented across our landscape through a set of durable land management commitments.

There is also a growing awareness among conservation organizations and the general public about the urgency of responding to the related issues of water quality and climate change resilience in Vermont. Land conservation, in all its forms, remains one of the most powerful tools we have for addressing these challenges, including conservation opportunities such riparian buffer and floodplain protection, wetland restoration, and improved lake shoreline and watershed management as well as protecting corridors and connectivity for the movement of species.

It is important to acknowledge that as the breadth of conservation priorities and benefits expand, so does the imperative to guide landowners and projects to the best uses and outcomes. As an example, certain actively farmed parcels may include land important to protect through agricultural conservation but can also provide enhanced water quality benefits if agricultural management changes are made. The Vermont conservation community continually evaluates these competing benefits, and a more proactive approach to identify and resolve potential conflicts at both the policy and site-specific scale will help to maximize environmental protections along with conservation’s other important co-benefits.

These examples illustrate that the interest in different uses of conserved and public lands is expanding, as are the range of ecosystem services, and public lands contributions to Vermont’s economy. ANR’s resource professionals work together to ensure science-based decision-making is at the core of our management of state land. This process takes time and can be challenged by the pace and range of requests being made of state land.

ANR and its conservation partners are often able to successfully identify water quality enhancement projects on private land but, more often than not, a landowner will not be agreeable to implement it, if continued ownership is required. To be truly successful with the implementation of water quality land conservation projects, it is essential to address on-going stewardship needs at the fore. A good example of how that can be accomplished is by providing the funds to organizations that can intentionally seek out water quality land conservation projects that also provide additional benefits that align with the organization’s missions. A recent example of this was the funding provided to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VFWD) to create a focused wetland restoration and acquisition program.

The VFWD has a long, successful history of conserving, managing and restoring wetland habitat in Vermont. The wetland restoration and acquisition funding allow the VFWD to advance projects that will include land management changes resulting in water quality improvements and protection. This will include projects such as state acquisition of marginal farmland in strategic areas where the specific acres are retired to implement wetland restoration in collaboration with our partners.

By considering the long-term stewardship outcome for the projects and directing the funds to an organization that can meet them, VFWD has put together projects that effectively advance near-term and long-term water quality enhancements and provide a myriad of public benefits.

CONSERVATION INVESTMENT AND RETURN OVER TIME

The return on investment in conservation is driven by the value of the natural goods and services the lands provide, such as timber, energy, water quality protection, flood control, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration and storage.

In 2015, ANR partnered with the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute to better understand the economic benefits of land conservation.2 This investigation highlights the significant contributions of land conservation to Vermont’s economy with forestry and outdoor recreation contributing more than $3.4 billion annually. The report draws a connection between Vermont’s Gross State Product (a measure of Vermont’s economic growth), Vermont’s Genuine Progress Indicator (a measure of Vermont’s broad economic health) and land conservation – highlighting a series of studies from other states that document return on investments from land conservation ranging from 4:1 to 11:1, with many of these assessments being conducted by the Trust for Public Land (TPL).

In 2018, on behalf of the Vermont Forest Partnership (a forest-issues advocacy coalition comprised of Audubon Vermont, The Nature Conservancy, and The Trust for Public Land, Vermont Land Trust, and Vermont Natural Resources Council), The Trust for Public Land conducted an economic analysis of the return on the State of Vermont’s investment in land conservation, which found that every state dollar invested in land conservation returns $9 in natural goods and services.3 This study focused on a subset of conserved lands in Vermont – those conserved through fee simple purchase and those conserved through the purchase of conservation easements from willing sellers using state dollars. Between 1988 and 2016, 397,000 acres of forest, farm, pasture, and wetlands were conserved through state spending in four conservation programs: the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, Vermont River Corridor Easement Program, Vermont Duck Stamp Fund, and Vermont Long Trail funds, with a total dollar investment over the period of $117 million. For those 28 years, annual state spending averaged $2.88 million for the conservation of 5,280 acres, resulting in an average state expenditure per acre conserved of $303, a sum substantially less than the nominal fair market value per acre of that land – underscoring the degree to which non-state funds are matched by federal, local, private funds and bargain sales by willing landowners.

Conserved lands also mitigate the effects of extreme weather events on our communities. A 2016 study by the Gund Institute at the University of Vermont4 revealed that the Otter Creek’s associated wetlands and floodplains mitigated nearly $1.8 million in damage to infrastructure during Tropical Storm Irene, and may save the town of Middlebury as much as $126,000 to $450,000 annually in damage from smaller extreme weather events. Similar effects, though not quantified, are undoubtedly afforded by headwater forests and streams, lakes, riparian buffers, and wetlands and floodplains elsewhere in the state.

