Land and Law
Putting Hope on the Ground: An Interview with Representative Amy Sheldon
A year ago, we interviewed Vermont Representative Amy Sheldon on the heels of the passage of Vermont’s landmark Community Resilience and Biodiversity Law, Act 59. A year later, thanks to the work of Sheldon and her committee, and many others, another important law was passed, Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection through Land Use, Act 181. This is an important update to Vermont’s Act 250, a 1970 law that many credit with making Vermont what it is today.
On a crisp October day, Amy and I hiked to a rocky ridge in the Green Mountain National Forest, where we talked about many things: from books we were reading, to wildflowers and mosses, to forest management, to the vagaries of environmental policy work.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Liz Thompson (LT): Thanks so much for taking time today. That was a great walk—it’s so good to be out here. A year ago, we talked to you about the recently passed Community Resilience and Biodiversity law, now known as Act 59. A year plus later, how are you feeling about its implementation?
Amy Sheldon (AS): Overall, I would say I’m feeling upbeat about its implementation. We have just recently received the first year report deliverable, the inventory of conserved lands, and we are gearing up for the second phase—the planning phase—which will engage more Vermonters in talking about the lands they care about and how they would like to see them used in the future.
We have had a little bit of a bump in the road with working through how to include agricultural lands in the 30x30 and 50x50 biodiversity goals that we set into statute with this act, and I think a portion of our next session will be taken up with understanding that issue a little bit better, and trying to address it head on. We thought we had made it clear in the statute, but it’s turning out not to be as clear as we had hoped. We may need to incorporate a fourth category of conserved land to include agricultural lands and set a separate goal for them.
And as you know, we have separate goals in New England for food resiliency, and I think it’s super important for us to make sure that as we’re headed toward these bigger visions, we count accurately the lands that are supporting biodiversity and the lands that are supporting food resilience. Those are separate, distinct land use types, and I think it’s important, especially as we’re getting started, to make sure we’re being accurate.
LT: So, where does the confusion come from?
AS: There are two things that I’ve heard—one is that a lot of the Vermont lands that we’ve conserved are farms, but many of those farms of course include more semi-natural land than cultivated land. And so then you get to a question of the data that we have and how well it is able to track different land use types within a parcel. That’s one aspect of the confusion. And then I think the other aspect of it is driven by a concern around limited resources and funding and priorities for conservation. It was always my intention, when we started to talk about this as a goal, to have it be separate—and have this process be a step towards the state of Vermont understanding that if we want to conserve biodiversity for future generations, we’re going to have to step up our investments in conservation. And now I think we’re also becoming aware of the fact that we may need to expand how we conserve lands. When we’re really talking about conserving a significant portion of the Vermont landscape, I’m not sure that our current land conservation models contemplate that, so now we need to reconsider it.
LT: What other modes of conservation are you thinking of?
AS: Increasingly, I’m pretty bullish on public ownership. We have, to some extent, pumped the brakes on that. I know that there have been some community conservation projects that have resulted in increased town forest, but as you know, there’s a lot of town forest in Vermont across a wide array of types of land and amounts of land, town by town. It’s probably fair to say every town in Vermont has a town forest. Or just about every town does, which is an incredible blessing, but we could build on that. I’m also thinking, you know…the legislature this session is going to be looking at increasing our capacity at the county level for shared services, and I think maybe a piece of that is exploring the best scale to be doing land conservation when considering public land ownership. What’s the best agency to hold it? And also in Vermont, we are blessed to have the Green Mountain National Forest, which we are sitting in right now, as a player. So we can look to the Forest Service to be doing a little more work in the parts of the state where that makes sense. I’m hopeful that with the public awareness increasing on the biodiversity challenges—and, obviously, the climate crisis—there will be support for more funding, and also different types of land ownership, including public lands.
Rocky Ridge in the Green Mountain National Forest, where this interview was conducted. Photo © Liz Thompson
LT: Going back to the agricultural land versus land that supports biological diversity—many would say that there are certain agricultural lands that do support some kinds of biodiversity. Is parsing that out part of what you’re thinking about? And is that a big data challenge? Or, what are the challenges with thinking about that?
AS: I think the challenge is that we just have to be really careful.
On the one end, there are agricultural practices that actually denude biodiversity, that are deleterious to it, and we certainly don’t want to include those in a biodiversity conservation goal or plan. On the other end of it, there is a whole body of research, and there are also practitioners/farmers who are striving to have agricultural practices that are both productive for food and support some level of biodiversity. I don’t think you’re ever going to find the biodiversity of an old forest on a managed pasture, but you could certainly see practices that are neutral towards other life or are supportive of certain species, which I think is what we are talking about.
Grassland birds come to mind for everyone, but there will be others. And this is really exciting. I actually went last year to a seminar at the agroecology program at UVM to learn more about it, and there is very cool stuff happening there.
“If we want to conserve biodiversity for future generations, we’re going to have to step up our investments in conservation.”
