Vermont Trails and Greenways Council: ANR Commissioner’s Report 2012 The Vermont Trails and Greenways Council has always been a group of thoughtful volunteers, dedicated to the idea that all types of trail-based recreation deserve a place in the lives of Vermonters. In recent years, interest in trail-based recreation has increased, while at the same time funding, staff and planning has remained level, been threatened and/or fallen off. The Vermont Trails and Greenways Council is only successful when it has strong advocates, and we need your support. This all-volunteer Council continues to provide increasing services for education, promotion and planning for trails and greenways in Vermont. To sustain these efforts, we need a champion who will help us get the policies in place for these vital initiatives. Many of our recommendations require guidance to navigate the legislative process to modify and create statute that will support recreation trails in Vermont. On December 13, 2011, the Vermont Trails and Greenways Council Executive Committee began its first ever survey series with the intent of gathering input to determine what our priorities for the upcoming year should be. Our first survey was simple: tell us what is most important for recreation trails in Vermont. 141 people responded, and told us to work on the following priorities, listed in order of importance: 1. Creating a statute granting incentives for landowners to allow public recreation trails and campsites on their property. 2. Reforming/refining the trail permitting process. 3. Raising the $370,000 cap on the Vermont Gas Tax moneys that are currently devoted to recreation trails. 4. Funding a study focused on the importance of recreation trails on Vermont’s economy. 5. Creating a full time state wide recreation coordinator.
6. A direct link to funding for recreation trail construction/maintenance and the user-groups, for example a tax on recreational items. 7. Funding a study focused on the importance of recreation trails on the health of the people of Vermont. In response, we began to gather information on the top priorities, which is the body of this report. We hope that this report will be utilized as a tool for advocacy and a testament to the dedication of the Vermont Trails and Greenways Council to supporting the progress of state-wide recreation trails.
Creating a Statewide Recreation Trail Coordinator Background Vermont’s recreation trail management structure is varied. The dispersal of our Recreation Trails Program Funds paints a picture of the varied forms of maintenance and management. Half of all funds are diverted to the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. The Vermont Association of Snow Travelers has been receiving about a quarter of the competitive funds, and non-profits and towns make up a majority of the audience that vies for the remaining competitive funds. State Lands About two decades ago the Recreation Division of the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation was disbanded. The full time staff had job responsibilities that not only focused on state lands, but also supported recreation trails throughout the state. With the reduction in staff, support for statewide initiatives fell to the wayside and Forestry and Parks staff absorbed some of the responsibilities required to support recreation on state lands. The FPR staff responsible for recreation on state lands have an internal competitive process to help appropriately disperse the State Land’s share of the funding. Public Recreation Corridors Outside State Lands Recreation trails on public corridors outside of the boundaries of State Lands have been developed and maintained by towns and non-profits who vie for competitive RTP funds, find other grant sources, and in some cases subsidize work through member fees. The ever increasing numbers of motorized and non-motorized recreation trail users puts pressure on our state to develop more support to keep our trails safe and sustainable, find ways to connect corridors, and more efficiently promote these resources. There is a need a for a liaison who can focus on the policy making, refining state statutes, developing dispersing funding that has ties to the various user-groups, and sharing resources that will increase the safety and sustainability of Vermont’s recreation trail system. This need has existed for many years, and began even before the small staff of the Recreation Division at FPR was dissolved. FPR has kept recreation in its mission, but the time has come to put a Recreation Division back into the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation.
A Long Time Coming The Trails and Greenways Council made the recommendation to create a statewide recreation trail coordinator in 2001 to ANR Secretary Scott Johnstone. They submitted a job description for this position which outlined the following position initiatives: 1. Act as the Executive Director of the Vermont Trails and Greenways Council 2. Act as a contact and resource with recreation trails organizations and user groups throughout Vermont 3. Participate in recreation planning for the State of Vermont 4. Develop and implement educational programs on recreation trails 5. Provide public outreach and information on recreational use of state lands 6. Provide a connection with other resources and interests on recreation trails 7. Facilitate the recreation trails grants program Although some refining would be needed for such a position, the underlying priorities have not changed, and certainly the need for these actions has increased. More recently, the Landscape Management Work Group of the Vermont Trails Collaborative independently recommended the establishment of a Vermont Trails Coordinator. The Vermont Trails Collaborative was a group of over one hundred trail users, professionals and interested parties. It was established in 2009 to improve management of trails and recreation on the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) and throughout Vermont.
