2026-10-21 - Edward Farrar Utility District Public Informational Meeting

00:13If you'd like to

00:15set them up.

00:28Oh, good evening and uh

00:30welcome

00:32the Edward Ferraro Utility District

00:34welcomes you to our third public

00:37information meeting to

00:39uh

00:40hear from you folks and gather

00:42information on the uh watershed and the

00:45activities and uh

00:48the things that go on up there and our

00:51goal of protecting the water supply up

00:54there. So, this is an opportunity for

00:56you folks to

00:58speak and express your uh

01:01concerns or interests or anything you'd

01:03like to say.

01:05Um

01:06I'm going to have uh

01:08Rick Weston of the commissioners like to

01:11introduce the

01:13commissioners here. Um

01:17We will start there.

01:19>> Yeah. I

01:20I'm Bill Woodruff, public works director

01:22and the EFU manager.

01:26>> Uh I'm Rick Weston, one of the EFU

01:28commissioners.

01:30>> I'm Neil Ken, one of the EFU

01:31commissioner.

01:33And uh

01:33>> Cindy Parks, another commissioner over

01:35there.

01:37>> And

01:38I'm Mike Neely, our

01:40>> Not that important to me.

01:42>> [laughter]

01:43>> And I'll introduce our moderator in a

01:45moment.

01:47>> And Natalie Zimmerman is also a

01:49commissioner who isn't here at the

01:51moment. So, um

01:54before I have Rick um

01:56introduce, is there any comments anybody

01:59would like to

02:01make?

02:02>> No. Yes, absolutely.

02:03>> Can I come up?

02:09Hi everyone, I'm Alyssa Johnson. I'm a

02:11Waterbury resident. Um, I was so excited

02:14that there was public comment at this

02:16well-attended EFB meeting because I

02:18wanted to take a moment to publicly

02:21recognize and

02:23champion

02:24uh the EFB chair, Skip Flanders. Uh with

02:27big thanks to Rick Weston who nominated

02:30him for the Vermont League of Cities and

02:32Towns Municipal Service Award. Um, they

02:35sent him a letter of commendation. I

02:37wanted to just read a paragraph or two

02:40because I know Skip would do the same

02:42thing. Um, Skip has been a real mentor

02:45and supporter during my own time in

02:47public service in Waterbury. This note

02:49is 40 years of service which is my

02:52entire lifespan plus a decade. So, um

02:55truly just an incredible commitment to

02:57Waterbury and just I just wanted folks

02:59to know that on the statewide level um

03:01Skip [clears throat] is being seen as

03:03one of the most committed leaders to

03:04local government in Vermont. Um, and

03:06just make sure everyone knew about it.

03:08So, um just two quick paragraphs are uh

03:11on behalf of the Board of Directors of

03:13the Vermont League of Cities and Towns,

03:15I'm pleased to write this letter of

03:16commendation to thank you for your

03:18commitment to local government.

03:20The VLCT board asked me to specifically

03:23recognize your more than 40 years of

03:25service including your efforts to

03:27proceed for water and sewer expansions

03:29that have led to economic development

03:31projects such as attracting Ben &

03:33Jerry's flagship factory to Waterbury.

03:36In addition, I wanted to make sure that

03:37you have received a VLCT years of

03:40service pin that recognizes your service

03:42in local government. I've included a pin

03:45that recognizes your more than 40 years

03:47of service. Again, thank you for being

03:49an exceptional local official. So, just

03:51wanted to make sure Skip WAS PUBLICLY

03:53RECOGNIZED.

03:55>> [applause]

04:03>> WELL, THANK YOU ALYSSA AND ALL THE FOLKS

04:05I've served with. If I'd known you were

04:07going to do that, I'd have worn my pin.

04:10>> Thank you to Rick who put this together

04:12and nominated you.

04:13>> Thank you, Rick.

04:16Thank you, Rick.

04:18Don't No need. No need.

04:20It's been a pleasure to serve my

04:23community and things and uh

04:25more than glad to to do it. So,

04:29um with that, Rick, would you

04:31uh like to be the moderator for the

04:33evening?

04:34>> Sure. Many of you have been to our first

04:36two meetings, so you know our how we've

04:39organized and how we handle them.

04:41Um we are we've very fortunate to have

04:43David Mears, former uh

04:48>> PCC

04:48>> PCC I

04:49PCC Commissioner, uh Vermont Law School

04:52professor, and a good friend uh moderate

04:54this session for us. Uh you've all seen

04:57the agenda. We'll have a couple of short

05:00uh present present many presentations uh

05:03short talks from a couple of organ heads

05:05of a couple of organizations, and then

05:07we're going [snorts] to open the

05:09discussion up to you to hear

05:12uh what you have to say uh about the

05:14issues that we're now uh

05:16grappling with. Uh we certainly are

05:19interested in hearing what you have to

05:20say and are particularly interested in

05:22hearing uh if there's information and

05:25experience elsewhere that we don't know

05:28about and should know about. So, with

05:30that, I'll turn it over to David Mears.

05:31Thank you.

05:33>> Thank you, of course. Thanks, Rick.

05:36So, I I wanted to talk briefly about

05:38fractals

05:40and grumpiness.

05:42Um

05:44but but before I do that, I just wanted

05:46to set the context for this. This is the

05:48third third uh public information

05:51session/meeting that E Flight has held.

05:55Um the first two have been largely

05:58information

05:59meeting conversations and that we've

06:02invited experts from the state of

06:03Vermont, from uh

06:06water, you know, supply organizations,

06:10from

06:12Let's see, we've had Hanover, another

06:15city that has a drinking water system

06:17that's not

06:19completely unlike this one.

06:21We've had

06:22Steve Hagenbuch from Audubon talk about

06:25some of the habitat and related issues

06:28and I'm probably forgetting a couple of

06:30other things, but there's been a whole

06:31set up of conversation and we'll hear

06:34today

06:35from

06:36Tom Rogers at the Solon Trust and from

06:40the Vermont from VMBA.

06:43Remind me your name?

06:44>> Nick Bennett.

06:45>> Sorry, I apologize.

06:47You can just call me VMBA, that's fine.

06:49>> [laughter]

06:49>> I think I've been to this before, so

06:51it's doubly embarrassing.

06:54But we'll hear briefly from them, but

06:55the bulk of this conversation is

06:57actually intended to be an information

06:59receiving from the broader public. The

07:01district

07:03board has been listening to the various

07:05pieces of information along with you,

07:08but wants to hear from you. So that

07:11brings me to fractals and grumpiness.

07:14I'll start with grumpiness. There are

07:16lots of reasons to be grumpy.

07:19I

07:21I try I I no longer read the news before

07:23noon or before I go to bed to minimize

07:26the degree to which the world and

07:28national news makes me grumpy. It's been

07:30partly successful, but I still find

07:33plenty of ways to get grumpy and I take

07:35it out on my my spouse and my friends

07:37and my colleagues

07:40and occasionally like driving here

07:42tonight as I'm noticing the blue sky,

07:45the contrast of the remaining oranges

07:48and yellows that are on the trees, this

07:51amazing pink sunset. I was realizing

07:54like it's

07:56you know, you can't be grumpy about the

07:58weather, but you can be happy about

08:00tonight.

08:02Is there anything to be grumpy about?

08:04This is the most beautiful fall I think

08:06I've experienced in a long time.

08:09But anyway, there's lots of reasons to

08:10be grumpy including a dispute like this

08:12or a discussion I should say. I don't

08:14even know if there's a dispute yet, but

08:16a discussion about what are the best

08:18ways to manage this small piece of

08:20nature that the E Flood has

08:22responsibility for and how to balance

08:24that with their fundamental

08:26um solemn obligation to make sure that

08:28the the customers of the district

08:30receive good clean water. Um so I I

08:33don't really need to say this to this

08:35community. Each one of these discussions

08:37I've been part of have been at the

08:38highest level of discourse and and

08:41courtesy and respect, but I just mention

08:43it again because grumpiness levels are

08:46increasing is my own personal

08:48observation. If I had a grumpiness meter

08:49I would say it's ticking into the red at

08:52the moment. This is a great chance to

08:55practice

08:56good civic government and all that that

08:59Skip has embodied over the years, which

09:01brings me to fractals, which is to the

09:03extent that we want to not just not feel

09:06grumpy, but we want to feel like we're

09:08part of making something bigger and

09:10better happen in the world. Fractals,

09:12for those of you who who haven't

09:15followed this idea are are this these

09:17things that repeat and often in nature,

09:19but we can engineer them, but it's

09:21we see them in art often. It like a fern

09:24would be a good example of a fractal

09:25where, you know, as you keep taking the

09:27the fronds of a fern down smaller and

09:29smaller, it still looks like a fern.

09:32There's these patterns that can repeat

09:34that start at a very small level, even a

09:36microscopic level, but when repeated

09:38over and over and over again create a

09:41much larger, deeper, systemic beauty.

09:44And

09:46that's what I think of my

09:47rationalization for living in Vermont

09:50and not some place uh

09:52that's got

09:53bigger problems to solve is that we're

09:55perfect here we are in Vermont

09:57perfecting democracy and democratic

09:59process with the goal that that will it

10:01will infect the rest of the world and we

10:03are the smallest most microscopic piece

10:06of a fractal that we're growing. And I'm

10:08just inviting all of you to

10:10to be part of doing that tonight.

10:13Um

10:14and by the way, that was um

10:16I was just trying to do something

10:18slightly different than Pardon me.

10:21Um

10:22you are all for many facilitation

10:24presentations before. So, I was just

10:26trying something. So, give me feedback

10:27afterwards.

10:32Um so, uh the on the last break small

10:35thing I'll say is that for those of you

10:37who like to

10:39to go on waiting for your turn to talk,

10:41as Seinfeld would say, you know, maybe

10:43hold back and listen a little bit. And

10:45for those of you who are cautious or

10:48feel uncertain about speaking, you know,

10:50look for an opportunity to make sure

10:51your voice is heard.

10:53Um we'll create space for that. So, with

10:55that, I'm going to hand it off to Tom to

10:57speak for about 10 minutes and um or 15

11:00or 20 minutes maybe, and then to Nick.

11:04>> David,

11:05thank you.

11:09>> [applause]

11:11>> That's more applause for David and not

11:12for my standing up in front of

11:14everybody.

11:15David is actually a former boss of mine.

11:17I briefly worked at the Department of

11:18Environmental Conservation in the

11:19Drinking Water and Groundwater

11:21Protection Division. So,

11:23uh a brief experience that is very

11:24pertinent to our conversation tonight.

11:27Um this piece of property, as we all

11:29know, is just an amazing slice of land.

11:31Um

11:32it's something that's really special to

11:33me. It's special to all of us. And so, I

11:35just want to talk a little bit about

11:36tonight.

11:38Some of the some of the challenges and

11:40opportunities and some of the ways that

11:41Stowe Land Trust can potentially be a

11:43partner. So, for people who don't know,

11:45Stowe Land Trust has been around for

11:46about 40 years. We've protected about

11:487,000 acres of land. Most of that is in

11:51the town of Stowe, uh but increasingly

11:54we're doing projects in Morrisville, and

11:56we have a few properties in Waterbury

11:57that we have conserved and that we're

11:59currently looking to conserve. So,

12:01moving forward, we are, you know, seeing

12:04ourselves as really a valley-wide land

12:06trust. And my goal is to coin the phrase

12:09the Mount Mansfield's Valley, if at all

12:11possible, because the Mad River Valley

12:13is to the south of us and we really kind

12:14of don't have a collective name for this

12:16Route 100 corridor. So, eventually let's

12:18let's just put that out in the ether and

12:20see if it sinks in sometime.

12:22Um so, I just want to thank you guys so

12:24much for the opportunity to speak. Um I

12:26just want to acknowledge the really

12:27difficult position that EFB is in. Um

12:30the idea of that you have to protect

12:32drinking water on this amazing piece of

12:35property that's so beloved to people

12:36that happens to be in the next town over

12:39um that gets has so many different user

12:41groups that have enjoyed it informally

12:43and formally for so long. It really adds

12:45a level of complexity that not many

12:47water utilities are are equipped to

12:49handle nor should they be asked to

12:51handle that.

12:52You know, I I think we need to recognize

12:54that we in the conservation community

12:56really haven't stepped up soon enough to

12:58offer the support that you all deserve.

13:00And so, our goal hopefully is to to

13:02change that to correct that.

13:04Um so, this property the the waterworks

13:07property has been on our radar at Stowe

13:09Land Trust for a really long time.

13:11Um it's in the middle of the Shutesville

13:13Hill Wildlife Corridor. It's an area

13:15where we're partnering with our partners

13:16at Waterbury Land Initiative, The Nature

13:18Conservancy, and Vermont Land Trust to

13:20really protect as much land as possible

13:22to maintain an intact wildlife corridor

13:25between the Greens and the Woosters. Um

13:27you know, we're so grateful for EFB's

13:30stewardship of this land so far in

13:31keeping it forested and undeveloped. Um

13:34and I really want to emphasize that

13:35protecting the forest uh for habitat and

13:38biodiversity and protecting the forest

13:40for water quality really are one in the

13:42same. Those goals are just absolutely

13:44synonymous. One of the best things you

13:46can do to protect drinking water is to

13:48make sure you have a healthy uh intact

13:50forest.

13:51Um so, we're totally aligned with EFB on

13:53on make on that as a top priority. Um we

13:56also recognize that this is really a

13:58beautiful property that people in the

13:59community have valued and enjoyed for

14:01decades. Um

14:03we understand that people care really

14:04deeply about access to the land and that

14:07there's value in in carefully evaluating

14:09the options for protecting the property

14:11over the long term. You know, whether

14:13that includes recreational uses uh

14:15that can be compatible with protecting

14:17drinking water and the forest.

14:19So, we aren't coming in with any sort

14:20[clears throat] of predetermined

14:21outcome, but our role I would say is

14:23really to help EWEB and the

14:25commissioners and the rest of the

14:26community evaluate the options and

14:27identify some of the stronger path

14:29forward.

14:30So, one of the one of the things that

14:32has been on our radar for a long time is

14:34the potential permanent protection of

14:36this property. Um, it's always been

14:38discussed in the conservation community

14:40whether it makes sense to work with

14:42utilities to permanently protect the

14:43land because their mandate often is

14:46really compatible with that. So, so it's

14:48almost like a why bother, you know,

14:50there's so much land out there that we

14:51could potentially protect. Joshua, looks

14:53like you're holding the area. Want me to

14:55speak up a little bit more?

14:56>> No,

14:58>> [snorts]

14:58>> my problem now you

14:59>> Okay, I didn't

15:00I didn't mean to call you out, sir. Just

15:02just wanted to get that reminder.

15:04>> [snorts]

15:04>> You know,

15:06it's kind of in many ways seen as de

15:08facto conserved, right? Like EWEB has no

15:10intention of altering this forest, of

15:13doing anything other than maintaining a

15:15healthy and intact biodiverse forest.

15:17But one of the things that we sometimes

15:19come up with against is is issues like

15:21this, recreational management, whether

15:23and if there should be recreation on

15:25this property,

15:26um,

15:27you know, if if the utility decided it

15:29was going to move to a groundwater

15:31system here in Waterbury for whatever

15:32reason, that could suddenly change and

15:34this could go on the market and be for

15:36sale and turn into luxury condos next

15:38week. And so, it's the type of thing

15:39that we have to think about like what

15:41are what is what is the the 50-year plan

15:43and the 100-year plan, that kind of

15:45thing. And so, it's certainly been

15:46something that's been on our radar for a

15:48long time.

15:49Um,

15:51so, just a few opportunities that might

15:54be possibilities.

15:55A few ways that we wanted to offer

15:58potential support,

16:00especially in getting to the potentially

16:02a permanent protection solution. Um, one

16:04opportunity could potentially be for

16:06Stowe Land Trust to put an easement on

16:08this property, to work with EWEB, to

16:10work with the community to ease this

16:12property, and clearly spell out and

16:14define what those uses are.

16:16The the primary use would of course be

16:19the protection of the drinking water

16:20source for the community of Waterbury.

16:23Um and with that, the protection of the

16:24forest and the habitat uh wildlife

16:28corridor.

16:29>> [snorts]

16:29>> And then

16:30to then use that recreation or use that

16:33easement to explore whether there are

16:35opportunities to uh for recreation to be

16:38compatible with those uses as well. I

16:40think that there's a strong case to be

16:42made that there are certainly

16:43opportunities

16:45for recreation, whether dispersed

16:47recreation or concentrated recreation,

16:49that could be compatible with that

16:51opportunity.

16:52Um another possibility is for the

16:55property to become part of the Vermont

16:57State Forest system. Um it is surrounded

16:59on three sides by CC Putnam State

17:01Forest.

17:03Um we know that FPR unfortunately

17:05couldn't be here tonight, but we've all

17:06had conversations with them. And I spoke

17:09with Becca Washburn, who is actually

17:11many moons ago a former SoLandTrust

17:13staffer, now working for the state of

17:14Vermont for Forests, Parks and

17:16Recreation, and also for many decades a

17:18Waterbury resident, now lives over in

17:20Middlesex.

17:21Um she is in charge of that department's

17:23land acquisition program. And she

17:25relayed to me that it was perfectly fine

17:27to say that they want to be a good

17:28neighbor. They want to provide as much

17:30resources and help as they can as a

17:32neighbor.

