Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town forest committee delays decision on wetland buffers after extended debate
Summary
Advisory committee members debated whether to adopt the state 50-ft buffer or larger (100–300 ft) protections for class 2 and class 3 wetlands in the draft management plan, withdrew a motion for 100 ft, and asked members to research scientific justification before voting.
The Richmond Advisory Committee on Forests spent the bulk of its meeting reconsidering how the draft management plan treats wetlands, with particular focus on buffer distances for class 2 and class 3 wetlands.
Members recapped a recent field walk led by Tina, who the committee said could not complete a formal delineation but advised that the large wetlands near the Bass Trail are likely class 2 and warned that any filling, benching or clearing within 50 feet could trigger a state permit. Committee members emphasized that a formal delineation by a qualified consultant would be required before permitting could proceed.
The committee discussed three approaches: adopt the state 50-foot buffer as a baseline, set an intermediate buffer (100–200 ft), or apply a larger 300-foot buffer for sensitive natural communities such as alder swamps and vernal pools. Some members argued that larger buffers are supported by the science used elsewhere in the plan; others said imposing very large buffers across the forest would effectively prevent new trail access and urged caution given existing ‘‘grandfathered’’ trails.
A motion to establish a 100-foot buffer for class 2 wetlands was made and seconded, then withdrawn after extended debate. The committee did not take a final vote: instead members agreed to collect and circulate supporting references, and to revisit the numeric decision at the next meeting.
Committee members noted practical constraints on routing and maintenance: equipment access for landowners and existing right-of-way arrangements (e.g., properties managed by Maple Wind and Andrews) will influence whether a reroute or a new boardwalk is feasible. The group emphasized that the trail-deviation review process should contain explicit language allowing limited exceptions for necessary reroutes of existing trails.
Next steps: Sonia asked Brad to circulate references supporting larger buffers; the group recorded that as an action item and deferred a final buffer decision until the committee reviews submitted evidence.