Expanding Fundraising Options for Statewide Recreation Trails Background The state of Vermont has a heavy reliance on two main sources of funding for recreation trails, both sources are from gas taxes, federal and state. The state funding comes with a little more control over how the funds are utilized and a little more security that the funds will be available year after year. Combined, the two sources produce, on average, approximately 1.25 million dollars in grant funding annually. Half of this goes to the Vermont Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation. VAST annually receives $144,000 from the In-state RTP, and through the competitive grant process receives between $200,000-$400,000 from the Federal RTP. This leaves approximately $140,000 for competitive community grants. Every year there is a need for funding that far exceeds the small percentage that is made available for competitive grants. The VTGC recommends that the Agency of Natural Resources devote personnel time to establishing more diversity in the funding sources for VT Recreation Trails, as well as a higher ratio of funding available for competitive grants. We suggest the following potential sources, in the order we feel is most easily attainable to most difficult:
A lottery ticket with proceeds going to a Vermont Trail Fund This could be modeled after the Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund (MOHF). MOHF was established in July, 1995 after a campaign by Maine Audubon Society and the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine generated more than 53,000 signatures on petitions to place the lottery issue on the November, 1995 ballot. Due to the strong support among Maine residents, the Legislature enacted the proposal into law, bypassing the need for a referendum. The Fund's sole purpose is for "maintaining, improving and expanding state and local natural resource conservation programs and associated compatible public uses." Revenue is generated exclusively by a dedicated instant lottery ticket distributed by the Maine State Lottery. The Heritage Fund law requires that funds raised by the lottery be expended in four general categories: for fisheries and wildlife, and habitat conservation projects (35%); for acquisition and management of public lands, parks, and wildlife conservation areas (35%); for endangered and threatened species conservation projects (15%); and for natural resources law enforcement and protection of public health (15%). Applicants must apply through a state agency and that accepts applications twice a year. The lottery allows for two $1 tickets per year. During the early years, the MOHF ticket was one of a very small number of tickets. Today, there are many more $1 competing tickets. Recommendation: Work with representatives of the MOHF to better understand the process they used to establish the fund. Determine if this can be replicated in Vermont.
A Vermont Recreation Trail License Plate The 1995 Vermont legislature passed legislation creating the first Conservation Plate which featured a peregrine falcon. The Conservation Plate became available for pleasure cars in 1997 and has generated over $1.5 million, which has helped support the Non-Game Wildlife Fund and the Watershed Grants Program. In 1997 the law was amended to include trucks weighing less than 8,099 pounds. In 2004 the truck weight limit was increased to include trucks weighing less than 26,001 pounds. Since the program began, over 19,000 sets of conservation license plates have been issued. Currently, there are over 9,000 sets of plates actively registered and on Vermont highways. Recommendation: We need to determine the process to develop a specialty plate whose proceeds could be funneled to Vermont’s recreation trails.