Well-planned land conservation efforts also save Vermonters money through other avoided costs on infrastructure and other municipal services required by residential property owners, such as police, fire

2 Economics of Conservation in Vermont, 2015. J. Roman and Erickson, J. Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont. 3 Vermont’s return on investment in land conservation, 2018, Trust for Public Lands. 4 Watson KB, Ricketts T, Galford G, Polasky S, O’Niel-Dunne J. 2016. Quantifying flood mitigation services: The economic value of Otter Creek wetlands and floodplains to Middlebury, VT. Ecological Economics 130: 16-24.

protection, and schools. A nation-wide study5 found that the median cost to provide public services for each dollar of tax revenue raised is $1.16 for residential lands and $0.37 for working and open land – findings that underscore the value of the state’s strategy to focus growth on infill and other compact downtown/ village center oriented development. A 2009 report6 found that on average, property tax bills are lower—not higher—in the towns with the most conserved lands.

LEVERAGE AND MATCHING FUNDS

In order to maximize the impact of and stretch state dollars, nearly all land conservation projects include funding from multiple sources. VHCB-funded farm projects typically leverage federal Agricultural Conservation Easement Program funds (ACEP-ALE), and often include landowner donations (bargain sales), local and/or private funds as well. Other conservation projects also include multiple funding sources, which can include state funding, foundation funds (through non-profit conservation partners), federal funds (Forest Legacy, Land & Water Conservation funds, Community Forest Program, other sources through VDFW, VDFPR), local funding, private fundraising, and landowner bargain sales. To enhance Vermont’s access to federal funds, VHCB pursued and recently granted status as a certified entity for the purposes of NRCS funding.

This new status and Vermont’s track record of effective and timely use of NRCS funds will position the state to secure additional federal funding in support of conservation and water quality.

Changes to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) in the 2018 Farm Bill will also provide new opportunities for federal match for a broader array of conservation projects (beyond agriculture), including working forestland, riparian areas, and floodplains. The Water Infrastructure Sponsorship Program (WISPr) program is a new DEC effort to provide funding thru the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) for natural infrastructure projects that provide ecological and water quality benefits, coupled with more traditional investments in municipal wastewater infrastructure.

For example, the West Windsor Town Forest was protected in 2015 and involved $303,000 in state funding through VHCB. This contribution leveraged a $667,000 contribution from the Town of West Windsor (in cash and donated easement value on existing town land), as well as a $557,000 investment from private sources, including the Open Space Institute, and numerous foundations and private donors. Thus, each state dollar was matched by over $4 in contributions from other non-state sources. This project was further leveraged by also serving as the 25% match needed for the Dowsville Headwaters addition to Camel's Hump State Park, funded by federal Forest Legacy program.

Aligning and leveraging various funding sources is both an opportunity and a challenge for conservation partners. Care must be taken to ensure that funding programs, and their requirements, are integrated and streamlined in order to encourage and facilitate the use of multiple funding sources. Conservation easements can leverage funds and accelerate and often increase the implementation of conservation

5 American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, Cost of Community Services Studies, Washington DC; American Farmland Trust, 2015. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/ Cost_of_Community_Services_Studies_AFT_FIC_201609.pdf. 6 Deb Brighton, Land Conservation and Property Taxes in Vermont, Vermont Land Trust, 2009, accessed April 27, 2018, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/ Land_Conservation_and_Property_Taxes_in_Vermont_1.pdf

practices, and in some cases, can identify areas where retiring the land from active agriculture may be better for the landowner as well as the environment.

In some cases, projects may require funds for both permanent protection and for on-the-ground restoration or practice implementation; as these funds often come from different programs, careful coordination of effort is needed. For example, state and federal funds through VHCB and ACEP-ALE may pay for a farm easement, with funding from the Conservation Reserves Enhancement Program (CREP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Partners for Wildlife for installing the riparian buffer required by the easement. Multi-goal projects that include both land and/or easement acquisition and restoration/practice implementation require not only multiple funding sources, but also careful collaboration among all partners and often a significant investment of staff time and resources. These multi-goal projects often represent some of the best opportunities to deliver land and water conservation outcomes that address our statewide goals for water quality, resilience, and economic development.

The Vermont Ag Water Quality Partnership is an intentional, structured collaboration designed to coordinate interagency delivery of agricultural and conservation technical and financial assistance to Vermont farmland owners and operators so they can improve water quality.

