Written Testimony in Opposition to Executive Order No. 6-25
Proposed Amendments to the Vermont Wetland Rules
Submitted for the Wetlands Rulemaking Record
I. Statement of Position:
Let's build houses on dry land; float boats, not houses.
I respectfully submit this testimony in opposition to Executive Order No. 6-25 and the proposed amendments to the Vermont Wetland Rules. The Executive Order undermines existing statutory mandates, contradicts established wetland science, weakens climate resilience and smart growth objectives, and creates inequitable and inconsistent regulatory outcomes across the State. The proposed changes are inconsistent with legislative findings and exceed the proper scope of executive authority.
II. Statutory Framework and Legislative Intent
The Vermont Wetland Rules were adopted pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 37, which establishes clear legislative intent that wetlands:
- Protect public safety through flood attenuation;
- Maintain surface and groundwater quality;
- Support fish, wildlife, and rare, threatened, and endangered species;
- Serve the public welfare as natural infrastructure; and
- Be managed to achieve no net loss and, where feasible, a net gain of wetland acreage and function.¹
The Legislature further directed that regulation of wetlands and other water resources “shall be guided by science”and that authorized activities must provide a net environmental benefit to the State.² These mandates were reaffirmed in Act 121 (Flood Safety Act) in direct response to increasing flood risk and climate-driven hydrologic change.³
III. Summary of Proposed Rule Changes and Impacts
A. Reliance on Mapping Rather Than Wetland Function
The proposed amendments would limit state wetland permitting for residential housing to mapped wetlands shown on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory (VSWI). Unmapped wetlands—regardless of their ecological function—would not trigger state review in designated growth areas.
This approach conflicts with Vermont law and wetland science. Wetlands are defined and regulated based on in-field delineation of soils, hydrology, and vegetation, not cartographic presence.⁴ Mapping tools were developed for planning and screening purposes and were never intended to serve as the sole determinant of regulatory protection.
Numerous wetland types critical to flood resilience— including hillside seeps, forested basin swamps, vernal pools, headwater wetlands, and agricultural wetlands—are widely acknowledged to be underrepresented in statewide mapping, particularly where forest cover, steep terrain, or seasonal hydrology limit aerial detection.
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation Watershed Management Division Wetlands Program currently struggles with a backlog in identifying wetlands promptly. To shift towards a policy that relies on the actual ecological function of wetlands, rather than just relying on those areas already mapped, the program needs increased resources and capacity for timely on-site identification evaluation, and VSWI map updates.
B. Reduced Buffer Protections
The proposed rules would reduce Class II wetland buffers from 50 feet to 25 feet in designated areas. Scientific literature and Vermont’s own regulatory findings recognize that buffers are essential to preserving wetland hydrology, pollutant filtration, habitat connectivity, and flood storage.⁵ Buffer reductions directly diminish wetland function even when the wetland itself is not filled.
Buffer areas based only on VSWI maps may contain wetland areas only visible through delineation. "A mapped wetland is a wetland that appears on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory (VSWI) map. These maps are mostly created by looking at aerial photos, not by visiting the site. Because of this, the maps often do not show the exact boundaries of wetlands and usually show wetlands as smaller than they really are." - VTANR
C. Elimination of Functional Review for Unmapped Wetlands
Under the proposal, Section 5 functional criteria—which require evaluation of flood storage, groundwater recharge, water quality protection, and habitat value—would not be triggered for residential impacts to unmapped wetlands in growth areas. This results in no scientific review of wetland function, despite explicit statutory direction to regulate wetlands based on function and cumulative impact.⁶
IV. Scientific and Environmental Impacts
A. Flood Resilience and Climate Adaptation
Wetlands are among Vermont’s most effective and cost-efficient tools for flood mitigation. They slow runoff, store floodwaters, stabilize baseflows, and reduce downstream damage. Weakening protections—particularly in headwater and village-scale wetlands—will increase flood risk to homes, roads, culverts, and municipal infrastructure, shifting long-term costs to taxpayers.
These outcomes directly contradict Vermont’s Resilience Implementation Strategy, which prioritizes nature-based solutions, including wetlands, floodplains, and upland forests, as core climate adaptation measures.⁷
B. Water Quality and Groundwater Protection
Wetlands filter sediments, nutrients, and contaminants before they reach rivers, lakes, and groundwater supplies. Many Vermont communities, including village centers, rely on private wells and shallow aquifers that are directly influenced by adjacent wetlands. Incremental wetland loss undermines Vermont’s clean water investments and phosphorus reduction obligations.
Wetlands are widely acknowledged for their capacity to intercept and retain non-point source phosphorus, acting as buffers to reduce the load of phosphorus to downstream lakes (Zedler 2003, Hansson et al. 2005, Dunne et al. 2015).