A Tax on Recreation Items To view an example of an effective tax program on user items that helps maintain the user base we have to look no further than the federal hunting and fishing excise tax. On average, the hunting- and
shooting sports-related industry paid $251 million in excise taxes, but made $3.1 billion in revenue through sportsmen purchases each year from 1970 to 2006. From 1955 to 2006, the sport fishing industry on average contributed $110 million in annual tax payments/import duties, but generated $2.3 billion in annual taxable equipment sales. The excise taxes are collected quarterly from outdoor industry manufacturers and importers for sales on items such as fishing lures, rods and reels, firearms, ammunition and other products. Hunting-, shootingand fishing-related taxes are collected under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and Sport Fish Restoration Act respectively. Funding is then apportioned to state and territorial fish and wildlife agencies based on land area and state fishing and hunting license sales. Agencies combine these funds with the license revenues to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats and create recreational and educational opportunities. In 2009 alone, more than $740 million was made available to states and territories in addition to the nearly $1.4 billion total paid by hunters and anglers in license fees. This is a larger scale program than the one suggested for Vermont recreation items. We are in need a more direct funding source tied directly to the user-groups. An excise tax on recreation items (hiking boots, backpacks, tents, canoes, cross country skis, snow shoes, etc.) would do just that. This recommendation would require raising a large degree of public awareness to assure public support and would require an act of legislation. If established this recommendation would require a monitoring and auditing system. Recommendation: Performing a study to determine the revenue that would be generated by establishing a Vermont tax on recreation items.
Lifting the Gas Cap on the in-state Recreation Trail Program Funds One of the two major funding sources for Vermont’s recreation trails is the money generated by ¾ of one percent of the in-state gas tax not to exceed $370,000. This funding source is funneled through VTrans to the Agency of Natural Resources. It is currently managed in a similar fashion to the federal RTP funds in which the initial pool is divided. Forty percent is used by the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation, forty percent is devoted to the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers, and twenty percent is doled out competitively with certain percentages allocated to projects that are motorized, multi-use, and non-motorized. As the statute was being crafted as bill, the original intent was for the fund to receive ¾ of one percent of the annual gas tax funds. A cap of 370,000 was written in as the bill evolved. At some point between 1994 and now ¾ of one percent exceeded the $360,000 cap. If the cap was lifted now we would have
approximately $120,000 more in the in-state Recreation Trail Fund. This current version of the statute is listed below:
§ 446. Vermont recreational trails fund A recreational trails fund is established which shall be subject to the provisions of subchapter 5 of chapter 7 of Title 32. There shall be an annual transfer from the transportation fund to the recreational trails fund of an amount equivalent to a reasonable estimation of the revenues from taxes on nonhighway recreational fuel. This amount shall be three-fourths of one percent of the total state gas tax, not to exceed $370,000.00. In each fiscal year this amount shall be included in the budget estimates and statements submitted under 32 V.S.A. § 301 for purposes of determining appropriations by the general assembly. Appropriations may be made from the fund to design, construct, and maintain recreational trails, to conduct studies and prepare plans, publish maps and information, make grants to state and municipal agencies and nonprofit organizations. The agency of natural resources shall administer the fund and adopt rules for its use and all monies appropriated shall be used on state, federal and municipal lands and on maintenance of trails on public as well as private lands where permission is granted, as follows: (1) forty percent to the department of forests, parks and recreation; (2) twenty percent for providing grants to municipalities and not-for-profit agencies; (3) forty percent to the Vermont association of snow travelers. (Added 1993, No. 211 (Adj. Sess.), § 28; amended 1995, No. 63, § 212a, eff. May 4, 1995.) As the statute reads, the Agency of Natural Resources can have a degree of flexibility to determine how this money is used. We currently utilize guidelines that are established by the Federal Highway Commission for the distribution of RTP funds. Recommendation: The Vermont Trails and Greenways Council recommends the Commissioner of ANR to advocate for the cap being lifted on these funds. We feel that if the additional funds are created by the lifting of the cap, a public discussion should occur to determine the best use of the funds. The best options that we see available at the current time are:
Funding recreation positions within the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation ( a reoccurring recommendation within the Vermont Trail Collaborative Report) Adding the additional funds to the current structure of distribution Bolster the competitive grants by increasing their percentage of the funding Allocating a percentage of the funding to the VTGC to support statewide recreation trails
This process will need to involve public input and the ability for all recreation trail user-groups to weigh in to assure that changes to the statute will have a positive effect state-wide.
