Andrews Community Forest 9/8/25

Printable version

ACFC Minutes 09-08-25 126 KB

Web version

Andrews Community Forest Committee 1 
Monday, Sept 8th, 2025 - 6:30 to 8:30 PM 2 
Location: Richmond Town Center Meeting Conf Rm C, 3rd Floor, 203 Bridge Street 3 
 4 
Present: Jim Cochran, Sonya Mastersen, Julian Portilla, Wright Preston, Sam 5 
Pratt (in-person), Brad Elliott, Ian Stokes (remote) 6 
Minutes: Jim Cochran 7 
 8 
Public present: 9 
Catherine McIntyre, Jim Monihan, Bruce Hennessey, Mike Donahue (in-person), Jesse Crary, 10 
Nicholas Ponzio, Aliza Lapierre, Joy Reap, Ian Bender, Chase Rosenburg, Adam Burnett, Jeni 11 
B, Chelseye Brooks (remote) 12 
 13 
Additions/changes to Agenda: 14 
Julian P: Reflection on our approach management plan. Feels that we may be sending a 15 
message to the public that the northern zone will be “closed”. Would like to discuss this before 16 
proceeding with recreation section edits. 17 
 18 
Sam agreed to add the topic to agenda before “b. 6:40 Revisions to Management Plan” 19 
 20 
Public comment: 21 
Jesse C: curious about how the committee will use public input to help guide discussion about 22 
potential changes to management plan. During his tenure as chair (2020-2023) felt there was 23 
significant work to engage the public and create a management plan that included connectivity 24 
to sip of sunshine. Feels that changing the allowed uses (no dogs no bikes in the northern zone) 25 
that was voted on by the current committee are significant and substantial changes to the 26 
management plan. During my tenure as the chair, the committee worked to implement the 27 
management plan in its stated process as a result of that public process and presented 28 
accordingly to the select board. 29 
 30 
Sam P: Shared the RFP/copy editing flow chart to exhibit the plan to solicit public comment on 31 
the updated management plan. Noted he’s the new chair and newer member of the committee 32 
and doesn’t have the full history. Initially became interested after the commotion in 2023. 33 
Understood there was concern about the extent of the proposed trails. Ultimately that kicked off 34 
updates to the management plan which resulted in the current rewrite and consideration of more 35 
scientific data and how to better balance recreation with science. 36 
 37 
Ian S: Julian and Ian are longest tenured committee members, Ian points out that older public 38 
comments have been incorporated into the draft management plan. Points out that connectivity 39 
does exist to VYCC. He feels that the connection to Sunshine is especially challenged by zoning 40 
regs. The slow pace is in part due to the time consuming nature of infrequent open meetings.  41 
 42 
Mike D: Points out that there is no current pedestrian connection to Sip of Sunshine. There is an 43 
existing management plan and trail plan. These should not be ignored. 44 
 45 
Sam P: Committee has been a bit slow for a few reasons, there has been significant turnover on 46 
the committee. The committee has been working through a lengthy technical document with two 47 
hours of public meeting time per month. That has been increased to roughly five hours a month, 48 
and the management plan will be done soon, but part of that depends on the amount of public 49 
feedback. 50 
 51 
Catherine M: Trails were approved in 2023 52 
 53 
Jesse C: March 2023 rolled out the management plan at school. Selectboard “undercut” the 54 
work put forth and the Andrews Committee fractured.  55 
 56 
Wright P: recommending 1 trail not 3 during first time on committee (2021?) and felt like it was a 57 
tough committee to be on as a minority with this viewpoint. 58 
 59 
Brad E: Explained why the management plan revision occurred. A trail plan differing from 60 
concept map triggered a management plan revision, which the committee is still in the midst of. 61 
Felt that Arrowwood was not wild about the trail plan or the Sip of Sunshine connection, but it 62 
was what they were asked to do by the town as a part of the contract. This compromised the 63 
science and ecology since there was a conflict of interest since they had to put in a trail, no 64 
matter what they found in the forest. There was/is significant scientific work to Meredith 65 
Naughton, Andrea Shortsleeve, Sue Morse to help guide the current draft.  66 
 67 
Sam P: Curious about comments about Arrowwood not being excited about the trails... were the 68 
