Okay, great, good morning everybody. I'll call our meeting to order, meeting of the Vermont Forest Carnation Sequestration Working Group. Our sixth meeting intended to be our last actual meeting and with the goal of having a plan at the end for completion of the deliverable of the required report. And I think I'll start by, we are all here present physically with Representative Bartholomew on the phone and here's the note from Jack Byrne Thank you for this, he's a high-ruth and working group members. Thank you for this latest edit, Ruth. It's very readable and clear in my estimation. It's hard to know how easy to understand it might be to a newcomer to the topic, but I tried to imagine such a reader and it seems to that it does a good job from that perspective as well, I suppose you meant it to me. Given our primary audience, I think it's a very good exploration of the topic with very useful responses to the questions we were asked to answer. I'm not going to be able to attend our final meeting today. I've been immersed in moving a major solar project through the town of Middlebury's process for approval, among other things, and I'm way behind on putting together a schedule for a month-long internship. I am running in January for five students and a host of instructors and experts. Apologies for having to miss the meeting. I understand that the major focus will be delving into our findings and recommendations to make sure we are all satisfied and agreement with them or to make clear where there were disagreements. I am sorry I won't be able to be there and hope that there is general consensus on our recommendations. If there's any need for my input on something specific that I can shed light on, do feel free to email or call, he provides his cell. It has been a great pleasure to work with you all and I look forward to seeing our recommendations play out in the coming session. Best for a great holiday and new year, Jack. Okay, that's Jack's story. And with that, let's do our normal kind of round of introductions who you are and what your role is. Michael Snyder, commissioner of Forest Parks and Recreation, chair as designee, Jarvis Working Group as designee to Secretary Moore. Senator Corey Parent, Franklin County, Alberg, member of the Senate National Resources Committee. And Mark Higley, representative from Lowell, representative of the East Memorial District. Robert Turner, self-employed district from Bristol and a technical representative of the state. Jim Shallow with the H Conservatives and with the town of Richmond and as like Robert Turner. Senator Ruth Hardy from the Addison District and a member of the Agriculture Committee. I'm Cecilia Dengs, I'm from the Rubenstein School at UVM. I'm also a representative of Richmond and I'm on the Technical Committee. I'm Steve Webster, I represent landowners on this. Excellent. I'll check the public land section chief for official land. Michael Washburn, director of land administration and recreation with Forest Parks and Recreation. Ellen Stakas, the opposite legislative council. We're either committee-assisted. Phil Huffman, director of government relations and policy for the Nature Conservancy. Cricketland from Warcraft. Welcome. Welcome all. And John, the phone. Yeah, John Barthal, I'm your representative. I'm from Heartland, also represented Windsor and West Windsor and I'm on the House Agriculture and Forestry Committee. Great, thanks again, John, for joining. We're happy to have you part of it. So next up would be just a quick member review of the proposed agenda that I put forward, trying to kind of frame up and I also added a little bit of a note in an email. I've heard from a couple of you that indicated that you thought that made sense. So just following here, everybody good with what's laid out for the agenda and our sort of stated goal of kind of quickly maybe thinking about what's in version six. I think many of us haven't been able to read it yet and maybe identify some way for follow-up but not really spend a lot of time on group editing of that threat. Instead, spend the most of our time in kind of an organized way, systematically moving through good findings and recommendations. So as I've attempted to lay that out here, everybody understand and it's everybody okay with that. I'm going to ask a question or offer an alternative. Yeah, everybody good? Super. Well then, one more sort of mechanistic thing would be to review and approve weekend minutes for our last meeting on the 19th. We'd sort of like to move for minutes. Thanks. Is there a second? I'll take it. Can I make a navigation? So once we have an emotional discussion, we have a coffee discussion. Any discussion? Okay. Just spelling my name right. So I was just concerned that my whole product, it is my name is spelled right there but in the minutes and on this, it should be C-E-C-I-L-I. C-E-C-I. We certainly want to get your name right. Like in the Simon and Carpenter songs. Most sincerely. Okay, thank you for that. Noted. I know, I know it's awesome. Okay, others? I wanted to clarify my response to Senator Webster that he asked the elevation of Burt Mountain and we're going to show 1,500 to 3,000 feet. And I checked this plane, it's actually 1,100 feet to 2,900 feet, so it inflated its elevation. So where the last sentence of that paragraph on the top of the second page, Mr. Shallow said it is between 1,100 and 2,900. Pretty good for that change. Any other discussion? Okay, all those in favor of approving the minutes as amended twice here, say hi. Hi. Any opposed? Say no. Great, thanks. The minutes are passed as amended. So, we'll dive in. And actually a little bit ahead of schedule which is always good. So I want to start with, anybody have a director focus to the, what's Ruth you called, version six, is that one? The latest one? Yeah. So, maybe I'd ask, since I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. Well, I'd start with, once again, I think reflecting the sentiments of all, thank you for being the chief editor and Wrangler and organizer and putting so much time into this and we're really grateful. Maybe I'd ask the first question is, could you maybe tell us what's different that we may not know about, fair enough? Yeah, so I sent you a version five very early in the morning on Tuesday and it wasn't Monday anymore. It was around the 30th, I really can't remember. She knows that a good time. Oh yeah, it was coming last. And so this, so I'm hoping that most of you had a chance to read version five. Okay, so version six, which I sent yesterday evening, the major change was that Robert had sent what was to have been section eight, but rather than, which was the sort of other section, but rather than creating another section for stuff that seemed like it was relevant to the body of the text rather than others, I incorporated it into the previous sections, mostly under the current status of carbon offset markets. So for example, if you look on page 11, there's the discussion of the basically five things that need to be addressed in a carbon offset project, baseline and additionality leakage, permanence and verification. So I incorporated into those explanations of those things the additional text that Robert sent, which was basically just expanding on why those are important, how carbon offset projects address those five things and responding to potential criticism of them not addressing them well enough, basically. So it seemed to me that it was relevant to this section where we had already discussed these topics. And I believe this section was originally authored by Robert and modified by Cecilia, perhaps. I can't remember the world, there's originally authored by me and Robert. There we go, okay, sorry, it's good. So I just added his stuff into that. So page 11 and mostly on page 11, but maybe believe it over to page 12, is where the major changes are from the version five. And again, it's just incorporating stuff that was already addressed, but addressing it more specifically. And then the other place where I made changes on page eight, I added Robert, we had talked about adding a paragraph or addressing the whole concept of double counting. So that was also in the text that Robert sent. So I actually added that into the finding section that, since we've discussed it quite a bit in the committee, so that's the paragraph, this sort of first full paragraph or second paragraph on page eight. And then added the last line. Basically saying that if we bring greater attention to the importance of protecting for us, that may be one of the best things that could come out of this committee. Other than that, I think, and I just got rid of section eight, which was the other section, it seemed unnecessary. I moved the members of the committee onto the front page so people might wonder who we were. So there's only really two appendices. One is the actual language that was in Act 83. So that's Appendix A. And then there's a bibliography which I called Appendix B. I debated about whether or not to actually leave the links and that bibliography belong ugly links, but I ended up doing it in case somebody is reading it on paper and needs the crazy links. So Cecilia in particular, you can check the bibliography and make sure that it meets standards. That would be helpful. I do have still a couple of questions about some citations, but those were the major changes. I did go back and reread it again and did a little bit of copy editing, mostly tightening up language in a few places, but it wasn't substantive changes. So those are the difference between version five and six. Okay. Thank you for watching us do that. Questions on that? So I'd start with maybe invite you, Robert. My question, I want to be, is it so you put all of Robert's stuff in or was some stuff that he offered in section eight that didn't get in anywhere? I shortened it, which is, yeah. Are you good? I don't think I have, I think so. I was looking for the double counting you addressed it elsewhere. Yeah. The one question I had was the project listing data that I sent you to get pulled in. All I referenced it in the section on the feasibility analysis for Levanta, New England. I... It's on Ryder there, somehow. Yeah, it's in... That's another new piece, right? Right, I didn't end up putting the table in. Okay, so it's on page 14. This was in version five also. So page 14, underneath the big table there, according to an analysis by the working group of projects registered on major carbon offset markets, over 1.1 million acres of forest land in the region are already part of carbon offset project enrollments.  I know it, you can't get something to format correctly and I finally was just like, forget it! Although I may have used a stronger word for that. So it's not in there because I couldn't get it to cut and paste. So what would be helpful is if you want to send me an actual, not a word version of it, but an image version of it that I can just cut and paste the full image with the source citation underneath. Then it would be easier for me to cut and paste and what I was gonna do was probably put it in an appendix. So just for the committee's benefit, that had a summarized listing. I went through all of the registries for all projects in the Northeastern states and I listed all of the acres and the credits issued and a number of projects. So it's basically a summary table and the ownership types. So the data are there. I don't know that we need to have it in the report. It could be appendix. It could be a summary table. Robert sent it to all of us at one point. So I know we all had a ton of emails, but it is interesting to see how much has already been placed in carbon offset projects. A lot in Maine, for example. That I think was the bulk of the acreage was Maine. So there is stuff that's already happened in New England. So I think maybe not all four of those tables. You send four tables or two tables and two pie charts, but maybe just one of them. I could put either in the text or in an appendixy if you could send it to me in a different format. That could be helpful. I suggest maybe hearing all that reference made to it in the text that it's in an appendix. Okay. I think it's good, helpful for context perspective. It just sort of frames up the reality. So it'd be helpful, but not, everyone good with the appendix idea? Yeah. Anything further, Robert? Okay, anybody else? Questions or comments about Ruth's moving of that stuff? The way she, we can enter. Can I just, a little bit more on draft five. I moved this explanation of forest carbon sequestration and storage up front right after the recommendations. And I just want to, for the record, I know that Commissioner Snyder asked us not to share the document with anyone besides the committees. I did actually have my daughter who was a freshman in college and a budding journalist and an excellent writer. So I had her read it just as a check on what, to Jack's point of whether it made sense to somebody who's not immersed in this stuff. And she suggested moving that up front because it explains what carbon sequestration and storage, got it, is, and it helped her understand that she was super confused until she got to that part and was like, oh, okay, now I get it more. And she also told me that stuff is super repetitive. And so she was like, please just cut out a lot of the repetition. So that's what I did in version five is cut out a lot of repetition. I moved things, I tried to think about it from the perspective of somebody who's smart but might not know all this stuff like you guys do. So I just wanted to come clean on the fact that I had my 18-year-old daughter read it. Yeah, I think that's great. And to be clear, what I said was in response to a suggestion that we share a draft with a select group of people. And that's what I keyed in on it. I didn't think that was proposetic. But that I further said that if an individual member wanted to talk with others to get kind of perspective to inform their take, I thought that was appropriate. So you did that. Okay, good. The one quote that she said, has any of you seen Hamilton in the room? Or no Hamilton? No. Hamilton, the musical. There's a quote in the debate between Jefferson and Hamilton, where Hamilton has come up with his financial plan, and Jefferson's slamming on it. Jefferson says, it's too many damn pages for any man to understand. And that's what she said. She's like, it's too long, mom. So I did try to shorten it and make it. So it is without the appendices, 30 pages. I had hoped for 20 pages, but counting down 10 more pages would be pretty hard. So anyway. Thank you. Steve? Yeah, you talked about different sections. So the only place where I see numbered sections are in your recommendations. So then you went and jumped into different pages that don't have numbers on them, other than page numbers. Oh, so the sections are not numbered, but there are headings, so summary of findings, the explanation of forest carbon sequestration storage. They're not numbered sections, but they are, they have old headings, so they're different sections of the report. Oh, in terms of my same section eight. So originally, these were numbered sections based on what the provisions in the law were saying, energy needed to be addressed, charged, blah, blah, blah. And so eight was the sort of other section. And since everything seemed so comprehensively addressed in the other seven charges, I didn't think we needed any other, we kind of covered all the bases in the other parts. So that's what I was talking about. I'll just mention, how do you use Stephen with a pH? Stephen with a pH, sure. And is that private forest landowner okay? And Robert, I didn't know what to call you, independent forestry consultant. Is that good or is he wanting something else? Sure. Stephen, you're also, you're appointed by the governor, you're the governor's