Vermont Recreation Trail Permitting Establish that trails in the Vermont Trail System are considered municipalities under Act 250 The Vermont Trail System is considered for public purposes; therefore trails in the Vermont Trail System should be looked at as municipalities under Act 250. Through this lens the amount of disturbed soils allowed before triggering an Act 250 permit should be 10 acres instead of 1 acre. §441. Statement of purpose (c) The development, operation, and maintenance of the Vermont trails system is declared to be a public purpose and in this context, the agency of natural resources together with other governmental agencies is authorized to spend public funds for such purposes and to accept gifts and grants of funds, property, or property rights from public or private sources to be used for such purposes where permission is granted. Recommendation: Clarify a process with the VT Department of Environmental Conservation Act 250 office that will perpetuate the above mentioned condition.
Streamline the Permitting Process for Minimal Impact Recreation Trail Projects Vermont currently has a number of permits that recreation trail projects are subjected to creating a system that is impractical for small trail projects with minimal impact. This also adds time to permit review specialist who are already overburdened. The VTGC sponsored a survey to receive feedback from the public regarding the permitting process that recreation trail projects need to go through. The survey received 39 responses and secured a clearer picture of the public’s opinion of the recreation trail permitting process. picture of what the public’s opinion is of the recreation trail permitting process.
When asked what reform/refining of the trail permitting process respondents would like to see happen, we received the following responses:
Uniformity across the state in how trails are treated in the Act 250 process. increase the availability ( and funding of) the specialists needed by the USFS and ANR to help move the processes along Much of the trail I am the chief of is on USFS land so there is little local control. I would just like to see the conservation easement enforced. Quicker turnaround on ACT 250 for non-motorized trail projects on public land above 2500' I would like to see a more logical tiered system of permitting established based on impact for recreation trails. Allow for a OHV (not snowmobiles) trail systems. Allow federal funds for motorized vehicle trails to be allocated to other than snowmobile trials. get rid of act 250, it's is killing our state Consolidation! Also, Act 250 should NOT apply to single track, hiking, biking, and pedestrians use trails. The Governor should take leadership on this and reform/clarify a trail exclusion so that ANR can move forward on projects such as the Stowe Ride Center and other networks that cross State land. I would like to see motorized recreation be exempt from the permitting process :) Refining the permit process has been researched, advocated for, and a topic of every entity proposing any earth disturbance in Vermont since the establishment of Act 250 in 1979. Each and every project should be treated exactly the same with the same criteria for potential impacts. Act 250 taking into account the scope of trail work prior to going through the ACT 250 permit process. Many trails seem not to need it. Clarity above all There should be more exceptions for small scale projects that have minimal impact; right now trails follow the same procedures as a new walmart. For example, I was working on a campsite project, with a 1500 project budget, and a quote for archeological work for ~20 feet of tred work came in at over $2,000. There should be a set of "best practices" that if followed (and documented) the permitting process would be quicker and more painless, especially for wetland and archeological permits. There should be a clear map of sensitive archeological. sites so folks can budget accordingly, or make changes to plans earlier on. There should be a computerized system (like in NH) where applicants can indicate the project location and proposed impact and it would determine which permits are needed. The state should not require easements on private land projects that are below a certain threshold (ie general maintenance, etc), but instead a more simple contract should suffice. There should be more staff devoted to archeological reviews to expedite the process. Greater predictability regarding length of time to get project thru the permitting process A one stop shop or resource to contact during the process to help guide you along. A more common sense approach would be nice. Stop creation of new rules during the permitting process
Recommendation: Refine the recreation trails permitting process to include a category of minimal impact with thresholds that will allow projects to move forward with verbal permission or a more consolidated, streamlined review. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has developed a system of permitting for minimal impact recreation trail projects that could be a guiding example of how to structure a program. We recommend more research comparing notable permitting processes for similar states to develop more concise recommendations.
Conclusion The Vermont Trails and Greenways Council feels that this report reflects the state wide interests of all recreation trail user-groups. We utilized the best system available, given our resources, to query public perspective and engage the members of the VTGC. We look forward to working with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to move these initiatives forward.