The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is another federal grant program that protects working forestland from conversion to non-forest uses. The Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation working in conjunction with the USDA Forest Service is the State Lead Agency for Vermont's Forest Legacy Program. Forest Legacy, which began in federal fiscal year 1992 (with the first grant in the country here in Vermont), has supported conservation of 90,184 acres of important forestland, investing $29,956,248 against a non-federal cost share of $15,167,734.

The majority of this non-federal cost share was derived from the fair market value of donated conservation easements to land trusts around the state, but due to changes in USFS requirements for match properties concerning to some easement donors, state- and privately-funded fee acquisitions may need to provide the majority of the cost share in the future. Pending Forest Legacy projects that are funded but not-yet-finalized will conserve another 14,000 acres and recruit an additional $12 million of federal investment.

The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is yet another federal source that has invested nearly $147 million in Vermont since 1993 supporting federal land acquisitions, Forest Legacy Program and LWCF state-side grants for recreation infrastructure.

Continuing to build and support capacity to manage the coordination needed for more complex, multi- objective conservation projects – through these existing funding sources and the integration of new clean water funds – is critical to delivering high quality conservation outcomes. The power of leveraging multi-jurisdictional public and private funding to accomplish successful conservation and water quality- enhancing outcomes is notable, beneficial to taxpayers at all scales, and increasingly the trend in what is required to get land conservation projects to completion.

This report acknowledges the time, logistical, legal complexity – and thereby resources – required by these highly leveraged, multi-grant funded transactions. The enabling infrastructure of the VHCB, nonprofit conservation organizations, and willing landowners represent a decades-long refined mechanism for efficient and successful project delivery on the ground.

It is also important to continue to seek opportunities to support smaller-scale conservation and restoration projects that may be distributed throughout our communities and partners. Gaps in stewardship and funding have been identified by our conservation partners as challenges to project implementation.

IMPORTANCE OF CONSERVATION TO RURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Conservation supports the economic and social strength of rural communities in many ways. Conserving agricultural lands through the purchase of development rights injects millions of dollars into the rural economy every year. Farmers use the capital to expand or diversify their operations, improve farm infrastructure, buy equipment or retire debt and strengthen their businesses. In many cases, the conservation of a farm makes it more affordable, enabling a transfer to the next generation of ownership. Farm ownership translates to a deep commitment to place and farmers are often community leaders enhancing civic life. An open and working landscape attracts out-of-state visitors, a significant source of economic activity for the state’s small towns and villages.

According to AAFM and Vermont Farm to Plate, farming activities impact the state’s economy at $2.6 billion per year and the dairy industry alone has a $2.2 billion impact on the Vermont economy. This economic impact does not occur without maintenance of, access to, and use of the working landscape. The 2018 Farm to Plate Annual report also cites the following metrics:

• Purchases of local food in Vermont have increased by $176 million to $289 million in total (12.9% of total food sales).

• 6,559 net new jobs and 742 net new businesses have been created.

• The percentage of food insecure Vermont households has dropped to 9.8% from 13.2%.

On-going, affordable access to farmland is also essential to maintaining Vermont’s working landscape. Including an Option to Purchase at Use Value in farm easements, keeps farmland more affordable and helps ensure access for farmers. Individual land trusts are also working on Farmland Access programs based on a buy, sell, conserve model allowing new and beginning farmers to access land at the conserved price versus the full market prices. There are also independent companies purchasing and conserving farmland and then working with individual farmers to lease-to-own conserved properties. All these examples keep the land actively used for farming in rural communities.

Vermonters depend on forests for their material and economic contributions to Vermont’s rural economy and conservation is also an important tool in our efforts to “Keep Forests as Forests.” Vermont’s forest-based businesses contribute $832 million in sales to the state’s economy annually and provide direct employment for about 6,100 people. However, these figures do not account for the cumulative impact the industry has on other parts of Vermont's economy. Economic models used to account for this multiplier estimate that forest-based manufacturing, including Christmas trees and maple syrup, contributes an estimated 10,555 jobs and $1.4 billion in economic output, annually.

Similarly, the state’s growing tourism and outdoor recreation economy supports rural communities and is enhanced by the conservation of natural and recreational areas with guaranteed public access. These recreational assets can provide significant economic returns in local economies. Tourism generates

annual spending of $2.61 billion. A recent survey found that 33.7 percent of visitors to the state hiked or backpacked, 39 percent viewed wildlife, and 16.3 percent canoed or kayaked. In addition to tourists, 72 percent of Vermont residents participate in outdoor recreation each year, among the highest participation rates in the country. Together tourist and residents generate $5.5 billion in annual consumer spending related to outdoor recreation, which generates $505 million in tax revenues, and support 51,000 jobs with an associated $1.5 billion in wages and salaries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that wildlife-based activities alone (e.g., hunting, fishing, viewing) result in $685 million annually to the Vermont economy. According to just released Bureau of Economic Analysis statistics for 2017, 4.5% of Vermont’s GDP is represented by outdoor recreation – landing the state in the top quintile of states in the US for the share of economy driven by outdoor recreation spending.

