Andrews Community Forest 5/19/25

Printable version

ACFC Minutes 05-19-25 150 KB

Web version

Andrews Community Forest Committee
Regular Meeting Minutes
Monday, May 19, 2025 - 6:00 to 8:30 PM
Richmond Town Center 

Zoom video recording
mtmansfieldctv.org/richmondmeetings/ 
Related files
•    c1 Version A Recreation
•    c2 Version B Recreation 
•    d1 ACF MP 4-25 list of reviewed sections - 5-14 
•    c3 Recreation Section Jim Chase 
•    “A Way Forward” – 4th Recreation Proposal (attached)

Present
Members: Co-chairs Ian Stokes and Wright Preston, also Sam Pratt, Melissa Wolaver, Jim Cochran, Julian Portillo, Cecilia Danks (by Zoom), Chase Rosenberg, Brad Elliott
Public: Dan Wolfson
Committee Business
With a quorum present the meeting came to order at 6:04. Jim volunteered to be timekeeper; Brad did so for taking minutes.
The April 28 minutes were read and approved with minor corrections to name spellings noted. 
Dan Wolfson suggested changing the agenda to continue discussion of the Ecological section of the Management Plan revision, as he sees it as foundational to the discussions on the Recreational priorities. He complimented suggested revisions to the Recreation section from Jim, Chase and Sam, and said he feels that the group is coming closer on consensus. Brad concurred.
Wright and Sam reminded members that they need to review the Town’s ethics video, take the online quiz and send the results to Duncan.
Ian made an opening statement (attached) emphasizing the importance of the ACFC presenting a draft Management Plan to the Selectboard at the June 2nd meeting, even if the draft is not final. Despite disagreements over mechanized trail use and other issues, he feels we can offer a credible and thoughtful draft shaped by public input, expert advice, ecological considerations and new educational proposals. He said the evening’s challenge was to find common ground, outline guiding principles, and identify and navigate major impasses with practical alternatives. He urged structured, orderly discussion to enable the Committee to present an effective progress report to the Selectboard on June 2. 
A plan was formulated for Ian and Wright to draft a memo to the Selectboard, thanking it for providing a tangible deadline for us to work towards and detailing the considerable progress we’ve made as we continue to resolve major sticking points. This will note increasing our meeting frequency to speed up the process, and using working groups to build off common ground on the toughest issues. The overall plan will be to have a more comprehensive draft to the Selectboard in September and then turn it over to a writer/editor for polishing before it is circulated to public, Conservation Commission, Trails Committee, Selectboard and VLT for comments.
Next, the Committee discussed the question of breaking with the agenda to complete review of the Ecology section. Most members wanted to first review the four Recreation proposals and discuss ecological matters as they came up in that process. Much of the discussion revolved around suggestions in two of the proposals to create two recreational development zones in the ACF – with parameters to create lighter volumes of traffic in the north and more intense usage in the south, the area closest to Rt. 2 and the parking lot.
The Committee chose to review Jim’s and Chase’s proposal first, and to start with discussion about using the VAST trail to establish two recreational development zones. That boundary was advocated as the most visible and workable line of demarcation. It would also allow pedestrian and biking connections to lands to the east and west, should they become available for public use.  Wright suggested adding to the southern zone the area south of the power lines between the points where they intersect the VAST trail. 
Chase expressed concern that if bike trails weren’t built in the north bikers wouldn’t find it worthwhile to ride on trails in the south and would stay away. Cecilia saw value in having the VAST and other trails in the south serve biking families and other users, if not users seeking more challenging terrain. She advocated for including trails built to “universal design” principles to make them accessible to people of all abilities. Members also felt that the easiest, least problematic trails were “low-hanging fruit” and should be developed first.
The Committee also discussed seasonal restrictions to protect areas such as the hemlock groves that provide deer and other wildlife with important winter shelter, and dry oak stands whose acorns provide bears and other animals with sustenance to survive their winters as well. The question of barring all but hunters during bow and rifle seasons was discussed as well, and the suggestion made to refer for guidance to provisions in the draft of the Trail Stewardship Plan.
The Committee agreed to meet again on June 2 to continue its review. It assigned to a working group of Jim, Sam and Brad the task of revising Jim’s proposal to reflect the evening’s discussions and relevant content from the remaining Recreational drafts, incorporating information from the Ecological drafts as needed. This revision would then be the focus of the June 2 meeting.
Town Plan
Brad explained an upcoming deadline of June 10 for the ACFC and other town committees to submit to the Planning Commission suggestions for updating the Town Plan. He and Sam have been working on this, using language from the Committee’s vision/mission statement. They’ll have this ready for review on June 2.
Thanks and farewells
Melissa, whose term expires at the end of the month, thanked Chase and other members for the enjoyment she had working with them over the past years. Ian commended her for making “important contacts and maintaining communication with other Committees and officials in Town governance.” He also thanked Cecilia and Chase, whose terms are also coming to an end, for their contributions. He noted that Cecilia has been on the ACFC since its beginnings seven years ago, offering “her expertise on the intersection of community well-being and forest stewardship.” He also praised Chase’s “steadfast” representation of the Richmond Trails Committee and his “insights about citizen interest in the accessibility of the Forest by Trails.
Next Meeting and Adjournment
The ACFC will meet next on June 2 from 6-8, which will synchronize with the Selectboard meeting. The ACFC May meeting came to a close at 8:30 p.m., with Sam moving to adjourn, Brad seconding and the ACFC unanimously agreeing.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Elliott 
 