17:34Um and she said that the community is

17:35interested in exploring permanent

17:37protection options through the state

17:39forest.

17:40Uh that is also an opportunity that they

17:42would be willing to have that

17:43conversation with the community.

17:45Obviously, no commitments at that at

17:46this point from them, and it's a kind of

17:48a long process to gain community input

17:51on any property that the state acquires,

17:53but that that's also an opportunity on

17:55the table.

17:57You guys don't have to duck down. You're

17:58not in anybody's way here.

18:02Um

18:03you know, one of the one of the

18:04opportunities that state uh state

18:07acquisition potentially bring for this

18:09is that as soon as something becomes

18:12state land, all of a sudden all of those

18:13enforcement resources come into play.

18:16And so, if there is any rogue trail

18:18building activity or things up like that

18:20that are happening up there. Um all of a

18:22sudden you have the entire resource of

18:24the state that can go in, you know,

18:25close a trail down, put a stop to it, um

18:28open up a case through the environmental

18:30uh enforcement division. And so that

18:32brings in tremendous resources and help

18:35to the commissioners and to the

18:37community that otherwise are not

18:39necessarily accessible on land that's

18:42not state-owned.

18:44Um so it's certainly an option worth

18:45exploring.

18:47Um

18:48And then

18:49the there's another option of having it

18:52be state-owned land with the

18:54conservation easement on top of it that

18:56would bring Stowe Land Trust to

18:58resources to bear. So we have uh 43

19:02properties that we've conserved so far

19:04with Stowe Land Trust and they range

19:06from everything from, as we all know,

19:08Katie Hill was a Stowe Land Trust

19:09property uh that we conserved. We work

19:12closely with the Stowe Trails

19:13Partnership and with the mountain biking

19:14community.

19:15Um and for that property recreation is

19:18kind of the primary purpose. It's a

19:19world-class uh trail network that Stowe

19:22Trails Partnership has built in

19:24partnership with the Land Trust and with

19:25the town. And there are certainly

19:27opportunities for for things like that

19:29on our properties where it's

19:31appropriate.

19:32Uh on another property that we've that

19:34we've conserved, Shutesville Ledges,

19:35we're really not promoting recreation.

19:37You know, people are allowed to work uh

19:39walk on that or go hunting on it or you

19:41know, do dispersed recreation. But those

19:43things are really clearly spelled out in

19:45the easement. They're not suggestions.

19:47They are legally binding agreements. And

19:49so if we were to put an easement on the

19:51property um moving forward, whether it's

19:53owned by the state or continued to be

19:55owned by the utility, um that would be

19:57something that would we would have to

19:59enforce. We would be legally obliged to

20:01enforce and we would bring all of our

20:02resources as an organization to be able

20:05to enforce. And so that way, you know,

20:07if it were ever determined at any point

20:09in the future that recreation,

20:10trail-based recreation, was compatible

20:12with this property, we could do that

20:14right. We could get the permits. We

20:16could make sure that it's done in a way

20:18that um is compatible with the drinking

20:20water resource, all of those things. So

20:23these are all hypotheticals. None of

20:25them are are necessarily

20:27a foregone conclusion, but just

20:29opportunities and resources that we

20:30could potentially bring.

20:32Um

20:33and then one of the things

20:34that I would say is that whatever the

20:36ownership structure, I think one of the

20:38first steps that I would suggest is just

20:40an objective professional assessment of

20:43the property. So,

20:45hiring environmental consultant, you

20:47know, we work with environmental

20:48consultants all the time. We just hired

20:50one for Mayo Farm that went out and did

20:52a complete inventory of the natural

20:53resources, provided recommendations for

20:55going forward, how to best protect those

20:57resources.

20:58Many of you know Mayo Farm is really an

21:00epicenter of you know, team sports based

21:03recreation in town as well as

21:04agriculture. And so, you know, we have a

21:07lot of experience working with those

21:08types of organizations. Um and and

21:12consultants that could provide that that

21:14type of science based evidence based uh

21:17um you know, recommendations for how we

21:20could best uh look at whether recreation

21:23is compatible with the drinking water

21:24source. Um from my conversations with

21:27some of my former colleagues at the DEC,

21:29you know, they say that there are a lot

21:30of examples of surface water systems

21:33like this both in Vermont and in the

21:35region that do have uh outdoor

21:38recreation on them. Um they say that you

21:41know, their goal first and foremost is

21:43protecting drinking water, but that in

21:44most cases there is a lot of

21:46opportunities for that to be compatible

21:48with both trail based and uh dispersed

21:51recreation. But really it has to be

21:53guided by information. It has to be

21:55guided by science. We need to have the

21:56information first

21:58um before we move for- forward with

22:00that. Um

22:03the last thing I would just say is that,

22:04you know, any property that we deal

22:06with,

22:07uh just kind of coming back to this idea

22:08that

22:09we really work to do any sort of

22:12recreation right, you know, so we're not

22:15moving ahead of any permit process.

22:17We're getting, you know, well engineered

22:19trail built systems that uh stand up to

22:22things like erosion.

22:24>> [clears throat]

22:24>> Um

22:25Nick will talk a little bit about about

22:27that in a minute. Um

22:29And so, you know, we have just as much

22:30experience kind of enforcing

22:33uh prohibitions of recreation in places

22:35where it's not compatible, where

22:36somebody is building a trail where it

22:37shouldn't be, or things like that, as we

22:39do promoting it and uh moving it forward

22:42in places where it is compatible with

22:44natural resources. So, very happy to

22:46bring those resources to bear.

22:48Um and then

22:50I have kind of my notes here. I've been

22:51skipping around in my speech, so my

22:53apologies. I Just kind of the the bigger

22:56picture though is our our goal is really

22:58to listen and learn to the commissioners

22:59and to the community and to provide any

23:01help or resources we can, whether we

23:04decided to

23:05uh you know, [clears throat] we wanted

23:06to move forward with a um

23:10an assessment, we'd be happy to bring

23:11financial resources to that. You know,

23:13if there was ever a transfer of either

23:15an easement or the actual property

23:17[snorts] itself to the state, we could

23:19certainly help fund raise for that and

23:21bring money to um the utility uh for

23:24that transfer. Um it would work in some

23:27ways similar to when private land just

23:29somebody decides to put an easement on

23:31or to try to to um you know,

23:34sell for conservation a private piece of

23:36property, we'd be happy to kind of help

23:38bring the community together and fund

23:39raise for this um if that was the

23:41direction that the commissioners decided

23:43to go.

23:44Um

23:45I'm happy to turn it over to Nick now

23:46and either of us are happy to take any

23:48questions either now or after, whatever

23:51you'd like.

23:51>> Yeah, why don't why don't we just pause

23:53just briefly cuz you did awesome on

23:54time. Thumbs up. Um

23:57do [clears throat] you want to um

23:58you know, any burning questions from the

24:00the board members?

24:05>> The moment, no.

24:06>> All right. Any any burning questions

24:07from the the public?

24:11All right.

24:12Well, good. Well,

24:15there'll be other

24:15>> No notes.

24:17>> But, thank you very much. Um yes, sir,

24:18Nick. PLEASE COME UP.

24:27>> ALL RIGHT.

24:30FIRST OFF, I'M GLAD TO HAVE THE PODIUM.

24:31I'VE got some notes just to make sure I

24:33cover what I want to talk to, but

24:35um

24:36First and foremost, I'm Nick Bennett.

24:37I'm the executive director of the

24:39Vermont Mountain Bike Association. I'm

24:41also a Waterbury resident. Firstly, I

24:43want to thank EFB and the commissioners

24:44for asking me to speak tonight. This is

24:47a parcel that I personally care deeply

24:48about, and I hope I have some comments

24:50that are helpful to the commissioners as

24:51they consider how to proceed in their

24:53decisions.

24:54First, I just want to introduce VMBA for

24:56folks that are unfamiliar. Vermont

24:57Mountain Bike Association, we're the

24:59parent organization to 28 chapters

25:01across the state of Vermont. We steward

25:03over 900 miles of trail. We have

25:05cooperative agreements with both the

25:06state of Vermont, the US Forest Service,

25:09hundreds of individual landowners, and

25:11dozens of municipalities across the

25:12state. Um

25:14two of our chapters, the Waterbury Trail

25:16Alliance here in town and the Stowe

25:17Trails Partnership, they happen to

25:19straddle the Waterworks parcel. They sit

25:21on both sides. Neither of those

25:22organizations was involved in the

25:24construction of these trails, but both

25:25represent communities that have

25:27individuals who have long valued the

25:29recreational use of that parcel, too.

25:31Um personally, I mentioned I'm a

25:33Waterbury resident. I live up on

25:34Neilland Flats. I was a regular user of

25:36the parcel myself both on foot and on

25:38bike before it was closed down. It's

25:39something that um having it closed this

25:41year, I can say significantly impacted

25:43my quality of life. There were many days

25:45where I wish I could have gone up and

25:47enjoyed the special parcel that is up

25:48there. So, personally, I have a

25:49connection. Also, note note that I

25:51happen to have a PhD in chemistry, which

25:53is a weird thing to be in the role I am

25:54now, but it has definitely brought back

25:55memories of the discussion of pathogens,

25:57turbidity, PFAS. So, it's been kind of a

25:59fun stroll down memory lane to some

26:01degree.

26:02Um

26:03But then I did Yeah, before I get

26:04started, I do want to firstly recognize,

26:06and it's something we heard I hope folks

26:07that attended that first session really

26:09took home the recognition of EFB's

26:12primary purpose and recognition that as

26:14a landowner, their only responsibility

26:16is to provide safe, clean, and

26:18affordable drinking water to the

26:19residents of Waterbury. That is what

26:20they are obligated to do. So, just to

26:22respect that. They're not allowed to

26:24invest in or pursue things that deviate

26:26from that mission. And the parcel itself

26:28is It's public land in the same sense of

26:30a town forest. It's an a parcel owned

26:32for the the purpose of this utility to

26:34provide that safe drinking water.

26:36However, as we learned in that second

26:38session that folks attended, there are

26:39many other really valuable uses and ways

26:41that this parcel parcel provides value

26:43to the environment and the community. We

26:45heard about the ecological importance

26:47from Audubon and SLT for wildlife, both

26:49habitat and migration. And we heard

26:51about the recreation value that this

26:53parcel has provided for decades. So,

26:55it's not It certainly is critical for

26:56drinking water. It has long provided

26:58these other values.

27:00I'm mainly here tonight to talk about

27:01the concerns related to water quality

27:03and the recreational impacts on those

27:05concerns. So, as we've heard and this is

27:07trying to summarize a bit from the past

27:09sessions, the main concerns that could

27:10impact quality water quality are really

27:12related to turbidity, to PFAS, and to

27:15pathogens.

27:16And so, on the PFAS front, I just wanted

27:18to sort of lay out there we heard about

27:20issues in Stowe. The only documented

27:22recreational contamination from PFAS is

27:24in areas of concentrated use like ski

27:26areas and ski race venues. That is,

27:27areas where PFAS recreational use has

27:29been related. The use of those products

27:31has largely been banned or discontinued,

27:33and the winter recreational use that at

27:35WaterWorks really bears no resemblance

27:36to those use cases. So, just to lay that

27:38out there.

27:39Where recreational use could, at least

27:41in theory, have an impact is on the

27:43front on the pathogens and on turbidity.

27:45So, just to kind of focus on what we're

27:46talking about.

27:48So, pathogens, primary driver here we're

27:50talking about animal feces. We're really

27:51talking about dog poop, and folks that

27:53are have been have been on trail before

27:54with dogs understand that. Um,

27:56you know, the idea of avoiding bringing

27:59high concentrations of animals in areas

28:00of water quality makes common sense. The

28:03one thing I would note, too, is that the

28:04historical documented user or historical

28:06use of WaterWorks is very low relative

28:08to areas where there has been concerns

28:10about sort of concentrated animal feces.

28:12So, something worth thinking about, but

28:14but just to lay that out there.

28:17And mainly the the thing I'll talk about

28:19is the turbidity front. So, that third

28:20of the three concerns. And it's the main

28:22concern raised from recreational use

28:24related to erosion and trail usage. So,

28:26first off, one if not the primary goal

28:29of

28:30modern trail building is to create a

28:31stable, durable trail surface. That is

28:33what we are after is trails that do not

28:35erode. Resilient trails that last the

28:37test of time. And if you look at studies

28:38in the literature throughout the past 20

28:40years,

28:41there's a couple of pretty important

28:42conclusions to take away. One is that

28:44modern trail building techniques, so

28:45avoiding steep slopes, maintaining sheet

28:47flow of waters, using rock on trail

28:49tread where there is issues if possible

28:51soil displacement, have largely

28:53eliminated damage from erosion. So,

28:55modern techniques have focused heavily

28:56on this. The other two takeaways, one is

28:58that maintenance is extremely important.

29:00So, main training well-built trails is

29:01part of that is critical here to make

29:03sure drainages are operating as they

29:04should. You have to upkeep trails, no

29:06matter how well they're built.

29:08And the third is that numerous published

29:10published studies have documented that

29:11boots and tires on trails, their impacts

29:14are indistinguishable. So, if you look

29:15at literally the soil volume displaced,

29:17whether it's hiking boots, mountain bike

29:18tires, are essentially the same, and

29:21they're an order of magnitude less than

29:22motor motorcycles or equestrian boots.

29:25And then we brought up FPR. I know they

29:27couldn't unfortunately be here tonight,

29:28but I can share a little bit of the

29:29perspective from the Agency of Natural

29:31Resources for whom FPR sits under. Um,

29:33there was an individual who wrote to the

29:34department in 2024 requesting a

29:36moratorium on trail construction after

29:38the flooding we saw in 2023 and 2024.

29:42Not really citing any specifics, just

29:43expressing concern. And the secretary,

29:45who herself is a is a water quality

29:47expert, wrote back, and I'll just read

29:48it here cuz I can't remember the detail

29:50of it specifically, but with the growth

29:51in popularity of mountain biking as well

29:53as other forms of recreation has come

29:55significant gains in knowledge about

29:56building sustainable trails. And the

29:58trails built to modern standards have

29:59largely withstood the recent large-scale

30:01rain events with minimal damage from

30:03erosion.

30:04So, Secretary herself pushed back on the

30:06idea that trails are eroding under this

30:07use even in those historical high high

30:10intensity events.

30:12So, to kind of transfer from

30:14literature and hypothesis to talk a

30:15little bit about our actual observations

30:17on the parcel. Many of you here tonight

30:19I I suspect have been up there. Um,

30:21working with the town manager at the

30:22time and with EFB's support, we

30:24conducted an assessment of the parcel

30:25back in 2024. We went out there with the

30:27professional trail builder and designer,

30:29the same one who worked with the

30:30Trescott folks who you've heard from at

30:32the second visit. Um,

30:34and really the assessment the key

30:35takeaway was that the vast majority of

30:36the existing historical trails, the ones

30:38located on the north side and the south

30:40side of the parcel, the ones that have

30:41been there for decades, have shown very

30:43little signs of disturbance or erosion.

30:45So, those trails have are exhibiting

30:47good durability and have been appear to

30:49be sustainable. And they're also located

30:51critically outside the 100-ft repairing

30:54zones that we typically practice to to

30:55avoid trail damage.

30:57We also noted that more of the some of

30:58the new trails constructed towards the

31:00center weren't built to what we would

31:01call sustainable standards and were were

31:04were eroding and also located too close

31:06to the existing water the streams that

31:07feed the water supply. So, and I have I

31:09didn't want to share this I was told I

31:11could use no slides so I'm not. But we

31:12did we have a map that's upside down

31:14that looks at sort of green is good, red

31:17is bad. This is our rapid assessment

31:19again but looking at that again trails

31:20on the north side generally located away

31:23from water supply, well-built, not

31:24showing signs of erosion. Trails in the

31:26center not in good shape either showing

31:29signs of erosion, too close to streams.

31:30Some of the older historical trails too

31:32close to Badger Brook. And then

31:34similarly on the south side generally

31:35okay some zones we would recommend

31:37rerouting. And again, I'll note a couple

31:39other observations from that assessment.

31:41It was rapid we weren't out there again

31:42and Tom noted it'd be great to have more

31:44data and collect more information.

31:46And and something that we would

31:47certainly recommend is getting better

31:49better detail about what's actually

31:51>> [clears throat]

31:52>> been going on but at least a sense of

31:53what's happening there. And another

31:54thing I would note is that there we did

31:55note erosion happening up there as folks

31:57may be familiar with

31:58the historical logging trails. Certainly

32:00are some are demonstrating signs that

32:02they could benefit from more analysis

32:03and understanding how to properly

32:04decommission those logging trails or

32:06logging trails. And they're not the

32:07focus of recreation that that they're

32:09not where people are typically hiking or

32:11mountain biking.

32:12Um the one other thing I do want to note

32:14is along with the unauthorized building

32:15of trails we did note there is

32:16considerable maintenance being done on

32:18the existing trails too. The trails are

32:20being maintained, drains are being

32:21cleared, blowdowns are being cleared. A

32:23lot of work is going into maintaining

32:25those historical trails too.

32:27So, to speak quickly or just for a

32:28moment on compatibility with other

32:30values. We heard in the second

32:32the second session about the competing

32:33competing with different desired uses of

32:35this parcel.

32:37And Tom mentioned it before recreational

32:38trails in many examples, especially

32:40those like the lightly one used in

32:41Waterworks, are very compatible with

32:43other uses like for wildlife, hunting.