Conservation of farm and forest lands are vital to rural communities to maintain the working and natural landscape as well as provide the new and growing recreational opportunities desired by residents and visitors. Conservation allows for the land to remain actively used, in most cases for perpetuity, and the protections for water quality and recreational use endure as well.

CLEAN WATER FUNDING AND LAND CONSERVATION

State of Vermont clean water funds can and will be used for conservation activities that have a direct water quality benefit. Clean Water Fund and Capital Bill dollars are allocated annually to multiple state agencies and land use sectors through the Clean Water Board budget process. The Clean Water Fund is expected to receive approximately $20 million annually in state general fund revenues. Capital Bill dollars complement the Clean Water Fund revenue and support traditional structural activities and land conservation (e.g., barnyard water infrastructure and agricultural conservation easements). The total investment of clean water funding to support a given conservation project needs to be indexed to the impact – both near-term and long-term – the project will have on water quality.

On one end of that spectrum is the conservation of unfragmented forestland that protects existing surface waters and wetlands. These projects protect water quality and ecosystems in an existing, high quality state without the need for changes in land management or active restoration. On the other end of the spectrum are conservation projects on substantially degraded tracts of open land where surface waters are present, or which drain to surface waters. These projects carry significant opportunities for water quality improvement through changes in land management and active restoration. Where active restoration is necessary, that restoration may also be eligible for clean water funding, depending on the circumstances.

Examples of how clean water funds may be applied across this spectrum are outlined below, along with a catalog of existing funding sources and the clean water funding framework that will result from Act 76. ANR is working to develop a standard assessment process for determining the proportion of clean water cost share on conservation activities and will engage with conservation stakeholders in developing this process to integrate clean water funding with existing conservation planning and funding initiatives.

Benefits of Maintaining High Functioning Ecosystems for Water Quality

Among its many benefits, land conservation plays a critical role in sustaining key parts of Vermont’s landscape that are vital to maintaining existing water quality and guarding against future degradation. These include features such as high-functioning wetlands, river corridors and floodplains, and forests, which act both as sponges that absorb rainwater and snowmelt, as well as filters that remove excess nutrients and other pollutants. Land conservation also helps to sustain intact, naturally functioning headwater stream networks, which are fundamental to protecting water quality downstream.

Similarly, The Nature Conservancy and the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute for the Environment found in a recent study7 that up to 15% of the TMDL targets could be met through wetland restoration.

The water quality-related benefits of land conservation play out at multiple scales. For instance, recent science has illuminated the importance of small wetlands for water quality. A 2017 paper8 underscores the “disproportionately larger role smaller wetlands can play in landscape nutrient processing and highlights the need for valuing and protecting these smaller, often ignored landscape features.” The water quality benefits resulting from conservation of a particular wetland, floodplain, headwater, or

7 https://www.uvm.edu/gund/news/restore-wetlands-cut-flood-costs-phosphorus-pollution-tnc-gund-study 8 “Biogeochemical hotspots: Role of small water bodies in landscape nutrient processing.” Water Resources Research, 2017, p.5038-5056.

forest parcel have localized value for the immediate area. And when combined with conservation and/or protection of other similar features nearby and in the larger context of a watershed or landscape-scale, can offer cumulative benefits including maintaining existing water quality and avoiding future degradation.

One-time investments in land conservation provide these values for water quality both in the short-term and the long-term because land conservation projects generally include permanent protections. As a result, these investments can help avoid future costs that could otherwise be incurred from having to remediate water quality impacts and degradation resulting from development. In general, it’s far easier and cheaper to protect existing water quality than it is to restore it once it has been allowed to degrade. Similarly, maintaining high-functioning natural systems like wetlands, floodplains, forests and headwater streams that help sustain existing water quality is far easier, cheaper, and more effective than trying to restore those types of systems once they’re degraded.