appointee, right? That's true. So I would say appointee of the governor. Is that? In statute, the appointee is a private landowner appointed by the governor of the state of Ohio. So I think. Should we have that for everybody or just Stephen? Well, we weren't appointed by the governor. No, but the other people were appointed by the Senate or the House. Right. I think we'll, you know, just follow the transparency. I don't know who was appointed by who. We were sent, it's in the bill. I just think that way. You took Robert and Jim, the Senate. It is in the, we can look at the, it's in the bill language itself that says. No, I know the bill language, but I don't know who. I'll tell you who they are. Okay. And I don't need a doctor and a PhD, it's like one or the other. I'm not sure. Maybe the PhD. Okay. The doctor. Some medical doctors don't like PhDs at the time. Yeah. I can't rest through anyone on an airplane. Well, if they have a force problem. That's true. If they have a force problem. Yeah. On the one hand. Other questions on the changes that Ruth wants to say? You've got a general question. About these changes? Well, I just wondered if there would be an executive summary in addition to the report. The summary of findings was sort of, I, Can I get nations of findings together? Yeah. That was, but if we wanted an even shorter one, I could probably come up with an even shorter one. You'll probably understand where points will be made and with what emphasis. So I can read it with that in mind. So, would a table of contents help, too? Not necessarily. Or more stuff, Hennie. Yeah, I mean, I'll just have to read it again. I don't know if that's appropriate now or maybe later in the agenda that we can talk about. Well, I would like to know from the whole committee whether they want an executive summary or a table of contents because I'm not going to do it unless you want it. Sure, maybe sign that once we've been through more. Yeah. I don't think we need a table of contents. Okay, yeah, it's only that. But it is very traditional, I think, in these to have kind of the executive summary. So I think, I'll go so far as to say, if we can, we should have that basic summary that kind of takes the topic sentence from everything throughout because it says, here's what we covered in this report. Okay, so would that come before the introduction? Okay. Traditionally anyway, that's where those go. Okay. It's the two-page version of the whole thing that just said, what's in here, basically? Two pages. Well, a page, at a 30, it would be, I don't, I'm not putting the page limit on it. I'm saying, I was trying to say, like, I really should have something. No, I was going to say, like, two paragraphs. If you get it. And it's an S. You don't pay for that, Eric. All right, I'm going to do two paragraphs. Mark and I are on board with two paragraphs. I'm going to say that to you. If you can cover it, that's great. That's the point of it, is to just kind of really, just get the salient points of what was done and what was done. Okay. And may I suggest that before we leave today, we brainstorm an outline for those, just so we have consensus around the points that could be the A's in there. Right. It's usually the last thing done, because it's to reflect what we've all agreed to throughout when you say, all right. And so that's fair. I think we would try to have that agreement. We want the larger agreement on the whole thing. And that shouldn't come before that should lead to agreement on what is in the executive system. Yeah. And then again, I don't want to be, I'm clear about my motives here, but there's, there are a couple of things that, well, for instance, the fact that this is really driven by this idea of p of course is forced, that isn't as prominent a statement in what I'm reading now as I'd like to see it. Right. Just in terms of those kinds of things, how the front is kind of on the head. There's a lot of stuff in here, but a few of these things. I can also add that in this paragraph on page eight, is where that summary paragraph, I can reiterate it. I mean, it's said multiple times throughout the document, but I think it's important that we all take a joint look at the executive summary because that's all some people will read. So for my students, their abstract, that has to be golden, you know, even if the rest of the article has some experience. It's an opportunity. Right. So that'll be our goal is to have, they have an executive summary that accurately summarizes the findings, et cetera, and that we will come to agreement on that. And that's probably the last thing to get to Mark. Well, if we're still on this subject again on page eight, I think that last sentence kind of addresses what Bob was talking about, you know, the discussion and the information about having offset the project leads to the public determination and policies to better protect forest and the barn. This could be the greatest benefit of this working groups endeavor. Doesn't that address your concern? Again, this is not my decision, but. You want something stronger? I mean, so I guess what I'm reflecting on is some of the conversations I've had in general with my colleagues over the last few weeks about this. And it seems like that's a topic that's coming up is that we have, we'll be good to understand that anything that we're trying to do really has this overarching goal. It's not about, it's less about the programmatic stuff, but more about whatever ways we can find to do this, this particular. Fair enough. Am I hearing that? How about this idea, just to get going here, like in that statement and the introduction, I guess, where it says what the charge with the legislation said and what we do, we could finish that with we interpret this to me and include that driver right there. That's where, this is where we interpret, we talked to a, what was the point of doing this? Why don't they ask, what's the interest? And if we agree that it's really driven at a large level, it's like keep forest forest, provide what they provide, then let's say that's how we approach this work. And we can just say it. In the executive summary or the introduction, where it's all. It would be all the introduction. And then the executive summary would have to reflect that on itself, given its importance. So to finish the part where we describe like what our legislative charge is, where the statement of we interpret this charge to include the following. That's certainly one. And then we talked about, well, we're approaching this. Remember, we said, well, this is about climate change. It doesn't even say it, like we're interpreting that. This is our main force for us to mitigate atmospheric CO2 and to, you know, maintain climate resilience, et cetera. That's how we approached it, and we discussed that. Yeah, I think it's important if you make that statement about keeping force and support, we also tie that to the fact that we also want to have our force forward. Right, there you go. Okay. We're asking that okay, Ruth? Yep, I'll put it in all three places. Okay, in bold. In bold. And in fun. Exactly. In fun sales. Can I ask one question? Cecilia will help me with some of the citations that I'm still missing, but one for the group is that we, and Michael pointed this out, and I see that we did this in, I think, three or four different places, is the minimum number of acreage for a successful carbon offset project. In one place we say 1,000, in one place we say 1,500, in one place we say 2,500. So I feel like we need to have one. For example, it's 3,000. Well, the Middlebury College example is 2,400. And so, what is it, what do you want me to use? I think we should use the same one in each place. Pausing here just a moment, just an appointed process. So, to be clear, what we're doing right now is we started by talking about the current draft and we want to minimize that, right? We began with Senator Hardy explaining what changes she's made, and now we're into Senator Hardy, I think we've exhausted that. Everyone's good with talking about those changes, right? I have one question. All right, so before we move on to other things that you wanted us to point, that's a good question. That was the only thing, I mean, the, the related issue. Okay, go ahead, Cecilia. So you sent out this notice Tuesday night saying, thank you for everything, yada, yada, yada, well, I'm still working on it, I think one hour later, and I was looking for some of the changes and didn't find all of them and realized, of course you're just one person. And one of the questions was about this, I was changing that to, at least my section, on the order of thousands of acres, is the way I phrase it, rather than a thousand acres. So my short answer question was, were you able to integrate my changes or were it like two, eight? No, I was. So I got changes from six of you, so you might not see all of the changes as you worded them, because I know. Yeah, well, some of them I was correcting, there was a fact, and so if you did that, you might not have, I can send them to you. Well, there is a fact I definitely want to hear from you, but in terms of the wording, and in terms of the, maybe, your, piece of it. Yeah, I moved some things around, I tried to, if there were conflicting changes, I tried to come to some kind of middle ground on what one of you said versus the other, and I also, I mean, I had, because of the way I asked you to send me changes, which I would do differently next time, I had seven documents open at the same time, so I was like, okay, what did Cecilia say on this? What did Robert say on this? What did Jim say on this? What did Jack say on this? What did Michael say on this? And then thank you, Mark, for just giving me something easy to think about. I did that, and so it was, so you might not see the changes exactly. And then it broke mine, I just wanted to make sure you got that. Then I did it differently. And I totally trust your judgment, deciding what's right. Well, I mean, hopefully, but if there's a fact, I definitely want corrected in here, and the one that I picked up on was the acreage thing, and there may be others, so please let me know about those. Which is not really a fact. I mean, that's part of the problem. Right, right, exactly. So we'll talk about that next. Okay, all right. You know, again, I just want to frame, reframe, make sure we're interested in what we're doing. We're still in the, Senator Hardy's walking us through changes, and maybe things that she's asking us for. Which then I think next would be kind of a broadening to, okay, anything else from anybody about the document? And then we move on to really focusing on, it's also in the document, but the findings and recommendations. We go to that, I'm just going to try to keep us straight. So. I can point out a couple of other things that I changed. Please do. I think that's a good plan. Okay, so the Middlebury College, and Jack's not here, but on page 15, Jack gave a great summary of the Middlebury College project. I did shorten it. He had the exact wording of the easement, which was nice, but it was long, so I just mentioned the easement and cut that section down. At Cecilia's suggestion, so here's an example of a suggestion you made that I definitely did, was I moved the information about the, was it the, the mid-Atlantic stage project that this TNC is doing? Oh yeah. I moved that into the states section and shortened it down a lot because you're right, it did sound just like an infomercial for their project and I shortened it and put it into less infomercial-level wording. And so that's in that section about, that your section about other states projects. Right, and that was mostly because the way the charge was written is like, what are other states and organizations doing to help private landowners engage? So it wasn't an example, what's going on in New England, it was really fit into that, what are the other organizations doing? I definitely agree. So in 2019, you'll see that as the last paragraph before the case for offset projects in Vermont, is that, it's the Nature Conservancy Woodlands, Working Woodlands Program, so I moved that there. You had suggested a citation, I think, maybe, and I don't know what, I didn't know exactly where it came from, so if you think it needs to be cited, we could just think of their website, because basically it looked like a chunk of the website was cut and pasted and put in here, and I was like, we shouldn't have to play you as someone else, we at least acknowledge it, so. Okay, so if you could let me know, where that came from, because it wasn't clear to me. Yeah. And just so you know, you probably picked up on this, but I tried to have the direct links in the text, but also the sort of citation so that people can look at the full, the bibliography citation at the end. So should we be checking that the citation impacts the things at the top? If you, if someone would be willing to do that, yeah, I tried to get them all, but that was mass attained, so that's why you're bratting the two bibliographies. Yeah, if you can check those. And I added, also in the bibliography, each of the three major, the links to the websites of each of the three major markets, the ARC, the VCS, and that word, and what are the other ones is? C-A-R. C-A-R, yeah. And also the legislation, the California legislation, things like that. So, and the C-A-R-B projects and compliance websites are also in there. Other major changes I mean, in draft five that were at your suggestions. It's the only major one I made that wasn't suggested by all of you, which is the one that's moving the explanation of carbon up front. Which works, I think. Yeah, I thought that works, too. And the acreage special. Should we talk about that then, next? Sure. So, as Robert says, it's not a fact. That's why it's a problem. So, we, in there, you've got 2,400, you've got a succession of 3,000. So, Cecilia's noting it as on the order of or right there being a range of, what was that? One of the sections, like the first time it shows up, I originally wrote at least 1,000 or 20 or something else. 1,000 or more acres in the Northeast region. And then I looked at all the projects and what size they were. They were usually over 2,000, but it really depends. And even that didn't cut it for one market. So, I put it on the order of thousands of acres. I thought was my edit, but maybe I didn't do that. Well, I may not have taken that edit because it was going to be the record. It's still going to be different things. So, I was trying to get the consensus that this was what we want to say. That's my proposal. Other people who've actually looked at this are closer, like you guys. Ours would be, from the agency, would be 2,500, I think, as a, but I would be very open to saying on the order of, because that seems to capture the range. Because what we have here is two bills that suggest 1,000, 2,500, and on the order of thousands. So, order of thousands, it is consistent with all of those. Jeff? I'm comfortable with order of thousands. And when I saw this, I was, you know, at today's prices. Yes. It's a little bit hard.  Everybody, I like that, myself. Everybody else got it? Anybody not good with it? I mean, I think just for the benefit of the committee, the reason is so hard to pin down is because most of these estimates are coming from developers.  Because they can't make any money out of anything else. And yet, we have this other company that's now trying to break open this small end-order market and doing projects from 50 to 500 acres. So, it's just really hard. And it's the economic exchange and that. You know, I think it's, I don't feel bad about having different estimates as long as they're sort of cited from a different place or a generalization either goes unperfectly fine. It just points to the fact that we can't take these benchmarks as, right, that's the real, that's a helpful thing to make clear. So at today's prices and whether market conditions, it's a range and it's on the order of thousands. Okay, and I can say however, this may change as market conditions change. Fair enough. Yes, that's great. Does that cover the threshold question? Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we're consistent. Also, because the one project that's actually selling credits in Vermont is 2,400 acres. It seems weird that we wouldn't acknowledge that. That's a successful project and it's 2,400 acres. And I love the table. That's that Jack put in there. It's a really good illustration of how much money we're talking about. Thank you. Any further group that you'd like us to? I think that, oh, well on page, the bottom of page 14, and this is a question for Jim. The project being developed by Blue Source and Commercial Contracts and Carbon Development Project. Oh, Blue Source is developing the project in exchange for a percentage of the carbon credits developed. And Michael had a question of what that percentage was or if you can give an indication of the amount, you can't, you're not allowed to. That needs to be just made known. We can't just be invasive about it. We can't, it has to be explained, I think. So you can't just say a poor percentage of that whatever. Well, as we would say, but I think it's important. It's a really important question that people will ask and I don't want them to think we didn't ask. Maybe a confidential percentage from the negotiated percentage. Just trying to be transparent and that shouldn't be zero. Yes, we accept that.  So he put in 10 bucks just to make it easy, but that's not the actual price. And I think we say a lot of these are proprietary negotiations in more than one place. So it's just reality. I just want to flag it as such and that we thought of it, asked, and this is what we're conveying. Good pass for law instead of figure. Well, those are private, they're private contracts. Yeah. Okay. Further? I think the other questions are citations. So. Okay. I think that's it. I must see all the questions. I'm trying. You just emailed me a link for the little citations. Oh, great. Okay. Okay. I'll link that so I know that. Did anybody find errors or anything? I mean, sincerely, it sounds like you may have. So I do want, I don't want us to print something that's wrong, so please let me know if there are errors. So let's then move into a discussion, a broader discussion of the draft before us. Let's just pick up on what we've just said. Okay. I went through because I've edited stuff too. So I picked up a lot of little errors about conjunctions, missing and things like that. It's not worth a discussion here, but I can hand you a draft mark. That would be wonderful. Yeah, thank you. And you can see whether you care to change it or not. Like a copy edited version, is that what you mean? Right. Yeah, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Please do say thanks, but I'll probably send it to you. You can email it to me, that would be great. Yeah, thanks. I would invite now like a relatively short conversation as needed to just kind of talk about what the draft was in it, not wordsmithing, and maybe zooming out. How do we deal with subsequent changes that might be beyond the copy edited set Steve will offer you that anyone might do as we work through the latest version? I'm not sure what to suggest here. Do you really want to try to come to a agreement today? I think that's going to clearly be sort of conditioned. I will trust Bruce to go make the changes. We just talked about that kind of thing. I'm hoping we can still do that and have a conditional kind of approval or consensus. How do we get there? Given that we really want to focus on the findings and recommendations for the body at this time. I know just quickly glancing at a couple of things. There's a couple of places where, well, I guess I would just say respectfully, I'm not quite satisfied. So how do I convey that? In the findings and recommendations or elsewhere? Elsewhere, that's what I mean is more the elsewhere stuff, the background stuff. So I'm not sure how to do that. Especially since we don't want to get all loud around that accent. Mark, you look like you're trying to say something, please. Yeah, if you want, I can start it off. First, it was a word change and I appreciate that we took it into account talking about Shao. It's a pretty strong language. Recommendations coming from the committee. The other thing that I mentioned too, this is in the recommendations. So it's basically in number two of the recommendations. At first, we talked about the Agency of Natural Resources analyzing the feasibility of developing the forest carbon offset project and enrolling at least one parcel of state land into the carbon market by 2020. I guess in all our discussions, you might have never heard about a deadline for the Agency of Natural Resources to implement. As a person at the agency, I appreciate your care and attention to that. I'm just going to suggest for now that that's what we're going to get to. That's a recommendation, and I'm saying, let's just talk about the body of the report. So basically from page nine on it, right? First, that's kind of the background that informs the recommendations in place. So Mark, we will come back to that question. I just think we want to make sure we've gone through and really, if nothing else, have a kind of a clear understanding of each other, but how, if at all, to make any subsequent changes to this thing beyond handing, you know, misplaced modifiers and gangings, arts and stuff like that. That's the truth, right? So help me, folks. And Mark, do you accept that? I mean, I'm not redirecting from it. We're going to get to that. That's really the bulk of the meeting is to talk about stuff like that. But it's preceded and informed by, that is the section on findings and recommendations. Well, all this good work that we've been putting here is still down. It's like, here's what's going on out there. From that, we make these recommendations. Before we jump to that, I'm just saying, I know there's a couple of things that you guys have already seen just scanning through, that I'm like, well, I'd like to talk about that and advocate for a change that's beyond grammar and usage and stuff. So how should we do that? Can we do this, I guess, just spend a little time talking about it, and then, I don't know how much to expect, is do others have any issues, minor or major, with the body?  I'm just going to have a comment. It seems like the critical thing that we do as a group is to agree on the findings and recommendations. We might want to just dive into those first and then revisit the others. But we also may want to have a plan, since not all of us have read every single word, plan four, how to submit minor edits. So we want to break it into major edits of substance that you're talking to, and minor edits, we can decide as a group. We're not going to do minor edits as a group. But we will, and it would just be my recommendation to make a plan for that, maybe jump right into findings, unless she thinks, no, I know that's back in my head, I know. We're looking for it. There's just other thoughts, and then frankly, I'd like to just, for my part, I think that's leaning in that direction. So, any others, I'm like, how should we skin this? What would be helpful for me is, if you have minor edits, you can send them to me like Steve will, and you can just trust that I'm gonna do the minor edits. If there are major things I'd like to leave today, knowing what they are to change that we all agreed on, so I don't feel like I need to check in or make those decisions, that's too hard. And then I also will say, I am not going to work on this again until after Christmas, because I need a break. And so, whatever you tell me today, I promise I will do, it's just not gonna be in the next week. I think we can speak now if you disagree, but I'd say we can agree that those sort of minor edits will go directly to you, and we don't do that collectively. Yeah, and everybody good? So, so-called major edits, or bigger things, how about I'll just, if anyone wants to jump in, it's flatly, but hearing this, what I might suggest now is that we take Cecilia's advice here, suggestion, and we say we are going to have a little time here today to flag what might be major edits, to discuss and decide if they are. And if we agree they should happen and so what. And we'll submit a plot. We'll actually start with, as planned, the recommendation to flag it, because that's really the main part. And so we'll plan to come back to the body of the report and really hone in right now, hone in on the findings and recommendations. Robert? Just a question. Sure. If your edit affects the findings or recommendations, then I think we should flag it, and even if we don't dive into it completely, at least we should know that it's relevant to the right. That's why I started with let's do the background, but I'm liking this, and I think it's really important. So I might hybridize here and say, for my part, I think in looking through the recommendations and findings, when we do that, I'll be able to say, well, this speaks to something that is in the report that I have a problem with or whatever, or a question about. So, would that be robust enough? Yeah? Yeah, but you could keep a right list of major edits and then after lunch, we're going to have to look at more. Super. All right, everybody good? I've been to Rwanda, and I just met a car. Yeah. There's a cabin tour. I put a break on here. I'm not trying to tell you. We're arguing. OK. OK, everybody good? Sorry, we're talking about refugees. So I think we are, and then we're going to, I have to make a note that we're coming back to those other things, and let's flag them as we can as they arise as we go through this. So maybe I suggest we start with findings. They've got to come first, right? Or we should work fully backwards for recommendations. That's a tone I wasn't hoping to hear from. Yeah, it's like I'm going to vote. We're just going to light it up a little bit more. I mean, that house is loaded. Yeah. So, good practice. Check it out. I'm interested to watch the two of you switch. It's like time was done. I'm going to suggest we go to page five, and we begin with a discussion of the findings that's presented here. The summary of findings begins partly down page five. Most of this was written by Cecilia, and then heavily edited by. So you would send me that outline, and then I sort of made it into findings, and then pulled in other things. So maybe you should start with that. It's yours, mostly yours. I start? I don't know that I have to do anything. I don't know the process. Are we just going to go through paragraph by paragraph if people agree, or overall is anything? It's only two pages. Kind of going over the idea that it's pretty short, so that I think it's probably worth each of us, like we just walk through and start, like you say, paragraph by paragraph, and just pause and say anybody have a question, a comment, a clarification, or a suggestion? Anyone want to do that? How's that? Sure. Okay. That being it. So long-stream markets are not private entities. They're still the first paragraph. I'm trying to find one that's not there. Long-stream markets are created when private entities, such as businesses, organizations, and individuals, choose to purchase offsets to help achieve some of their reductions in greenhouse gases needed to meet their own climate goals. So it's a little bit worrier than this. It's not achieving your short control. I think it's important, because the markets aren't really entities. And I think we need to say upfront that you can't just offset your way out of a climate criminal, that it's really part of a broader approach to reducing emissions. I think it should be right at the end. It is at the end. Right, right, but this is the first paragraph of the findings, and I think it's worth it. I love the ending paragraph. So that would just be a friendly edit that adds. I think have been created. It's not like they are created just because somebody wants to drink this. They already exist. Yeah, I was just trying to... It says are private entities. I'm like, no, they are created by private entities, but we could say have been created by private entities. And then I had comments such as businesses, organizations, and individuals. Oh, I said have been, aren't created when may, so it changed the birth. This is the one I have. This sentence here starts here. So anything's new? Okay, well, I'm just going to make a note to see. I still have this, so I'll sit. And again, the main thing there is to say that they're just harder in effort. Okay. We'll take it from your wording on that. Unless people have objections. I'm good with it. Everybody good with it? It's fine. So, we're going to paragraph one. You might know, Robert, we might put bearer. I think the way I phrase it was bearer, and then maybe I didn't. And then in parentheses, formerly verified carbon standard or BCS. Is that more appropriate than calling it bearer, verified carbon standard? Because right now they're just bearer. Well, their website is both, actually. I checked their website and they still call themselves the standard is BCS. Exactly. The organization is bearer. Right. So, I sort of did both. Well, I have a recommendation about how I think they're doing it because they used to be the voluntary carbon standard that was by their BCS when they changed it to verify carbon standard, and that's too boring when they changed it to bearer. But they still use the BCS. So, I would suggest an edit for that. I mean, I'm feeling a lot of, a lot of our consternation about these details is just going to be so people, most people will need to pay for it. And I think accuracy is important, but it's also not a published academic paper where we have to worry about it. I just don't want them to think we don't know what we're talking about. Somebody who does know carbon markets is like... That's why I couldn't buy them. They're really good. The ones that I thought about when looking at this was whether we just say bearer, aka, verified carbon standard. So it's also known to verify carbon standard, right? Right. Whether that gets... Yeah. But I agree with Robert. Okay. All right. We can just come up with an edit for that. So we have a proposed edit for section, for paragraph one. Moving to paragraph two, any questions? My mind was just, is approximately $14 per metric done? Can we do better than approximate? Why is it approximate? Again, it's an auction. Just wanted to be the most helpful statement we can make. And I guess that's it. Okay. I will stand there on that. Anything else on paragraph two? Then we're moving to paragraph three, given the strict protocols. Actually, to go back to that 14, because we're saying the price in 2019 could be, say, the average price of that year. And get to that because an approximate is different, right? Right. The trade approximately, trade's offensive is mean, it's not worth it. We have no data. That would be a shame. It's a rule thumb that if you're in negotiation with somebody who's buying your credits, that is going to be somewhat pinned because of the price of allowances, and people say 80%, so allowances change, offsets change. Okay. And we're relying on these technical experts for just that kind of guidance, I guess. Other than having to explain all that, I don't see how we do anything else. You good, Cora? Yep. Great. Okay. Anything from the next paragraph that begins, given the strict protocols of the California compliance party? I don't know if I'd like the word stricter. What would you prefer? I don't know. It's something about, there are specific aspects of their climate of it. And maybe it's stricter, but it's just that