Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sherman conservation commission will complete DEEP tree-inventory survey but declines low-canopy grant

Town of Sherman Conservation Commission · June 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its June 10 meeting the Town of Sherman Conservation Commission decided Sherman likely does not qualify for a DEEP urban community forest resilience grant aimed at low-canopy communities but agreed to participate in a statewide tree-inventory software survey; Commissioner Jill Humphreys will complete the survey on the commission's behalf.

The Town of Sherman Conservation Commission agreed June 10 to participate in a survey from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) that could inform a statewide tree-inventory software procurement, while declining to pursue a DEEP grant targeted at low-canopy communities.

Chairman William (Bill) McCann relayed correspondence from First Selectman Don Lowe forwarding an email from Danica Doroski, DEEP urban forester, that outlined two possible offers for towns. Doroski described an urban community forest resilience grant intended to support long-term forest health in low-canopy communities, and a survey DEEP is using to gather input for a possible statewide tree-inventory software program. The commission concluded Sherman does not appear to meet the “low canopy” criterion and therefore is unlikely to be eligible for the grant. The commission voted to participate in the DEEP survey, and Commissioner Jill Humphreys will complete it on the commission’s behalf.

Why it matters: the survey may shape procurement of tools for tree inventories that towns and agencies use to track street and public-park canopies, plan plantings, and target resilience funding. Commission members noted that Sherman’s forest composition and canopy conditions differ from the low-canopy communities targeted by the grant, which was the basis for their decision not to pursue the funding.

The commission recorded the correspondence under routine business and moved on to forest evaluations and program updates. No further action on the grant was taken at the meeting.

Provenance: This report is based on meeting minutes documenting the commission’s discussion and decision (correspondence entry).