C. Biodiversity and Public Trust Resources
Wetlands support the highest levels of plant, animal, and rare species diversity of any habitat type in Vermont. Within developed areas, wetlands function as wildlife corridors, habitat refugia, and some of the last remaining green spaces. These public trust values are explicitly recognized in statute and cannot be fully replaced through mitigation.⁸
Further impact: Within designated areas, the Executive Order would remove the requirement for state-level mitigation when certain wetland impacts occur (especially unmapped wetlands), which diverges from current mitigation and net gain statutory goals.
V. Implementation and Equity Concerns
- Incomplete Mapping Creates Regulatory InequityReliance on VSWI mapping results in uneven protection across the State, where communities with unmapped wetlands—often rural towns, hillside settlements, and village centers—receive less protection despite equivalent ecological function.
- Administrative and Legal UncertaintyTowns lack the technical capacity to independently assess wetland function absent state review. Reduced state oversight increases the risk of inconsistent decisions, enforcement challenges, and subsequent legal disputes.
- Conflict with Federal RegulationFederal Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains unchanged. The proposed state rollback may not streamline permitting, but instead shift projects into a more complex and uncertain federal review process.⁹
VI. Housing, Smart Growth, and Long-Term Costs
Framing wetlands as barriers to housing presents a false choice. Sound land-use planning directs growth away from flood-prone landscapes and toward areas already served by infrastructure. Development in wetlands increases long-term risk to residents, raises infrastructure and insurance costs, and exposes communities to repeated flood damage.
Smart growth, as contemplated by Vermont law, is not achieved by sacrificing wetlands. Once wetlands are filled or built upon, they are permanently lost along with their flood storage, water quality functions, and climate resilience benefits.
VII. Conclusion
Executive Order No. 6-25 and the proposed Wetland Rule amendments:
- Contradict explicit legislative mandates for science-based wetland protection and net gain;
- Undermine flood resilience, water quality, biodiversity, and public safety;
- Misapply wetland mapping in a manner inconsistent with scientific practice;
- Create regulatory inequity and implementation challenges; and
- Shift long-term environmental and fiscal costs onto Vermont communities.
For these reasons, I urge decision-makers to reject Executive Order No. 6-25 and retain strong, function-based wetland protections consistent with Vermont law, legislative intent, and the realities of a changing climate.
Footnotes
- 10 V.S.A. § 902 (Legislative findings and policy).
- 10 V.S.A. § 902(2)–(3).
- Act 121 (2024), Flood Safety Act, codified in relevant part in 10 V.S.A. ch. 37.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual; incorporated by reference in Vermont Wetland Rules.
- Vermont Wetland Rules, §§ 9–10 (buffers and functional protection).
- Vermont Wetland Rules, § 5 (Functional criteria for wetland significance).
- Vermont Climate Council, Resilience Implementation Strategy (nature-based solutions priority actions).
- 10 V.S.A. §§ 901–902 (public trust values; wildlife and habitat protection).
- 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (Clean Water Act § 404).
- Determining the Nutrient Retention Capacity of Newly Restored Wetlands in Southwestern Ontario
Appendix A
Jericho Center–Specific Impacts of Proposed Amendments to the Vermont Wetland Rules
(Executive Order No. 6-25)
I. Geographic and Planning Context
Jericho Center is a historic village center situated within a headwater landscape characterized by shallow soils, intermittent and perennial surface waters, and a high density of small wetlands, seeps, and seasonally saturated areas. These features are integral to the hydrology of the Browns River watershed and contribute disproportionately to local flood attenuation, groundwater recharge, and water quality protection.
Municipal planning documents recognize wetlands in and around Jericho Center as critical natural assets that support stormwater management, flood control, wildlife habitat (including vernal pool–dependent amphibians), and groundwater recharge for private drinking water wells.
II. Wetland Mapping Status in Jericho Center
A significant portion of wetlands within Jericho Center are currently unmapped on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory (VSWI), but have been identified through:
- Updated National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) aerial interpretation not yet incorporated into the VSWI;
- Field delineations associated with prior projects; and
- On-the-ground observations of seepage forests, forested basin swamps, and seasonally inundated soils.
As confirmed by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Wetlands Program, newly completed NWI mapping for Jericho Center has not yet been adopted into the VSWI and is therefore shown as “pending”. Until that update occurs, only wetlands appearing on the current VSWI map would be considered “mapped wetlands” under the proposed rules.
III. Regulatory Consequences Under the Proposed Rules
A. Loss of State Review for Unmapped Wetlands
If adopted, the proposed rules would allow residential housing projects in Jericho Center to proceed without a state wetland permit where impacts occur to unmapped wetlands, even when those wetlands perform Class II functions such as:
- Floodwater storage and flow attenuation;
- Groundwater recharge affecting private wells;
- Surface water protection for downstream waters;
- Wildlife habitat, including vernal pool complexes.