For example, a recent study evaluated how effective Minnesota’s Clean Water Fund was for achieving the goal of reducing phosphorus loads to Minnesota’s lakes. The study found that the most cost- effective investments were the protection of areas of undisturbed forest, and the cost of protection via conservation easement was one-third that for restoration activities related to stormwater.9

In 2017, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) began work on three conservation and policy scenarios, referred to as “Land Policy BMPs.” Through this, the CBP partners have decided to explicitly credit conservation for its role in avoiding future land conversion. As with engineered BMPs, “credit” for Land Policy BMPs have been ascribed a pollutant load reduction value for reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay attributable to collective land use planning and land conservation actions. Each Bay State and the District of Columbia have the option of including Land Policy BMPs in their implementation plans. Pollutant loads (pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment) from Land Policy BMPs are estimated using the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST). CAST has been designed to help jurisdictions develop implementation plans and estimate pollution loads from all BMPs, including Land Policy BMPs. ANR is working with the CBP to evaluate opportunities for adapting their work to fit Vermont scenarios.

Spectrum of Clean Water Conservation Opportunities

1. Undegraded Lands:

When a relatively undisturbed parcel is proposed for protection, the clean water funds invested will essentially be securing protections against degradation. From a TMDL perspective, and for the Champlain and Memphremagog Basins, or Connecticut River in the future, this has water quality value in terms of preserving the future growth allocations built into those TMDLs. Also, the protection of surface waters in very high-quality condition confers inherent ecosystem services and societal values, including provisioning for aquatic life, wildlife, biodiversity, water-based recreation, and the support of flood resilience.

For largely intact forestlands that have seen a generalized level of management over time, incorporating appropriate provisions within conservation projects, while managing them in accordance with modern

9 (Radomski and Carlson, 2018). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10402381.2018.1471110

Accepted Management Practices (AMPs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs), and supplemented by strategically-located EPZs (ecological protection zones), will promote the following outcomes:

• Streams will re-equilibrate, helping reduce the frequency of dangerous and disruptive flood events;

• Wetlands will persist and naturally maintain or expand in function and value;

• Flood resilience will increase for downstream development;

• Water level extremes in lake systems will be moderated; and

• Remaining intact lakeshore habitat will be protected.

For well-managed agricultural lands that have met and/or exceeded state and federal regulations, conserving these lands can allow for additional practices and provisions that can increase water quality protection and other co-benefits:

• Riparian setbacks can be increased; conservation easements can require more robust buffers that offer greater water quality protection;

• EPZ’s can be established in the conservation easement to further protect wetlands, river corridors and other areas that contribute to or enhance water quality;

• Sensitive or marginal parcels of land can be set aside and removed from active production.

Assessment and evaluation of the extent of water resources on undegraded parcels being considered for conservation will inform the proportion of the project suitable for financing with clean water funding.

2. Degraded Lands:

When a parcel is proposed for conservation that is clearly degraded, there may be significant opportunities to achieve water quality improvement through active restoration. Some of these may be implemented in concert with the conservation project itself, while others may occur as standalone projects in advance of conservation, or even as a result of enforcement. The opportunities for improvement may vary among forest, farmland, or public open space. The following provides an incomplete list of opportunities for active remediation:

• Forest

o Strategic wood placement, e.g. “chop and drop”, to restore habitat and promote stream equilibrium; o Stream crossing improvements; o Transportation-network improvements that support restoration of natural hydrology. o Restoration of forested wetlands and associated buffers that have been degraded by past management.

• Farmland

o Enhanced or expanded field agronomic practices; o Wetland and natural community restoration (by ditch or tile drain plugging, planting, or retirement from production); o Expanded forested buffers above the regulatory vegetative buffers; o Restoration of natural hydrology, e.g. of streams that may be stabilized, straightened, culverted underground, or directed around fields, where this restoration would increase flow and resilience; o Stream floodplain reconnection and enhancement.

• Urban open space

o Stream corridor enhancement; o Wetland buffer planting; o Re-establishment of stream canopies; o Re-routing of recreational trails or other access points to reduce erosion; o Floodplain restoration.

Existing State Clean Water Funding Sources

There are several sources of clean water funding currently available, some of which will transition by statute to grant programs offered under the Clean Water Service Delivery Act of 2019 (Act 76 of 2019). Table 1 summarizes current clean water funds managed by State of Vermont agencies available to support conservation activities with a direct water quality benefit.