32:46We work with not just Stowe Land Trust,

32:48but many land trusts around the state.

32:50We manage trails on wildlife management

32:51areas. There are many ways that trails

32:53can be compatible. Those can also

32:54include things like seasonal closures.

32:57They can include things like ensuring

32:58people stay away from sensitive areas.

33:00So, it the idea there there's often a

33:02false dichotomy sort of recreation and

33:04conservation. Um, recreation certainly

33:06can be done in ways that are very

33:07compatible with with

33:09wildlife and other ecological

33:10considerations.

33:12A few observations just from the

33:13conversation around constraints that the

33:15real constraints that exist. It would be

33:16very difficult to fence off this parcel

33:18and simply put up a fence. Wildlife

33:20needs to access it. That would be cost

33:21prohibitive maintaining it. There's a

33:22whole bunch of reasons that seems

33:24difficult. Um,

33:25there there's a historical presence of

33:27these trails. These trails have been

33:28around for a generation. It is very

33:30difficult to take that out of a

33:31community's usage pattern and and change

33:33behavior. So, just that historical

33:35presence.

33:36Um,

33:36the idea of relying on law enforcement

33:38enforcement techniques at least at this

33:39stage seems very difficult to try to use

33:41law enforcement as a technique. Um, and

33:44the the sort of the uncomfortable

33:46reality and I I think anyone that that

33:47is aware that those willing to break the

33:49rules will likely continue to do so. And

33:51right now it's the folks who are

33:52following the rules that are not

33:54accessing that parcel. We we believe

33:55there is ongoing activity there. I

33:57haven't been there personally, but um,

33:59that that continues to have of activity

34:00and and who knows perhaps additional

34:02building going on in the parcel. So,

34:04that's sort of my uncomfortable reality.

34:06To transition to talk about capacity as

34:08Tom spoke, there are ways that the Stowe

34:09Land Trust could help. There are ways

34:10that the Vermont Mountain Bike

34:12Association and in particular through

34:14our chapters, WATA and Stowe, are are

34:16here and willing to help and support

34:18this effort as well. So, as an

34:19organization, we have a deep

34:21understanding of the sustainable

34:22practices for building and maintaining

34:24trails. I'm passing around a handbook,

34:26but this is a handbook documenting our

34:27160 best management practices that we

34:30use through our chapters about how to

34:31manage and maintain. You're welcome to

34:33either pass it around or get As long as

34:34everything gets returned to me, you

34:35could If anyone wants to look at it,

34:37feel free. I thought a prop would be

34:38helpful. Sometimes it's good to look at

34:39something.

34:40>> Is it Is it on

34:42>> It's online, too. It's available online,

34:43absolutely. Yes, you can. It's an online

34:44resource.

34:46And then, again, as noting that two of

34:48our most capable chapters, STPN Wata,

34:50sit on both sides of this parcel and are

34:52willing to provide resources and

34:54capacity to help with stewardship. So,

34:56they are willing to provide that person

34:57power, that time and energy. And a

34:59couple of caveats to that offer to help.

35:01One is that we have no interest in

35:03publicly promoting this parcel or

35:05turning it into a Vimba trail system,

35:07putting on a map, using it as a tract

35:09people to come here. We recognize that

35:10this and and envision this if if there's

35:13a solution reached, maintaining it as a

35:14community asset that people use in

35:16similar usage patterns to they use

35:18today. So, not looking to promote it,

35:20not looking to map it. Um we'd also want

35:22to do so in a way that works with other

35:23community members that want to be

35:24involved and other organizations that

35:26have a stake in this. So, wanting to

35:27sort of share the responsibility of the

35:29load and ensure other folks are

35:30involved. And then, ultimately, whatever

35:32we do has to support the primary goal of

35:34water quality. That is, again, EWEB's

35:36charge. It would have to be the the

35:37outcome that is focused on.

35:39I'll note, too, and reiterating, we

35:41manage hundreds of private landowner

35:43relationships and and public access

35:45trails on that private land and do so in

35:47a way that acknowledges the landowners'

35:49primacy, their their desired outcomes,

35:51in a way that works for them. So, we

35:53have a lot of history and how to work

35:54with landowners and ensure that access

35:56is done in a way that's respectful and

35:57meets their goals.

35:59And another observation, I could have

36:01put this earlier, but that the most

36:02powerful antidote that we found and and

36:04has historically been documented to

36:05rogue or unauthorized building has shown

36:08to be sunlight.

36:09Getting people and eyes out there and

36:11the public out there, it's very

36:12difficult for people to conduct

36:13nefarious or illegal activities when

36:15they're in the public eye. So, the idea

36:17of making this a parcel where there are

36:19folks out there, where there's activity,

36:21we can see what's going on. And then,

36:23the additional idea that any stewardship

36:24role that we play could also involve

36:26decommissioning those trails that are

36:27not sustainable currently and monitoring

36:29so there isn't future construction of

36:31trails in those zones that they

36:33shouldn't be.

36:35Um so, just to wrap up a little, one is

36:37timing. I mean, first and foremost, we

36:39recognize and deeply respect the need

36:41for EWEB to be deliberate and

36:43thoughtful. This is a really important

36:44decision. This affects the water quality

36:46of the citizens of Waterbury, so we

36:48respect that.

36:49That said, we would also note there is

36:51ongoing activity in the water works

36:52parcel despite the sign of the closure

36:54and signage. So, time may not be

36:56infinite. Time is a commodity that we

36:58have and that inaction itself is a

37:00decision. So, there's stuff going on in

37:02the been activity now that could really

37:04necessitate or promote or suggest the

37:06value of interim actions to better

37:09manage or better control and better

37:10monitor

37:12the use going on in there. So, just and

37:13that literally being not so people can

37:15get back and ride their bikes on the

37:16parcel, but [clears throat] and the

37:17outcome of minimizing impacts to water

37:19quality now.

37:21So, with that I'll I'll just closing I I

37:23really appreciate the time and the

37:24opportunity to speak and and the role

37:26that you're taking in this process. Um,

37:29I represent a community of folks that

37:30care deeply about this land and all the

37:32folks here I just want to respect you

37:33for being here and caring about this

37:35land too. I think we can share that in

37:37common. Um,

37:38and organizationally I just want to

37:39again offer the fact that we have the

37:40capacity we have the resources and we

37:43have the experience to play a role

37:44helping out here too. So,

37:46with that I'll end my time.

37:48>> YEAH.

37:50>> [applause]

37:54>> LET LET LET ME LET ME JUST SEE IF ALL

37:56COMMISSIONERS have any any questions for

37:57Nick and then we'll turn it to the

37:58group.

38:00>> Well, the obvious first is a reference

38:02you made to numerous studies.

38:04>> Yes.

38:06Would you like the bibliography of that?

38:07>> I would like that bibliography.

38:09>> out a half dozen studies that show these

38:10impacts for recreation.

38:11>> You yeah, please send us the links and

38:14the

38:14>> Yes, the first original documentation

38:16was a study in Utah back in 1994 and

38:18since then there have been numerous

38:19studies looking at and a lot of the

38:21conclusions there really relate to you

38:23have to look at the difference between

38:25impacts of boots and tires on just

38:27random soil versus impacts of boots and

38:29tires on a well-constructed trail trail.

38:31And that's really where the the science

38:32is kind of at, but I'm happy to provide

38:34that to you guys.

38:35>> Absolutely.

38:36Thank you. Other questions for Nick?

38:38Yeah, Cindy.

38:39>> Uh, a couple of questions. So, Nick you

38:42mentioned that you have resources

38:44available. Can you expand on what types

38:47of resources and magnitude?

38:49>> Sure. No, that's a great question. So,

38:51>> Would you repeat the question just for

38:52everyone else?

38:52>> Yeah, so unless everyone heard her

38:53question.

38:53>> So, you asked you mentioned that we have

38:55resources that can come to the table and

38:56and what those look like, what that

38:57means. So, firstly, as an organization,

39:00we have almost 9,000 individual members

39:02across the state. We've been around for

39:0430 years. We have access to to that

39:06experience and those those individuals.

39:09More specifically, as I mentioned, we

39:11have the Waterbury Area Trails Alliance

39:12here in Waterbury. We have Stowe Trails

39:14Partnership. This is a unique situation

39:16where WaterWorks honestly sits directly

39:17between the two. Both those

39:19organizations have loads of volunteers,

39:21so volunteers that can be engaged in

39:23stewardship activities, so maintenance

39:25or monitoring and cleaning, that type of

39:27thing. We have budgets. Our budgets are

39:29funded through both public or private

39:31grant funding. We have individual

39:32memberships that go, so there's funding

39:34that could be brought to bear to as

39:35[clears throat] needed invest in any

39:37improvements. Again, I think the general

39:39thought here is that we'd be focused on

39:40just supporting any existing trails as

39:43is. As I mentioned, there's a lot of

39:44individual individuals out there

39:45currently conducting maintenance on

39:47those trails. So, it it would really be

39:49through WATA and through STP, both of

39:51whom have representatives here tonight.

39:53We've been speaking for for a long time,

39:552 years, about the desire again. We have

39:57heard clearly from our community in both

40:00those chapters and beyond. I think there

40:02are people from here that are outside of

40:03the community how much they value the

40:05experience that this parcel provides and

40:07they're willing to roll up their sleeves

40:08and participate with either time, money,

40:11however much they'd like to help make

40:12that happen.

40:14>> Nick, I would also add just like

40:15experience in creating recreation

40:17management plans and

40:19they add value.

40:20>> That's a great Yeah, so Carolyn brought

40:22up the point that we have experience

40:23creating recreation management plans. We

40:25have land owner access agreements with

40:27individual land owners. We have

40:28recreation plans with municipalities. Um

40:31both of our organizations that I

40:32mentioned before have created uh

40:34maintenance plans. So, that experience,

40:36I guess, that other piece is quite

40:37important in creating plans that

40:38actually document

40:39the how to do conduct activities over

40:41time.

40:43>> Uh second question.

40:46If it was determined that trails would

40:49best be relocated.

40:52What's your experience with the success

40:54of that?

40:56>> It's a great question. So, the question

40:57was what's our experience if trails were

40:59determined to be relocated? Our

41:00experience um

41:02generally

41:04if a if trails are relocated in a way

41:06that provides users the experience that

41:08they're seeking, that [clears throat]

41:09keeps people on trail. Our two goals

41:11when we manage trails are water and

41:12people. Uh and they're equally important

41:14because you have to keep people on trail

41:15and you have to keep water shedding off

41:17trails essentially. Um

41:19so, I could say it's mixed. I would say

41:20if you if you pursue that in a way that

41:22that achieves the same outcome, you can

41:23you can generally get great success.

41:25People like to stay on trail versus

41:27bushwhack and have to go to the trouble

41:29of creating their own trails, that type

41:30of thing. Um decommissioning trails,

41:32similar. You ideally replace that

41:35experience with something that people

41:37can achieve the same outcome. But, I

41:38would say by and large when we

41:40decommission trails, we've seen pretty

41:42strong success about It's It takes a lot

41:44of energy to create and maintain a

41:46trail. So, and particularly I would say

41:48I I would personally say I don't think

41:50while I 100% do not condone at all the

41:54activities that create trails without

41:55permission on this parcel, full stop. Um

41:57I don't believe it was done with ill

41:59intent. I don't think people were

42:00deliberately trying to create trails

42:02that were causing harm. And so, when

42:03people are educated that you can't and

42:05shouldn't create trails in close

42:07proximity to drinking water and streams,

42:08I think people can

42:10respect and understand that. So, part of

42:12it is education. I think when we do

42:13things like closures that come with

42:15education, they tend to be much more

42:17successful.

42:18>> Both SDMB and WATA have successfully

42:21closed portions of trails and reopened

42:23alternatives

42:24um that has relocated where users are

42:26going in a very um impactful manner. So,

42:29people are not using the old corridor

42:31anymore.

42:32>> I I can say that they can make a trail

42:34disappear

42:36very effectively.

42:39>> Great. Well, I'm at the bottom of it.

42:40>> Great. Just make a good point, which is

42:41that as as folks speak, maybe just

42:43introduce yourself by name.

42:44>> Sorry. I'm I'm Kenzie Burner. I'm

42:46executive director of SDMB.

42:48>> Thanks, Kenzie.

42:51>> Sure.

42:51Uh

42:52you could speak to the bottom the

42:54relocation of the trail at the bottom of

42:56Perry Hill.

42:57>> You mean the the climbing trail or that?

42:58>> Yes.

42:59>> Yeah. I think we Yeah, so that's a good

43:01example of that the recently at Perry

43:03Hill the climbing trail that access the

43:04beginner trails at the top of campfire

43:06and s'mores was relocated mainly to be

43:08more sustainable and both to provide a

43:10more experience consistent with the

43:12green beginner trail it was. Um

43:14and in addition to that there

43:17uh to we've seen no real use of the

43:19other trail the previously historical

43:21trail. And for there are some folks that

43:23understandably miss that old experience.

43:25There were some neat things in the woods

43:26there, but by and large we have seen no

43:29issues with with compliance or folks

43:31wanting to try and use that old trail.

43:32In part because if you decommission

43:34the beginning the end of that trail, if

43:36you provide a good alternative the new

43:37climb is much more enjoyable at least

43:39from a great standpoint.

43:41That's where people are going to travel.

43:42So yeah, that's a good example where

43:43we've seen success in relocating the

43:45trail that was not sustainable.

43:47>> So any more questions from the

43:48commissioners?

43:49>> Yes.

43:50>> Um hi, I'm signing in as

43:52I'm Natalie [clears throat] Sherman.

43:54Um I just wanted to ask about your

43:56comment that um if you were to get

43:59engaged with some kind of relationship,

44:02it would really be with an intent to be

44:04a locally served

44:07um

44:08trail system. Not putting it out there

44:11to

44:12advertise it, but how do how does that

44:14happen? Because when something How has

44:18any of this happened?

44:19You know, the development of these

44:21trails have just been organic. And so

44:24how could you address like how that

44:26would be under some sort of protection

44:28of

44:30you know, would there be controls for

44:31that kind of traffic?

44:34>> It's a great question. We have There are

44:35chapters of ours who work with land

44:37owners who explicitly do not want their

44:39trails publicly

44:41because they share concerns about the

44:42volume of visitors and other things like

44:44that. Um

44:45and we've managed to maintain that that

44:48you know, there's an area on the other

44:49side of the hill over in Brewster.

44:51Maps of those trails do not exist

44:53online. There's not a trail out there

44:55that has managed, despite those trails

44:57being

44:58very popular, there's

44:59you know, there's a lot of activity from

45:00the locals. They The only There are With

45:03technology, you can say there are ways

45:05you can look at Strava and these other

45:06tools that shed a light up user

45:08activities. The reality is that

45:10while that does show areas of use,

45:12they're not very useful tools when it

45:14comes to trying to plan or

45:16have a trail experience. So, I think our

45:18best example would be in those areas

45:20where we have land owners who are

45:21getting and have said, "We're willing to

45:23provide access, but we're not." And you

45:24could speak to it in love to something

45:26like that.

45:26>> Yeah. We actually have a wonderful

45:28working parcel that is under easement

45:30with Stowe Land Trust in Stowe, called

45:32Strawberry Hill Farm. And Strawberry

45:34Hill Farm is not on any mapping system

45:36except for, you know, if you look on

45:37Strava Heatmap. But there's about 7

45:40miles of mountain bike and multi-use

45:42trail back there that don't see as much

45:44traffic as Katie Hill does, as Adams

45:47Camp, as Trapp Family Lodge does, but it

45:49connects those two sectors and it's a

45:50beloved

45:52um parcel that Stowe Trails Partnership

45:54maintains as a part of our 40-plus

45:55miles. Um but it's not on a map. It's a

45:58community resource that we do very

46:00intentionally as a community resource

46:02working with Stowe Land Trust on that.

46:04>> And I'll just make a note I'm aware of

46:06that and there's no additional parking

46:08spaces. I mean, it's as rural as, you

46:10know, it gets and

46:13my brother lives right next door to it.

46:14So, there's not a lot of

46:17traffic or parked cars along the road. I

46:19just want to say that that was the case.

46:21[clears throat]

46:22>> It's even connected right to the Katie

46:24Hill trail network and doesn't actually

46:27see all that much activity because it's

46:29kind of kept a little under the radar.

46:31>> Interesting.

46:33>> Um Cindy?

46:34>> So, do organizations like VMBA and WATA

46:39and Stowe Trails Partnership assume any

46:42liability, have insurance that you bring

46:45to the table?

46:46>> Yeah, great question. So, and the

46:47insurance is is seminal. So,

46:50first and foremost, the Vermont has a

46:51limited land owner liability statute

46:53that protects private land owners that

46:55any land owner, individual land owner,

46:56would have to conduct wanton and willful

46:58misconduct to be responsible for any

47:00injuries that occur on their property

47:02unless they charge for access. So, that

47:04is Vermont has one of the strongest

47:06statutes in the nation for private

47:07landowners.

47:08In addition to that, we still recognize

47:10somebody could break an arm and and have

47:12and sue. We as an organization carry

47:14insurance and also name our landowners

47:16as additional insurance so that if there

47:18were a lawsuit, those resources could be

47:20brought to bear to ensure that it was

47:21dismissed. And that has a few times in

47:23the past that has been sort of tested, I

47:25would put it that way, in court and it

47:26has been upheld to be very ironclad in

47:29terms of those protections. So,

47:30essentially,

47:31a recreator is given the same privileges

47:33as a trespasser on property.