Because no state permit would be required, Section 5 functional criteria of the Vermont Wetland Rules would not be evaluated for these wetlands.
B. Inconsistent Application Based on Project Type
For the same unmapped wetland in Jericho Center:
- A residential housing project would not require a state wetland permit or functional evaluation.
- A non-residential project would still trigger state permitting and a full Section 5 functional analysis.
This inconsistency undermines predictable land-use planning and creates inequitable regulatory outcomes unrelated to wetland function or environmental risk.
IV. Flood Resilience and Infrastructure Risk
Jericho Center contains multiple small wetlands and seepage systems that moderate runoff from upland areas and reduce peak flows during storm events. Scientific consensus and Vermont legislative findings recognize that headwater and seasonal wetlands play an outsized role in flood mitigation relative to their size.
Reducing protections for these wetlands increases the likelihood of:
- Localized flooding of homes, roads, and culverts;
- Increased maintenance and replacement costs for municipal infrastructure;
- Downstream flood impacts that accumulate at the village scale.
These risks are magnified under current and projected climate conditions, which include more frequent extreme precipitation events.
V. Water Quality and Drinking Water Considerations
Many properties in and around Jericho Center rely on private wells. Wetlands and associated saturated soils provide filtration, nutrient uptake, and groundwater recharge that directly influence well water quality and quantity.
Allowing unreviewed impacts to unmapped wetlands increases the risk of:
- Sediment and nutrient loading to surface waters;
- Altered groundwater flow paths;
- Degradation of drinking water sources without prior assessment or mitigation.
VI. Biodiversity, Community Character, and Public Trust Values
Wetlands within Jericho Center support amphibians, birds, pollinators, and wetland-dependent plant communities that contribute to the village’s ecological and scenic character. Within developed areas, these wetlands serve as:
- Wildlife corridors connecting fragmented habitats;
- Refuge for species displaced by surrounding development;
- Some of the last remaining green spaces in the village landscape.
Loss or degradation of these wetlands represents a permanent reduction in public trust resources recognized by Vermont law.
VII. Mapping Versus Delineation: Scientific and Legal Concerns
Wetland mapping is an important planning tool but is not a substitute for in-field delineation, which evaluates hydric soils, hydrology, and vegetation in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
In Jericho Center, forest cover, steep slopes, and seasonal hydrology make certain wetlands—particularly seepage forests and forested basin swamps—difficult to detect via aerial imagery. Reliance on mapping alone therefore fails to capture the full extent and function of wetlands present.
Using mapping status as a regulatory threshold contradicts accepted wetland science and departs from Vermont’s long-standing function-based regulatory framework.
VIII. Cumulative Impacts and Long-Term Costs
While individual impacts to small wetlands in Jericho Center may appear limited, cumulative losses across the village and watershed reduce flood storage capacity, habitat connectivity, and water quality resilience. These impacts are incremental, difficult to reverse, and costly to address through engineered solutions.
The long-term financial burden of increased flooding, infrastructure damage, and water quality degradation will fall on the Town of Jericho and its residents, not solely on individual project applicants.
IX. Conclusion
In Jericho Center, the proposed amendments to the Vermont Wetland Rules would:
- Remove state oversight from ecologically functional but unmapped wetlands;
- Eliminate science-based evaluation of wetland functions for residential projects.
- Increase flood, water quality, and infrastructure risks;
- Create inconsistent and inequitable regulatory outcomes; and
- Undermine the statutory purposes of Vermont’s wetland protection framework.
For these reasons, the application of Executive Order No. 6-25 to Jericho Center is inconsistent with legislative intent, scientific understanding, and sound community planning.
By modifying zoning in village and commercial districts, Jericho is directly boosting housing supply, which is a better approach than changing wetland rules for this purpose.
Let's build houses on dry land; float boats, not houses.
Bernard Paquette
Jerihco, Vermont
Appendix B
- Impacts and science.
- Issues in implementing the rules.
- State what the changes mean in the area of the person writing the comment.
Under the proposed wetland rule amendments, *state wetland permits would only be required for Class II wetlands that appear on the current Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory (VSWI) maps.
Unmapped wetlands that function as Class II wetlands would not trigger state wetland permitting requirements for housing in designated growth areas such as downtowns, village centers, growth centers, Tier 1A/B zones, or areas eligible for interim Act 250 exemptions. In those areas, housing could proceed without a state wetland permit even if the land functions as a wetland but is not on the map. Seven Days+1
- The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Wetlands Program) does not have a timeline to map all wetlands in VT. The Program does not have the capacity and works on mapping when time allows. The maps are updated annually at a minimum.