LT: Yes, some really good work is happening there, but I can see that having a fourth category and just taking a hard look at agricultural lands as a body of lands, and asking all those questions, and looking hard at them, makes so much sense. It’s simple in a sense. It creates a simplicity, and then also creates a pathway to answer some of those questions and just parse out what kinds of biodiversity might be supported by agricultural lands.
AS: And I think, again, we’ve tried to mirror the USGS major categories, and I think that’s their fourth category. So I would like to keep a separate goal for conserved lands that are feeding humans versus conserved lands that are providing habitat for all other life.
LT: Right.
Well, how about what happened in this past session with reforms to Vermont’s Act 250?
AS: This is a big step in the right direction! I’m super excited about it. I have been working on this for the last 10 years, the whole time I’ve been in the legislature. I would say I didn’t necessarily know that that’s what I came for—but it turns out, that’s what I came for. I got kind of lit up within the first couple of years thinking about the need for Act 250 reform. I was a district commissioner immediately prior to being in the legislature. Throughout my career I’ve been interested in land use and conservation planning, and environmental protection.
So [with this recent legislation] we made huge strides in moving Vermont land use regulation toward what we call “location-based jurisdiction,” as opposed to what we have now, which are arbitrary triggers that were meant to be used as sort of proxies for the scale of the impact of development. So the size of the parcel historically triggers Act 250; the number of units can trigger it. But we’re trying to move towards “location-based,” which means if a community has identified an area for growth and it makes environmental sense, then perhaps we don’t need to have Act 250 oversight to build more dense housing or more dense commercial developments in the walkable core area of our towns. And then also, at the other end of the spectrum, identifying those areas that are irreplaceable and shouldn’t be developed, or need site review at the state level to be sure that any development that happens on those types of parcels is sensitive to larger benefits that those parcels give society.
LT: So there’s some overlap there between the biodiversity law and the Act 250 reforms? “Synergy” is maybe a better word.
AS: Right. So, I even named it “Community Resilience And Biodiversity Protection Through Land Use.” And this next biennium, when we move on to renewable energy siting, we’re going to start with Vermont Conservation Design as the foundation for providing guidance to renewable energy developers on where to begin conversations about siting renewable energy projects.
LT: So—Part One, Part Two, Part Three! And Vermont Conservation Design underpins all of it, right? In some sense?
AS: That’s the intention here, to really get people to understand that our future depends on an intact and functioning landscape, for wildlife but also for human communities. For biodiversity reasons. For flood control reasons. For food resiliency. And for viable human communities. I think increasingly we’re aware of the fact that a certain density of human settlement is necessary for vibrant schools and vibrant communities. I have a vision that each county will have a viable economic hub. I live in Middlebury, and we’re the county seat, and I think if every county had a core community like that, and then secondary communities like we have with Vergennes and Bristol, which are pretty significant sized communities for Vermont still but not as big as Middlebury, and then we have some very vibrant, smaller communities throughout the rest of the county… It makes a lot of sense for land use but also for vibrant human communities.
“If we could rebalance the system and take care of the Earth the way that she’s taken care of us, we could solve a lot of our problems and continue to have economic progress while being better stewards of the natural world.”
LT: In the process of passing this most recent legislation [Act 250], what were some stumbling blocks, if you want to talk about them?
AS: What we call Tier 3, the identification of those environmentally sensitive areas that would need increased scrutiny, was the place we got the most pushback, in particular from the administration. I thought we would’ve been closer to being able to articulate what those resources are. And we did come down to a strong list of what they could be, but there was a lot of resistance to trying to define that through the legislation. So at the end of the day we didn’t do that, and we are setting up a professional board that will be tasked with overseeing rulemaking that will further articulate what those areas are. And we’re doing a lot more local and regional mapping and planning to get communities thinking about what those places are in their own towns.
Another challenge was the current pressure we’re feeling around the housing shortage and the perception that Act 250 is a burden to developing housing… You can tell l’m not convinced of that, but that’s certainly what folks think. And so, deciding what areas to exempt from housing development in the short term, while we are standing up the process for more robust planning to identify growth areas and conservation areas is a piece of the compromise. We did extend the growth areas and the time frame for exemptions for houses as part of this bill. Those are the two big challenges.
LT: I’m wondering, when Act 250 was originally passed, what the reaction was? Whether there was pushback? Whether there was fear? My sense is that over time people have come to hold this up as one of the most important pieces of legislation that ever happened in Vermont—it makes Vermont what it is. And I’m wondering if even with some of the pushback and questions with these new changes to the law, might we see into the future and might we see that the things that people object to now, they might be thankful for in the future?