47:36>> Am I correct that uh Stowe Land Trust

47:38also has insurance?

47:40>> Oh, yeah. We have quite a bit.

47:42>> [laughter]

47:44>> I have one of my employees spends a lot

47:46of her time on the trails.

47:48>> Are there any other questions from the

47:49commissioners? Then I want to see if

47:50there's just questions for the group.

47:51And then in a moment we'll turn, you

47:53know, we'll have a a chance for public

47:54comment.

47:56But that question, any more questions

47:57for Nick?

47:58>> Yeah, I had one. When we first got uh

48:02uh the thinking about this uh

48:04use of the parcels,

48:06we were presented with evidence that

48:09uh the popularity of the sport and the

48:11population in the region were causing

48:13the demand to skyrocket.

48:15Do you have the impression that this is

48:17going to continue and

48:19uh like the bicycle sport for example,

48:21mountain biking continue to be

48:24expanding at the same rate for the

48:27foreseeable future?

48:28>> It's a good question. What I can say is

48:29that our membership has plateaued um in

48:32the past 3 years. We saw double-digit

48:34increases from 20

48:36almost 15 or 16 through into into COVID

48:39and out of COVID. Um and we have leveled

48:41off. So, at least in terms of paying uh

48:43sort of IMBA members, that has been

48:45relatively flat.

48:47The other actually the other thing we do

48:48is we conduct a survey with um

48:50the Vermont Center for Rural Studies

48:52that conducts this Vermonter survey

48:53every year. We ask a question to gauge

48:55how many folks are in mountain biking.

48:56Those numbers, similarly, are

48:58consistent. So, um

49:01much as I might like to see those

49:02numbers continue to skyrocket, and we

49:03know that it's a popular sport. I I I

49:05think a lot of and we saw a surge

49:07COVID-driven activity that

49:09has, you know, it has its own sort of

49:10foibles with it. But, um

49:12that would be my general assessment is

49:13that we're seeing more steady of flat

49:15flat in terms of growth.

49:17>> [clears throat]

49:18>> Thanks. All right, so to the broader

49:20group, anyone have a question for Nick?

49:21Yes, please.

49:22>> I have [clears throat] a question. I'm

49:23John Yoder, I'm a still resident, happen

49:25to be neighbors to the property pretty

49:27much. Been enjoying it for 20 years. I

49:29want to ask a question I think you can

49:30answer. Um

49:32might help them envision. Um you

49:34mentioned well-constructed trails, and

49:38um

49:40did well-constructed trails don't mean

49:43necessarily machine-built trails like

49:46you would see [snorts] at uh more bike

49:49park style. I think you can have very

49:50primitive trails, old existing trails

49:53that are well-constructed. I don't know

49:54if you could speak at all to like what a

49:57well-built trail means, and can it be a

49:59very minimalist primitive pre-existing

50:01trail that's not causing erosion?

50:04>> The most resilient and durable trails

50:06are those constructed of rock. And a lot

50:08of what has exist on the waterworks

50:10parcel is use of rock, which can be

50:11through hand work. Um and there's no

50:13need for machine building to make

50:14durable trails. In many in many cases

50:16that presents

50:18ease of construction, but also sometimes

50:19more complication in terms of creating

50:21that sustainability. So, as long as I

50:23mentioned before, the true definition of

50:25sustainability is are the trails

50:26durable, resilient, have they shown

50:28signs of erosion over time? As I

50:30mentioned before, our initial assessment

50:32up there of those historical trails that

50:33were very much hand-built with tools and

50:35by hand do not show signs of significant

50:38deterioration or erosion over time. So,

50:40absolutely, there's no and in many cases

50:42we there are while a lot of trails are

50:45machine-built, we strongly encourage the

50:48consideration of hand construction as

50:49well. It has a much lower impact, and

50:50it's certainly capable of achieving

50:53sustainable um durable trails with with

50:55hand tools and by hand.

50:56>> Great question. Thank you.

50:58Yes, please in the back.

50:59>> I'm George Merrill, uh former waterworks

51:02rider.

51:03Would you say that rider volume is

51:05factored into how sustainable a trail

51:08network is?

51:09I always felt like there weren't really

51:11that many people riding in Waterworks

51:14compared to something like a you know,

51:16popular development work like any other

51:18Perry Hill.

51:19So I've often noticed like way more

51:22erosion on trail networks that you see

51:25way more riders. Whereas Waterworks is

51:27pretty sleepy and I think if it were to

51:29reopen it would

51:30kind of stay that way especially if they

51:32remain off of the map. So I was just

51:34wondering if you could speak to that

51:37aspect of it. You know, I just don't

51:39ever really see a parking lot with 30

51:41cars there.

51:43And I think that's a really relevant

51:44part of this conversation that may have

51:46been overlooked previously.

51:47>> Yeah, that's a great point. And one of

51:49the things I touched on but I I

51:50definitely could have hit on it more is

51:51that if we were to play some role in

51:53helping with the stewardship of this

51:55parcel, we would want to maintain those

51:56existing usage patterns because the

51:58observations of generally sustainable

52:01areas of trail are based on user volumes

52:03as well. Like that's just a function of

52:05the more boots or tires or whoever

52:07that's going to have more impact over

52:08time. These trail trails are not made of

52:10concrete and so you know, there there

52:12are impacts that can happen. So I think

52:14that's absolutely true. I think the

52:15other benefit is by having to be a

52:17community resource, you know, the other

52:19if you look in the literature impacts

52:21are driven by things like use in wet

52:22weather. You know, and I think a lot of

52:24times if you're in a Kenzie can attest

52:26to this too. If you're in an area that's

52:27a popular tourist destination, someone's

52:29driven up here to ride and have an

52:30experience, it's sometimes hard to keep

52:32them off the trails even if it's raining

52:34or wet. Whereas community generally has

52:36a bit more of an understanding about

52:38what it takes to maintain a system and

52:39is is less likely to to ride when

52:42they're not supposed to. But absolutely

52:43volume is 100% a consideration. Which

52:45would I say the same thing? Would these

52:47trails be resilient and durable if we

52:49tried to make them

52:50Katie Hill of a Hill volumes? I'm not I

52:52don't think I would attest you know,

52:53even if

52:54if I came and said we want to build a

52:55parking lot, we want to create the next

52:57mountain bike destination, they would be

52:59like hold on. But we might need to think

53:01rethink what these trails are cuz I

53:02don't You're totally right. The volume

53:03is key consideration.

53:06>> Okay, thanks. Yes, yes.

53:10>> I'm Trudy Lionheart. I also hike in this

53:13area for

53:16probably almost 40 years. I'm not a

53:18mountain biker. I walk.

53:20And I have but I have walked on a lot of

53:23the small, I think what you're calling

53:25sustainable, well well-made bike trails

53:29that, you know, kind of switchback

53:32through the woods that they you know, or

53:33the down the cliffs, but I don't walk

53:35those.

53:37Then I that those and I noticed when the

53:40when the bigger road-like

53:43trails, if you will, the old logging

53:45roads washed out terribly a few years

53:47ago, I didn't have any problem on these

53:49little trails. There was virtually no

53:52erosion.

53:54Um but my question is

53:56somebody mentioned doing some fixing of

53:59those roads cuz some of those roads go

54:01fairly near the water.

54:02>> Mhm.

54:03>> So, my question is what can be done it

54:05cuz most of those I think erode because

54:08they're sort of straight and steep.

54:10Um even even if they get shallow at the

54:12bottom, the water is already

54:14flowing down them and and really eroding

54:16them or they're right near the water and

54:18the water jumps over and then erodes the

54:20trail.

54:21Um and I'm just curious from water

54:24quality and as, you know, moving

54:26forward, those seem to be the trails

54:29that really need the most work and what

54:31can be done about them.

54:32>> And they're most the least enjoyable,

54:33too.

54:34>> Yeah.

54:34>> To use cuz they're as you mentioned,

54:36they tend to go straight up the fall

54:37line or near it. Um I'm not a forest

54:39management expert. There's this whole

54:41set of acceptable management practices

54:42for logging. I think you could bring on

54:44somebody who has that expertise to say

54:46what's the appropriate and maybe yeah,

54:48Tommy, if you want to jump

54:48>> I was just going to say

54:49>> We have a few properties actually that

54:50we're going through that exact same

54:51thing right now. The Shoots and Ladders

54:53property uh not too far from this has

54:56old logging trails that are exactly that

54:58going right up the fall line, steep and

55:00eroded. We're actually hiring a

55:01consultant who's going to come in and

55:02actually, you know,

55:04do some water bars so that it's, you

55:05know, the drainage is appropriate in

55:07certain places. [clears throat]

55:08Do what they call chop and drop where

55:09they, you know, find some trees around

55:11it and chop them to try to redirect

55:13water. And really just try to

55:14re-naturalize some of those old trails.

55:17So, there are experts in forest

55:18management that can do that type of

55:20thing. And again, that's the type of

55:21resources that, you know, if Stowe Land

55:23Trust were involved in a property, we'd

55:24more than happy to bring in or protect

55:26the water quality and and reduce that

55:28erosion.

55:30>> Thanks, Tom.

55:32>> Yeah, if you want to say anything.

55:35>> You did a much better job. You can

55:36you're

55:38>> Um I don't know if it's [clears throat]

55:39a question, but I think it's just um

55:42bringing that information to bear. Dana

55:44Allen, uh Waterbury resident. I am the

55:47chair of the Planning Commission. I'm

55:48speaking as a private resident right

55:50now. I'm also a former Water Board

55:53President. Um so, I'm a real sucker for

55:55volunteering, if you couldn't tell.

55:58Um so, anyway, I think that the

56:00important thing that I'm hearing here is

56:01that, you know, we're concerned about

56:03erosion. We're concerned about water

56:04quality. And those are real Um but not

56:07all erosion is created equally. And if

56:10we look at precedent set by

56:13almost a decade plus of rule-making in

56:16the state of Vermont with respect to

56:18things like the Municipal Roads General

56:20Permit, things like required practices

56:23for logging, we're really concerned

56:25about if a section of impacted land,

56:29developed land, impervious surface,

56:31whatever it might be, is actually

56:32connected to water. And so, I think the

56:35real question in a lot of this,

56:38yes, it's sustainable trail tread,

56:40things like that. It's it's use volume.

56:42It's it's potential erosion. It's really

56:46very locationally dependent. And so, I

56:49think that that's key to think about

56:50when we're moving forward with any sort

56:52of like management plan or what have

56:54you,

56:55is that

56:57more some locations are more important

56:59than others with respect to erosion and

57:00water quality.

57:02Um if a trail erodes to no water, uh

57:06does so in its own sweet time. It's kind

57:09of like a tree falling in the woods with

57:10no one around.

57:11Um

57:13So, I think that's just something to

57:14keep in mind as we ask these questions,

57:17and those are very easy things to manage

57:19for. I was a stormwater management

57:20consultant. I guess I still am. I don't

57:22really know

57:24um anymore these days.

57:26But, for a long time we use what's

57:28called simple disconnection for these

57:30relatively small areas that could

57:32potentially generate runoff and generate

57:34sediment from those areas. And it's a

57:37very simple practice that can be used

57:39and has been used by organizations,

57:41chapters like the Vimba chapters, Water,

57:44STP, things like that. Um this is

57:47standard and easy, frankly. And so, I

57:50think that's just good to contextualize

57:51[clears throat] that in this

57:52conversation. Um so, anyway, that's

57:56There's no question there.

57:57>> One comment I first but that was I was

57:59just saying thank you and um let's stick

58:01to questions just for a couple more

58:03minutes and then we'll circle back.

58:04>> Well, my question is does location

58:06matter? Would you provide a real

58:07>> Does location

58:09>> And then I I guess I answered my

58:10question, so I'll just leave here.

58:12>> Well, the only thing I talked to Heather

58:13about is that

58:14>> Yes, and this is of most interest to the

58:17commissioners, matters tremendously for

58:18water quality. Also matters things

58:20wildlife and sensitive natural habitats.

58:22So, when we work and look at trails, we

58:24look at the existing mapping for those

58:26things and think about where trails are

58:27located. So,

58:28it can That's only just to add that

58:30location matters for absolutely for

58:31water quality and for other ecological

58:33considerations as well.

58:35>> Yeah. Great. Thanks. Yeah, in the very

58:36back.

58:37>> And

58:38um yeah, can you tell me

58:41doesn't have to be one organization or

58:43the other, could it be a combination,

58:45you guys work together, that kind of

58:46thing?

58:47>> Always. Always. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, in

58:50Stowe, you know, we

58:51we always work together with Stowe

58:53Trails Partnership on on virtually all

58:55the trail networks we do. Um you know,

58:57we'll bring different resources.

58:58Sometimes they're the ones building the

59:00trails and we're bringing the funding,

59:01you know, sometimes we work together on

59:03the funding. So, yeah, this in no way

59:05it's it's all collaboration, no

59:07competition.

59:08>> I would only add to that, too. I I think

59:10we even view it as us having to come,

59:12it's Bimbo doing this or water STP. We

59:15would be willing to provide resources

59:17into some kind of a stewardship

59:18committee

59:19first let's say that operates under a

59:20federal direction. So, I don't think it

59:22has to be it can be broader than that.

59:23It could be yes, it could be involving

59:24others. The other thing I would note, I

59:26think there can be solutions or

59:28approaches here on different time scales

59:30because some of the activities that Tom

59:31spoke about could be longer term in

59:33terms of acquisition and and state land

59:34changing changing and or possessing

59:37lands that can also be a long-term

59:38thing. There could be interim we have

59:40experience Kenzie highlighted or Carolyn

59:42highlighted. We have experience with

59:43interim stewardship plans, things like

59:45that that hey, let's apply a set of

59:47practices, try something out for a year.

59:49It's got a clock. So, there are there

59:51So, not only yes, work together

59:53collaborate, we can also think about

59:54things on different time scales.

59:56>> Thanks for that. Yeah, with the black

59:58hat Uh no and I am a resident. Uh this

1:00:01is really directed at Stowe Land Trust.

1:00:04Speaking as a recreationalist

1:00:06and thinking about your statements about

1:00:10seemingly advocating for the state

1:00:11taking over and Stowe Land Trust uh

1:00:14in essence working with or controlling

1:00:16the land either with the state or

1:00:18independently. As recreationalists, is

1:00:20there any reason for us to support that?

1:00:23We have just recently seen

1:00:25the

1:00:26the heavy-handed miscarriage of justice

1:00:29in the Nebraska Valley. I'm well aware

1:00:32of conflicts between Stowe Land Trust

1:00:36and Stowe Trails Partnership when it

1:00:38comes to building trails in Adam's Camp

1:00:41and the continuation of trails such as

1:00:43Serenity and Adrenaline. And

1:00:46uh I recently this morning I was riding

1:00:48in that area and noticed that those

1:00:49trails are in the worst shape

1:00:52uh the the Adam's Camp trails in

1:00:54suffering from the most erosion. So, as

1:00:56a recreationalist, is there any reason

1:00:59to support the state taking over? The

1:01:01state which has

1:01:03allowed maybe two trails to be built in

1:01:05Little River in the past 25 years when

1:01:06it comes to mountain biking or Stowe

1:01:08Land Trust which quite frankly has shown

1:01:11little to no interest seemingly from my

1:01:12perspective as an individual in

1:01:14promoting mountain biking within Stowe

1:01:16and on his properties. Is there a reason

1:01:18for us to support that plan?

1:01:20>> That was clever. You framed it as a

1:01:22question, but it was really a comment.

1:01:26So, I just want to acknowledge what just

1:01:28happened.

1:01:28>> Dennis started it.

1:01:33>> Let me just say, Tom, just in the

1:01:35possibility that you might feel the

1:01:36least bit defensive about that, you

1:01:38should feel free to just to not to pass

1:01:40on that question, but if you want to

1:01:42answer it, go for it.

1:01:44>> I mean,

1:01:46I meet with Kenzie multiple times a

1:01:48month. We're on the phone with each

1:01:49other all the time. We work very

1:01:50collaboratively. I know we we have

1:01:53nothing to do with the Nebraska Valley

1:01:55thing. That was not a Stowe Land Trust

1:01:57issue. That was a state lands issue.

1:01:59Um, you know, so that's really outside

1:02:01of our purview. You know, we're

1:02:03certainly not specifically advocating

1:02:05for one outcome. We're just saying there

1:02:07are multiple options on the table.

1:02:09Um, there are

1:02:12you know, you can speak to this. I'm

1:02:13sure you've worked with the state on

1:02:15mountain biking networks all across

1:02:17Vermont, and I'm sure that there are

1:02:18some on

1:02:20numerous mountain biking trail networks

1:02:22on state lands.

1:02:24>> Yes, and I would say that we probably

1:02:26shouldn't speak for the state if there's

1:02:27no

1:02:27>> Yes, most certainly we should not speak

1:02:29for the state. And then, yeah.

1:02:32>> Yeah, Kenzie Field.

