Amanda Fargo-Johnson, CT Resource Conservation & Development - hello fellow WG members!

Lori Brown, Executive DirectorCT League of Conservation Voters

Chelsea Gazillo -- American Farmland Trust/ Working Lands Alliance. Hello everyone!

Hi All, Eric Hammerling with the Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CFPA). Thanks for coming!

Hello All, Hannah Reichle- CT MetroCOG Regional Planner.

Jason White, PhD; Director of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES)

Andrea Urbano, CT DEEP Division of Forestry

Lisa Hayden, New England Forestry Foundation

Welcome everyone. Glad you can join us today.

Good morning! Robert Fahey, UConn Department of Natural Resources and the Environment

Chris Donnelly - retired DEEP urban forestry. licensed arborist and forester. CT Urban Forest Council

Hello all. Mark Ashton, Senior Associate Dean at the Forest School at the Yale School of Environment

Mary Buchanan, Community Resilience Planner at CIRCA, and liaison to the EEJ working group

For those joining later...in case you missed it, if you are working group member please feel free to be on camera and introduce yourself in the chat. You can also rename yourself with your affiliation next to your name.

For those joining the working group meeting from the general public, thank you for being here. If you would like to sign up to provide a public comment when we reach that portion of the meeting, please send me a direct message.

A clarifying question regarding Eric's presentation. Eric, you mentioned that tree cover is correlated with income level - a statement that is probably true with regards to urban areas. However, if we looked at just rural areas, I wonder if this would still be true. It might well be the reverse in rural or semi-rural areas - greater canopy cover is reverse associated with income level. This brings up the question of the potential economic value of rural forests.

Good point, Chris! You're correct that my framing was focused on tree cover in urban areas rather than rural areas.

The amount of sequestration in adult / old growth forests is much higher than in young forests...the higher "rate of sequestration" in young forests is continually mentioned, and while the case, this statement does not clearly state that carbon sequestration in adult / old growth forests is more critical in the efforts to mitigate climate change impacts than timbering forests in favor of young trees over older ones. Also, as alluded to, timbering is a carbon emitting event for decades. These comments are made in reference to our Public Forests (not privately owned land where landowners are free to decide how to steward their land).

a friendly reminder to submit public comment requests to Rebecca French and to reserve these comments/questions until the public comment portion of the agenda.

I have to leave for another meeting; thanks for the very informative presentations

Very informative today, thank you. I need to jump for a 12pm meeting. See you all next time.

Chris mentioned recent work on developing a research agenda and demonstration sites focused on Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change practices that can be applied in southern New England, details here: https://www.adaptivesilviculture.org/SNEoak

Please use raise hand function for working group member discussion.

I have a couple of comments

Chat at this time is reserved for working group members

We are working with DEEP to develop statewide urban tree canopy assessments and also plantable space assessments to help facilitate tree planting/planning initiatives - we will be sharing those products as a they are finalized

I'd like to speak in public comment. Jean de Smet

Absolutely agree, Tom. Good point!

if anyone else would like to provide public comment, please send me a message

great points Tom, for whatever it's worth I agree it would behoove us to invest in the future forestry work force, it's a grim looking at the numbers and demographics (age) of licensed practitioners in CT

Workforce training should also focus on urban tree/forest maintenance especially in environmental justice communities

I believe PURA's cease and desist was lifted earlier this month. This remains a concern

Good point Tom! Other states have established work force development recently highlighted in SAF Forest Source. We need more foresters and forest technicians providing boots on the ground landowner support. (no pun intended).

Following up on Bob's comment - it is also a great opportunity to work across the urban/rural divide. There is no reason, except perhaps for transportation issue, that someone who lives in Hartford cannot work in Tolland, and vice versa. Good opportunity to promote those sorts of cross-connections.

To Joes' point, we need workforce development for the logging industry as well. Similar to ME and some of the southern states.

We (Ann and Frank Zitkus) sent a letter into the Group yesterday which we would like to ensure it is part of the public record. Besides for this and an earlier chat comment, we need to view our forests as primarily providing ecosystem services and that living trees are our allies in fighting climate change. More passive management is needed (allow forests to naturally grow to Old Growth status). One other comment. There is never mention of the adverse impacts of manmade forest disturbances (timbering)...including the likely

introduction of invasive species.

DEEP.ClimateChange@ct.gov

My understanding is that the cease and desist was imposed on August 23rd and lifted on September 6th

Thanks Bob

My apologies for missing the public comment period. I'd like to introduce myself as the new Climate & Infrastructure Policy Coordinator at OPM. I look forward to hearing the recommendations/updates from the working group and the evolution of the programs you've described today.

Joanna.wozniak-brown@ct.gov

Next meeting of this Working Group is on Friday, 10/28 from 10-11:30, I believe.