AS: You know, one of the things that was most heartening about this very long, slow-motion conversation is that we were able to have the business community, in particular, stand with us on these changes. Increasingly people realize that there are a lot of reasons to value the Vermont landscape and environment, and at at the end of the day, we’re almost all here because we love it, and we know the risks that we face—and so I think there’ll be some tough conversations about maps and planning, and those are hard for people, but I think you’re right. That we’ll look back on this and be proud, and hopefully we can fulfill the vision of Vermont Conservation Design of conserving at least 80 percent of our species and maybe some that we don’t know yet because they’re migrating here due to climate change.
LT: You talked a little bit about the upcoming session, and I wonder if you could summarize what you see coming as the big efforts?
AS: Well, the big effort is actually going to be more oversight of progress on past legislation. Again, in the 10 years I’ve been in the legislature, we’ve done a lot. It’s time to check in on the bills that have been passed—so we’ll spend a fair amount of time asking “how’s that going?” or “What’s going on there?” There’s the Clean Water Act (Act 64), the Global Warming Solutions Act (Act 153), the Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection Act (Act 59), and now the revisions to Act 250… so there are a lot of things to check in on. I think that as part of those check-ins, there’ll be some statutory changes that are necessary. I don’t know if you’re familiar, but there was a petition to the EPA to have water quality enforcement move entirely to the Agency of Natural Resources. So we’ll be learning about that and then responding and providing any statutory support that’s needed to make those changes.
So we’re actually planning to tap the brakes a little on big changes, but I would say the renewable energy siting—we need to address that. We have created new ambitious goals for renewable energy in Vermont, and we want to be sure to be clear to developers about what we want that to look like as it rolls out. Those are the priorities that come to mind.
“I’m hopeful that with the public awareness increasing on the biodiversity challenges—and, obviously, the climate crisis—there will be support for more funding, and also different types of land ownership, including public lands.”
LT: I wanted to ask you one more question—just about how you personally function with this work in the legislature, and how you, with all of the stresses, the pushback, the conversations…how do you keep your head above water, keep your sanity, recharge your batteries, stay sane through it?
AS: Well, this summer I’ve had a chance to go to four different wildernesses in the Northeast, so that’s the primary way that I would say I renew myself. I went to the Wild River Wilderness in New Hampshire, and then I did the Nine Carries Route over in the Adirondacks. And then I did some sea-kayaking in Nova Scotia for a few days with friends, in the 100 Wild Islands. And most recently I went out to Killarney in Ontario. So…that’s how I do it. I need time in the wilderness to recharge.
But you’re here with me on my daily dog walk, which is the real way that I renew on a daily basis. My pal over here and I come out every day. She gets me out and keeps me grounded.
Chestnut oak. Photo © Liz Thompson
LT: And we’re sitting here in an oak forest on a bony ridge with several kinds of interesting oaks, including chestnut oaks, and some plants that are kind of uncommon. And huckleberries all around us. I can see how this is restorative for you, and also see how public land really does play into the whole picture in Vermont, and is important for everyone. I guess the final question I wanted to ask you is—what are your core values, and how do they play out in your work?
AS: We are in really challenging times that can sometimes be overwhelming. I believe that the answer to so many of our challenges today is reconnecting humans with nature. I’d say that’s my primary core value because, for me, as I noted, that is certainly how I ground myself and keep myself sane. And when I look at our social challenges, our environmental, biodiversity, climate, and clean water challenges, all of it—if we could rebalance the system and take care of the Earth the way that she’s taken care of us, we could solve a lot of our problems and continue to have economic progress while being better stewards of the natural world. It could be a win-win for everybody. It’s really the only way forward. But the way that I find my peace is that I know that nature’s got this. And right now we’re in a moment of deciding how much we’re going to be involved in the future. I have a deep commitment to service and I try to encourage others to serve—we need more people to be involved in every way they can be. Not everyone needs to be involved in the legislature, but people need to unplug and engage in their communities and roll up their sleeves and work on the issues that light the fire they’re most passionate about. So whether it’s housing the homeless, or creating safe amphibian crossings, there’s a lot for all of us to do right now.
LT: Is there anything else you want to say?
AS: No, that’s enough!... Thank you.
LT: Thank you so much, Amy.
Amy Sheldon and her companion Althea. Photo © Liz Thompson
We hiked back down the hill, enjoying the autumn day, wondering about a large clearcut that we passed, and still holding hope for a vibrant future for New England, and indeed, for the globe.
Amy Sheldon of Middlebury, Addison County, Vermont, holds a BA in economics from Middlebury College and an MS in Natural Resource Planning from the University of Vermont. She is a consulting Natural Resource Planner at Landslide Natural Resource Planning, Inc. Amy is also a Senior Faculty member at the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), based in Lander, Wyoming, and serves on the Middlebury Conservation Commission. She served on the Middlebury Planning Commission for 10 years, on the District 9 Environmental Board for Act 250, and on the Board of the Middlebury Area Land Trust before being elected to the Vermont House in 2014. She has served on the Fish, Wildlife and Water Committee; the Agriculture and Forestry Committee; and the Commerce and Economic Development Committee.