Funding Agency, Clean Water-Related Budget Line Item Description Source Program Conservation Activities River corridor and floodplain Grants and contracts to municipalities, restoration through river watershed organizations, lake corridor easements Clean Natural ANR Clean associations, conservation districts, and Water Resources Water Initiative regional planning commissions for Wetland restoration through Fund Restoration Program natural resources restoration projects easements (Regional Conservation Partnership https://dec.vermont.gov/water- Program, RCPP, landowner investment/cwi/grants/ incentive payments)

Lake Champlain Focused land acquisition program U.S. EPA- Vermont Fish TMDL implemented by FWD for wetland Lake and Wildlife Implementation acquisition and restoration to advance Champlain Department Wetland restoration and – Wetland projects with land management Basin (FWD) through protection through land Conservation and changes resulting in water quality Program ANR Clean acquisition Restoration in improvements and protection Federal Water Initiative Vermont’s Lake Funds Program https://dec.vermont.gov/water- Champlain Basin investment/cwi/grants/

Funding Agency, Clean Water-Related Budget Line Item Description Source Program Conservation Activities River corridor and floodplain restoration through river Low interest loans to municipalities and corridor easements private entities for clean water projects Clean ANR Water including wastewater, stormwater, Wetland restoration through Water Clean Water Infrastructure natural resources projects, and a easements and land State State Revolving Finance variety of projects with a clean water acquisition Revolving Fund Loans Program benefit Fund Agricultural conservation https://dec.vermont.gov/water- easements for water quality investment/water-financing/cwsrf Forest conservation for water quality River corridor and floodplain Up to 10% of a municipality’s Clean restoration through river Water State Revolving Fund loan can be corridor easements used to implement natural resources Clean Water ANR Water restoration projects; a reduced Wetland restoration through Water Infrastructure Infrastructure administrative fee over the life of the easements and land State Sponsorship Finance loan will cover the total value of the acquisition Revolving Program Program sponsored restoration project Fund Agricultural conservation https://dec.vermont.gov/water- easements for water quality investment/water- Forest conservation for water financing/cwsrf/WISPr quality River corridor and floodplain Bridge financing for natural restoration through river infrastructure projects as low as 0% corridor easements available for municipalities and private Clean ANR Water entities; loan forgiveness available for Wetland restoration through Water Natural Infrastructure municipal projects based on percentage easements and land State Infrastructure Finance of project with perpetual water quality acquisition Revolving Interim Financing protections (e.g., riparian buffers and Program Agricultural conservation Fund wetland protection zones) easements for water quality https://dec.vermont.gov/water- Forest conservation for water investment/water-financing/cwsrf quality Purchase/conservation of agricultural land, in coordination with AAFM and ANR, that is difficult to farm without adversely impacting water quality with a Water Quality goal of taking land all or mostly out of Farm VHCB production with perpetual conservation Capital Bill Improvement and Conservation restrictions and water quality-related Agricultural land retirement Retirement Grants easement provisions (e.g., riparian Projects buffers and wetland protection zones) https://vhcb.org/our- programs/conservation/apply-for- funding

Funding Agency, Clean Water-Related Budget Line Item Description Source Program Conservation Activities Conservation and water quality related investments in fee lands and conservation easements through eligible applicants (land trusts, other Agricultural conservation for conservation non-profits, municipalities, water quality Land VHCB certain state agencies) with perpetual Forest conservation for water Conservation and Capital Bill Conservation conservation restrictions and water quality Water Quality Grants quality-related easement provisions Projects (e.g., riparian buffers and wetland Natural resource protection zones) conservation/riparian protection https://vhcb.org/our- programs/conservation/apply-for- funding

Transition to Future Clean Water Service Delivery Model

The Clean Water Service Delivery Act (Act 76 of 2019) establishes four new grant programs to administer Clean Water Fund and Capital Bill dollars through the Clean Water Board budget process. Two of the new programs, summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below, are relevant to clean water-related conservation activities. The Water Quality Restoration Formula Grant Program (Table 2) directs funds to non- regulatory clean water projects that will result in phosphorus reductions required under the Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Vermont Segments of Lake Champlain and the Lake Memphremagog Phosphorus TMDL. Clean water-related conservation activities considered “passive restoration” (i.e., river corridor easements, wetland easements or fee acquisitions) will be eligible to receive formula funds. Methods to quantify phosphorus reductions associated with these passive restoration activities are under development and anticipated to be completed by November 2021. Other clean water-related conservation activities may be eligible to receive funds through the Water Quality Enhancement Grant Program (Table 3) with clean water cost share proportionate to the conservation project’s water quality benefit.