- The precise location of actual wetland edges can only be determined by field delineation. Some wetland types are hard to detect with aerial imagery, like forested seeps. Aerial image-created maps are great for detecting wetland locations in general over a large landscape.
- Pending mapping is both aerial and field delineation. [The State] had contractors update the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for the whole state using the USFWS aerial interpretation methodology, and this mapping will be adopted into the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory (VSWI). The field delineations are primarily from delineations created for a property with a project that received a wetlands permit. We have over 100 of those to add, and those will have less coverage than the NWI work.
- If we have a confirmed on-the-ground delineation, we add them to the map when we have the capacity. The aerial mapping was a state-wide project that is wrapping up. Most map edits after this year will likely be from delineations.
Four bullets from communication with Laura Lapierre, PWS NHCWS | Wetlands Program Manager Vermont Agency of Natural Resources | Department of Environmental Conservation Watershed Management Division, Wetlands Program
[Unampped] Implication: This means that inside the specified designated areas, housing could be built on land that is ecologically a Class II wetland but unmapped without a state wetland permit. Federal wetland regulations (under Clean Water Act jurisdiction) may still apply; however, state rules would no longer require permitting for those unmapped Class II wetlands in these areas. Seven Days
Additionally, even for mapped Class II wetlands, the proposed changes would reduce the buffer zone from the statutory 50 feet to 25 feet in designated areas, meaning development could be closer to the edge of these wetlands than under current rules. Compass Vermont
2. Class III Wetlands
Class III wetlands are currently not classified as “significant wetlands” under Vermont law. They are not subject to the same permitting requirements as Class II or Class I under the existing and proposed rules. That means that housing could generally be permitted in Class III wetlands under state rules (absent specific local or federal wetland protections). Vermont Legislature
However, the key driver of regulatory review for the proposed rules is whether land is a mapped significant wetland (Class I or Class II on the VSWI), and the streamlining applies primarily to unmapped wetlands that, by function, are Class II.
Overall Summary:
In designated growth areas, housing could be constructed on land that functions as a Class II wetland if it is not currently mapped on the VSWI, meaning the state would not require a wetland permit for those unmapped Class II features. Seven Days
Mapped Class II wetlands remain regulated, but buffer protections are reduced in designated areas.Compass Vermont
Class III wetlands are not treated as significant wetlands and typically would not trigger state wetland permitting requirements. Vermont Legislature
Housing cannot be built in Class I wetlands under the proposed state rule changes.
Federal Clean Water Act requirements (Army Corps of Engineers) may still apply to wetlands regardless of state permitting changes, so builders would need to consider those requirements independently of state wetland rules. Compass Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Wetland and Water Resource Considerations in Jericho Center
According to the Jericho municipal planning documents, wetlands within the town — including those around centers like Jericho Center — perform important ecological functions such as:
Stormwater management and flood control
Groundwater recharge (important given reliance on private wells)
Habitat for amphibians and other species, including vernal pools
These local plans also note that many wetland areas in Jericho remain unmapped and may only be identified with on-the-ground delineation. Vermont Outside
Implication:
Under the proposed rules, unmapped wetlands that would normally trigger state review today could escape state permitting in designated growth areas. This raises concerns about loss of local wetland functions that are not yet documented on statewide maps, especially in a town with a significant amount of uncharted wetland area.
Modification areas highlighted in blue. Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory (VSWI) in solid green. Pending VSWI in hashmark green. Click on the State Interactive Map link for a larger view. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts to Jericho Center and Alignment with Vermont Law
Vermont’s Wetland Rules were adopted pursuant to legislative findings in 10 V.S.A. §§ 902 and 914, which recognize wetlands as essential to flood protection, water quality, wildlife habitat, and the public welfare. The proposed changes to the Wetland Rules undermine these findings and weaken science-based safeguards that are especially critical for village centers such as Jericho Center.
Flood Resilience and Public Safety
Jericho Center sits within a watershed where small, headwater, and seasonally inundated wetlands play an outsized role in slowing runoff and storing floodwaters. Scientific consensus—and Vermont law—recognize wetlands as natural infrastructure that reduce peak flood flows. Reducing wetland protections or buffers increases downstream flood risk to homes, roads, culverts, and historic village infrastructure. These costs are ultimately borne by municipalities and taxpayers, not project applicants.
Water Quality and Downstream Impacts
Wetlands in and around Jericho Center filter sediments, nutrients, and pollutants before they enter Browns River and downstream waters. Vermont’s phosphorus reduction obligations and clean water investments depend on maintaining these natural filtration systems. Allowing incremental wetland loss or disturbance directly contradicts the Legislature’s intent to protect surface waters for public use and ecological integrity.
Where is the economic impact review and statements from the rule changes?