Opening Statement by Ian Stokes to ACFC on 5-19-25
From the SB minutes of February 16th: 
“Wood said he understands why the Trails committee is frustrated because the trails plan still isn’t completed after more than 6 years. Hill concurs and understands that a deadline might help move things along, balancing everyone’s interests is important.
Wood suggested revisiting this with the ACF committee to present a draft plan at the June 2 Selectboard.”
I know that some ACFC members don’t expect we’ll have a draft of the Management Plan to offer at the June 2nd meeting.  So we must address the question whether the ACFC can comply with the SB request.  Personally, I believe we should do so – a failure to comply would have a terrible impact on our Committee’s credibility. 
We do have a quite presentable draft - we’re not yet requesting final Select Board approval.  Approval should be requested after input from the RTC and RCC and public comment.  If we can deal at least tentatively with the Recreation sections today, we can offer a very decent progress report.  Of course, a constant ‘logjam’ has been our failure to reach consensus or at least compromise on the question of trails appropriate for ‘mechanized’ travel – namely bikes.
Despite that, we do have a very credible Management Plan. Several members of the ACFC have dedicated a huge amount of time and effort over the past years to produce a reorganized and updated MP update that reflects:
-    public input;
-    advice from  Select Board members and Town officials;
-    new understanding of the impacts of human activity on vital components of Forest ecology; also addressing the competing interests of human access and Forest ecology protection, based on the State’s Conservation Design principles;
-    a Land and People Recognition;
-    issues of rights-of-way and agricultural easements;
-    proposals for public education.

Draft updates of the MP have frequently been made public by placing them in meeting ‘packets’.  
So today our challenge has several components: 
-    First we must find where we have Common Ground;
-    Then identify basic principles for moving forward. 
-    We have to recognize any major impasses (c.f. ‘sticking-points’ or ‘challenges’) and not be hindered by lesser disagreements.  Impasses must be tackled by identifying alternative solutions, listing and consolidating them.  We don’t need to find perfect solutions, we just need to recognize the practical options that may help the SB to give us guidance.  What do we hope to obtain from the June 2nd SB meeting?
-    Finally, to have an efficient meeting we must maintain order and sequencing of speakers, so over to you Wright.
 