they, you know, they're the baseline difference that you may have this hundred year requirement, which you might say is stricter, but I'd like to put it in a different category because I think other standards can be rigorous, and I don't want them to think some are more rigorous than others. So it's not like it's a step down and all the ways you are, it's like they're just different. I think we need to characterize what it is, given the different protocols, for example, as an alternative stricter, it doesn't really, it's not a very strong sentence to then say, it is not likely. You know, given that they're different, it is, we need to say, what about their difference makes it unlikely or less good for them? Exactly. And I think we, in order to make this shorter, I think it ended up losing some of that. Yeah. And it's repeated over and over again over the rest of the document. But this is the finding. Yeah. So what do we want to do? It's going to be anywhere. I would just call it stricter, though, because what I was trying to say in the paragraph before, given that we're reducing it, it's only percent and half, and they have to be in adjacent states, that's one reason why Vermont isn't going to do as well in that market. Another reason, and we've said it over and over, I actually moved it out of the interest of the beginning, or moved it a little bit, is the timeframe of 40 versus 100 years. And the other thing is how they calculate baseline. Those are things, right? At the risk of adding a few words, we say given the different, the protocols being different, including things that, and then just kind of this list, including timeframe, base difference in baseline, whatever, just kind of a quick including. Legislatively, I understand that there's lots of wiggle room that there's other possibilities. So can we just say something like given the differences that include some, you know, insert lists to say, this would not be the best fit? I'm actually okay with stricter. All right. Because they are? Because they are. And is that why it would be less? I mean, they're not just stricter, but it's not an untrue statement. I mean, we get a lot more scrutiny on the ARB projects than we do on the BCM. We have to defend a lot more on the ARB than we do their stricter, in my opinion. But it's also those other things which may not be technically strict like the baseline. But I think that the time is uncomfortable with it. I don't know what other people would read in that. I thought it made sense based on what I learned from all of you that the compliance market is stricter and that's why the prices are higher in general. And that repeating the stuff over and over and over again makes it really difficult to read the stock. You're right. And it was repeated many, many times. Cecilia, it is actually true. Is that okay? We can say given that there are differences including some stricter. I'm just zeroing in on... You've made it known that there are other reasons. There are differences. But maybe I'd love to hear from you on Robert's point. Do you disagree that they're stricter, including in addition to the differences? Well, he's been through audits. So he understands both sets of protocols. So I would tend to defer to him, but what do we want to make as the message to the outside world that one is a second rate? You know, is ACR less rigorous? Second rate, not worthy. Maybe we should only support California compliance, but some of the rules explicitly exclude Vermont if they're saying you have to be in an adjacent state. So there's ways... So yes, stricter, but I think it's different, you know? And then there are choices around how to do baseline. It isn't necessarily stricter or not stricter. It happens to work out poorly for Vermont. Most of Vermont. So I don't know. What's the message we want to send? Well, this is a great question. It sounds like it's a better product. Sometimes people would think that because, well, if they're required to reduce emissions then you better have higher requirements for those... Exactly, exactly. Those standards... There's a lot on the line here. If they can't quantify those emissions with a great deal of confidence, then they're going to get hammered, you know? Right, right. We're saying... It seems to me very important the end of the sentence that we're saying that's the point, the message to your question. I think the message we're giving is, it is not likely to be a good fit for the project. And I think that's important. That's a finding. And what we want to get into is to say, why in that cell? And... Robert's experience... Should we be as vague though and have... I kind of feel like it is not likely. This is a very... Well, maybe it could be with more research, but it is not a good fit. We had sound, but it is not a good fit. Well, it could be in some cases fit. And there may be some projects. And we go into a lot more detail about the current status of carbon assets markets about these reasons why it's not likely a good fit for Vermont forests. So... So what did we... This is a finding of the details of the course. So that's a good example. What did we say on this point? So I'm wondering if it's like something along the lines of getting the required timelines and baseline calculations and other regulatory requirements of the CA compliance market. That's what I had proposed. Something like that. I think it just kind of ticks off a few of the real constraints. I mean, again, I think the findings are intended to convey like you were saying initially. What's the message here? If you start adding more detail and you're just repeating it again and it's something else the reader has to keep in his head. Can we change stricter the specific? The word? Yeah. Given the specific protocol requirements of the California requirement. And then we talk about them all later in the afternoon. Sure. Yeah. Okay, so specific instead of stricter. See that, people? That's progress. We got the three paragraphs. Thank you. That was fantastic. That's an example. That's 32. We can do this. Show you, you're good? I'm good. All right. Anything else in that paragraph? For anyone? Next, that would be the paragraph. Okay. The last sentence, it sounds like this is where we're trying to put all these crazy things in about it. It says, however, the forest protocols for the voluntary market calculate the carbon baseline. Well, they all calculate baseline. So something's missing there. Or with the memex, you may be wrong. Calculate basement allow parcel aggregation and enable offset pricing specialization in ways that would likely make carbon offsets in Vermont more viable. So they calculate the base. This is exactly what you were just talking about. I was just trying to figure it out. I read it. Is our products more likely to hit the voluntary market than the compliance just because what we have? That's what I pull out of it. So it's possible, but we're looking at this market versus this market being a possibility. Okay. It should start. I thought there was a phrasing. It's the protocol for the voluntary market. We want to say the way that they calculate the baseline. However, because the forest protocols for the voluntary market calculate the baseline allow parcel aggregation and enable offset pricing specialization in the ways blah, blah, blah, they are more likely. So it calculates the carbon baseline differently. It has to be more likely. It's just an awkward sentence. I agree with what it's trying to say. Okay. I could just move that to the minor edits category. I'll work on the awkwardness baseline. Okay. No, that's okay. Great. People coming. Next page beginning volunteer. I think that's in the paragraph. Voluntary markets have trended upwards since 2017. Thank you for that wording, Jim. So just to point out where I took your edits, that was your wording. Do we have any idea for this paragraph what the rough size of the voluntary market is, whether it's acres or how many dollars are being invested in it, you know, kind of a, because trending upward, to be able to say that, I'm assuming there's data somewhere. So that was one of my edits, which hopefully, which I'm totally okay with her not taking, because then it required explanation. So I put the same thing, but I changed it. I said globally they've surged up, which since 2017, after stagnating over the period of seven years, in 2018, fourth-gen land use became the single largest category of global foreign volunteer offsets with 50.7 million times traded up from 16.6 million in the previous year to largely to growth in Latin America. So that's like, again, too much detail in the findings. And that's global. And most of that had to do with Peru. So I rather conventionally looked it all up, because I wanted to see numbers there too to give us a sense of something. Well, that's just from an analytical point of view. I'm someone who'd say, okay, I'm sitting here going, how are they turning upward? Are they turning upward this way, or are they turning upward? They jumped. Right. But they think those are going to jump with from Latin America. I think that's mentioned in the body of the report. And so I was trying to take out those details in this summary of findings, because it just was repetitive. Yeah. They've also jumped in the compliance market, but not in the U.S. market. Look at that. The European market hit a triple. Yeah. So we're, again, this is where we were in 2008 or something. It's much higher abroad than in the U.S. And the U.S. is kind of peak interest. It's hard. I think generalities are actually, even though people are going to read this and say a lot of no more, I think we just have to accept the fact that we only have a few sources. Those sources aren't current. Things are happening. We can characterize things without particularly getting this specific idea. We really want to know more. There are places you can Google to go to to learn more. Fair enough. I would say that makes good sense. My point on that, and perhaps the risk could be a bit pitiful about it, is just that that's fine. We just have to contextualize it, just like you just did. Just explain that. And not leave it big like we didn't think of it or didn't uncover that. What we're saying is this is vague or general. And there's a reason for that. We do go into it more early. So I want to just make clear that the summary is a summary. It's not all the details. And I had to cut out a lot because it was repetitive and hard to read. Right, but still from an analytical point of view, I would read something in a summary of Apple's stock has grown it on average 10% a year the last decade. That's not getting into the details. It's not saying where it started where it ended, but it's giving me enough to be like, okay, what's the slope of this line? Trend it upward X percent. To me, because then it's like, I imagine that slope line immediately. I'm going because honestly if I'm reading this and are we doing this with the slope lines like this, I'm going, eh, not a good estimate. I'll give you a percentage, but it would be basically based on probably the Caribbean Amazon to be specific. Again, you could categorize it in global carbon. We understand that the US market is probably underdeveloped. Fine. And you can put some more specifics in the body so that you get it. But just a small little data point. That was exactly where you were, so I actually spent some time looking at numbers and trying to come up with something. And I wrote something and I'm glad that you actually didn't take the edit and the findings, it was the wrong place for it. I just take one small piece. It's not bottom down, but give them a... Even if it's all Peru, that's fine. We like Peru. Sometimes we say globally. Okay. Do you know that one? Anything else? Then next up would be the paragraph beginning on page 6, beginning... Because the information and processes required by carbon markets are complex. Married by a protocol. Which is exactly what we were just talking about. Anybody have a chance? I'd offer one word. I'd like to suggest the changes that describe the private sector carbon project developers as commercial private sector as opposed to professional. I just want to make it very clear. Professional is kind of vague and doesn't... We want to make it clear that they're for hire. It's a commercial activity. Yeah. And if we're doing single word changes, I would just change project developers to mitigate two of the main barriers. I would say mitigate is just because we're talking about climate change, mitigation. What line are you at? Fourth from the bottom. Okay. Okay, that was Michael's word. Mitigation. Mitigation is on our mind. Well, I just wanted you to show that I took your edits. I didn't think more about your send me. Yeah. Anything else for that paragraph? Can I ask a more general question? Sure. What we're saying here is that there's a very sophisticated commercial robust thing out there. And yet later we propose that we kind of go our own way. If that's... If that's... I think the go our own way with this piece was something that we threw out there because we wanted to address the charge. But I don't think it's well captured in the recommendations, but I just think it's in contrast to this statement here that says these guys are out there, they're good, they're necessary. And that's why... I've read it differently.  These are the upfront concerns of landowners, and they're taking 20 to 40% of the credits for that. So for me, I've read it as setting up our decision to maybe we can break some... That's why I bother listing all those things. Some of what those project developers do and therefore retain more profit. That's what the proposal is to do, right? But maybe I... So I have that in mind when I read it, but I don't... I don't know if others read it differently. And I also don't think we're suggesting that we don't want people to use these private commercial developers. We're just saying there could be another way that's specific to the amount that reduces the price. But hey, go to Middlebury College if you can afford the private developer. Do it. I think this is a fair statement of fact. It is. Robert's not challenging that, though. He's saying, well, how does it sync up with a subsequent recommendation? And I think that's a good thing to keep on. I think it's solid the way it is, frankly. But I think Robert's made a point here. I wonder if we would just consider at the end and leave this as it is, and kind of foreshadow the recommendation by adding a sentence that says other mechanisms may be... Our finding is that this is all real and true, and we want people to know that. But we're wondering if maybe there's another model. So we could, let me say, kind of foreshadow that recommendation with a basic statement here that links this finding to the subsequent recommendation. Which I would characterize as evolving. Things are evolving. Even though this has been passed. So there you go. We've finished with all this said. This is evolving, including changes in the basic paradigm, and the working group will consider as wise to consider other possibilities. I'm just pointing it here. Well, I'm just thinking of Ruth's constant. I really like the substitution of commercial and professional because that's highlighting. This is commercially how it's done. So maybe we end it with there may be opportunities to supply some of these roles. There may be opportunities for the public and non-profit sector to help supply some of these services in a way that retains more income than the landowner. I think that would be a great sentence. That kind of links them and is an honest statement. Let me start with the private sector. So why not bring in public and non-profit at the end? So the final sentence can you just say again. There may be ways for the public and non-profit sector to provide some of these services in a way that