Table 2. Water Quality Restoration Formula Grant Program summary

Recipient(s) Clean Water Service Providers (CWSP) advised by Basin Water Quality Councils

Geographic Focus Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog basins by tactical basin planning watershed

Project Types Non-regulatory clean water projects that will result in phosphorus reductions

Funding Level Determined by Clean Water Board; administrative costs capped at 15% of total award

Fund Dispersal Formula based on phosphorus reduction target and cost/unit phosphorus reduction

Effective Date November 1, 2021

Table 3. Water Quality Enhancement Grant Program summary

Recipient(s) Includes watershed organizations, regional planning commissions, conservation districts, municipalities

Geographic Focus Statewide

Project Types Non-regulatory clean water projects not eligible under Water Quality Restoration Formula Grants

Funding Level Determined by Clean Water Board; at least 20% of annual Clean Water Fund not to exceed $5 million; administrative costs capped at 15% of total award

Fund Dispersal Competitive process

Effective Date November 1, 2021

Assessment of Clean Water Cost Share for Conservation Projects and Implementation

The proportion of clean water grant funds and loan forgiveness provided to a conservation project needs to be proportionate to the project’s water quality benefit. DEC is currently working to establish a standard valuation framework for active restoration projects and issued a request for proposals (RFP) on December 9, 2019 seeking a consultant to develop a ‘cost of phosphorous reduction metric’ across a wide range of active restoration activities. Proposals are due January 14, 2020, with the final report due back to DEC at the end of 2020.

While Clean Water and Capital Bill funds for clean water may in some unique instances fully fund certain land conservation projects, in most cases other leverage will be necessary. ANR will work with land conservation stakeholders over the next year to determine the best way to integrate these clean water funds into conservation project development, with regards to timing, valuation, and compatible forms of existing leverage.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

Vermont’s land conservation network of non-profit organizations, municipalities, state entities and private landowners is incredibly successful in protecting significant natural resources, providing public access for outdoor recreation and in supporting the state’s iconic working landscape and associated farm and forest economies. Increasingly, land conservation plays an important role in the state’s efforts to reduce phosphorus in Lake Champlain and maintain clean water across watersheds throughout Vermont.

Maintaining and leveraging the Vermont land conservation community’s organizational capacity, expertise, experience and diverse funding sources to deliver an expanded suite of conservation services will be a critical clean water strategy in the coming decades.

The following conditions are necessary to optimize clean water outcomes through land conservation:

o Increased coordination and communication amongst clean water funding entities, conservation project developers and other conservation funders to maximize leverage of Clean Water Funds from the most appropriate sources, including VHCB, Forest Legacy and other state and federal sources;

o Clear valuation metrics for the clean water elements of conservation projects, including both active and passive restoration of degraded resources and passive protection of existing high- quality surface waters;

o A predictable process to access clean water funding that is integrated with other existing conservation funding processes at VHCB and elsewhere;

o Continued dialog amongst partners to address logistical challenges and long-term ownership and stewardship associated with land conservation projects that delivery water quality benefits.

In order to advance these conditions, the stakeholder group recommends the following:

3. VHCB and ANR will explore expanding the use of VHCB’s pre-application review process to screen potential agricultural conservation projects for relevant clean water funding opportunities.

4. By November 2021, ANR will establish clean water valuation metrics for active restoration of rivers/floodplains, wetlands, and forests and passive restoration of river corridors and wetlands.

By 2023, ANR will establish clean water valuation metrics for other land conservation activities with a water quality benefit.

Appendix A – List of Workgroup Participants:

Land and Water Conservation Study Stakeholder Group: Julie Moore, ANR Secretary Diane Bothfeld, AAFM Secretary designee Gus Seelig, VHCB Executive Director Nick Richardson, VLT President Shelby Semmes, TPL VT/NH Director Heather Furman, TNC Vermont Director

Invited participants: Vicky Drew, USDA NRCS Jill Arce, VACD Jess Buckley, VACD

Other invited organizations: Watersheds United Vermont Farm Bureau Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition Northwest Farmers Watershed Alliance Connecticut River Watershed Farmers Alliance VAPDA Vermont Traditions Coalition VNRC CLF

Other participants: Billy Coster, ANR Louis Porter, DFW Commissioner Jane Lazorchak, DFW John Austin, DFW Michael Snyder, FPR Commissioner Becca Washburn, FPR Kate Sudhoff, FPR Neil Kamman, DEC Emily Bird, DEC Marli Rupe, DEC Laura Lapierre, DEC Nina Gage, AAFM Jen Hollar, VHCB Nancy Everhart, VHCB Phil Huffman, TNC Jim Shallow, TNC Kate Wanner, TPL Steve Libby, Vermont River Conservancy

Appendix B - Case Studies:

1. Armstrong (Betis) farm, Calais. VLT Farmland Access Project, facilitating transfer of former small dairy to growing diversified organic vegetable operation. Project included river corridor easement restrictions along the Pekin Brook, and wetlands protection zones, as well as a historic notice provision on the barn. Protecting this farm was important to the local community, which contributed funding to the project; The Nature Conservancy also contributed Keurig funding due to the water quality/retention attributes of the project.