-     As an alternative to the VAST demarcation method, here is an alternative that describes specific parameters for responsible trail building in ACF. The intent is to protect sensitive ecological resources while allowing for responsible public use and connectivity. 
-    1. Remove VAST Boundary from Management Plan Remove the delineation of the VAST trail boundary from the management plan and instead inform trail planning based on specific ecological considerations rather than a general approach.
-    2. Trail Development Parameters 
-    The following parameters ensure protection of sensitive areas while allowing flexibility for responsible trail building. 
-    Wildlife Corridors 
-    ● Maintain existing wildlife corridors  to support habitat connectivity. 
-    ● Prohibit any new trail construction within a 300-foot strict buffer zone. 
-    Riparian Areas 
-    Avoid trail development within riparian zones to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. 
-    ● Where crossings are unavoidable, they must be minimal and perpendicular to the watercourse. 
-    ● Buffer requirements: 
-    ○ Strict buffer: 50 feet 
-    ○ Ideal buffer: 100 feet 
-    Vernal Pools 
-    ● Protect vernal pools and associated species by limiting disturbance in surrounding zones. 
-    ● Buffer requirements (per conservation easement's ecological protection zones): ○ Strict buffer: 100 feet (Primary EPZ) 
-    ○ Ideal buffer: 500 feet (Secondary EPZ) 
-    ● No new trail development within the 500-foot zone.  
-    ● Allow continued use of existing trails beyond the 100-foot buffer (e.g., VAST trail), where no new disturbance occurs.
-    Ledges and Talus Slopes 
-    ● Prohibit trail development within 100  feet of broken ledge and talus formations due to ecological sensitivity and erosion concerns. 
-    Slope Guidelines 
-    ● Prohibit trail development on slopes exceeding 35% to minimize erosion and trail degradation. 
-    ● Limit trail development on slopes between 20% and 35%. 
-    ● Prioritize new trails on terrain with slopes less than 20%. 
-    Rare and Uncommon Natural Communities 
-    Protect forest types identified in the conservation easement and ecological surveys. Rare Communities 
-    ● Strict buffer: 200 feet  
-    ● Ideal buffer: 300 feet 
-    ● Includes: 
-    ○ Dry Oak 
-    ○ Dry Red Oak–White Pine 
-    ○ Dry Oak–Hickory–Hophornbeam 
-    ○ Red Pine 
-    Uncommon Communities 
-    ● Strict buffer: 150 feet  
-    ● Ideal buffer: 300–500 feet 
-    ● Focus on protection of Hemlock stands, which serve as critical wintering habitat for deer, turkey, and other species.
-    
-    3. Northern Forest Access and Use Limitations 
-    Limit new trail development north of the VAST trail to no more than two trails.  Access should initially be restricted to pedestrians only, with no dogs or bicycles. A monitoring plan should be implemented to evaluate the impact on wildlife, with the option to adapt access policies based on findings. New trails should be built in a manner that would be appropriate for multi-use traffic should it be deemed permissible in the future.
-    4. Seasonal Closures and Trail Protections 
-    Implement winter trail closures from November to May to protect hemlock stands and prevent erosion. During hunting season, recommend blaze orange attire and post safety signage. Use signage and barricades similar to peregrine falcon nesting area closures found elsewhere in the state. 

5. Trail Use Monitoring and Traffic Management 
-    Consider voluntary sign-in sheets and periodic monitoring to assess trail use and ecological impacts. Future trail access policies may be adjusted based on observed effects.
-    6. Trail Example 
-    The following illustration is not a trail proposal, but simply an example of what responsible trail building might look like in northern ACF. If a single trail is desired, the uphill trail seems most responsible. If a second trail is desired (to allow for directional traffic), then the downhill trail could also be developed. Note: that trail would be closed from Nov-May as it runs through a hemlock natural community, which is important wintering habitat for various species. There is one notable mistake with the “downhill trail” which is too close to a dry EPZ and should be routed eastward. 
-    Another possibility could be to start with one trail (uphill) and limit it to foot traffic. Then, if use is to be expanded to bike users, the second trail could be added for directional traffic, since bidirectional mixed used traffic could be problematic.
-