Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brentwood conservation member warns evaluation form may favor farms over woodland, cites Great Bay nitrogen concerns
Summary
A departing Brentwood Conservation Commission member told the commission that a bond evaluation form appears to award points for active agriculture, which he says could conflict with his warrant article’s stated focus on wildlife habitat and with efforts to reduce nitrogen runoff into Great Bay.
Bob, a departing member of the Brentwood Conservation Commission, told the commission that an evaluation form tied to a proposed conservation bond appears to give “inordinate value” to actively farmed land and could undermine the warrant article’s stated focus on wildlife habitat.
Bob said he drafted the warrant article to conserve wildlife habitat and that he had “specifically left farms out of the discussion.” He told the commission he did not intend the bond to prioritize farmland preservation over other habitat types and that the form’s scoring — which he said appears to offer up to eight points for active agriculture, good agricultural soils and farm use — could skew decisions toward farmland even where wooded land would better reduce nitrogen runoff.
The commission discussion cited Great Bay and nitrogen pollution as a local reason to prefer forested habitat in some drainage areas. “Woodland is much better from the standpoint of pollution in Great Bay,” Bob said, adding that farming “poses problems … for nitrogen contamination in the drainage areas.” He also noted Brentwood has already conserved a number of farms.
Bob said the warrant article he submitted used wording focused on “conservation of wildlife habitat,” but that the warrant title that appeared on the ballot or agenda showed “open space.” He told the commission the town manager changed the wording to “open space” when the warrant was prepared: “The town manager did, assuming that that’s what I was talking about, I think, but it was just a mistake,” he said.
Several commission members thanked Bob for his service; he said he would be leaving the Conservation Commission but would carry over some remaining tasks. The meeting recorded no formal vote or change to the evaluation form or to the bond language during the discussion. The commission did take a procedural voice vote to adjourn at the end of the session.
Commission members raised no formal motion altering the bond language during this meeting; commissioners discussed the potential tension between prioritizing farmland and reducing nitrogen loading to Great Bay and noted existing conserved farmland in town as context for future decisions.
The commission scheduled its next meeting for July and asked members to follow up as needed; no implementation assignments or reports to outside agencies were recorded in the transcript of this discussion.