1:02:33>> Um, just from the STP side of things,

1:02:35um,

1:02:36we are we love having Stowe Trails

1:02:38Partnership as a partner. They are a

1:02:40partner in, you know,

1:02:43a lot a lot of miles of trail. I would

1:02:45say about 21 miles of trail that we

1:02:47maintain. Um, just because we don't

1:02:49always have the exact agreement on

1:02:51what's going on doesn't mean that we

1:02:52don't work together well,

1:02:55um, and work together in a meaningful

1:02:56way that promotes both conservation

1:02:58aspects and recreation aspects.

1:03:01Um, and Adams Camp is parcel that

1:03:03actually we're going to be investing

1:03:04more money in in the next couple of

1:03:06years to increase that. Um, but we see

1:03:09Stowe Trails Partnership as or Stowe

1:03:12Land Trust as a is a really vital

1:03:13partner that is

1:03:15kind of integral to what we do and the

1:03:17fact that we build trails on in Katie

1:03:19Helen Adams Camp.

1:03:21>> Well, now let me just share a kind of

1:03:23step out of the moderator role and just

1:03:24share a comment cuz I don't want to

1:03:25diminish your concerns. Uh but I do

1:03:28think, you know, something that Nick

1:03:29offered, you know, is something that the

1:03:30commission, you know, may want to

1:03:32consider are what are some process

1:03:35opportunities to make sure that there is

1:03:37a dialogue, [clears throat] that there's

1:03:38an opportunity for people to be heard as

1:03:40an ongoing basis so that this doesn't

1:03:42become a bifurcated, it's this or it's

1:03:45that. But whatever the decision is,

1:03:47there's an opportunity that adapt over

1:03:48time to respond to community concerns,

1:03:52uh impacts, whatever the science is

1:03:54showing. So, I I just said I was teasing

1:03:57you about the question, but I don't want

1:03:59to disrespect anyone's

1:04:01uh ability to bring up a point.

1:04:04Um so, yeah, question. Is it a question?

1:04:07>> but yeah, I have the actual question.

1:04:08>> Okay.

1:04:09>> Just for the committee here,

1:04:11uh logging roads have been mentioned.

1:04:13Has the area

1:04:15been

1:04:16managed for timber in the past? As Is

1:04:20there a tension to manage it in the

1:04:21future for

1:04:23for timber?

1:04:25>> There There is a forestry management

1:04:27plan that has a schedule of the

1:04:30>> Okay.

1:04:30>> when uh

1:04:32harvesting was and different types of

1:04:35timber and things. Yeah, it

1:04:37>> When was the last time anything

1:04:40was 20 years ago, probably.

1:04:41>> 20 years ago.

1:04:42>> Oh, longer than that. So, it'll be due

1:04:43for a cut probably on the current basis.

1:04:45>> Yeah, I was just going to say

1:04:47we have we have a forestry consultant on

1:04:51staff.

1:04:52>> And that's one of the things that we

1:04:53heard about current use and sort of the

1:04:55the tax burden that that reduces on the

1:04:56property also creates a forest

1:04:58management obligation. So, that's a

1:04:59requirement of the parcel.

1:05:02>> Yeah, good question.

1:05:03>> Yeah. Um so, obviously these trails have

1:05:05existed for a long time. Sorry, my name

1:05:07is Josh Salo, still resident.

1:05:09Um used to be a leading user. Um

1:05:13obviously these trails have existed for

1:05:14a really long time.

1:05:16Main concern for EHA and it's seemingly

1:05:18why this is a big concern is the quality

1:05:20of water and how that is potentially

1:05:22affected. Obviously, it's the theme of

1:05:24what's been shared tonight. The trails

1:05:26have been there for a very long time. Is

1:05:27there any evidence showing any

1:05:29degradation of the water quality since

1:05:31the trails have been

1:05:34built?

1:05:36>> That's probably a question for these

1:05:37two. Um there was there's a fair amount

1:05:40of discussion of that and I you know, I

1:05:42think there's some evidence that that

1:05:44came out in some of the prior

1:05:45discussions, um but I think it was

1:05:47incomplete. There's not a clear answer

1:05:50to that question.

1:05:50>> I could also

1:05:51>> Yeah, please.

1:05:52>> one just to clarify my response. You're

1:05:53absolutely right. Many of the trails in

1:05:55the parcel have been there for a long

1:05:57time. There are trails that are actively

1:05:59being built or have been built in the

1:06:00last So not all those trails have been

1:06:02there forever. But your point, I mean,

1:06:04if you're looking there are trails that

1:06:05have been there for I mean, folks can

1:06:07say 20, 30 years.

1:06:09And

1:06:10yeah, I don't you know, at this point

1:06:11are they negatively impacting turbidity?

1:06:13I don't I'm not I'm not a water quality

1:06:15expert you heard before. But that just

1:06:17want to note that and as we did in our

1:06:19assessment, some of the more recently

1:06:20constructed trails, in our minds, we

1:06:22don't have evidence that says they also

1:06:24then contributed to some turbidity or

1:06:26other impacts, but looking at the

1:06:28stability of those trail treads, we

1:06:29would say that's not what we would

1:06:30consider sustainably constructed trails.

1:06:33>> I guess [snorts] a follow-up to that is

1:06:35if this is such a big concern, why

1:06:37hasn't that been thoroughly researched

1:06:40so we have a concrete answer if we're

1:06:42like especially if this has been an

1:06:44ongoing multi-year process?

1:06:47>> Well, what what I mean, just going back

1:06:48to some of the earlier discussion. I'm

1:06:49trying to recap this and anyone else who

1:06:51was there, feel free to to correct me.

1:06:53What I heard, you know, from the state

1:06:55was that obligation of a

1:06:58for a district like this is

1:07:00kind of to be uh

1:07:02what's the right word? You know, to

1:07:04proactive in the sense of not waiting

1:07:06for the harm to occur, but to take steps

1:07:08when they see the potential or risk. So

1:07:11I think that's that's kind of what

1:07:13brought us to this point. We've got a

1:07:14district that is managing

1:07:17um in a precautionary way

1:07:19towards the management without

1:07:21necessarily

1:07:22needing to have the information about

1:07:24it, but they've asked for it. So, I

1:07:26think there may in fact be opportunities

1:07:28for future evaluation or monitoring. I

1:07:30think I'll just take your question as

1:07:32that suggest as a suggestion to the

1:07:33commission that they engage in some

1:07:35additional monitoring to keep an eye on

1:07:38um what the impacts of the existing

1:07:39trail structures or um if there's, you

1:07:42know, you know, revamped trail system.

1:07:45But am I am I am I capturing your your

1:07:47comment?

1:07:48>> Yeah, I guess to kind of summarize, to

1:07:50me it's if there is no evidence of any

1:07:53damage to the water supply,

1:07:55I feel like that is a really important

1:07:57point in discussing how we

1:08:02either preserve the parcel going forward

1:08:04and having clear evidence because some

1:08:06trails have been there for 20-plus

1:08:07years.

1:08:08Some are newer and if there is no

1:08:10evidence of water quality contamination

1:08:13>> Well, just a just a I hear you, but let

1:08:16me just as a long time water quality

1:08:18regulator and protector, um

1:08:20that's not the way we do protection of

1:08:22drinking water.

1:08:23>> have a sign of If you have a sign of

1:08:24that it's been damaged, you've already

1:08:26lost. I think is the way to say it.

1:08:27>> Yeah, but I but I don't but I don't want

1:08:29to diminish your thought, which is it is

1:08:31absolutely true and a thoughtful

1:08:33suggestion to you know, to maintain

1:08:35monitoring to kind of keep an eye on it

1:08:37and there's certainly monitoring of all

1:08:39of the the actual you know, the effluent

1:08:42is the wrong word indeed.

1:08:44>> [laughter]

1:08:45>> The drinking water that flows out of the

1:08:47system

1:08:48um and there there is some anecdotal

1:08:50information of some of some potential

1:08:52impacts. Whether it could be tied to the

1:08:54trails or not is isn't clear, but but

1:08:57your point is well taken.

1:08:58Um

1:08:59another question, yes.

1:09:00>> Just a follow-up to that one, you know,

1:09:02with a year of absence

1:09:03>> Who's speaking?

1:09:05>> Oh, yeah, Mike Rossi, resident.

1:09:08But now that we haven't used the

1:09:09property for about a year,

1:09:12are those water quality data improving?

1:09:14You know, is there any evidence There

1:09:16There is apparently maybe some evidence

1:09:18of some impacts, you know, adverse

1:09:20impacts, but now that we have a year of

1:09:22maybe worth of monitoring data down at

1:09:24the plant, has things improve. Is there

1:09:27anything to say towards that?

1:09:29>> Great great question. And I don't know

1:09:30that anyone has that answer right now,

1:09:32but we'll we'll take that down.

1:09:33>> Carrying on from something I believe we

1:09:34heard earlier, which is a great

1:09:35question. Um,

1:09:36year to year variations in terms of the

1:09:38intensity

1:09:41frequency of precipitation. Like I

1:09:43remember here I believe again this is

1:09:44recollecting that it's very difficult to

1:09:46even take one year of data and say oh we

1:09:47have one variable that changed. It's

1:09:49like well a lot of things are different.

1:09:50We had a great and pretty dry year like

1:09:52a lot of others. So, really good

1:09:54question hard to simply isolate a single

1:09:56variable.

1:09:56>> Yeah, I bet I bet Dick's right. I bet if

1:09:58you did look at the data it would

1:10:00suggest that there was

1:10:02much less turbidity that flowed into the

1:10:03system this year, but there was also

1:10:06nothing like the July floods in '23 and

1:10:08'24 this year.

1:10:10So, [snorts] but again a good good

1:10:11question, good point, you know, area of

1:10:13inquiry. Well, why don't I let you guys

1:10:15sit down and I'm just going to invite

1:10:18some you know, let's keep going with

1:10:19this. There's good energy in the room.

1:10:22I've got a couple of quick thoughts.

1:10:24One, for folks that that feel the least

1:10:26bit shy about raising their hand,

1:10:29Cindy did put some green cards on

1:10:31everyone's chair. Feel free to write on

1:10:33that and if I could ask Cindy and Rick

1:10:35just to keep an eye out for people

1:10:37waving cards. I'm happy to to read those

1:10:39questions or comments.

1:10:42The second thing was just I want to

1:10:44thank Nick and Tom for not just the

1:10:46information that they provided, but they

1:10:48are also thinking about they've they've

1:10:50tried to understand where the commission

1:10:51is in terms of how to make a decision.

1:10:54And you know, I'm going to

1:10:56you know, mangle their options, but

1:10:58their options are you know, some version

1:11:00of status quo, you know, maintain

1:11:02restrictions on the trail usage along

1:11:04lines of what they've done now. Um, they

1:11:07can open the trail system up. Um, they

1:11:10could partner with another organization

1:11:12to do that. Um, they can do some hybrid

1:11:15of those things and have some limited

1:11:16opening for certain recreational uses.

1:11:20Um, and there's systems choices that

1:11:23they have where they partner with and

1:11:24how they implement this. So, um, I just

1:11:28want to thank you guys for for an

1:11:29opportunity not just information but the

1:11:31offer to help and suggestions.

1:11:33And while I'm not asking any of you to

1:11:35have to you don't have to have a

1:11:36solution in mind to raise your hand and

1:11:38comment. Feel free to say whatever is on

1:11:40your mind. But if you [laughter] do have

1:11:42a thought or a suggestion, I know this

1:11:44group is hungry for the feedback and

1:11:46information. I know from talking at

1:11:48least with a few of them that their

1:11:50minds are not made up. This has been a

1:11:52learning journey for them. They continue

1:11:54to to learn about this. And after

1:11:56tonight, they will convene as a group as

1:11:59they do periodically. How often do you

1:12:01meet?

1:12:01>> Once a month.

1:12:02>> Once a month. Um, and they'll be having

1:12:04open noticed public meetings and this

1:12:06will be one of the topics on their

1:12:08agenda. So, there's still be

1:12:09opportunities to hear um, them

1:12:11deliberate and have opportunities to

1:12:13input into it. But this is a great

1:12:15chance while they're still formulating

1:12:17their thinking to have to make sure your

1:12:19opinion's been heard. So, with that, let

1:12:21me

1:12:22um, see I'll I'll get to you. Someone in

1:12:24the back.

1:12:24>> comment.

1:12:25>> Yeah, in the very back.

1:12:28Yes, please.

1:12:29>> I just had a quick question. Is it

1:12:30possible to do like quick written

1:12:32comments if we can't stay long enough to

1:12:34do a comment here tonight?

1:12:36>> Yes.

1:12:37>> I know,

1:12:37you know, submitting something to you

1:12:39guys in writing.

1:12:40>> Do you still have that website address

1:12:41or no?

1:12:42>> We have

1:12:43We have a um,

1:12:46an email address for such comments. I

1:12:48don't know what it is off hand.

1:12:52But you can yes, give us a give Bill

1:12:54[clears throat] a call at the office

1:12:55>> Or it may even be on our website. It

1:12:57should be. But before before the night's

1:12:59over, it will be written up here.

1:13:01>> That's all.

1:13:03>> Yeah, thank you for that. Uh, yes.

1:13:05>> Okay. Dana Allen, Planning Commission

1:13:08Chair.

1:13:09Um, so I'm speaking with that hat on for

1:13:10a moment. In in this moment, uh, I think

1:13:13it's a good context to provide. We've

1:13:16been going through the town plan process

1:13:18over the past couple years as you guys

1:13:20know.

1:13:21Um, and also I just want to applaud you

1:13:23as

1:13:24uh, the utility district. You guys are

1:13:25doing a robust public process.

1:13:27We all know how difficult and time

1:13:29consuming that can be. So, I do really

1:13:31appreciate everything you've done.

1:13:34Um it's really meaningful.

1:13:36Um but as part of town plan, we've heard

1:13:38a lot from the public uh

1:13:40via various surveys, town plan visioning

1:13:43sessions, um

1:13:45public input meetings, hearings, etc.

1:13:48Um a couple things have come to light.

1:13:51One, uh recreation is important in

1:13:53Waterbury. That's been stressed uh time

1:13:56and again. It's addressed in the town

1:13:57plan, really included intrinsically in

1:14:00that um because of its importance. Two,

1:14:04there is a balance with natural resource

1:14:08uh preservation, the need to pay

1:14:10attention to the natural resources we

1:14:12have, and balance this need for

1:14:14development, for recreation, and also

1:14:16for preservation of these resources. So,

1:14:19it's not a clear-cut answer,

1:14:21>> [snorts]

1:14:22>> but we are definitely hearing that both

1:14:23of those things are very top of mind.

1:14:27Um also, if you guys could property

1:14:29taxes

1:14:31>> [laughter]

1:14:33>> That would be a huge

1:14:35Thanks. It's funny, but then

1:14:37>> [laughter]

1:14:38>> So, anyway, I'll wait for your response

1:14:40on the property tax thing. Um

1:14:42but then the third thing that comes to

1:14:44mind in terms of the options presented

1:14:46tonight in terms of management of this

1:14:48parcel, right? I get that it's split

1:14:50between two municipalities, it's owned

1:14:52by the utility district, and it is

1:14:54surrounded by state lands. Um and I know

1:14:56that Fourth Parks and Rec isn't here

1:14:58tonight. But one thing I'd like to

1:14:59signal is that Waterbury is

1:15:03uh sandwiched between two significant

1:15:06tracts of state-owned and controlled

1:15:09lands, right? We've got Mansfield State

1:15:11Forest, the state park. We've got Putnam

1:15:14State Forest kind of on the other side.

1:15:16We're stuck in the middle. Um I think

1:15:18the percentage is north of 70%. I don't

1:15:21Please don't quote me on that, but it's

1:15:23a significant portion. And the reason I

1:15:25bring that up is that

1:15:26>> 70% is publicly owned land?

1:15:29>> E- state-owned.

1:15:30>> Okay.

1:15:31>> Right, state-owned lands. So, I think

1:15:33the reason I bring it up is that like

1:15:36within Waterbury, we have a significant

1:15:37portion of our land that is owned and

1:15:39controlled by the state, the state

1:15:41administration and bureaucracy, for

1:15:43better or for worse. There's a lot of

1:15:45good to that. There's also a lot of

1:15:46difficulty to that. So,

1:15:50what we have left we're trying to do

1:15:52private development on. We don't have a

1:15:54town forest.

1:15:56Um you know, Perry Hill, great local

1:15:58amenity, not town-owned,

1:16:00town-controlled, things like that.

1:16:02So, I think that in considering our

1:16:06options moving forward for management of

1:16:08this parcel,

1:16:10I

1:16:11state land ownership and control doesn't

1:16:14really pop to me as the first thing we

1:16:16might want to do. Because we have so

1:16:19little land, relatively speaking, that

1:16:22we have direct control over, site

1:16:25control, etc.,

1:16:27that this presents a unique opportunity

1:16:29to sort of keep that. Um we can talk

1:16:33with the state. We can collaborate with

1:16:34the state. But, handing over day-to-day

1:16:37control of the parcel,

1:16:39I think, in the context of Waterbury's

1:16:42development as a whole, um is maybe not

1:16:45the first thing we would jump to. So,

1:16:48that's

1:16:50comment as

1:16:51town plan

1:16:53commission chair.

1:16:54>> Thank you. Thanks for that perspective.

1:16:56Um I just wanted to note that the Thank

1:16:57you for writing the email address up

1:16:59there. Yeah.

