Board details scoring for candidate parcels, flags GIS and acreage discrepancies

Board members worked through the scoring rubric for each parcel, assigning points for aquifer buffers, erodible bluffs and soils, 100-year floodplain presence, shoreline/resource-protection zones, habitat for significant species, wetlands, wildlife corridor status, recreation linkages, and public-access potential.

Members frequently referenced field observations (informal trail networks, wood turtle and bat observations, deer wintering indicators, black bear sightings) to inform habitat and wildlife scores, but also emphasized that many ecological features are not confirmed without formal surveys. The board flagged inconsistencies between the scoring app's acreage values and the town's GIS/assessing data; staff agreed to correct the underlying polygon acreage and recalc the scores prior to packet submission.

The scoring process informed the board's overall conservation recommendation; members repeatedly emphasized that numeric scores are a tool rather than a binding threshold, and that narrative findings and stewardship commitments will accompany the council packet.