comments made publicly? 69 
 70 
Brad E: Yes, during the public feedback meeting at middle school, can procure a link. 71 
 72 
Mike Donahue: Recalls the Sinuosity and Arrowwood meeting and feels that their presentation 73 
was a benchmark of ecological trail design. They came up with a balanced proposal.  74 
 75 
Sam P: Appreciates the context. Why wasn’t there more pressure to deliver what was decided 76 
on in 2023? If the committee voted to proceed with the plan at the time, how is it that these 77 
concerns haven’t been brought up until two years later? Surprised there hasn’t been more 78 
pressure to get that plan to the selectboard.sal to the Select Board. 79 
 80 
Is in favor of the current work in revising the management plan prior to deciding on trail 81 
development, versus proposing trails and then writing the management plan to fit the trail 82 
design. 83 
 84 
Felt that given the extensive history that predates many members of the committee, there would 85 
be a requirement to get educated on the facts before proceeding with further public comment. 86 
Also felt it would be more fair to the public if the topic was warned, rather than proceeding with 87 
the discussion during the current meeting where the feedback is not consistent with the agenda. 88 
 89 
Bruce H: With all respect for what has been said: feels that Arrowwood didn’t disagree with the 90 
task. It was their job not to take a side on what was proposed. They were given a task and they 91 
performed it. Feels that the easement calls out specifically connectivity as a goal.  92 
 93 
Ian S: Public comment has been significant and beneficial.  94 
 95 
Wright P: Let’s set aside an hour for the next meeting to discuss history. 96 
 97 
Sam P: Will probably need more than an hour, likely an entire meeting. 98 
 99 
Bruce H: The logging that has been done has been significant and intensive. Whole tree 100 
harvesting, which is much more disruptive to wildlife than trail users. We need people in the 101 
forest (via trails) so people understand the value of the forest. This is critical to keep the place 102 
what it is. 103 
 104 
Wright P: Believed that the whole tree harvesting happened before ACF was purchased by the 105 
town. [This was verified after the meeting, to which Bruce also agreed, see email at end of 106 
minutes] 107 
 108 
Sam P: Brandon Benedict (current county forester) has visited ACF and reviewed the forestry 109 
management plan and and didn’t see a need to log in the near future. There were a few optional 110 
zones that Ethan Tapper (former forester) proposed that could be harvested if desired. 111 
 112 
Brad E: This current management plan does allow for and encourage people to utilize the 113 
northern zone. The current forestry management plan will help recover the forest from old 114 
logging damage. Biking can happen in the future if warranted but initially the northern section 115 
should just be used for pedestrians etc. 116 
 117 
Mike D: Existing skid roads are not ideal/sustainable due to how steep they are.Terrain is 118 
rugged and not inviting for most users. 119 
 120 
Sam P: Agreed that in its current state the northern forest is not ideal for the average user. 121 
 122 
Julian P: Volunteers to put something together that highlights the procedural history over the 123 
years.  124 
 125 
Wright P: Proposed the committee return to the agenda. 126 
 127 
Sam P: Agreed the committee should move on. More public feedback can be accepted at a 128 
future meeting. Was optimistic that the committee can find a good compromise. Appreciated the 129 
public feedback. 130 
 131 
Noted that there is an open seat on the committee for a trails representative and would love to 132 
get that seat filled so more voices could be present at meetings. 133 
 134 
Back to flow chart— the late public comment period in the flow chart is due to current state of 135 
the management plan, which is messy and hard to present to the public as there are multiple 136 
versions, many containing comments that haven’t seen full committee review yet. Plan was to 137 
present a cleaner cohesive document to the public so as to not waste anyone’s time. 138 
 139 
Catherine M: Julian’s History would be helpful to include in public comment. 140 
 141 
Sam P: Still confused as to why this conversation is occurring now? If there was a lapse in duty 142 