1:17:01>> So, um I very much appreciate E PUD's

1:17:04Name? Duncan McDougall, uh Waterbury

1:17:06Center. Um I've been using the trails,

1:17:09I've running them and hiking them for

1:17:10about 30 years now. I very much

1:17:12appreciate E PUD's efforts to uh be safe

1:17:15and be careful about the best in this

1:17:17beautiful piece of land and water that

1:17:18we use.

1:17:20Um and I appreciate the people who have

1:17:21come up. I really enjoyed Nick and Tom's

1:17:23presentation today. I was here at the

1:17:25last event uh when Peter Kulbacki,

1:17:28[clears throat] who was the director of

1:17:29public works from the town of Hanover,

1:17:31spoke. Uh they have a wonderful trail

1:17:33system there, which is also the same

1:17:36same situation where the water source

1:17:38for the town comes. And he talked about

1:17:40how

1:17:41uh about 10 years ago, they really

1:17:43brought the people who were using the

1:17:46trails, many of whom some of whom were

1:17:48actually creating gorilla trails, they

1:17:51brought them into the system. They

1:17:52clarified what they were doing. They had

1:17:55a lot of eyes, uh just like Nick was

1:17:57saying, uh sunlight really helps. Um and

1:18:00it made a big difference. And over 10

1:18:01years, they have much higher usage on

1:18:03their trails than we do here. Um when

1:18:05I've used the trails, I rarely see

1:18:06anyone. I might not see anyone or one or

1:18:08two people. Um so, I sent him a note

1:18:11just asking a couple of quick questions.

1:18:12One was, "Can you think of any way

1:18:14bikers, walkers, runners

1:18:16>> [music]

1:18:16>> could reasonably introduce contaminants

1:18:18to the water works?" He wrote, "PFAS

1:18:21PFOA sources are unlikely to be from

1:18:23recreation. Uh it's mostly industrial

1:18:25activity, fighter uh firefighting foam,

1:18:28or sludge disposal. So, I think it's

1:18:30mostly turbidity that we are concerned

1:18:32about." Last question I asked was,

1:18:34"Over the past 10 years, has your water

1:18:36testing indicated any form of

1:18:38contamination introduced by recreational

1:18:39use?"

1:18:40Because their volume is much higher than

1:18:42the water works use. He says, "There is

1:18:44no There's been no increase in

1:18:46contamination or noticeable erosion

1:18:48during recreation. In fact, more eyes

1:18:51have identified areas where we were able

1:18:53to correct erosion." So, in his view

1:18:55again, having more people safely using

1:18:58the space made sure that the people

1:19:00weren't doing it inappropriately.

1:19:01>> Thanks. Thanks, Harris.

1:19:02>> Thanks. And um

1:19:04if you could be well, maybe email that

1:19:06that response to that email address.

1:19:09I saw other hands up.

1:19:12Yes, here.

1:19:14Yes, please.

1:19:16>> I'm Sherry Newton from Waterbury Center.

1:19:19And I I

1:19:22I'm very grateful to have been able to

1:19:25access these trails over the years. I

1:19:27didn't know about them for the longest

1:19:29time. I've lived in Waterbury for over

1:19:3230 years. And I probably learned about

1:19:35these trails maybe 10 years ago. And

1:19:38have really valued being able to just go

1:19:42for a walk in the woods. There are so

1:19:44few places [clears throat] where I feel

1:19:46like you can do that in Waterbury

1:19:48without competing with mountain bikes or

1:19:52frisbee golf or

1:19:55So So the water works is is a bit

1:19:57unique.

1:19:58And when I learned that they were being

1:20:03closed and the reason for them being

1:20:05closed brought back this childhood

1:20:07memory that is still so strong. I think

1:20:09I was in maybe second grade where one

1:20:13kid was bad, so the whole class had to

1:20:15stay in from recess with our heads down

1:20:18on our desks.

1:20:20And that's how I have felt for the last

1:20:22like 2 years since this has been closed.

1:20:25And

1:20:27again, appreciating

1:20:29the the responsibility and the challenge

1:20:31that this commission is faced with and

1:20:34knowing what

1:20:36a valuable recreational resource this is

1:20:40for community members. And I don't know

1:20:42about anybody else, but I'm not getting

1:20:44any younger, and I want to be able to

1:20:47use these trails. It's important to me

1:20:49at this point in in my life. So I also

1:20:54heard the presentation

1:20:57the last meeting from the town of

1:20:59Hanover is

1:21:01and was really very encouraged that they

1:21:03seem to have found

1:21:05a compromise solution that works for

1:21:08them. I'd love to see that be able to

1:21:10happen in Waterbury. And but from a lot

1:21:15of what I've heard tonight, there's a

1:21:17lot of more deliberation, research, and

1:21:20information gathering, and relationship

1:21:22building to happen. It could take years

1:21:24and years. And I heard this fellow, I'm

1:21:28sorry.

1:21:28>> Nevin.

1:21:29>> Nevin,

1:21:30talk mention interim solutions maybe on

1:21:34a limited scale. So I would encourage

1:21:38the powers to be the people involved in

1:21:40this process to try to come up with

1:21:42something that we can start using these

1:21:46trails in some way,

1:21:48sooner rather than later.

1:21:50>> Thank you. [clears throat] Thanks for

1:21:51that comment.

1:21:53Yeah, in the back with the baseball cap.

1:21:55>> I just want to

1:21:57Max Waterbury resident.

1:21:59I'm really glad that Sherry shared that.

1:22:01I also want to acknowledge that this is

1:22:03a really special place to walk in.

1:22:06I'm a mountain biker. I love mountain

1:22:07biking. But there are very few areas

1:22:10that you can walk, bike without

1:22:15the competing interests. And I just want

1:22:18to acknowledge that and make that

1:22:19public.

1:22:21>> Yeah, please.

1:22:22>> Ryan Darlow, Waterbury Center, also an

1:22:24E-Fudd customer,

1:22:26and recreation enthusiast. Um

1:22:30I believe I was at a public meeting

1:22:32maybe about a year ago

1:22:35for E-Fudd. And one of the commissioners

1:22:38suggested, because we haven't really

1:22:39talked about other uses until just now,

1:22:42hiking, hunting, skiing,

1:22:44uh that maybe those uses can be an

1:22:47interim allowance that they they can

1:22:49continue on this these trails.

1:22:52Want to know any progress have been made

1:22:5412 months later.

1:22:56Kind of been out of the space, had a

1:22:57child, but she's now almost a year old

1:22:59and I'm kind of realizing, "Oh my gosh,

1:23:01I don't think anything's happened."

1:23:03So I just wanted to add that to that.

1:23:05>> Great, thank you. And congratulations.

1:23:07>> Thank you.

1:23:08>> Thank you.

1:23:09>> Back.

1:23:10>> Yeah, you with that orange cap. Yes,

1:23:11>> Okay, so

1:23:13my name's Tim Solari. I'm a Waterbury

1:23:15resident, E-Fudd customer,

1:23:18Vimba member,

1:23:20Wata enjoyer,

1:23:21hitting all the hitting all the bases.

1:23:23I I kind of want to go back to

1:23:26how this all kind of started, how

1:23:27everything got shut down was because of

1:23:29the damage and the illegal trail

1:23:30building. I think that was what kind of

1:23:32stopped this property usage. And I've

1:23:34been up there a bunch.

1:23:37Used it a lot for mountain biking and

1:23:38hiking as well.

1:23:40And I really like the discussion. We're

1:23:41learning a lot about the property. We're

1:23:43learning about different areas, you

1:23:44know, different ways to maybe manage it.

1:23:46I've been down to Hanover, I've checked

1:23:48out those trails before. They're really

1:23:49cool.

1:23:50Um but let's say we open it back up for

1:23:53hiking, mountain biking, kind [snorts]

1:23:55of going back to square one, what's

1:23:56going to stop what caused this to happen

1:23:59in the first place? Like how would how

1:24:01do we police just someone going up there

1:24:04and just cutting trees and trails for

1:24:05their own enjoyment and their own fun?

1:24:07And again, I I would say that that

1:24:08wasn't like I'm going to go up there and

1:24:09chop trees down and cause a ruckus. I

1:24:11just

1:24:12you know, how I don't think it was done

1:24:13ill will either, but like

1:24:15how do we make sure that doesn't happen

1:24:17that we end up doing this all over again

1:24:18in 5 years? That's just I don't I don't

1:24:21expect an answer, I just want people to

1:24:22think about that, that's all.

1:24:23>> Yeah, no, it's right a design feature is

1:24:25that having a set of, you know,

1:24:27community norms

1:24:29um only works if there's some kind of

1:24:31accountability system in place.

1:24:34Yeah. Yes, please.

1:24:35>> Uh Chris McKay, Waterbury resident, uh

1:24:39uh

1:24:39drinker of the water and work down here

1:24:41in town, so I certainly don't want to uh

1:24:45uh

1:24:46not be comfortable with get the water

1:24:48out of the tap there, but uh have used

1:24:50that land for decades as well.

1:24:53Uh it's especially painful this time of

1:24:55year when I uh live in the center and I

1:24:58have to get in the car and sit in

1:24:59traffic so I can go mountain biking at

1:25:01Katie Hill or Perry Hill instead of just

1:25:05going to the top of the hill with no

1:25:06traffic. So, I think I was pretty

1:25:09encouraged hearing about the

1:25:13pretty, you know, what felt to me like

1:25:15definitive statements that the water

1:25:18quality and uh the land can be protected

1:25:21while recreational use can be

1:25:24uh managed. And I I hope that that um

1:25:27does allow for some of the interim

1:25:29solutions and that

1:25:30uh

1:25:32you you know, I

1:25:33getting that recreation

1:25:36if there's a clear

1:25:39plan and vision and and history and

1:25:42track record of introducing recreation

1:25:45in water districts, then we should do it

1:25:47because I think there's a lot of passion

1:25:50for that recreation and

1:25:52uh

1:25:53having it sooner than later um would be

1:25:56really important to me and I think a lot

1:25:57of people and that's why a lot of people

1:25:58are here.

1:25:59>> Great. Thank you. Thank you for that.

1:26:01Yeah, right in front.

1:26:02>> I'm going to stand up so people can see

1:26:04my face. I'm Jenny Gelber. I am a

1:26:06Waterbury Center resident

1:26:07[clears throat]

1:26:07and an EFB customer and I'm the one who

1:26:11reported initially a lot of erosion in

1:26:13the real tree cuttings. So,

1:26:15I know there was people upset about

1:26:16that. If anyone's upset about that, come

1:26:18talk to me. Don't blame these good

1:26:21people for what they've done. When you

1:26:23guys first closed

1:26:25all of Waterbury, I felt that it was an

1:26:28overreaction

1:26:30and I've missed that going up there

1:26:32terribly. I was up there seasonally

1:26:34maybe five days a week, but then I

1:26:36understand that you have a very

1:26:38difficult job and I thank you very much

1:26:41for all these meetings and I've been

1:26:43educated, you're educating yourself, but

1:26:45I do want to encourage you to think

1:26:47about an interim use. I've been

1:26:50running up there on the road. I've been

1:26:52respectful. I have missed it terribly,

1:26:54but I have not

1:26:56on any of those trails since it's been

1:26:57closed and I have seen evidence. I've

1:27:00been running up there once a week with a

1:27:01friend. Occasionally, I walk my dog in

1:27:03the morning.

1:27:05People originally were tearing down the

1:27:07tape that was put up and I was texting

1:27:09Bill and then you guys put the signs up

1:27:11which was great and then now even today

1:27:14the signs sometimes I go up there the

1:27:15signs are turned around. I go up there,

1:27:18I see there's garbage, I see um

1:27:22evidence of bikers happening. So, my

1:27:25concern is there's no one up there now.

1:27:28The community that you should be

1:27:30partnering with, there's no one up there

1:27:32now to be your eyes and ears. And one of

1:27:33the very first meetings that happened

1:27:36before it was a big public meeting,

1:27:39I remember Woody shared

1:27:41uh photos of what he had seen up there

1:27:44and some of that has been there for

1:27:46years and my understanding was that the

1:27:50commissioners were very surprised and at

1:27:51the time it was like, well, you need to

1:27:53partner with your community. Your

1:27:56community who cares deeply about this

1:27:57property is your eyes and ears. So,

1:28:00that's another reason that I would

1:28:02encourage you

1:28:03to

1:28:05think about an interim use even if it's

1:28:07on the northern side,

1:28:09which I understand does not drain into

1:28:12the intake.

1:28:13Um

1:28:14I've seen there was this summer there

1:28:16was like a

1:28:17a a mattress up there. There was more

1:28:19garbage. There was

1:28:21two office chairs. So, I don't want to

1:28:22see that place become a dumping ground

1:28:24and that I think is what is going to

1:28:25happen and there will still be illegal

1:28:27use that could Who knows? There could be

1:28:29illegal trail cutting now. So,

1:28:31um

1:28:32my main message is to thank you for the

1:28:34process that you're doing, but also to

1:28:36encourage you to think about an interim

1:28:39use

1:28:40so that there are more eyes and ears up

1:28:42there.

1:28:44>> Thank you. Thanks for that.

1:28:48Yes, please.

1:28:49>> My name comment is a little redundant

1:28:51now cuz but we're

1:28:52kind of reflecting what Nick said that

1:28:54like it doesn't have to be a this or

1:28:55that.

1:28:57Pardon me?

1:28:59>> Your name?

1:28:59>> Oh, Adam Adam Lefevre. I live in

1:29:01Waterbury.

1:29:02>> I'm sorry, I still didn't hear it.

1:29:03>> Adam Lefevre. I live in Waterbury.

1:29:06Um

1:29:07I kind of feel like the trails exist so

1:29:10it's not like this is a plea to make

1:29:12more trails. Um

1:29:14and there's an opportunity to kind of

1:29:15like like an interim solution like he

1:29:17said, see what happens, monitor it and

1:29:20that. But the only thing I was going to

1:29:21say, which is probably a newer comment,

1:29:23is about the trail traffic. I mean, I

1:29:26mountain bike all around Vermont and it

1:29:28really does seem like more people go to

1:29:30places that are near like businesses,

1:29:33urban centers.

1:29:34Like if you go over to like really

1:29:35established networks that are on maps

1:29:37over in Hinesburg Town Forest, Carse,

1:29:40Sleepy Hollow. I mean, personally I go

1:29:42there. I don't see anyone riding those.

1:29:44Now, you go to Katie Hill, got Ranch

1:29:46Camp right there. You're going to see a

1:29:47lot of traffic, a lot of flow. You go to

1:29:48Perry's Hill, it's right near Bicycle

1:29:50Express. So, I I I mean, again, you

1:29:52never know what the future brings, but

1:29:54in my from my perspective riding all

1:29:56over Vermont, the further you are away

1:29:57from a restaurant, a bar, da da da,

1:30:01you really don't see that much traffic

1:30:03with bikers. Just I guess the third

1:30:05comment which I was going to say, but

1:30:06definitely bringing up I did live um in

1:30:09Boston for a while, and we had a place

1:30:11called the Middlesex Fells, which was a

1:30:12water district that did have recreation

1:30:14around it.

1:30:15Being closer to the city, it did have a

1:30:17lot of other activities, some

1:30:19recreational, some probably

1:30:22the kind of thing you would want to have

1:30:23more traffic to discourage. And I think

1:30:26definitely we went through a process

1:30:27similar to this over the course of 20

1:30:28years with the local bike association,

1:30:31and it definitely was found that, you

1:30:32know,

1:30:33more eyes are better out there, whether

1:30:35it's reporting down trees, whether it's

1:30:38people getting in trouble, maybe someone

1:30:40shouldn't be out there, but they're out

1:30:41there, they get in trouble. Just more

1:30:43people that are conscious enjoyers of

1:30:45the woods

1:30:47traditionally is a better thing for

1:30:49the trails and the people that are using

1:30:50it.

1:30:51Thank you. But

1:30:53Yeah, thanks for that.

1:30:55>> Having it back with the camera.

1:30:56>> Yeah, hey guys, my name is Dan, uh

1:30:58Waterbury Center.

1:30:59>> I'm sorry, I still didn't

1:31:00>> My name is Dan.

1:31:02Waterbury Center.

1:31:03I just wanted to add to that on the

1:31:05usage conversation, um

1:31:08and I was going to actually talk about

1:31:09my own personal experience with the

1:31:11network.

1:31:12And this which is that at at certain

1:31:15point I learned about the lore of this

1:31:17trail network, and

1:31:20I wasn't aware that it was prohibited. I

1:31:23thought it was a local secret, and

1:31:25that's why people were not talking about

1:31:28it. Uh and I even asked people, like

1:31:31nobody would give me any information on

1:31:33this place. It was pain in the ass.

1:31:35Um

1:31:37and so I used Strava heat maps to find

1:31:39my way up there, and it legitimately

1:31:42took me about five times of going up

1:31:44there, going up the downs, down ups,

1:31:46everything, getting turned around every

1:31:48which way before I figured it out. So,

1:31:51A, just to note that there is a major

1:31:54barrier to entry to using the trail

1:31:56system, even with all the technology

1:31:58that exists.

1:32:00And the second thing is that

1:32:02not to be a bike snob, but that trail

1:32:05system is not for everybody.

1:32:07I have brought a few of my friends out

1:32:10to that trail system, and I'm very

1:32:12selective about who I bring because I am

1:32:15aware that nor they they nor I would

1:32:18have a good time if I brought them up

1:32:20there. So,

1:32:22>> Very true.