2. Choiniere Farm, Highgate. Dairy farm conserved in 1997 with VHCB and federal funds, with Vermont Land Trust as the project developer and the Agency of Agriculture as one of the easement co-holders. The easement required buffers along the Rock River. A few years after conservation, Guy Choiniere took over the farm from his parents, and working with NRCS, turned the operation into a model of soil and water conservation and sustainable management. Last year, DEC funded an overlay river corridor easement along the extensive Rock River frontage.

3. Glebe Mountain, Londonderry and Windham. 3,440 acres of high elevation woodland and bear habitat conserved in 2019 with funding from VHCB, the Atlas Fund, The Nature Conservancy, significant private contributions from local residents, bear habitat mitigation funds, and a large landowner bargain sale. The project protects the headwaters of several high quality streams in the Connecticut River watershed.

4. Jim Jeffords State Forest, Shrewsbury and Mendon. In 2014 VHCB funded the State’s purchase of 971 acres of mid-high elevation woodland along Mendon Brook, matched by mitigation funds, LWCF-stateside and private funds. A year later, VHCB funded acquisition of another 109 acres adjacent to the first parcel, while a private landowner donated another 266 acres. Altogether, this created the 1,346-acre Jim Jeffords State Forest, with significant water quality benefits to the Otter Creek Watershed, and located within a relatively unfragmented block of state-owned or conserved land totaling 21,000 acres. The projects were developed by The Trust for Public Land.

5. Johnson Farm, Canaan. Large dairy farm along the Connecticut River conserved in 2012 in partnership with VHCB, VLT, the Agency of Agriculture, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, Department of Environmental Conservation, and The Nature Conservancy. The project catalyzed a transfer of 266 acres to the State Department of Fish & Wildlife to establish a new Wildlife Management Area, and the 583-acre farm easement contained many special treatment areas to protect streams and wetlands feeding into the river. Funding included VHCB, NRCS, Connecticut River Mitigation and Enhancement Fund, Ecosystem Restoration Fund, private foundations, and contributions from individuals.

6. LaPlatte Headwaters Town Forest, Hinesburg. In 2007, VHCB, along with the state’s Clean and Clear program, the Town of Hinesburg, private donations and a grant from the USFWS administered by the VFWD to recover the federally-endangered Indiana bat, funded a 301 acre Community Forest facilitated by The Trust for Public Land, acquired by Town of Hinesburg with an easement coheld by VLT and VHCB. The project protected the headwaters of the LaPlatte River - a source of drinking water for 68,000 people in Chittenden County, 120 acres of riparian

wetlands, and over a mile of the LaPlatte River and its tributaries. NRCS funding implemented restorations of the wetlands and river corridor. In 2018-2019, The Nature Conservancy and US Fish and Wildlife Service launched projects to restore the floodplain/wetland sections of the town forest, with an overall goal of improving water quality, wildlife habitat and overall ecosystem health. These projects will include several experimental approaches, such as plantings of native species, site preparation through plowing, the installation of deer exclosures, and active invasive species control. These projects are designed to be a model for other floodplain restoration projects.

7. Marquis Farm, Newport Town. Dairy farm conserved in two phases, in 2015 and 2016, with VHCB and federal funds, with Vermont Land Trust as the project developer and co-holder of the easement along with VHCB. The sale of development rights generated capital to help pay for major upgrades of water quality infrastructure on the farm, which were engineered and cost shared by NRCS.

8. West Windsor Town Forest on Mount Ascutney, West Windsor. The Trust for Public Land and the Upper Valley Land Trust partnered with the Town of West Windsor to protect lands associated with the former Mount Ascutney Ski Area. VHCB provided funds that leveraged foundation funds, private donations and a town appropriation. The easement protects vernal pools, the headwaters of several streams, including source water for a public water supply, and ensures sustainable forest management.

9. White River Ledges, Sharon and Pomfret. VHCB funded two Nature Conservancy acquisitions, in 1998 and 2016, which, along with an existing state Wildlife Management Area, formed a 1,268- acre block of protected land, including 5 miles of continuously protected White River rivershore, ecologically important calcium-rich seeps, and several tributary brooks with scenic waterfalls. The easements require the properties to be maintained in their natural state, and contain a River Buffer Area providing special protections within 50 feet of waterways and encompassing over 12 acres of floodplain forest.