helps the non-owners retain more of a value. Something like that. I will work on that. I will point out that there are TNC projects where TNC has played that role of the project developer with that goal. I just want to second which is to get more of that income with the landowner. And maybe they don't even need to partner. Maybe we can just say there may be opportunities for the public and private sector to play some of these roles in a way that retains more of the income for the landowner. Which we definitely talk about there. I think that's a good point. I will work on that. I will add it at the end of that paragraph. Thank you all. Good to move to the next one. Beginning for a variety of reasons there are very few forest carbon on this. I think this is Michael in your edits you went back and forth on UVA current use. I know you're on page 29. You're like, damn. I think I'm consistent with calling it UVA. Because it's the shortest. It's just the consistency. I don't really care. I think most remoders think it's current use. What did you do? Maybe going with current use for that reason? I don't really have a straw. I'll use whatever you want. Once I realize what UVA meant I used it because it was the shortest. You start with the full thing which is the parenthetical. Which I think I did in the recommendations is the first time we mentioned current use. I have use value and then parent out of UVA. I'm good with that. I suggest we go with that. The only other one would be sometimes it's the UVA program and sometimes it's UVA. UVA is even shorter. Are you all okay with that using UVA? We begin with use value appraisal program slash current use and then parenthetically the handle we'll use is UVA. UVA is fine. I had a suggestion on the first send. You're good with that. Now we're into the paragraph beginning for a variety of reasons. Go ahead. Rather than saying they generally will parcel too small to enter into carbon markets and aggregation of parcels. I'd rather say old parcels too small to create independent, financially viable carbon projects at current prices. Because it makes it sound like parcel size is a requirement and that's not it. It's about financial viability. To create what? I'm saying again. To create independent, financially viable carbon projects at current prices. I could send you that. Because they don't there's no size limit necessarily. And then it's fine to talk about what the average size is here. If that fits here. But we don't talk about the scale of project size here, do we? We don't. But it would be a good place for I'm putting chords out on that. I'm saying we put a factoid in here that underscores the point. We said that the projects that have been done to date knowing what average 40,000 acres would be a statement. That's in your table probably, right? And I can site that table here. Which it will be in appendix. Just pausing here. Representative Bartholomew, how are you doing out there? I got dropped Can you hear me? Yes. I got a long time and I managed to get back. I'm here, I'm fine. Great. I just don't want to forget about you and reminding the room that you're out there. And given that, I can't see you waving your hands and stuff. So when you want to say something, just shout, okay? I will, I love you.  We good on this paragraph? Anything else? Okay. Next one. Vermont Forest Land owners also may not be aware of that paragraph. I was when he cited that one fact about in the Women's Survey. Is that, that's not available yet, so we can't use that as a paragraph. That's right. Yeah, that's why we're going with the 2014. The most recent. Yep. Okay. Nobody has anything on the paragraph beginning, Vermont Forest Land owners also may not be aware. Robert? So, starting with, in addition, a Nature Conservancy is pursuing a project on Burnt Mountain in Peckland-Watt counties. And then it says both projects are currently developed, so we're leaving after we're leaving off the Colm Hollow project here. There are two projects that are being developed now, one which has been developed. Which we mentioned in the bottom. The Colm Hollow's mentioned in the paragraph above. So are we including that in both projects? Oh, yeah, the both I think was Nature Conservancy and the Middlebury College one, but the Colm Hollow is also so I could just say all of these projects. Good. Let's work. Page 7, paragraph beginning, a partnership approach. And this is the idea of reducing the price for program development. What exactly do we mean by a partnership approach? Land owners will come together. Right? It's the idea of Robert, do you want to explain? Actually, I'd like to hear somebody else explain. I want to see how well it came through, obviously not beautifully. It's a public-private, maybe important thing to say as a modifier of the word partnership, but as I understand the concept, it would be capitalizing on basic expertise that exists at our department and in A&R among professionals who understand forests and things like that and measurements. And capitalizing also on the expertise of the organizations, typically nonprofits and academic institutions at this point that we're talking about, who have experience. And combining those in forming a public-private partnership with these nonprofits and the state to be a different way to provide a different way of project development that is an alternative to or perhaps in addition to the commercial developers that we were just discussing. All that I do. Partnership is a legal term. It's a business relationship. What is being done with Byrd Mountain with this sharing of the profits would consider that to be a partnership. So I guess what I'm saying is this is confusing to me or ambiguous because of its connotations of a legal nature, of a business nature. Well, in the one, I think partnership has multiple. There are partnerships that aren't legal partnerships, but in the recommendations regarding this partnership it says through a contract or a memorandum of understanding. So the partnership would be formalized, not just a Mike and Jim talking and going, hey, let's do this. It would be something more than that.  So yeah, the Forest Service uses the word partnership and the university all the time where we're just talking about working with other entities. We could change it to just collaborative here if that's confusing. So a collaborative approach and then the partnership could be brought up in the recommendations as a specific memo. I was thinking about one of the examples in state government is this exhibit and somebody mentioned to me that maybe we know as an example of this where you have public and private groups work together, private money public direction, board, I don't know how does that frame the truth? I guess a better example, this may not be perfect, but it's in the one housing conservation board or there's a board that works with public dollars to work with private entities, non-profit entities to create projects. It is defined as an instrumentality of the state so is that what you want? No, I I think it's not a good I'm a board and I don't want to see it as a direct animal. I'm not sure. Mita is very good in scope too. I think you're a VHCB is the better because I was willing to have it be an instrumentality instead. I don't know if that's what we're getting at, I was just reaching for an example. Yeah, I think it's more I think it's less formal than either Vita or VHCB is the way I was reading this proposal it was more just the relevant partners, it is kind of Jim and Mike and others getting into a room saying how are we going to work together and then writing up an MOU saying this is what we're going to do this is what the state would do this is what nature conservancy or Mount Land Trust or the UVM all the partners would do but it's not a state agency it's not a funded thing like VHCB gets a lot of money it would be like that kind of scope I agree, I don't want to mischaracterize it How about beginning with just a little bit more color a public-private collaboration a collaborative approach and then kind of parenthetically almost capitalizing on kind of just getting to the statement that takes a while to get to we set it up, so just sort of saying a public-private collaborative approach leveraging expertise professional expertise in state government and the private sector could be the most effective blow and then we go on to kind of give a little detail but say that that's what it is that's just a friendly suggestion leveraging expertise in both sectors definitely that I know that Cecilia everybody, super the next one I think if I haven't lost track is the UVA program it's just one question it's quote green mountain carbon what do people think about that did that come out of the marketing section it wasn't my I don't believe it was my term but again if it creates we want that in the findings, I'm just thinking that because I'm somehow like too governor to go or something anyway, we were talking about green mountain carbon credits 10 years ago we don't have a good reason for it maybe we should just call it Fremont carbon or even Fremont branded Fremont as an alternative just say help market carbon offsets to secure the highest prices for carbon branded offsets and if they go green mountain in the future they can choose that but it's also coffee, it's not anymore now it's green we're good good with that rolling along, the next paragraph take a minute or two, the UVA program this sentence about not placing permanent restrictions on enrolled land, so land owners got 100 acres hasn't managed the plan decides to withdraw and pay the penalty is he then free? as long as the change tax of the penalty has been discharged then the lien is discharged at that time so he's no longer governed by the plan correct, if you are out of the program but you haven't discharged the lien by paying the penalty the forest management applies basic standards apply so this is specifically saying that the other case anything else? I just have a question about even that first sentence we've said this all along as far as the UVA program is compatible but is it really? is there somebody's free program that they work out with a forester going to meet all the protocols of a particular compliance market? we're not saying that it's a good point, it may not be but that doesn't make it not compatible that's the real basic point that we're making is that as it is it's compatible, you can find a way through as long as you're in an offset program that allows the forest management that it's been called for in your approved plan okay okay Mark yeah is there any way you can add to that sentence the way you just did to make me understand that because the way I read it's like anybody that's in the UVA program that's compatible for a carbon project and I think there is further description of this in the body, this is the finding so yeah there are two other sections in your detail about the compatibility with UVA and get into those issues about you know, the details so again this was just a sort of summary saying we found that it is compatible and you know one of the things I do at the beginning of this section is to say all of these things are discussed in further detail that's actually a great point I think that that might be there's another statement at the beginning of the findings, they're all discussed further in the body of the report that's great and Mark I have a suggestion that may help with your concerns look at a couple sentences down that says while carbon management is not in and of itself an eligible primary force management objective under any UVA enrollment category it is a compatible management objective objective under all categories when program requirements are met I think that's why we put that there is just to make it clear that this is not automatic you have to follow the program but there is a pathway within the program to enter into a offset market you okay then? Super anything else on that paragraph? I would defer to editors with more experience here but the starting of the last sentence with is possible somehow makes it difficult for me to know what's coming next and I sort of what I'd like to see there just say modified requirements could render modifications to what we're saying modified requirements could render UVA enrolled lands ineligible for carbon market enrollment and I was going to say that and that is to be considered that's awkward I think I have a better one I lost this it's impossible to delete that sentence it was kind of vague because it's like you chose anything no I didn't I looked at my wording you flagged this idea right so I'm deferring to you because you kind of approached it right so my sentence was one before if future changes were made it's possible to consult the protocols to determine how proposals could affect the ability to generate carbon credits deleting the sentence makes it shorter yeah let's do it okay nice work it's like this big right anything else in that paragraph exactly we need 10 more pages okay that next paragraph public lands owned by states and municipalities storage it's a big deal it's very funny take a deep breath that's why I flagged it I was like I need to hold it the dashes no storage they are two different almost everything that happened there was just carbon sequestration and Michael's edits were going through and storage and storage which was good but I just thought it was funny thanks for your side alright so this would be one for the states this is trying to set up whether or not it's a minimum project yeah and we're saying that our recommendation that comes later is that we should do some more analysis and this is kind of a sleep and a finding that says there would be to that that it's case by case there's constraints I would pause either Jane or Becca if you have anything to add here please do it's like a minor to minor edits I wonder if the first sentence public lands owned by states should be by the state because I don't think we're really talking on the state and then capitalized S and then just consistency across the two paragraphs instead of on the third line down public forest just say public land is it land or lands lands where is that I had actually could continue on public land but instead of in it could be on but it could be in public lands sounds funny to me yeah okay thanks Jane Becca super anything else on paragraph I'm going to make my my bond with Senator stronger by saying we should delete such activities that such activities are included in forest cross models which predict the number of carbon credits generated I don't think that's nobody want that sentence to say nice thanks Robert okay is it too vague getting to Corey's point some state some Vermont forest lands some public lands did it's there any I wrote this sort of baby almost as a placeholder thinking maybe that was part of your assignment later on is there any more specific from that section that should be brought into the final staff to answer that question recommendation would be to do that more detailed analysis to understand where lands might be feasible based on your characteristics and don't also have easement restrictions or other restrictions that would prevent them from being financially feasible and we haven't done that analysis okay whoever you phrase that sounds more sophisticated than this here some lands this some lands that but if this if this is accurate and that's where you guys are at I'm okay with it okay this phrase you could strengthen the language by just taking out some Vermont and just saying you know state lands have but it's not all state lands right no it's the majority probably state lands may have instead of some okay higher stocking levels how did we establish that I think it's based on our inventories and our FIA inventory the federal inventory analysis of all lands that I think it's a fair