on the committee’s part in 2023 and a trail design was not sent to selectboard, why has there 143 
been no pressure to get that done for the last two years? 144 
 145 
Jenni B had a question in chat regarding the open seat on ACFC. In response, Sam mentioned 146 
the open seat is for a sitting member of the trails committee. More info is available on the town 147 
website. 148 
 149 
Addition to the Agenda (per Julian’s request): 150 
 151 
Julien P: Worried that the way the management plan is written now the public will feel like the 152 
forest is closed. 400 acres is not a lot of space when considering a 600 ft wide trail buffer. Feels 153 
that 300 feet on either side is too much. Can we pick a smaller number? Below power lines is 154 
about 100 acres so only ¼ of the forest is available for recreation. Proposed 100 feet on either 155 
side of sensitive areas for a buffer. Felt that Merideth’s study would not exclude so much of the 156 
forest. 157 
 158 
Sam P: We shouldn’t ignore the science. We shouldn’t make arbitrary decisions that justify a 159 
trail without parameters for what needs to be preserved… the management plan does include a 160 
process for deviating from the parameters for that very reason. Facts should be respected, and 161 
the deviation process is intended to allow some flexibility while honoring the science.  162 
 163 
Brad E: The existing trail network can stay, as they’re grandfathered. There are extensive trails 164 
that are usable. The 428 acres are part of a larger forest block. It is important to the larger forest 165 
ecosystem and the whole state of Vermont.  166 
 167 
Bruce H: Should abandon skid roads that were not designed with ecological function or 168 
recreation in mind. Would not be well suited to rec traffic. 169 
 170 
Mike D: The science is a guide. The recreation section reads more like an ecology section. Are 171 
there studies cited in the management plan that state the benefits of recreation? This parcel is 172 
the only town owned land with significant elevation change. 173 
 174 
Sam P: The appendices have lots of studies, not sure any citing the benefits or recreation are 175 
included. 176 
 177 
Catherine M: Did Arrowwood provide a ZOI number? 178 
 179 
Mike D: Dry Oak is rare (not endangered) so the trail should go through it so that visitors can 180 
experience it. However, incursions should be brief rather than straight though. 181 
 182 
Julian P: Lets test these distances on a map to see if a trail is workable. 183 
 184 
Sam P: shared a map of potential trails to show that buffers don’t preclude the ability to build 185 
trails in the northern zone. 186 
 187 
Wright P: The co-chairs should be empowered to make quick decisions as appropriate. 188 
 189 
Copy Editing RFP: 190 
 191 
Ian S: The work group streamlined the copy editing timeline and updated the RFP. 192 
 193 
Jim C: Do we have “off-ramps” if needed in this process? If we are not satisfied with the cost, 194 
timeline, etc. can we opt out of working with a copy editor? 195 
 196 
Sam P: The town is not obligated to choose a bid if it doesn’t wish to proceed. RFP should have 197 
some flexibility on the timeline in the event the committee gets delayed with management plan 198 
revisions due to current public feedback. 199 
 200 
Julian: Feels that number 3 in D is important, 201 
 202 
Brad: The comment is only directed toward the URL testing section. 203 
 204 
Catherine M. Should there be a cap on spending included in the actual RFP? 205 
 206 
Julian: Suggest that subcommittee checks with Josh on adding boilerplate if warranted (to 207 
maximize flexibility). 208 
 209 
 210 
Julian made a motion to accept the RFP with the following changes: 211 - Remove the URL testing verbiage in section D number 3 212 - Check with the town to include boilerplate related to pricing (if necessary) 213 - For dates that must be filled in: 214 - Section H: Set date to 3 weeks from when the RFP is sent out 215 - Section I: have Josh pick the date he prefers 216 
 217 
Jim seconded. 218 
 219 
All seven members voted yes, motion passed. 220 
 221 
Matters Arising:  222 
 223 
Jeni B: Is the connection to Sip of Sunshine still an option? 224 
 225 
Sam P: Technically yes, the management plan doesn’t preclude the possibility of a connection 226 
to David Sunshine’s lang. 227 
 228 
Closure: 229 
 230 
Wright made a motion to adjourn. Julian seconded. 231 
 232 
All voted in favor.