Richmond residents split over Andrews Community Forest plan as committee seeks final feedback

Sam Pratt, co‑chair of the Andrews Community Forest Committee, opened the meeting presentation by urging residents to review the draft and provide feedback before it is finalized. "We are here tonight because we want to hear from you before this plan is finalized," Pratt said, describing the draft as a zoning approach that concentrates higher‑use trails in the southern zone while protecting more sensitive northern habitats.

The Select Board convened a special session to gather public comment on the preliminary management plan, which the committee says is grounded in the town's conservation easement, the Richmond Town Plan and recent ecological assessments. Pratt emphasized that the plan "doesn't start from scratch" and aims to match human uses to parts of the forest best suited for them.

Public commentators were sharply divided. Max Kger, a former Conservation Commission member and a Richmond Mountain Trails board member, criticized the draft for sidelining prior expert trail recommendations developed by Arrowwood Environmental and Senuosity Trail Building. "The management plan as presented I think misses the mark in a few key ways and does not reflect the original intent of the purchase of the land," Kger said, arguing that the earlier consultant‑flagged trail alignments enabled greater north‑side connectivity to neighboring systems such as Sunshine/VYCC.

Other speakers urged more caution. Jim Cochran, a member of the Andrews committee, said the town had consulted state wetlands staff and that "a trail through a wetland is an approved use," noting wetlands alone do not render trail development impossible. Conservation Commissioner Melissa Woliver said the committee had followed Vermont stewardship guidance in recommending a two‑zone approach, and Janette Malone of the Conservation Commission called the zoning approach "what a conserved community forest should achieve." Bob Galvin, citing ecological research, warned that some studies show bicycles can cause elevated wildlife disturbance in certain contexts.

Several longtime users asked the board to clarify whether the plan's restrictions—most notably a proposal to limit biking above the power line—would preclude the kinds of inter‑parcel connections many residents favor. Tyler Merritt, a past trails committee member, urged the board to "eliminate the no biking above the power line policy" and to resurrect a prior compromise map to enable family‑friendly, lower‑slope trail access.

Speakers on both sides repeatedly asked the committee and the board to define concrete next steps. Wildlife biologist John Cart recommended adding explicit monitoring and maintenance triggers to the document so the committee can measure impacts and respond: "What would really be helpful...are the criteria that triggers a response?" he said.

Select Board members said they would not take action that night. Chair David (the Select Board chair) asked staff and the committee to clarify how off‑site connections to Sunshine and VYCC land might work, who controls those rights and whether recent wetland delineations affect those linkages. The board said it would consider the public input at a future meeting.

What happens next: the committee and staff will collect written comments and may return with revisions or additional consultant input. The committee noted the plan is intended to be a living document with periodic review and monitoring. The board did not set a formal vote date that night.

Authorities referenced in the discussion included the town's 2018 conservation easement and the Vermont Town Forest Stewardship Guide; no statute or ordinance citations were given in the record.

Ending: The meeting record shows broad agreement on the need for further work—whether that means restoring consultant‑sited trails, refining monitoring triggers, or clarifying connectivity options—before the Select Board makes a final determination.