The Warners Pond Task Force dam‑removal subcommittee met virtually and reviewed a draft proposal based on the 30% basis‑of‑design plans, agreeing to post the document and present it to the full task force on Wednesday. The meeting included public commenters who urged clarity on what the town will commit to build and cautioned that simply breaching the dam may not produce the recreational pond and channel shown in the alternatives analysis.

The session opened with approval of the previous meeting’s minutes; the motion passed unanimously. The group then invited public input and identified attending task‑force members and staff, including Samiksha Poudl from Town of Concord engineering.

Public commenter Dan, who said he had reviewed the Basis of Design Report and drafted public comments, raised the central technical question of the evening: “is the town gonna commit to achieving those conditions that are presented in the alternatives analysis report, specifically the stream alignment, the channel, the water depths?” He warned the subcommittee appears to be proceeding from assumptions about a navigable channel and a 4.5‑acre pond that may require engineered construction rather than a simple breach and natural erosion.

Dan pressed the point that the designers’ chosen approach matters for outcomes: “The dam removal is shown on the 30% drawings and then let natural erosion occur and whatever you're left with, you're left with.” Several committee members and commenters echoed the need for explicit language about expected water‑depth ranges and for caveats about seasonal variation and drought years.

Supporters of rewilding and wetland restoration argued the proposal should default to restoring a wetland rather than privileging recreational uses. Pamela Drit of Concord Green said the ecological and financial trade‑offs favor wetland restoration: “We should default, I think, to the kind of land that will protect us from climate change, and that is the wetland.” Other speakers worried that phrasing such as “safe and sustainable water access” could be read to promise year‑round recreational water access; members recommended adding a footnote or clarifying sentence about seasonal limits and drought conditions.

Committee members walked through the 30% drawings and draft text, noting that some manmade elements (a central island, riprap and an attached piece adjacent to the dam) are shown to remain rather than be fully removed. Members agreed to change wording that currently reads as “complete removal” to language tying removal explicitly to the 30% design (page 3.1) so residents are not surprised that certain structures will remain.

Technical discussion focused on fish benefits and temperature effects. Staff and presenters summarized fisheries input that removal will improve connectivity for anadromous fish species (for example, river herring and eel) and reduce localized warming, while some attendees cautioned that water‑temperature changes alone are not the limiting factor and that the primary benefit is restoring passage. Members asked the drafter to reword parts of the proposal to avoid conflating a small summertime temperature change with the mechanics of fish passage.

The group also discussed trails and public access: a proposed trail connection from Giroux into the cornfields, sections requiring boardwalk across marshy ground, and the need for approvals if the route crosses Department of Correction land. Members debated trade‑offs between building a longer boardwalk closer to the wetland edge and moving trails farther from buffers to lower costs and permitting complexity.

On funding and costs, members said the proposal will reference multiple federal, state and private funding sources that target fish‑habitat restoration and dam removal, but they noted the recently rebuilt dam’s hazard rating may affect eligibility for certain funds. The draft removes detailed budget numbers in favor of a placeholder and will include professional cost estimates and clear disclaimers. As one member put it, cost ranges and disclaimers help protect the town and set public expectations about uncertainty in pre‑bid estimates.

Next steps: the subcommittee agreed the draft will be posted and presented at the full task force meeting Wednesday, with slides and edited language to clarify fish‑passage benefits, seasonal limits for water access, indigenous history/interpretive signage, and an explicit stakeholder list. The group asked for follow‑up on whether the town would commit to engineered channel or pond construction if natural processes after a breach do not create the assumed conditions.

The meeting closed after a final round of public comments and the chair adjourned at approximately 8:19 p.m.