statement that state lands generally have higher stocking than kind of average non-state lands it's a fair point if you're making it that well it's a relative thing so comparatively relatively and it's not in every track or every stand but generally speaking there's higher volume higher stocking higher volume and higher quality owing to a hundred years of I'd like to think really exceptional management or not cutting I don't know well we do cut as you know and those well there's significant harvesting every year and according to long range plans that have been implemented in some places time and time again and they tend to be partial cuttings and not clear cutting and so it results in over time larger stocking because of in growth and regeneration and volume increment for things so take the rice block in Roxbury which is right next to a parcel we have if I wanted to look at that management plan that's something I could look at totally I wouldn't do that is your answer in front of this okay thanks so moving down to those last two sentences they can easily combine same paragraph some public lands may have easements or other legal constraints which would require case by case assessment okay I'll combine yeah thanks anything else on that paragraph we are I have sort of an unspoken goal of getting through the findings before our break we're right on track if we really press develop the next paragraph developing a carbon project on state-owned forest land could have multiple deficits anything there some author you mean left out and storage after carbon sequestration and storage to the speed of nice I can't believe I missed that where you go thank you yay storage anything else if you're taking just quick editorial comments to the eighth line down there's an extra as one, two, three, four forward in on the eighth line left out what's the sentence for you enrolling ad serving I see carbon markets by as serving as by serving as thank you otherwise I didn't have any edits the department editor is impressed appreciate it so this is a comment I have that Rufus aware of that I kept putting it in the comments on the side is highlighting the role public lands as an anchor for other things I don't know, I don't feel and maybe I haven't read it I haven't read this version that we fully made the case for how and why it would be an anchor and I thought that would be lower on the total poll of reasons for doing that it might not be clear to people what is an anchor and should we be putting public money into something on public lands that's going to pay out to private landowners around them you know what I mean I just don't I wasn't quite sure of what it meant there and the purpose it serves so thank you for bringing that up because I know you and the reason I changed it a little bit in the wording but I didn't take it out because it's something that we've repeatedly talked about as one of the potential benefits so I wonder what was the consensus if we do think that's a potential benefit or not yeah I'm just wondering if other people have any thoughts I have to clear to them what it means that it's serving as an anchor and I don't understand how that works is that part of it well it makes sense to me I think by having a large enough parcel that has high potential higher stocking is going to build up you're just getting more carbon that can then for those smaller parcels be bundled together which is sort of over the threshold from a public benefits sort of argument I would argue that by encouraging those other participating landowners to manage for carbon we get a public benefit of having our forest store more carbon so what is the arrangement though between the state or somehow now state management tied to the private land management or be responsible I think that's part of the problem the concept that it could serve as this anchor but I don't again should we just say could contribute to an aggregation or provide a large block that's helpful I just don't understand the anchor concept because I don't understand exactly the relationship the legal relationship among among owners in an aggregated project how about serving as a large parcel anchor or something like that having some kind of adjective before anchor would be helpful so what is it large parcel large block what's the appropriate adjective and maybe I'm going to let's address I don't know what I can I haven't done the research and I don't know whether we need to to look at whether the individual protocols allow public and private owners to join in a project fundamental question we don't know that anybody's done it ever it's a private parcel to a public parcel to go with a private parcel I'm not aware of that for sure there's only one aggregation project in the US that I'm really aware of so it seems like it would be maybe the word to explore the potential for whatever as opposed to using it as an anchor it just sounds like this is the thing we can do that we're committing our public lands to inbound up with what private land owners might not decide to do and I'm like we really want to say that's a recommendation or we want to explore the option hearing that we don't actually know they don't really exist that's probably really good I think that would have been something helpful to say earlier I was under the impression like you were the owner with that said let's begin with this it does say enrollment of state lands could also advance by private land enrollment by observing as an anchor it really is well conditional we don't even know it could be given that it could but it's untested it merits our finding is that it's a possibility it may be a possibility and it's worth looking at or maybe just say the state could explore the possibility of using state lands of combining state lands with private lands in an aggregation project you know something like that rather than saying you could do this because I don't know that you could do that would you capture that? I don't know because I'm not the right one so I will see if I can come up with some wording there explore the possibility you could say enrollment of state lands might advance the enrollment when aggregate it were possible to aggregate with private lands might I think given the charge being a little naive it's probably okay but we don't want to misstate something I think I was under the impression that these kinds of things have been done or at least stated as allowable that based on the testimony and the conversations we've had so for example I was in a meeting in Lincoln which is a very forested town and talking to this sort of community group and I said they were talking about how their pilot payments have dropped because they have a lot of national forest land and their town budget is really feeling it and I was talking about this work we're doing and I said one possibility might be doing an aggregated project with state land, municipal land and private land in Lincoln being like the Lincoln carbon forest sequestration project or whatever that would combine state, local and private land and give that community more revenue that was just an example of maybe that's a project that could be done and they were like oh that would be really interesting but there are three municipal forests in Lincoln plus there are state lands there and federal I think adjacent to I don't know what that would be oh maybe it's federal which federal can't I knew federal couldn't be but anyway that's what I was thinking like it was a thing but I also thought it was a thing so I didn't realize it wasn't a thing I wanted to make some inquiries around this but in all the conversations I've had with the protocol developers and the aggregation efforts that we're going to put them on that interest that public land is excluded from those protocols okay here's what I'm hearing it's the combination no that's not me I don't think it's a protocol that might be excluded I mean but it's I'm not sure the relationship that has to be signed between them and whether that state would even want to that's a question that's a question of the legal structure of the aggregation project not whether or not the protocols would allow that here's what I'm hearing from this we have agreed it is a finding that I don't know how best to say but in fact there's this possibility of an anchor if you will and I think that states what we've also learned is that we don't know how that works including the legal mechanisms or whatever of the relationship but just fundamentally whether it can happen or not those are two things and they're in conflict I think we need to say both of them and so what I would ask is can we zero in here with some help Cecilia to just work with the words that Bruce got here to make an appropriate edit to make both things clear we're trying to convey our finding is that this is an interesting possibility it deserves further analysis something to that effect you all agree with that you would disagree with that I'm going to add the word potential and I'm not saying it's not understood but we just don't have an example so that's where we can be really clear about both things we're interested there's a couple things that were said that I think we were conflating okay maybe trust Bruce to find the right words I will work on it okay anything further on this paragraph none move to go ahead Steve just to fund all the different things that we've done it sounds like you're going to generate a lot of money from thank you yeah I'll check yeah thank you yeah I could potentially certainly never take it alright moving to the next paragraph beginning similarly developing carbon projects with aggregate municipal force so I should say I got I was contacted by 7 days yeah we all yeah just about the town forest park he said isn't that impossible you know wouldn't that be really hard to get through get towns to collaborate with each other and I said well that's the value that's in the public process that's where I specifically asked I was just going to come clean and say I did too well then he said you know it's already written and my editor always says it's too long so I don't know if I'm appropriating he said but thank you very much there's an article that's already written about this meeting today and this report which did not exist at the time of publishing so brace yourself I don't know what that's going to bring just by definition it's kind of squirrelly right it's because of apparently because of the Christmas holiday but their editorial calendar doesn't differ I think we probably were all clear that it was not final I certainly was I didn't know and I suggested that he talk to you and then I texted him later and said did you talk to Dr. Banks I want to make sure he talked to you about Dr. Banks on a PhD you have to write it as many times as possible alright I gave somebody credit for sitting through 20 hours just crafting a course he said let's listen to this again it needs to be public and old-fashioned I was glad he wanted information just the timing was clearly goofy and we talked about that and he that's his right and role and I wanted to make it as completely open and available to him but just saying I don't even have the next draft anyway, similarly developing carbon projects, anything there I think it's only fair in the last sentence beginning county foresters probably shouldn't qualify to say it's two more words county foresters come up who often help often help manage you can read about that of course this who often help manage town forest yeah anything else? I'm just thinking field trips rather than field work field trips I changed it to work well it sounds like classes going old field trips I'm thinking of my mom I hate to say it is it important is it important to say county foresters at FPR we don't have county government this confuses people that's right maybe just FPR county foresters yes that's a great suggestion FPR's aggressive county foresters we own them I was one of them in some ways we'll always be okay shall we move on I think the 7 days article is written now is it out on the gallery? okay we'll get to the nature conservancy and the bird fountain that's an older one yeah I think so I left this morning on 7 days it was 2 hours ago it was December 18 2 more paragraphs before a break folks sorry thank you moving to the next one unless anyone shouts okay moving to when implementing carbon offset projects of public lands in particular any concerns? I don't have any questions why it's on public land that's a good point I was going to why it might be in particular you go ahead I've heard conversations like oh little offset and this is like years ago the Forest Service was like how can we count our carbon on the national forest so that we can count it towards our climate commitments in Paris or whatever but also can we sell offsets in her money you say you can't count it against you can't sell your offset and say that you're meeting your own with the same offset with the same project the same piece of land well like there were ecologists doing they were retiring some and selling others exactly right so it's just that I've heard people talk about the way that they can count it against their own usage and sell it in our money but I agree we don't really need that phrase on public land let's eliminate it then if it doesn't have any actual meaning well I think that I read it as that if the state were to create a carbon counting a calculation that is state law and says the state of Vermont is going to be carbon neutral by act state then we wouldn't want to both do that sell the carbon and count it right for private individuals and private land that wouldn't be part of the state's calculation of carbon, the private land we're doing that calculation of carbon on public land not as part of the state-wide program that could be envisioned I don't I'm trying to the other way first again it says if a Vermont landowner sells so it generalizes out so I think we can just delete the whole thing okay so just on public lands in particular we'll get rid of that and then maybe make it is instead of is very formal is just to be clear I think this is important as a preemptive strike it's the kind of thing where I've heard people be concerned about if they compare the renewable energy credits so we're going on the record saying we're aware and that's to be avoided and I think that's a finding and it came up loud and clear and we're addressing it head on everybody good? okay one more paragraph of findings overall while financial benefits are possible I know I would add a sentence about keeping forests just to underscore that you're never going to hear me disagree where do you want to put that I don't know in there somewhere it's only two paragraphs two sentences or maybe the middle of the two sentences I think being there down anybody seen I hate it I hate it you're going to add in there a sentence that says I'm going to say Michael wanted me to put in a sentence that says keep forests Robert said it I didn't see him here I circled in one of the parts okay nice work folks with that we'll pause only a couple of minutes behind the actual schedule so that's good before we does anybody have hard part over the word climate catastrophe is that appropriate I stopped and thought what's that going to bring and then I thought you know what I feel like with recent international panels and statements I think we're passing I think that's been established so I'm good with it it is good for you for bringing it up but for I for one I'm okay with it or at least I don't love it it makes me a little uncomfortable but I don't think it's unreasonable I was a legacy about it would you say I'm not crazy about it okay then how about an alternative let's entertain the alternative crisis or we are we have a crisis I agree I agree with this we are trying to deter a climate catastrophe all models