Climate Change and Cumulative Effects
The proposed rule changes fail to account for climate-driven increases in extreme precipitation. Wetlands provide drought buffering, groundwater recharge, and carbon storage in organic soils. While individual wetland impacts may appear minor, cumulative losses across a watershed measurably reduce resilience. Vermont law explicitly directs consideration of cumulative impacts; weakening rules moves policy in the opposite direction.
Biodiversity and Community Character
Wetlands support amphibians, birds, pollinators, and plant communities that define the ecological and scenic character of Jericho Center. These public trust values—wildlife habitat, recreation, and sense of place—are explicitly recognized in statute and are not replaceable through mitigation alone.
Housing and Siting Considerations
Framing wetlands as barriers to housing misstates the problem. Development in or near wetlands increases long-term risk to residents, raises insurance and infrastructure costs, and exposes communities to repeated flood damage. Sound land-use planning directs growth to areas already served by infrastructure and away from flood-prone landscapes. Wetland protections support, rather than hinder, sustainable housing outcomes.
Implementation Concerns
Proposed reclassification, reduced buffers, and increased reliance on incomplete mapping will create uncertainty for landowners and municipalities. Jericho, like many towns, lacks the staff capacity to independently evaluate wetland function on a project-by-project basis. Clear, protective statewide standards are more efficient, equitable, and defensible.
Conclusion
Vermont’s Wetland Rules reflect decades of scientific understanding and clear legislative intent. Weakening them shifts long-term costs and risks onto communities like Jericho Center, while eroding flood protection, water quality, and public trust resources. I urge decision-makers to retain strong, science-based wetland protections consistent with Vermont law and the realities of a changing climate.
Q.&A. Could you please explain to me how an area in Jericho Center is both a VSWI wetlands and pending VSWI?
The Jericho Center has new NWI mapping completed that has not yet been added to the VSWI, so it is pending and shown as hatched in the map. The NWI mapping adds and subtracts mapping. In the edit to the VSWI, we will be removing all areas that were aerial interpreted as wetland and not on the new NWI, but retaining all delineated wetland mapping regardless of if it was picked up by the new NWI.
Until the VSWI is updated, the solid blue is what would be the “mapped wetland” in the proposed Rule. I’m not sure of the timing of if Jericho will be updated before the Rule is changed. So under the proposal, any wetland in the Jericho center that is not shown in the current VSWI map will not be regulated by the state as a wetland for housing projects. - Laura Lapierre, PWS NHCWS | Wetlands Program Manager
Q.&A. Hello Laura, does section 5 (listed below) get triggered on unmapped wetlands? If so, by what means or mechanism?
For example, there are unmapped wetlands in Jericho Center which presumably protect surface and ground water, including: Recharges a drinking water source, such as a well head or source protection area. Again, I am trying to understand if this changes under the new proposed rules.
SECTION 5: FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING A WETLAND'S SIGNIFICANCEIn evaluating whether any wetland is a Class II or a Class I wetland, the Secretary shall evaluate the functions that the wetland serves both as a discrete wetland and in conjunction with other wetlands by considering the following functional criteria. Consideration shall be given to the number of and/or extent to which protected functions and values are provided by a wetland or wetland complex.
No VT wetland permit would be required according to the proposed rule for a residential housing project proposed in the Jericho Center, and there are impacts to an unmapped wetland, meaning there would be no review of the functions of the wetland under section 5 of the Rule. If there were a non-residential project in the same area of Jericho Center and impacts were proposed for the unmapped wetland, the project would need to receive a permit, and Section 5 would be evaluated as part of permitting. - Laura Lapierre, PWS NHCWS | Wetlands Program Manager
Impacts and science.
Issues in implementing the rules.
I. Impacts and Scientific Basis of the Proposed Wetland Rule Changes
A. Regulatory Changes and Proposed Impacts
The Executive Order and proposed rule amendments would alter key components of Vermont’s wetland regulatory system as follows:
1. Limiting State Permitting to Mapped Wetlands
The proposal would require state wetland permitting only for wetlands currently shown on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory (VSWI).
Unmapped wetlands that currently function as Class II wetlands would no longer trigger state wetland permits in designated growth areas.
This differs from existing rule language, where wetlands with specific ecological functions (e.g., vernal pools, headwater wetlands) are treated as regulated Class II wetlands regardless of mapping status. Compass Vermont+1
2. Reduced Buffer Zones
The rules would reduce the standard Class II wetland buffer from at least 50 feet to 25 feet in designated growth areas, increasing permissible development closer to wetland edges. Vermont General Assembly
3. Elimination of State Mitigation Requirements
Within designated areas, the Executive Order would remove the requirement for state-level mitigation when certain wetland impacts occur (especially unmapped wetlands), which diverges from current mitigation and net gain statutory goals. Compass Vermont
B. Scientific Basis: Wetlands’ Functions and Ecological Importance
1. Hydrologic Regulation and Flood Mitigation
Wetlands store and slowly release stormwater, reducing peak flows that cause flooding. Scientific research consistently shows that loss of wetlands increases downstream flood risk.