1:32:23>> And one additional thought on that is

1:32:25>> Just to Just to Just to make for a non,

1:32:27you know, recreational mountain biker,

1:32:30are you talking about like it's not for

1:32:31everyone in the sense that it's

1:32:32technical, like it requires skills?

1:32:34>> Yes, it's technical, it's hard to get

1:32:36up, it's hard to get down, uh which I

1:32:38think is also one of the draws for a lot

1:32:40of people here.

1:32:41Uh and because of that, it also leads to

1:32:44the very infrequent trail traffic that's

1:32:46on there, which is again another benefit

1:32:48of the reason that people like to use

1:32:51the place.

1:32:52And as a final note on that, I would

1:32:53just add that if we did get to a point

1:32:56where overusage was a problem,

1:32:59I think all the people in this room

1:33:01would probably round up and be just as

1:33:03pissed about that as what's going on

1:33:05currently.

1:33:06>> Great. Thank you for that. Yeah, in the

1:33:08very, very back.

1:33:09>> Sean, Waterbury resident,

1:33:12Water WATA founder member.

1:33:15Um

1:33:15I've been working on the Water and Perry

1:33:18trails for almost 30 years.

1:33:21One of the things I've heard in the

1:33:22group is we're concerned about

1:33:26the rogue trails, how to stop them as

1:33:29things may open back up.

1:33:31Before Perry was

1:33:35kind of brought into an organized pod

1:33:38under

1:33:40the gym the city,

1:33:41it was a free-for-all. It was the wild

1:33:43west. People were making their own

1:33:44trails, having a great time, and it was

1:33:47fun, but

1:33:49it was

1:33:50Water WATA seen that.

1:33:53What changed for Perry was when people

1:33:55got organized, and they started having a

1:33:57shepherd in

1:33:59the community came together and said

1:34:02for the betterment of what this resource

1:34:05is, this is the way it needs to be.

1:34:07And there's been a huge respect for

1:34:10that.

1:34:11I feel that Waterworks is in that same

1:34:14environment.

1:34:15If Eva says

1:34:18"We trust you guys as organizations, be

1:34:20it Wata, who I'm no longer on board of,

1:34:24ST, never

1:34:27come to some group organization and say,

1:34:30"We as a community are going to shepherd

1:34:32this

1:34:33resource."

1:34:35I feel like it's going to be the same

1:34:37result as Perry is now and it's a

1:34:41respected, revered gem.

1:34:45And it doesn't have to be blown out like

1:34:48Perry is or Katie. We don't have to

1:34:50advertise it, but I think the same

1:34:53respect is going to happen with the

1:34:56local community. So,

1:34:58hopefully that addresses some of the

1:35:00concerns of those on the road building

1:35:03side. We start watching [clears throat]

1:35:04each other,

1:35:05have respect for what we have,

1:35:08and we preserve it for our own good.

1:35:11>> Thanks for that.

1:35:12>> Yeah.

1:35:12>> Please.

1:35:13>> Um Andrew Volansky, uh resident so uh

1:35:16Stowe Trail Partnership uh volunteer,

1:35:18trail committee volunteer.

1:35:20Um I have some similar comments to

1:35:22Shawn. And I think you know, some of the

1:35:25things I've heard tonight are you know,

1:35:28um

1:35:28Waterworks is a really quiet network and

1:35:30it's un- unrecognized.

1:35:33I would say the one time that we did see

1:35:35some significant influx of

1:35:38traffic in Waterworks was during COVID

1:35:41and some of the early seasons when some

1:35:43of the managed networks like Wata

1:35:46and Stowe Trail Partnership trails were

1:35:49shut down because they were being

1:35:51monitored, they were being watched, they

1:35:53were being um controlled.

1:35:56Um and I remember back to COVID when

1:35:58Waterworks was

1:36:00very busy. And I think it's that with

1:36:03some management and with some oversight

1:36:05um some of those

1:36:07that that network can be more protected.

1:36:09And I think that

1:36:11um there's an opportunity

1:36:12to to bring it under management um

1:36:16and be able to control that and say,

1:36:17"Hey, this isn't the time to be out

1:36:19there. It's raining. It's early season."

1:36:21Whatever it is. Um and I think bringing

1:36:23management can really

1:36:25go a long way. Um you know, I think

1:36:28there was some comments earlier tonight

1:36:29about how do we control rogue trail

1:36:31building?

1:36:32As an STB member and a trail committee

1:36:35member

1:36:36I get off my bike often.

1:36:38And I'll throw sticks down on those

1:36:40little new trails that people are

1:36:41starting to put in. I'll get out and try

1:36:44to deter people. I've stopped in and

1:36:46talked to younger people who don't

1:36:48understand the impacts

1:36:49of

1:36:50their decisions to cut a corner or drop

1:36:53a straight line and potentially create

1:36:55erosion. And I think having

1:36:57Waterworks, STB,

1:37:00um VMB, whoever it might be sort of

1:37:02stepping in and actively being out

1:37:05there, making sure mattresses aren't

1:37:06showing up and the garbage isn't being

1:37:08cleaned up,

1:37:09uh scheduling trail work days to get out

1:37:11and do maintenance on our trails. Adam's

1:37:14Camp, I heard earlier tonight. I'll

1:37:16reiterate what Kenzie said. We have

1:37:18active plans to get in there and

1:37:19maintain those trails. We recognize

1:37:22that those trails are starting to show

1:37:24wear and tear and we're working with

1:37:26professional trail builders, some of

1:37:27which are in this room tonight,

1:37:29to figure out ways to go in, maintain

1:37:32those trails,

1:37:33fix sore spots, get water moving off the

1:37:36trails, and um and again, just get in

1:37:39there and actively

1:37:41participate in protecting the resource,

1:37:44planning, standing up for when no one's

1:37:46looking, being there and saying, "Hey,

1:37:48this is our resource." And

1:37:50there are a lot of lot of volunteers in

1:37:52this room um and out on the trails that

1:37:55um are stopping and saying, "Hey, I'm

1:37:57going to take a minute and fix this and

1:37:59then I'm I'm go to the volunteer meeting

1:38:01this week and

1:38:03what are we doing next year? How are we

1:38:04fixing these trails? How are we

1:38:05maintaining these trails?

1:38:07My last comment is partnering with Still

1:38:09Land Trust, partnering with those

1:38:11private land owners, that doesn't happen

1:38:14without effort. We put a lot of

1:38:16volunteer time in and we partner with

1:38:18Still Land Trust or whoever it might be,

1:38:20Forest Parks and Rec.

1:38:21And we may take two or three years to

1:38:23plan a new trail, but it's done in a way

1:38:25that is very thoughtful, it's vetted,

1:38:28and I think that my my overall point is

1:38:31I think that if WaterWorks can come back

1:38:33online by bringing in some management

1:38:35and some protection and some planning

1:38:37and foresight of those

1:38:39trails,

1:38:40those can be sustainable and all all

1:38:43parties of interest can be kind of

1:38:44recognized, acknowledged, and then acted

1:38:46upon.

1:38:48>> Thank you for that. Um there's someone

1:38:50I'm assuming that had a question.

1:38:51>> Yeah, there's Megan Oliver. I don't know

1:38:54I assume she can hear us. I don't know

1:38:55if we'll be able to hear her, but I have

1:38:57unmuted her.

1:38:59>> Should I write it?

1:39:01My question?

1:39:02>> Well, Megan, if you if you can hear us,

1:39:03Megan, if you'd be willing to to write

1:39:05your question in the chat, I don't think

1:39:07technology is going to allow us to hear

1:39:09you.

1:39:10Um

1:39:11while Megan's chat is writing her

1:39:13thoughts, I wanted to just share an

1:39:14observation. There's been a I would say

1:39:16on balance there's been

1:39:18the comments so far a pretty heavy

1:39:20emphasis on folks who want to be able to

1:39:22use the the facilities for recreation.

1:39:25And a person that is more concerned

1:39:27about drinking water quality at this

1:39:29moment might be feeling a little shy

1:39:31about speaking up. Um

1:39:33and it also could be that there could be

1:39:35folks who are customers of the district

1:39:38right now who couldn't come out. They

1:39:39have young children or for whatever

1:39:41reason um aren't able to and they may

1:39:44have vulnerabilities uh around you know

1:39:47or fears around drinking water quality.

1:39:49So I just want to acknowledge that there

1:39:50are there are other I know from my other

1:39:52parts of my life um in other work that

1:39:55there are plenty of people in this in

1:39:56this uh state and in this community that

1:39:59have deep concerns and want to make sure

1:40:01that the water that you know giving to

1:40:03their children or

1:40:05um to their parents or drinking

1:40:06themselves is is safe. So, I just want

1:40:09to acknowledge that's part one of the

1:40:10challenges that you all have. And if you

1:40:13have that thought or perspective and are

1:40:14feeling shy about it, feel free to share

1:40:17that um in writing or you know, through

1:40:19this email contact.

1:40:21Um

1:40:22yes.

1:40:23>> I'm not coming back.

1:40:25>> We'll segue into that. Josh Lincoln,

1:40:27Waterbury resident. Um

1:40:30also vice chair of the Conservation

1:40:32Commission. And I'll start with just a

1:40:34personal comment and that's uh

1:40:38that the complication here and why it's

1:40:41probably an issue is EWEB is

1:40:44you know, sole purpose is the protection

1:40:47and conservation of the water quality.

1:40:49It's not public land. It's nothing else.

1:40:51It's the conservation of the land for

1:40:55the the preservation of the quality of

1:40:57the water for the residents of

1:40:58Waterbury.

1:41:00Two, the second complicating factor is

1:41:03the It's smack-dab

1:41:05500 acres

1:41:07in the Shepaug Hill Wildlife Corridor,

1:41:10which is critical

1:41:12habitat that

1:41:14you know, is

1:41:15affected by wheeled recreation. These

1:41:19are my personal comments. Now, I'm going

1:41:20to just read a statement from the

1:41:23Conservation Commission as well.

1:41:26Um so, just want to thank the uh

1:41:30EWEB

1:41:31for um

1:41:34choosing to pause, gather information,

1:41:36and invite a range of perspectives

1:41:38before establishing a long-term policy.

1:41:41And we appreciate the opportunity to

1:41:43take part in it.

1:41:45The Conservation Commission's long-term

1:41:47mission as set forth in its bylaws is to

1:41:49preserve, protect, and enhance

1:41:51Waterbury's biodiversity,

1:41:53natural, scenic, and recreational

1:41:55resources for the benefit of the

1:41:57community.

1:41:59They also charge us with fostering the

1:42:01protection of water, wetland, sensitive

1:42:03natural areas, and wildlife while

1:42:05representing the public interest when

1:42:07natural resources may be affected.

1:42:10We recognize the important role EPA

1:42:12plays in owning and stewarding our water

1:42:15resources and our role in bringing that

1:42:17broader conservation perspective to the

1:42:20discussion, and that's why we're all

1:42:22here tonight.

1:42:25And then what I touched on, Waterbury is

1:42:27about 500 acres of undeveloped forest

1:42:29spanning across the Waterbury still

1:42:31line.

1:42:33And the district has made clear that

1:42:34this land exists to protect source water

1:42:37and we fully respect that. The parcel

1:42:40also sits within the shoots for a whole

1:42:42wildlife corridor, one of the most

1:42:43important habitat connections in our

1:42:46region.

1:42:47Here the forest that protects the water

1:42:49also supports wildlife and keeps habitat

1:42:51connected.

1:42:53With that interconnectedness in mind,

1:42:55the conservation commission wishes to

1:42:57express its support to the district in

1:43:00our shared efforts to protect our

1:43:02natural resources.

1:43:03We encourage the district to consider

1:43:05the long-term protection of the land's

1:43:07natural resources, including

1:43:10biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and

1:43:12source water in perpetuity as it

1:43:15develops its policy.

1:43:18And we as a commissioner are also here

1:43:20to help in any way that might prove

1:43:22useful to you. And thank you for your

1:43:24time and your stewardship of the land.

1:43:28>> Thank you. Thanks for that.

1:43:29Yes, please.

1:43:30>> Um Grace Krappy, uh Waterbury resident.

1:43:33I think I just want to make a comment

1:43:36that there's a lot of people in the room

1:43:38that have strong feelings about

1:43:39recreation, um

1:43:41but also water quality is obviously the

1:43:43biggest question here. I think I just

1:43:45want to say that those two are not

1:43:48mutually exclusive. I'm speaking kind of

1:43:51from that perspective. And um there are

1:43:53some examples where that's worked very

1:43:56well together. Probably some examples

1:43:58where it hasn't, but ultimately what's

1:44:01happening right now doesn't seem as

1:44:03sustainable to your point, seeing the

1:44:07damage to the area, the road trail

1:44:09building, that's been going on up there.

1:44:12Some sort of moderation and management

1:44:15has to take place. And with the

1:44:18resources of the recreation side, I do

1:44:23think that is an important thing to to

1:44:25consider here. So, just kind of let let

1:44:27that all sink

1:44:28>> Yeah.

1:44:29I'm I'm just uh forgive me for harkening

1:44:31back to me a lot, but I won't subject

1:44:34you to my writing on the board, but I'm

1:44:36If you imagine with me a Venn diagram,

1:44:38you know, you've got the circles of

1:44:39recreation and water quality and

1:44:42community engagement and wildlife, and

1:44:44I'm probably missing a couple of

1:44:45circles, but I think, you know, a

1:44:47collective goal, and ultimately the the

1:44:49job that you all are tasked with is to

1:44:51see if there is a spot in there, you

1:44:53know, a management plan

1:44:56um and process for managing this piece

1:44:58of this amazing piece of property in a

1:45:00way that optimizes as many of those as

1:45:02possible. So, um just to give a voice to

1:45:06your your thought, which I I think is

1:45:07profound. Yeah, please.

1:45:09>> I uh I think,

1:45:11it's very interesting we're talking

1:45:12about road trail building. By

1:45:15the letter of the law, all these trails

1:45:16are clearly rogue. When we're discussing

1:45:18rogue trail building, they are we're

1:45:20just discussing new trails.

1:45:22And I think

1:45:24when we are advocating

1:45:26for preservation [clears throat] of

1:45:28recreation on this, that

1:45:31where do we decide what the what where

1:45:33the line is drawn?

1:45:35Uh when we decide to hopefully

1:45:37uh with the help of IMBA or whatever

1:45:39partners preserve recreation here, do we

1:45:42include the newest built trails, the

1:45:44ones outside of the map?

1:45:45Uh

1:45:46why where do we draw the line? I think

1:45:49it's it's an interesting conversation

1:45:50that needs to be had alongside this,

1:45:52that we're discussing road trail

1:45:54building because it's new and a change,

1:45:56but somehow a trail that's 20 years old

1:45:58is grandfathered. I think it's important

1:46:00to recognize that new doesn't mean bad,

1:46:02and old doesn't mean good

1:46:04while we while we try to approach this,

1:46:07and that it may be the case that some of

1:46:09these old trails

1:46:10won't hold up with a little bit more

1:46:12usage. They seem to have held up fine.

1:46:14Or that the neutrals actually are kind

1:46:16of sick, can be rerouted.

1:46:19I haven't ridden them. I've not ridden a

1:46:20mountain bike in like 3 years

1:46:22practically. Um

1:46:25that they are kind of sick and with, you

1:46:27know,

1:46:2830 ft of reroute are actually worth

1:46:30preserving. Just because something's new

1:46:32doesn't mean it's bad. Just because

1:46:33something's old doesn't mean it's good.

1:46:35So, I think when we discuss rogue trail

1:46:36building, the original trail builders

1:46:38went rogue. They went and did it. So,

1:46:40it's it's easy to dismiss new as bad,

1:46:42but I think we should be really careful

1:46:44when we're addressing and observing this

1:46:46property for recreation not to just

1:46:48dismiss

1:46:49a freshly built trail that fits modern

1:46:52mountain bikes, which bikes have changed

1:46:54massively since these trails and riding

1:46:56styles have changed, that we don't

1:46:57simply dismiss things because they're

1:46:59new or grandfather and, you know, uh

1:47:02honor things because they're 20 years

1:47:03old.

1:47:04>> Well, I also know Excuse me. Your name?

1:47:07>> Uh Noah Steiner.

1:47:08>> And I also know from uh my I'm on the

1:47:11Northfield Conservation Commission. We

1:47:12have a similar set of discussions

1:47:14happening around our town forest. Um

1:47:16there's also another new but important

1:47:18constituency of folks who are um

1:47:22would like greater accessibility because

1:47:24of their age or their mobility and that

1:47:26requires different trail design also.

1:47:28So, just to, you know, resonates with me

1:47:30that new is not bad and part of what I

1:47:33heard Nick and Tom say and part of what

1:47:35we heard from other discussions

1:47:36including the folks from Andover was

1:47:38that there are professionals you know,

1:47:40our professional trail designers and

1:47:42recreational planners that can help use

1:47:44kind of rational objective systems for

1:47:46making some of those kinds of decisions.

1:47:49Um yeah, please.

1:47:51>> Yeah, uh Matt Perillo, e-bike customer,

1:47:53Waterbury resident. Um

1:47:56Nick from IMBA mentioned earlier while

1:47:58he was speaking that uh you know, we

1:48:00could keep the trails off the maps.

1:48:03He also talked about the quality of

1:48:04these hand-built trails.

