Richmond residents and committee debate revised Andrews Community Forest plan over trails, wildlife and connectivity

Sam Pratt, co‑chair of the Andrews Community Forest Committee, told the Richmond Select Board that the committee is seeking public feedback on a preliminary revision of the 2018 management plan for the Andrews Community Forest. "We are proud of the draft and at the same time we know that no plan of this scope will fully satisfy everyone," Pratt said, and asked the public to keep comments focused on the plan and the forest.

The draft frames the forest with a two‑zone approach: a southern zone closer to Route 2 and town center would concentrate new trail development and higher levels of use, while the northern zone would remain quieter to protect steep terrain, vernal pools and sensitive wildlife habitat. Pratt said the plan is grounded in the town's conservation easement and the Richmond Town Plan and is intended to be adaptive: "The plan is designed to be both well‑informed and practical to implement now with the understanding that it can be adjusted over time through monitoring and adaptive management," he said.

Supporters of the draft said the zoning approach follows best practices and recent ecological assessments. Melissa Woliver, a former committee member and current Richmond Conservation Commissioner, cited the Vermont Town Forest Stewardship Guide as supportive of the committee’s zoning approach and commended the committee for incorporating current science.

Opponents—many from the local trail‑building and mountain‑bike community—argued the draft unduly restricts recreational access and severs potential connections to adjacent trail systems. "The management plan as presented I think misses the mark in a few key ways," said Max Kger, a Richmond Mountain Trails board member, who urged the town to use earlier trail‑building recommendations by Arrowwood/Arrowwood Environmental and Senuosity Trail Building rather than discarding that expertise. Several speakers asked the board to reconsider a proposed restriction described in the draft as a ban on biking above the power line, with trail advocates saying that restriction would make upper‑ridge trails impractical for many users.

Conservation‑minded speakers stressed the property’s ecological importance. Multiple residents pointed to vernal pools, class‑2 wetlands and the forest’s role in a larger habitat block that supports bobcats, moose and other species. Bob Galvin cited peer‑reviewed research indicating that bicycles can alter bird behavior in some contexts and urged caution when siting trails.

Several speakers urged the committee and board to narrow the plan’s next steps to concrete, scheduled actions—baseline monitoring, clear thresholds that trigger management responses, and photo/video documentation at key sites—so the town can measure impacts if and when new trails are developed. John Cart, speaking as a wildlife biologist and town resident, said the plan should identify which actions are operational priorities and specify monitoring triggers rather than leaving those judgments to ad hoc debate.

Questions of off‑site connectivity were prominent. Trail advocates described possible links to Maple Wind, the VYCC trail network and the Sunshine land (sometimes referenced as "Sip of Sunshine" in public comments). Several speakers warned that some neighboring landowners control bicycle access via conservation easements, and that recent wetland delineations on adjacent properties could constrain potential routes.

The Select Board did not take action at the meeting. Chair (title used in the meeting) thanked the committee and members of the public for extensive input and said the board would review the feedback, ask for clarifications about off‑site ownership and connectivity, and discuss next steps at a future meeting. Written comments were invited; the committee provided an email contact for written feedback: richmondtownforest@gmail.com.

The committee emphasized the draft is intended as a living document subject to adaptive management and periodic updates; the board reiterated that the plan can be revised as new ecological or use information becomes available. No vote was taken at the meeting; the board signaled it would consider the plan and any further consultant assessments or specific trail proposals in subsequent meetings.