Vermont’s recent flood events (e.g., July 2023 and July 2024) illustrate the costs of reduced landscape water storage; loss of wetlands exacerbates high-water impacts. Compass Vermont
2. Water Quality Protection
Wetlands act as natural filters for nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and sediments before they reach streams, lakes, and groundwater. Removal or disturbance of wetland soils can increase nutrient loads and degrade water bodies.
3. Habitat and Biodiversity
Wetlands support high ecological diversity and provide critical habitat for amphibians, waterfowl, and rare species. Many ecological functions depend on soil saturation, plant communities, and hydrology that cannot be replicated once filled.
4. Carbon Storage
Wetland soils are significant carbon sinks; loss of peatlands or other wet soils can release stored carbon, undermining climate-mitigation benefits.
5. Mapping Limitations
The VSWI maps were developed decades ago and are incomplete; modern remote sensing and ground truthing consistently reveal additional wetlands. Relying solely on legacy mapped wetlands ignores substantial functional wetland area. Vermont Business Magazine
II. Issues in Implementing the Proposed Rule Changes
A. Legal and Statutory Challenges
1. Conflict With Current Statutory Mandates (and therein legislative intent).
Vermont law (10 V.S.A. § 901) sets policy for wetland protection, including achieving a net gain of wetlands acreage and managing wetlands guided by science and for public benefit. Vermont General Assembly
Statutes also require annual updates to the VSWI and recognize unmapped wetlands as significant based on ecological function. Vermont General Assembly
The Executive Order contradicts statutory language that protects wetlands based on their ecological functions, not solely their mapping status. Vermont Natural Resources Council
2. Separation of Powers Concerns
Implementing weaker protections via executive order rather than legislation violates the separation of powers, bypassing the legislative role in setting environmental policy. Seven Days
3. Statutory “Net Gain” Policy
Vermont law (§ 918) directs rule amendments to prioritize wetland protection and provide net gain through restoration; allowing impacts without mitigation runs directly counter to this requirement. Justia
Vermont has lost nearly 50% of its historic wetland area, with regulated wetlands continuing to disappear at a rate of approximately 20 acres annually since 1995. - CompassVermont
B. Practical Implementation Challenges
1. Wetland Mapping Limitations
Because VSWI mapping is known to be incomplete and dynamic, relying on maps as the primary regulatory trigger could leave many ecological wetlands unregulated until maps are updated, creating inconsistency and uncertainty.
Four regions have not had VSWI mapping updates. CT watershed -the whole of the east side of VT, Memphremagog, Lamoille, and the south-western portion of Vermont.
The aerial mapping was a state-wide project that is wrapping up. Most map edits after this year will likely be from delineations. The agency may not have the capacity to map the current delineations any time soon.
The VSWI maps underestimate wetland boundaries and wetland area in general.
2. Enforcement and Administration
Reducing buffers and eliminating state review for unmapped wetlands could increase administrative complexity: professionals and regulators may need to verify whether a wetland is mapped before applying protections, requiring regular cross-referencing of updated maps.
3. Interplay With Federal Requirements
Even if state permitting is reduced, federal Clean Water Act (Section 404) and Army Corps regulations still apply to wetlands. Developers may still need costly federal permits, creating a multi-layered permitting environment rather than a streamlined one. Compass Vermont
4. Local Government Difficulties
Municipalities enforcing local bylaws may face confusion when state and local regulations diverge. A project permissible under state wetland rules could still violate local conservation standards or water quality bylaws.
5. Scientific Uncertainty
Scientific consensus emphasizes the cumulative landscape function of wetlands. Reducing protections in urban growth areas could incrementally reduce water storage capacity and habitat connectivity, with impacts that are difficult to monitor or reverse.
Where are the studies that support this change?
6. Legal Uncertainty
Because of potential constitutional and statutory challenges, developers and towns may face uncertainty about whether approvals granted under amended rules will withstand later legal or legislative changes. Compass Vermont
Summary
Potential Environmental Impacts
Increased risk of flood peaks and water quality degradation due to reduced wetland protections and reduced buffers.
Loss of habitat and ecological functions, especially for wetlands not captured on outdated maps.
Possible divergence from state “net gain” policy goals.
Implementation and Legal Issues
Conflict with statutory requirements to protect all significant wetlands and to pursue net gain.
Practical difficulties in enforcement and mapping-based regulation.
Complex interaction with federal wetlands law and local land use regulations.