show all the projections show we don't do things now we will have a climate catastrophe hands down 98% of scientists in the world are saying that we don't act we will have a climate catastrophe so I'm just putting that out there I support that I think we already have a climate catastrophe I don't know if we can deter it well that's even a bigger question so maybe when we change the word deter to mitigate or to reduce or address address the climate crisis how about that I'll offer that as a sort of a middle ground an address what did I say address the climate crisis what I mean I agree with you Jim I'm just trying to find a compliment oh well thank you can I say an address climate change that is in fact that's not strong wait this was a half this was three quarters of a day's discussion on the climate action commission on the very last day very last meeting James asked a question is this in our charge and it's not technically speaking we spent some time at the very beginning of these proceedings discussing that and we made an inference that though not stated as a charge for the whole legislation and we agreed to that so I think we as a group have established that yes this is in response to climate change and it's negative in that so you're not willing to put a period after greenhouse gas emissions if that's your suggestion we should consider it one way to avoid it I think it just begs the question like why reduce greenhouse gas emissions? there's a reason we're doing that and we want to be clear it's not just because of what they do to the climate systems so one of the things that was conspicuous to me in the charge was that they didn't say why we were supposed to be looking at this we made an inference we discussed it and actually drew that inference so I'm just wondering given that they've talked about it so far will it change people's opinions of the whole report is it such a red hot but statement do we need to have it in there or do we need not to have it in there or what did you guys decide it's guided our work we put it in that context but I think it's a fair question some of them are uncomfortable and you're saying I think importantly how will it be read if influence is how it will be read and maybe it's less well received we put a lot of work into this so I might again I would suggest how about as an alternative to take all that in mind to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change we could vote on this too people want to be on the record we could put people on the record as being in favor or against a certain point I just throw that out there as one way to record people who may not be in total agreement with us we don't have to come to consensus with the general point of view so I can do with climate your language feel that I understand the situation I mean we were I think this report is subject to critique by those who and this was going on just in Madrid people opposing climate offsets and so if we show we're serious I think we need phrasing that shows we're serious about climate change and we see the proper place for offsets within climate change so whether it shows up in this phrase or elsewhere in the document I also think we have make it clear that we understand that offsets alone are not going to address climate change which is the major part of the paragraph I've got on the table for consideration of this suggestion I'm going there and saying regardless of my own personal opinions about it hearing what I'm hearing from the members and trying to get to consensus I'm suggesting we just change the ending to greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change period that's my suggestion and I'd like to I heard from Jim that he's okay with it it's not his choice but he's okay with it how many months is that? who's not okay with it now I won't make you say you're good with it but you have a chance to say you're not and nobody's saying they're not good with it I'm going to suggest that's the language there we go and address climate change is that fair? everybody heard? yeah I agree to me that whole thing of deterroclinic catastrophes even if we did all this stuff doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to deterroclinic catastrophes that's such a pessimistic but what kind of crisis do we have as an urgency an address climate change and address so it is to significantly reduce greenhouse gas low print of a larger point is a good one that we need all strategies this is one of several to do all directed towards significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to address climate change that's what we're going over okay thank you all how about any last business we'd be taking a relatively short break I mean get some food I'm thinking maybe even we could power through and eat while we resume as needed please feel free let's say we'll plan to resume in 20 minutes the explanation of forest carbon sequestration and storage sort of talks about the things that forests do climate change clean air and water in some ways defining what we need we're not as explicit about it okay anybody not okay with providing a model a public model of exemplary pro-carbon climate Brazilian forestry one quick question is climate resilient and a fire should be hyphenated in this use it's a compound attitude it's actually clarifying in this case that it becomes a modifier just like pro-carbon yep you're right thanks for that compound modifier I don't know if I could go with that okay anything else in that paragraph oh yeah please that was the time Mark thank you no just again around the first part of it saying that she wouldn't be analyzed there will at least be one part so in the carbon market by 2022 I guess I'd first like to say where did that come from because I don't ever remember talking about so I just want to be clear because this is really important I believe that it's saying and if it isn't I have a bigger problem I'm going to be with you Mark so I believe it's saying though right the ANR analyzed the feasibility of developing a carbon offset project and rolling at least one we have to think about the questions but it doesn't say we have to enroll one as I read it it says we have to analyze the feasibility of the rolling one by 2022 and then read it the way Mark did okay we can't do that I'm not even sure we can meet this one and would ask the question what if we don't can we just delete by 2022 or do you need deadlines nothing else had a deadline to this so this we so I was attempting to put some deadlines and usually there are deadlines by which you want to do something otherwise it's oh hi and I agree that the wording is vague and now I don't know which we intended but we did talk about if the state deems that it's feasible and rolling a piece of property into a carbon market and and if feasible that's what you want and I personally if it's feasible would like to see it happen that's what I would get out of this and I think what I was thinking with the 2022 because I will admit I made up the 2022 because I was trying to come up with a deadline to put in a recommendation was that the Middlebury College project which is the only one that's actually up and running as we all know because it's repeated times in here took 20 months to develop and obviously a state one would be more complicated so that's what I was trying to I was trying to do the math on how long it might take if you're going to need more lead time to do it but it seemed like reasonable timelines it could need a lot more lead time if public trust was involved and they basically just started it by hiring project developer and they had full control over the land anyway I think it's very ambitious the project developer is in here though it says that the state could do that if not the community you could argue that the term enrolling is not a very concise term too if it's enrolling and just saying we are enrolled that doesn't mean you're going to sell credits in two years so enrolling clearly we have to be clear about what we're saying here I read it differently I'm glad this was flagged Mark thank you Cecilia is saying you read it differently we have to work this through I couldn't support a recommendation that says that we will enroll land by a date certain we're so far from being able to do that the sentence says analyze the feasibility of developing a forest carbon project and analyzing and analyze the feasibility that's what I thought too that's what the sentence says that's what Cecilia says well that's what it says we want to be clear so she was I read it the way you do see I agree with you and that's why but hearing that others might do or might read it differently we want to be clear it's a very different interpretation we have a lawyer in the realm we have we asked her how that would be read legally we have a lawyer on it fast forward are you a lawyer too so I thought Ruth had a suggestion that seemed helpful to clarify this to make Steve's point abundantly clear that it would change it a little bit but it would say analyze the feasibility of developing a forest carbon offset project and if feasible enroll in at least one okay but you still have it then you would have it yeah I'm not going to look at 2022 but we're talking about just the basic sentence construction what is we're trying to say first yeah I see that now that ING and ING you're writing the construction makes it the feasibility refers to both of those well I guess that's not me being a lawyer I'm not contributing yet otherwise and again above and beyond that we've had your expertise here as the Commissioner of Forest Practitioner we haven't had anybody here from the ING after resources just to be clear we are part of the agency and while Becker works with us in FPR Jane works in Fish and Wildlife representing other interests of the agency so we have heard but again my point being I haven't heard anyone who's talked specifically about is there going to be I mean you know in the next recommendation or another recommendation we're just talking about 1FDE for youth what about agency and natural resources are they going to be looking for how are we going to move forward are they going to be you know I mean as a legislator that's my concern here so yep and I appreciate it and that's I think what we're trying to do is we our recommendation from the agency on this point of a state lands pilot was we need to do some more analysis and that's what this recommendation is reflecting and I think we've agreed to that generally that is the recommendation of the agency and now we need to make sure it's going to be clear that we're saying yeah we should look at there's more things to consider I look to you guys right so our recommendation on this point would be not to enroll or have a mandate to enroll at some date certain but to take the next steps towards enrollment and determining the feasibility so we've hit a smack just now we have some agreement though that Steve's point that it's parallel construction and it means the feasibility of each would be analyzed and that's good and if we all agree to that without having to change it then we need to get to for my part we need to get to the date certain and if it has to be a date certain then I think it needs to be well out from that because it's so geographical and I would wonder what does it mean in a report like this that our recommendation is they do it by then to your point that you want to have deadlines which I accept it isn't though because there's nothing to it it says that this group would recommend that they do it by then and if we don't there's really there's no harm or no foul right I mean these are just recommendations they're not they're not fighting and maybe now is the time to tell you that I do have a bill draft in and they're based on the draft recommendation so and Alan drafted it for me and so it is this language but it does say if feasible in there I would like yet I would like to have some kind of deadline and some kind of speaking from what I got out of this is that it would be great to have some kind of deadline to know that it's going to happen and that the goal is to to roll a piece of property into into a carbon market because I think what we have figured out here is that it has benefits we've listed many many of the benefits but you're saying you should analyze the feasibility so tell us if you want a deadline I would say tell us give us a deadline for delivering that feasibility analysis and make it clear that the goal of that is to enroll in peace but by saying we need to analyze it and then also jumping ahead and saying then you'll enroll in by okay so how about so then how about if the first part of the sentences analyzed the feasibility of developing a forest carbon offset project by 2022 can you do the feasibility by 2022 I mean that's two years or we'd accept that you're going to hire a new person to do this right we're going to hire a new person I know but I'm just thinking adding to it I need new graduates to do my research I heard you there's a recommendation I know I know but what I'm saying is that person's not even here yet so add that to your time oh I so by June 2022 and that would be two years I'm just thinking if you don't say if the community can pass through take effect July 1st, 2020 it's possible and I just want to drag it down I think it should be realistic it's just you know from the time that this whole concept was presented to me as you know commissioner the whole thing has gotten dragged out into another study another study another study and I don't want it to just be another study and I understand that there's a reason for it but I would like to have some kind of you know like a realistic point I'm not arguing that point I get it, I accept your point that you want one and I'll agree to one I'm just talking about which one so the feasibility study by July 1st, 2020 I'm hearing from a large number of staff some of them who would probably have to be involved in this sorry ladies that 2022 is not you know by what are we talking I don't think January 1st I just said July 1st I don't want to speak for that I feel comfortable with that for feasibility I don't feel comfortable with that for that enrollment we're trying to separate those two let's go with that I still can't support that that's just me we're still building so thank you and then if feasible so get rid of the budget with the goal being if feasible enrollment and I don't know what to say about date there as I said I'm not at all comfortable with the date on enrollment when we flag that we have analysis to do just doesn't make any sense to me to have a date certain on enrollment when we've just got done setting we have some things to look into Steve? so Commissioner together you want to have the by 22 or whatever date apply only to the analysis correct so you can put by 22 at the very beginning of the sentence say by whatever date the A&R shall we're recommending that by a certain date the agency analyze the feasibility of developing and enrolling yep I accept that but not the enrolling it's just the feasibility well the feasibility applies to both of those things the way the sentence is structured right the feasibility we want to be clear that given that there was some lack of clarity about the structure of the sentence we want to make it clear that the deadline is to complete the analysis which itself is a contemplation of what's involved with enrolling so enrolling is contemplated with the analysis but we don't want the date I don't want the date certain to apply in any way to the enrollment of the medical staff as well I think but Steve satisfied me when I realized the ING was used for both developing and enrolling okay so by putting the date at the front it really makes it clear helps make it clear that this is about the feasibility analysis right so by 2022 some July 1st I guess that