The meeting began with a discussion about pesticide use on the soccer fields managed by the commission. Concerns were specifically raised regarding the application of the herbicide Triad QC Select, noted for its potential to contaminate groundwater. This topic gained urgency due to the soccer fields’ proximity to the town’s water wells.

The commission scrutinized the conservation restriction (CR) and its attachments, emphasizing the need to ensure that the current herbicide application practices align with the goals of the CR, which stresses groundwater protection. The discussion shed light on the necessity for clarity regarding the restrictions imposed by the groundwater protection district, particularly concerning the use of harmful substances within its boundaries. There was some ambiguity about the precise locations of the soccer fields relative to the wellhead protection area, prompting an examination of maps for accurate context.

Further into the meeting, participants discussed the implications of herbicide use in light of the existing lease and CR provisions. The dialogue underscored the importance of vigilance to ensure that environmental protections specified in the lease are strictly followed, especially to prevent groundwater contamination. The commission committed to investigating these concerns further and ensuring compliance with the lease agreements moving forward.

Beyond the immediate issue of herbicides, the meeting also addressed the broader development plans for the soccer fields. Discussions highlighted the plan to construct an additional field, raising questions about the current layout and potential space for further sports facilities. Cost considerations were an influence on the placement of existing fields, with financial constraints and logistical challenges impacting decisions on relocating sports facilities.

In addition to discussions about the soccer fields, the meeting focused on the ongoing development of a conservation plan. This included examining the usability of areas designated for public recreation and ensuring that state and federal grants remained secure. The conversation touched on the need for clear signage to guide public use and protect sensitive areas, as well as the roles of various stakeholders in balancing recreational development with environmental stewardship.

The commission also explored the process of obtaining a holder for the conservation restriction, with uncertainty about which organization would assume this responsibility. Collaboration with local conservation entities was seen as a viable path forward, despite the lack of a definitive commitment at the time of the meeting.

Attention was given to the Baseline Documentation Report (BDR), a critical element for monitoring the field’s condition over time. The BDR’s cost was discussed, with suggestions that it could be managed affordably through partnerships with organizations like the New England Forestry Foundation, which conducts similar assessments.

Before concluding, the commission reviewed the details of the CR and its attachments, deciding on the necessary documents to include. This included labeling the TASA expansion plan as Exhibit C and confirming the deed and description of the premises as Exhibit A. Funding opportunities for conservation initiatives, such as the Merrimack Conservation Partnership and the Marian Starter Greenway Program, were briefly mentioned, with plans to explore these options at a future meeting.