Legal uncertainty from separation of powers and statutory conflict claims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony in Opposition to Executive Order No. 6-25
Proposed Changes to the Vermont Wetland Rules
Executive Order No. 6-25 undermines Vermont’s longstanding, science-based approach to wetland protection, circumvents the Legislature’s role in environmental policymaking, and risks significant and irreversible harm to wetlands that are essential to Vermont’s ecological health, climate resilience, and community well-being.
1. Wetlands Are Critical Public Infrastructure
Vermont’s wetlands are not expendable regulatory obstacles; they are vital natural infrastructure that provide irreplaceable public benefits, including:
- Flood attenuation and stormwater storage, reducing damage to downstream communities
- Water quality protection by filtering nutrients, sediments, and pollutants
- Groundwater recharge and drought resilience
- Habitat for pollinators, wildlife, and rare or threatened species
- Climate mitigation through carbon sequestration
Weakening wetland protections at a time when Vermont is experiencing more frequent flooding, extreme precipitation, and water quality challenges is inconsistent with both scientific evidence and recent lived experience.
2. Executive Order No. 6-25 Bypasses the Legislative and Public Process
The Vermont Wetland Rules were developed through a transparent, deliberative process that included scientific review, public input, and legislative oversight. Executive Order No. 6-25 attempts to rewrite core elements of those rules through executive action rather than statute or formal rulemaking initiated by the Agency of Natural Resources.
This approach:
- Erodes legislative authority over environmental policy
- Limits meaningful public participation
- Sets a troubling precedent for weakening environmental protections without adequate review
Policy changes of this magnitude should be debated openly by the Legislature, informed by expert testimony, and subject to full public scrutiny—not advanced through an executive order.
3. The Proposed Changes Increase Risk, Not Certainty
Proponents argue that the executive order will provide regulatory clarity or flexibility. In practice, weakening wetland protections creates greater long-term uncertainty by:
- Increasing flood risk and infrastructure damage costs borne by municipalities and taxpayers
- Creating an inconsistent application of protections across landscapes
- Shifting environmental and financial burdens onto downstream communities
Short-term development gains do not outweigh the long-term economic and ecological costs of wetland loss. Jericho has experienced the long term effects and cost from altering water flow (one example being the building up of Bolger Hill, which altered the surface and subsurface hydraulics.
4. Vermont Has Already Chosen a “No Net Loss” and “Net Gain” Path
Vermont has made deliberate policy choices to move toward no net loss and, where possible, net gain of wetlands. Executive Order No. 6-25 conflicts with this direction by facilitating increased wetland impacts without equivalent safeguards to ensure functional replacement.
Mitigation cannot reliably replicate the complex hydrology and ecological functions of intact wetlands, particularly at the local scale where flood protection and water quality benefits are realized.
5. Housing and Economic Goals Do Not Require Weakening Wetland Protections
Vermont can and must address housing needs without sacrificing core environmental protections. The framing of wetlands as barriers to housing is a false choice. Sustainable development strategies—such as redevelopment, infill, and smart growth—already provide pathways to increase housing while protecting natural resources.
Eroding wetland rules risks locking Vermont into higher future costs from flood recovery, water treatment, and habitat loss, ultimately undermining economic stability rather than supporting it.
6. Climate Change Demands Stronger, Not Weaker, Wetland Protections
As climate impacts intensify, wetlands are among Vermont’s most effective and cost-efficient climate adaptation tools. Rolling back protections now moves Vermont in the wrong direction at precisely the moment when resilience should be strengthened.
Executive Order No. 6-25 fails to account for the cumulative impacts of wetland loss under changing climate conditions and contradicts Vermont’s broader climate and resilience goals.
Conclusion
For these reasons, I urge decision-makers to reject Executive Order No. 6-25 and to reaffirm Vermont’s commitment to strong, science-based wetland protections developed through transparent, democratic processes.
Vermont’s wetlands protect our communities, our water, and our future. They should not be weakened by executive action.
Open questions:
- How do the proposed rule changes create a consistent application of protections across landscapes when some parts of the state have more wetland functions mapped than in other areas of the state?
- What mitigation process or equivalent safeguards will be put in place (as part of the proposed changes) to ensure functional replacement of wetland loss from housing built on unmapped wetlands?.
Addendum: Process, Science, and Policy Conflicts Created by Executive Order 6-25
Executive Order 6-25 undermines established regulatory processes, the role of science, climate resilience priorities, smart growth principles, and regulatory equity.
Undermining Science-Based Identification and Protection
Wetlands in Vermont support the highest levels of plant, animal, and rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species diversity of any habitat type in the state, in addition to their critical water quality and flood storage functions. Many of the most ecologically important wetlands—including hillside seeps, vernal pools, agricultural wetlands, and headwater wetlands—remain unmapped.