would be helpful the agency analyze the feasibility of developing forest carbon offset project with the purposes of enrolling at least one person state land and then stop there for the purpose of enrolling at least one state maybe the idea is by July 2022 the agency analyze the feasibility of developing a forest carbon offset project for at least one parcel of state land period so you don't break it up and then doing the feasibility of a project and then the feasibility of projects on land that just by July 1st 2022 the agency of natural resources analyze the feasibility of developing a forest carbon offset project for at least one parcel of state land period and then maybe the residence sense is so long I was suggesting wording like the value of the state in doing so includes building we could leave it the purposes of this analysis would include coal and building and doing the ABC I like it uh yeah okay the agency so they work in a carbon at least one parcel of state land and then get rid of into a carbon market just delete that for a period after state land and then it would say might be say might say something like the purposes of this analysis include building staff expertise and all those other and then the next time it starts such an analysis so all of it is saying analysis analysis analysis nothing in that paragraph actually says they have to enroll in land we're good? we're already drawn out but with good reason I'm asking you to consider that we're moving to number three okay we're moving to station number three in conjunction with the development of public information materials and the outline of the feasibility analysis outline of the fourth line of that paragraph at least in draft five it said on community forest as opposed to in word I've chosen we came up earlier on state land we tend to refer to them as being on the outland state forest as opposed to in that's just how we tend to talk about the forest it either works it's just our convention we have to do that I wanted to push this particular one a little further and see if anybody else on the committee felt the same instead of just saying that they're going to develop a framework for providing assistance I was wondering if it would say that FPR should work with municipalities to explore opportunities to develop a joint of pilot carbon offset project that includes and or urban forestry activities and are we these insight schemes and the pilot effort to develop a framework for providing assistance so it would be sort of suggesting that we use a pilot which is more than suggesting a framework it's a pilot will also help determine viable options for aggregation and provide local examples is that too much to add for me I guess I I'm glad you're raising I'm open to anything because I don't really understand what this one is having us do it was faked to me yeah I don't really like the framework frames somebody I'd ask somebody to volunteer to tell us what are we doing here what is it that we're trying to recommend well this was Cecilia's idea so your language well I re-edited it yeah so I don't think I suggested no I didn't make any suggestions to about the municipality I didn't make any suggestions for wording about this initially but I did in my other edits I'll ask you to zoom out to 60,000 just kind of say what are we what is the kind of this is what I would like to recommend is that the department of that FPR should work with municipalities to explore opportunities to develop such a project that includes town forest and our urban forest reactivity so I'm the chair of the urban community forestry council at the state as well and there are opportunities or people are at least trying to market urban forest opportunities so you don't want to limit it just to town forest so it's town forest and the urban or you can just put municipal forest in general anyway so I'm just putting forward that maybe we should with a pilot project similar to a pilot one on the state project on the state land can we put energy into piloting one on with town forest is that a recommendation we want to make because I think what the framework phrasing was probably means figure out how we're going to help towns to do this or I'd rather put up the pilot project up front and say let's see learn by doing okay I mean I learned from you I think there's real promise on the municipal side here maybe even more so than on state land I got that from you so I think it's appropriate that a recommendation would follow from that and I'm open to that and what you the words you used in your draft where you were quoting made sense to me but it didn't as you wrote it read it but then it didn't when you told me that it was about a pilot because it doesn't mention a pilot trying again maybe I'm just dense okay what are you SPR and I wrote FPR and County Forest it's redone it just say FPR that's what I thought should work with municipalities to explore opportunities to develop a pilot carbon offset project that includes town forest and our urban forestry activities then ANR will use insights from the pilot effort to develop a framework for providing assistance to Vermont municipalities in developing forest carbon offset projects and it says this pilot will also help to determine viable options for aggregation and provide local examples of climate resilient forestry for municipalities, forest land owners, community members the actions there are that we would explore we would work with communities to explore possibilities for a pilot and then it used stuff like that right and then use that as learning to help others develop second one so I made the framework second because saying you call the framework was a little bit vague and we can't guarantee municipalities want to participate so that's why I phrase it as exploring opportunity that's very helpful and from what I heard I could live with that I can accept that recommendation can you send that to me? but the last time it seemed extraneous it was just that the other one had all these purposes for the state lands so I thought I should add purposes for the yeah and the reason I added the purposes for the state lands is because I was listening to you both saying we need to know for what purpose we would be in the state lands so I we came up with those purposes so that would be a directive so that's why those purposes so I don't know if you need purposes for the municipal one so we can add them alright going with Cecilia's modified version but do anybody else have any comments do you think that's that sounds funny to me it's worth exploring right and seeing if it's viable anything you laid out there seems consistent with that with worth exploring everybody okay? okay thank you for that then moving to recommendation number four this is an attempt at Robert's so we're back to partnership or is it a collaborative or whatever so right this is the recommendation that flows from that finding the agency negotiated a partnership or a formal contract of memorandum so we worked hard on this one in the findings now let's translate that work into how does it read how is it written and presented as recommended suggestions change and negotiate to explore thank you for pursuit explored I was like you never have to go anywhere with that I don't know I've always had her explore in the pursuit okay Cecilia's hunting are we going with explore okay that was the first suggestion explore a partnership is that still going to live it explains it further that's actually good about the recommendation it gives a mechanism everybody okay with it okay then hearing none we'll move to five recommendation five this was the double counting issue yeah reflect our previous conversation about how we were at this in the findings actually you just moved to that anybody could you want to say should create or require so that it's sort of off in the future supposed to present the text remember this is that construction from the lead in above before the colon saying that we recommend that that if the state creates or requires a carbon accounting system the state should develop that makes sense and you're saying that should should be shall no I'm saying should because it's future or would if we recommend that if the state creates then the state should develop I think that works okay do you unless you want to go if the state were to create yes the the subjunctive were to create yes okay state were I would propose protocols be changed to rules system very first sentence counting system or rules should develop or adopt rules wait if the state were to the state should develop or adopt or require a state carbon accounting system or rules it's the second protocol reference that I oh okay it's in the then close the state should develop or adopt rules okay thank you Robert is that a warrant and I mean not rules unless they're adopted so and you're right okay everybody good with recommendation 5 is the example okay I was just trying to get at something while we were talking about this okay moving to recommendation number 6 using use value appraisal program I had one I had a suggestion I guess my only thought was state rules don't necessarily preclude eligibility of land is that it could affect the baseline so it's not whether the land is eligible or not well not eligibility it would affect the financial viability what would you suggest the viability of land preclude carbon market the viability of constrain instead of preclude I constrain the ability of UVA lands to the role of carbon market it's the point still there it's kind of awkward wording as it is just a lot of carbon market so it's just may constrain UVA lands in carbon markets may constrain how about that may constrain carbon offset project viability for lands enrolled in UVA that works sure okay one thought that I've had I just want to put it out here we should encourage FBR stakeholders to identify those forestry practices that will enhance carbon storage on lands the reason I bring it up is because I see a time when if this pilot that the American Forest Foundation and KC are pursuing in the mid-Atlantic which would pay landowners for practices opposed to a verified offset that we would want to be able to identify what those practices are here in Vermont that would also be eligible for those as that effort expands outward but I don't see it as necessarily being harmful to pursue this because even if that doesn't come to the past it's still education or I totally agree although it seems to me to be outside the purview of the working group as we've taken it on the charges are so that's just unless that's I'm hearing that as outside of carbon offset markets it's about paying them for practices practices that enhance carbon right but that's not an offset market well it couldn't play into the offset market because those same practices there's lots of things that we're doing at the department and you know we're doing that I get it we want to have those and take advantage of that I just see it as a technical thing that it's not really germane it's related but so are a lot of things well I don't know if I'm hearing the same thing so what I'm hearing you saying is we should work with stakeholders in the FPR to clarify or to develop or to disseminate what are good what we're calling this good pro-carbon climate resilient forestry carbon sequestering and storing practices I think that's a really valid thing that would be an additional to this I don't see this as a subset of many of these recommendations I mean we just said that this is critical this is what we're trying to incentivize and yet we can't quite define it here but people want to know what to do to sequester carbon whether they get paid or not whether they get incentives or not I think that would be a really cool thing that's one of the reasons I think looking at town forest is important because people get to discuss what does it mean how would we change our practice is that what you meant just figuring out the practices yeah it's the language I just threw together was you know I'm going to mark sort of probably after this shouldn't but FPR should work with stakeholders, forestry designers conservation groups and academics to identify a set of practices designed to increase the amount of carbon stored in Vermont's forest which could be used to develop and improve UVA forest management I would leave out that last phrase which could be used to because now we're opening up a UVA it's like a UVA I mean I'm for these things I believe we're already doing those things we will not stop doing those things like lots of other things though that are good and related I just don't think that's we weren't asked to do that I'm just adding it is it's an additional recommendation that it's an awkward spot for me because I'm for it I just don't see that as this is not the place for that where do we stop with telling the department to do stuff it's not directly connected to the work here it's indirectly and that's what I'll call that indirect connection I'm just curious about others me too I think one of that work is inherent in the recommendations because I would think that in the analysis that you would have to be doing you would have to be identifying pro-carbon forestry or whatever and same with the pilot that Cecilia's recommendation covers I think it's I agree with you as that is a good goal I'm sensitive to Michael thinking about such stuff and I'm wondering if it's not already embedded in some of these recommendations yeah I was just going to go there it's a friendly amendment here how about including it in one that's part of the outreach stuff we have pro-carbon silvicultural techniques whatever it is in there it's like that's what we're asking us I've accepted that as we'll take on a whole new program I'm just trying to give your department more backing well we'll get to that right now let's go back I'm just charged the intent here is to be supportive of activities that you envision doing this group has thought about that you're doing the right thing I hear what you're saying and I would be open to putting it in let's work on that to my point and that's shared by many this concern that we want to make sure that active forestry is part of this this would be towards that this group is saying hey develop the tools that show this is how you do active forestry in the context of carbon offsets so that's another reason for me to like it just trying to keep us on track so I think in two which we just wordsmith to death if going with Steven's suggestions of the ABCD the B would be providing a public model of exemplary pro-carbon climate resilient forestry which is so that's sort of embedded so in order to do that they would sort of have to define it but we could also embed it in recommendation one which is developing the materials that's what I'm going to suggest if you're good with it Jim right in here where we say we're going to develop public information materials including online print regarding the components from offset protocols and markets project development additional resources available so right in there after project development and silvicultural practices yes nice Robert where regarding silvicultural practices and the components of forest but does silvicultural practices encompass if you want to put a modifier so the carbon pro-carbon silvicultural practices we're going to get real careful here we don't want to over describe it silvicultural practices it covers it you guys are the forest people I'm asking that is very broad as that's the toolkit for how we decide which trees to keep in constant line it's implied in here it's not implied that's what we're working maybe if we don't put it first and just put it after the carbon offset protocols and markets silvicultural practices come up project development does that make you happy we're proud of you we got this thanks back to here you okay