1:48:06Uh in an attempt to sort of find the

1:48:07center of that Venn diagram, I feel like

1:48:09those are two really good approaches.

1:48:11Keep the character of the existing

1:48:13trails. Any that are causing water

1:48:15problems, whether new or old, um

1:48:18any that are right in those service

1:48:20water areas, reroute those. But then we

1:48:22can have folks walking on the trails

1:48:24that they've been walking on for

1:48:25decades. We're not changing the

1:48:27character of a place, and we've got

1:48:29those two, you know, at times competing

1:48:31priorities of clean water and recreation

1:48:34access.

1:48:35If we keep it, you know, no machines,

1:48:37hand-built, keep the character of the

1:48:39place, don't put these trails on the

1:48:41map, you can keep volume low, we can

1:48:43keep the community using the resource

1:48:45that they've come to know and love, and

1:48:46we can keep our water clean.

1:48:48>> Okay, thank you for that.

1:48:50>> Yeah, Duncan, just a quick suggestion.

1:48:53Right now we have signs on all the

1:48:54trails saying, you know, "Trails

1:48:55closed."

1:48:57I could see a time in the near future

1:48:59where instead there's a list of here are

1:49:01the rules for the road. If you're going

1:49:02to use this this area, here's how we use

1:49:05it safely and effectively, and on the

1:49:07bottom, here's an email or telephone

1:49:09number. If you have any concerns, if you

1:49:10see a place that's being eroded, if you

1:49:12see someone building something, here's

1:49:13where you report it.

1:49:14And I think, you know, all of us in this

1:49:16room, a lot of us in this room love

1:49:17these trails. You could deputize us.

1:49:19We're We would use the trails, we'd keep

1:49:21an eye out. If we see stuff, we're going

1:49:23to report it, and I think that's going

1:49:24to be more likely to catch stuff than

1:49:27saying nobody go in there because the

1:49:28people who don't care about that,

1:49:30they're going to go in anyways.

1:49:32>> Thanks, Duncan. Yeah, in the back.

1:49:34>> Uh hi, I'm Carolyn, uh former executive

1:49:36director of Stowe Trails Partnership,

1:49:37current recreation planner, and I live

1:49:39in Burlington, so I definitely not an

1:49:40e-bike customer.

1:49:42Uh but I love these trails, they're

1:49:43awesome, and I just want to emphasize

1:49:45what Nick said before, that inaction is

1:49:46action, and I think there is precedent

1:49:48for interim stewardship plans, like FPR

1:49:50uses them, and I think that's kind of to

1:49:52me that's like a pretty obvious

1:49:53>> Who uses them?

1:49:54>> Oh, uh Forest Parks and Rec.

1:49:56>> Okay, FPR, right.

1:49:57>> Yeah, and I think that that is a like

1:49:59potential really good option to move

1:50:00[clears throat] forward with. Like we

1:50:01need an interim stewardship plan to get

1:50:03the trails back open to say like what is

1:50:04allowed while the

1:50:06e-bike and every other other partner

1:50:07gathers the additional data they need to

1:50:09figure out like what the actual impacts

1:50:10are on the water quality from

1:50:12recreation. Um and the hill that I'll

1:50:14die on is that I think that that

1:50:15is a gateway to conservation, and so

1:50:17like there is an opportunity for a

1:50:19future management plan to include things

1:50:21like interpretive signage if we want

1:50:23that explains the importance of water

1:50:24quality and that are like conservation

1:50:26stories that we want to tell there. I

1:50:27personally like going there on my

1:50:28mountain bike admittedly, but to look at

1:50:30spring ephemerals and all the ramps that

1:50:31are up there in spring. Um so I think

1:50:33there's just like this beautiful

1:50:34intersection and I think we all have the

1:50:36same thing.

1:50:39>> Well, we've got we've got about 10 more

1:50:40minutes. Yes, please.

1:50:42>> Not to see please ask the question.

1:50:45>> I'm a mountain biker or volunteer. Um

1:50:48you mentioned briefly land use. I don't

1:50:50know anything about that stuff, the

1:50:51forestry aspect. Would switching it over

1:50:54to a more primarily recreation area with

1:50:58water,

1:51:00uh

1:51:00does that change like

1:51:02I imagine you guys are driving skitters

1:51:04up to

1:51:05this area, but like if switching the

1:51:07land use

1:51:09rule over to like we're using it for

1:51:12recreation, does that come into play? I

1:51:14I don't know

1:51:16>> So in terms of like yeah, there's

1:51:17probably some legal precedent that

1:51:18somehow change

1:51:19>> Yeah, so for the land use designation

1:51:22rather than forestry and and our

1:51:24standing timber,

1:51:26does it say like we're using this

1:51:28for recreation?

1:51:30>> Yeah, I'll I'll give a quick answer. I'm

1:51:32I'm hoping Tom might be able to give a

1:51:33more concrete answer, but generally

1:51:35recreation and forestry are contemplated

1:51:39as fitting within our current use rules

1:51:41and conservation easements as well, but

1:51:44you can speak to that.

1:51:45>> I mean that that answer basically yeah,

1:51:47they they can most certainly be

1:51:48compatible. You can have active forest

1:51:50active forestry in an area that is for

1:51:53recreation has active recreation.

1:51:55They're they're not incompatible and and

1:51:57it certainly as

1:51:58the commissioners have mentioned it's

1:51:59not incompatible to have active forestry

1:52:01in an area that's primarily for um

1:52:04you know, water source protection or

1:52:06even honestly for wildlife and

1:52:08biodiversity. You know, a lot of really

1:52:10good forest management can actually

1:52:12enhance a lot of those values around

1:52:13wildlife and biodiversity and that

1:52:15really tends to go hand in hand with

1:52:17good um forest protection as or good

1:52:19water source protection as well. So,

1:52:21they can all be kind of a virtuous cycle

1:52:23working together.

1:52:25>> I was hoping I was expecting Steve to

1:52:26jump out of his chair.

1:52:28>> I could, but I'm

1:52:30>> Yeah, Duncan. And um, just for folks who

1:52:32are just kind of

1:52:34who've been waiting and wanting to say

1:52:36something but waiting for their moment,

1:52:37we're coming to the close of this

1:52:39conversation, so don't wait too much

1:52:40longer. Yes, please Duncan.

1:52:43>> Uh, Dana. Sorry.

1:52:43>> Dana, sorry.

1:52:44>> Yeah, no worries. Uh, but Duncan's a

1:52:46great person.

1:52:47>> [laughter]

1:52:48>> He's a great guy.

1:52:49>> So, I appreciate the confusion between

1:52:50us two. Uh, this is from online. This is

1:52:52from Meg Oliver, Waterbury Center

1:52:54resident, I'm reading. So, you can see

1:52:56my public reading skills.

1:52:57Uh, Waterbury Center resident, Vemont

1:52:59Water member. I was more going to

1:53:01comment on some things that people had

1:53:04already commented on like the

1:53:05challenging nature of the trails, how

1:53:07more people who have gotten into

1:53:08mountain biking over the last 10 years

1:53:09don't typically gravitate toward these

1:53:11types of trails, rather more

1:53:13machine-built. Uh, there's also a

1:53:15natural deterrent as there was a lack of

1:53:18parking. I've been riding there

1:53:19regularly for 20 years. I almost never

1:53:21see another human being up there.

1:53:24And I regularly ride these trails at

1:53:25least two or three times a week to stay

1:53:27away from the more frequented trails. In

1:53:30the first session, we heard about how

1:53:31much Strava activity there was. But, if

1:53:34you look at the comparison between the

1:53:35activity on those trails versus the

1:53:37activity on Perry Hill or Katie Hill, it

1:53:40is not even comparable.

1:53:41Uh, Andrew made a comment regarding

1:53:43those of us that regularly maintain and

1:53:45ride these trails would not likely be

1:53:47very protective since we have now lost

1:53:50uh, lost them of any type of road

1:53:52building in the future. I very much

1:53:54believe that these trails should stay

1:53:56off maps to keep the neighborhood nature

1:53:58of these trails alive. Uh, thank you EFB

1:54:01commissioners for allowing us to have a

1:54:03conversation about how we can all work

1:54:05together for future use and clean water.

1:54:09Um, and Meg also just wanted to note

1:54:11that she agrees with many of the

1:54:12previous comments regarding not having

1:54:13very many places to walk in the woods

1:54:15that isn't private land in Waterbury.

1:54:17Uh, we live in a beautiful area and I

1:54:19feel like I can't access much of it. Um,

1:54:22and then she just put her last note that

1:54:24she says, "I wonder whether or not

1:54:27there's a way in which those of us that

1:54:28are locals can make donations to help

1:54:30preserve this area as an option with

1:54:31them or other organizations." So.

1:54:34>> Thank you, mate. Well, I can speak I

1:54:36think for Bamba and the Stowe Land Trust

1:54:39that they would welcome contributions.

1:54:42>> [laughter]

1:54:44>> Mate, I'm wondering I know I've already

1:54:46had a chance to speak, but I'm wondering

1:54:47if I can just make a brief addendum to

1:54:49my remarks to Cynthia's question before

1:54:51about resources we can bring to the

1:54:52table. Just I think we've heard from so

1:54:54many folks there are a lot of folks

1:54:55tonight in and out of my community.

1:54:58One of the the real reason that mountain

1:55:00biking has I mean as mentioned before

1:55:01exploded or grew so much over the past

1:55:03two decades is volunteers and is the

1:55:06community. There's a willingness to

1:55:07participate in stewardship. By and

1:55:09large, many of our users are not takers,

1:55:11they are doers. They're people that show

1:55:13up to invest their time, volunteer

1:55:15energy, dollars. So, I think just to

1:55:18recognize cuz hearing so many folks

1:55:19speak about the time and energy they put

1:55:22into stewardship, that's a resource we

1:55:24as an organization mobilize over 25,000

1:55:26volunteer hours a year. We could not

1:55:28maintain those 900 plus miles of trail

1:55:31without that passion and commitment of

1:55:32volunteers. So, that is a resource that

1:55:33we bar none over dollars, over anything

1:55:36else is the most valuable thing

1:55:39>> Thanks, mate. Hey, who who would join me

1:55:41in buying Nick's memoir, you know, the

1:55:43journey from a PhD chemist to

1:55:45>> [laughter]

1:55:50>> Hi, I'm Jean Mohlman. I'm a Waterbury

1:55:52resident and

1:55:55also on the Waterbury Land Initiative

1:55:58board. And one of the things that we

1:56:00hear about the Russell property is

1:56:04that if we're going to talking here

1:56:07about in our ideal universe, people like

1:56:10to have a place they can walk where they

1:56:13aren't mountain bikes. Now, I don't hate

1:56:15mountain bikes. I'm not saying we

1:56:17shouldn't have mountain bike trails, but

1:56:19I'm just saying if you're going to open

1:56:21it up, I know there are cross-country

1:56:23skiers and walkers

1:56:27who And I think maybe if we had

1:56:31designated mountain bike trails and then

1:56:33there were other trails, then you

1:56:35wouldn't have that conflict, but

1:56:38you can't find that if you're a Like,

1:56:41you're not going to go walking at Katie

1:56:42Hill.

1:56:43Just saying.

1:56:45So, if you could think about that in

1:56:47your thinking.

1:56:48>> Yes, please. Yes, please.

1:56:50>> I just This is Audrey Lionheart again,

1:56:53um, from Stowe.

1:56:54Um, as a walker there,

1:56:56I have to say that I have never had a

1:56:59problem with a mountain biker. Oh, I had

1:57:01one problem once with a mountain biker.

1:57:04Once, in all the year And I said I've

1:57:06been walking there for 30 or 40 to for

1:57:08almost 40 years now. Um, they're so

1:57:11considerate when they come upon me. And

1:57:13I try to be considerate of them. I have

1:57:14my dog. If he's off leash, I grab onto

1:57:17him so he doesn't run in front of the

1:57:18bike cuz he might.

1:57:21And you know, they're they're so polite.

1:57:23And

1:57:24um, I guess I haven't run into the ones

1:57:26that are

1:57:28doing bad trail work.

1:57:31>> [laughter]

1:57:31>> I I I think that the people up there

1:57:34really care and

1:57:37I would I would say if you mark a trail

1:57:39as it's only mountain bikes, that's

1:57:41okay, but I don't think that us walkers

1:57:44really get in the way or the or the

1:57:46mountain bikers get in our way. Um, I

1:57:50And then another thing is I think I see

1:57:51as many as many deer as I see dogs. So,

1:57:55cuz it really it's not a lot of people

1:57:57up there.

1:57:58But And even though this is a full room

1:58:00of people that love to use it, it's a

1:58:02big area. And and I

1:58:06walk many places, even all over it, and

1:58:09and hardly ever see anyone.

1:58:12And when I talked to my I have a friend

1:58:13who's a mountain biker. He travels all

1:58:15over to go mountain biking. And I said,

1:58:17"Do you know about these trails?"

1:58:19And he said, "Oh, yeah, I used to go

1:58:21there, but they got too crowded and I

1:58:22don't go anymore." And I And he was

1:58:24talking about probably, I don't know, 10

1:58:26years ago? I don't know how long it was

1:58:28a long time ago. So, I think the

1:58:31reputation should keep the reputation

1:58:32very

1:58:34very low. You know, no Yeah, you don't

1:58:37want to go there.

1:58:39>> Thank you. Thanks for that. Well, I

1:58:41Yeah, I'll give you the last comment.

1:58:43Yes.

1:58:43>> All right. Cool.

1:58:45Um George Marston. Again, sorry. I did

1:58:47comment earlier. This is more comment

1:58:48than a question. Um I just want to echo

1:58:50that sentiment and what Nick said. Uh

1:58:52speaking for the mountain bike

1:58:53community, like mountain bikers are the

1:58:55doers. Uh a lot of trails in Vermont

1:58:57that are enjoyed by everyone were built

1:58:59by mountain bikers. I'm an avid

1:59:01volunteer uh with Stowe Trails

1:59:03Partnership um and other

1:59:05rogue, secret, illegal, whatever you

1:59:08want to call them, trails in the

1:59:09Morrisville and Stowe area. Um I watched

1:59:12the Stowe Mountain Bike Club become the

1:59:14Stowe Trails Partnership in an effort to

1:59:16usher in more user groups and become

1:59:18more appealing to everyone else. I have

1:59:20yet to meet a trail runner, hiker,

1:59:22hunter, dog walker at a trail day.

1:59:25Um that's not a dig on those people, but

1:59:27it is just to reiterate that the

1:59:29mountain bikers are the ones that turn

1:59:30out for their community. They want to

1:59:32foster their trails. They believe in

1:59:34their community. And um

1:59:37I can't speak for the bad apples. You'll

1:59:39find those in every user group. But at

1:59:41the end of the day, mountain bikers do

1:59:42really care about their trails um and

1:59:44they don't have a problem with other

1:59:46people enjoying them. I don't know any

1:59:48mountain bikers who have complained

1:59:49about walkers on their trails. Um

1:59:52so, I'd like you know, the whole

1:59:53community to recognize that um

1:59:57and know that, you know, most mountain

1:59:59bikers are interested in all recreation.

2:00:02>> Okay.

2:00:02>> Thank you. Well, thanks to all of you.

2:00:04That's

2:00:05>> I think it's for you close. I just would

2:00:08like to

2:00:08>> Please.

2:00:09>> say something here.

2:00:11Um

2:00:14as a long time water commissioner, your

2:00:16turnout tonight has been impressive and

2:00:19your comments and things really weigh on

2:00:23us as to the responsibility that we have

2:00:26to provide the clean water and to listen

2:00:29to you and things. And

2:00:31I'd really like to

2:00:33thank you for coming and we really uh

2:00:36take to heart your comments and uh we'll

2:00:40do our best to meet our responsibilities

2:00:43and before we

2:00:45um finalize anything, there will

2:00:47certainly be a

2:00:49draft of what we're proposing and what

2:00:51we've worked with and things. So,

2:00:55um I really want to thank you for coming

2:00:57tonight. It's

2:00:59It's It's really been enlightening.

2:01:02>> Yeah, well, thank you all and I'm

2:01:05Cindy asked me to just read out so the

2:01:07the email address that folks for their

2:01:09listening online

2:01:11um is waterworks@waterburyvermont.

2:01:15>> No, waterburyvt.

2:01:17>> waterburyvt. Thank you. dot com.

2:01:21Well, with that, thanks to everyone. Um

2:01:23I really do going back to fractals, if

2:01:25we can recreation is and and um the use

2:01:29increased use of uh mountain biking and

2:01:32grow the recreational trails in Vermont

2:01:34is a thing. It's a state policy. It will

2:01:37continue to grow

2:01:38um and these conversations are going to

2:01:40play out in every community across the

2:01:42state and this is in my mind a a great

2:01:45pattern to repeat. So, thank you to the

2:01:47commissioners for for sponsoring this

2:01:49and thanks to all of you.

2:01:51>> You can also reduce your carbon

2:01:52footprint.

2:01:54>> [applause]

2:01:57>> One last thing that we may impose upon

2:02:00you, you'll just those of you who are

2:02:02sitting in the light gray seats, would

2:02:04you stack them on the uh the rack that

2:02:08the dolly. And those of you who are in

2:02:10the black seats, would you stack them

2:02:11against the wall.

2:02:13Thank you very much for coming.

2:02:20>> [music]

2:02:29[music]

2:02:34>> Mhm.

```*