Within developed and village areas, wetlands serve as:
Wildlife corridors and connective habitat,
Refugia for species displaced by surrounding development,
Some of the last remaining green spaces in otherwise built environments,
Natural buffers that moderate heat, flooding, and stormwater.
The Executive Order elevates mapping as a regulatory trigger in a way that directly conflicts with wetland science. Mapping is not equivalent to in-field wetland delineation. Many wetlands in good ecological condition—particularly seepage forests and forested basin swamps—are difficult to detect at the scale and resolution used for statewide mapping efforts and are therefore underrepresented.
Forested wetlands in steep terrain, hillside seeps, and small headwater systems are not reliably captured by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) or legacy state mapping, yet these systems are among the most important for flood resilience and baseflow maintenance. Protecting only mapped wetlands ignores decades of scientific understanding and field practice.
Conflict With Established Delineation Standards
Wetlands in Vermont are identified using science-based, in-field delineation methods, including the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, which evaluates soils, hydrology, and vegetation. The Executive Order contradicts this foundational approach by prioritizing map presence over functional, site-specific determination.
This represents a direct contradiction of:
The science behind wetland identification,
The evaluation of wetland functions and values,
The principles underlying Vermont’s wetland protections.
Direct Conflict With Vermont Law (Act 121)
The Executive Order directly contradicts Act 121, which states that:
“The wetlands of the State shall be protected, regulated, and restored so that Vermont achieves a net gain of wetlands acreage,” and
“Regulation and management of the water resources of the State, including wetlands, should be guided by science, and authorized activities in wetlands should have a net environmental benefit to the State.”
By enabling impacts to functionally significant but unmapped wetlands and weakening avoidance and minimization standards, the Executive Order moves Vermont away from both net gain and science-guided management.
Inconsistency With Climate Resilience Priorities
The Executive Order is inconsistent with Vermont’s Resilience Implementation Strategy, which prioritizes:
Nature-based solutions,
Leveraging wetlands, floodplains, and upland forests to mitigate flooding,
Supporting biodiversity as part of climate adaptation.
Weakening wetland protections directly undermines these high-priority actions and increases long-term vulnerability to climate-driven flooding and hydrologic instability.
Contradiction of Smart Growth Principles
The Executive Order also contradicts the core principles of smart growth, which emphasize compact development while maintaining environmental protections to support long-term community resilience.
Once wetlands are filled or built upon, they are permanently lost—along with their flood storage capacity, water quality functions, biodiversity, and public benefits. Smart growth should be an intelligent, well-informed approach to development, balanced with the environmental resources communities rely upon. Smart growth should not be achieved through the compromise or loss of wetlands.
Regulatory Equity Concerns
Relying on incomplete mapping rather than functional delineation creates regulatory inequity, where protections depend on whether a wetland happened to be captured on a legacy map rather than its actual ecological value. This approach disadvantages communities with unmapped wetlands—often rural towns, hillside settlements, and village centers—while eroding consistent statewide standards.
Appropriate Use of Wetland Mapping
Wetland mapping is a valuable planning and screening tool, but it was never intended to replace field-based delineation or to serve as the sole determinant of regulatory protection. Using mapping as a gatekeeper for wetland protection misapplies the tool and contradicts both scientific practice and legislative intent.
_______________________________
- Protect & Preserve: Identify, protect, and restore wetlands and their critical values (flood control, water quality, wildlife habitat).
- No Net Loss/Net Gain: Achieve no net loss of wetland functions, with a goal for a net gain in acreage.
- Science-Based: Decisions and management are guided by scientific understanding, especially considering climate change impacts.
- Recent Focus (2023 Amendments & Climate Action):
- Improved Mapping: Enhance the Vermont Significant Wetlands Inventory (VSWI) for better identification and protection.
- Climate Resilience: Recognize wetlands as sponges for floods and filters for pollutants, crucial for climate adaptation.
- Strategic Adjustments: Recent rules (like 2023) clarify authority and streamline permitting for some development in growth areas (e.g., unmapped Class II wetlands, buffer reduction for housing), balancing protection with development needs.
- In essence, Vermont wants to manage its wetlands as vital natural infrastructure for flood resilience, clean water, and biodiversity, using updated science and mapping to balance protection with development goals, particularly in light of a changing climate, notes the Vermont Natural Resources Council and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (.gov).
- Statewide Groundwater Resource Maps and Studies
- Explore Vermont Geology
- USDA-NCSS soil survey data for locations throughout most of the U.S (from UCDAVIS)
- From Executive Order to Public Hearings: Vermont’s Wetland Changes Face Months of Debate
- Reimagining Rivers with Vermont River Conservancy
"Balancing Housing with Protecting Water Resources Requires Smart Approach" - ecoRI News (Highlights the necessity of thoughtful planning).
"We must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow." - Lyndon B. Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment