Conservation panel weighs invasive-species funding push

Conservation · Meeting of June 11, 2026

Clinton's Conservation Commission brainstormed a slate of new environmental projects at its June 11 meeting while a long-pending land acquisition neared completion. The chair reported the land trust hired roughly 15 goats to clear Japanese barberry across four and a half acres and said the town's acquisition deal awaits a signed affidavit from Evergreen Properties and state attorney general sign-off. Members floated a three-part invasive-species plan covering mapping, control and state funding, a boardwalk at the Elliot Preserve to reduce tick exposure, and an oyster-reef pilot to buffer the shoreline and filter water, tied to coordination with the town's Shellfish Commission.

One member said "it would be most effective if we could include it in the GIS" for invasive mapping. The sustainability committee separately reported achieving bronze-level Sustainable CT certification. No substantive votes were taken; the commission's only vote adjourned the meeting.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 3,331 words

Source: the Conservation meeting of June 11, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Chairman's Report: Goats, Bridges and a Near-Final Land Deal

Background and stakes: The commission has spent months shepherding a town land acquisition through state approval, and the land trust has separately been piloting goat grazing as an alternative to herbicide for invasive-plant control. Both items were long-running threads the chair used to open the meeting.

The question before the body: Whether the land acquisition package is ready to send to the state, and what progress has been made on related land trust infrastructure.

Substantive content: The chair said the land trust hired a herd the chair put at "15 of them" (later also described as "about 13") to graze on Japanese barberry at a site referred to on the recording as Kennorth Forest, where the infestation had grown from roughly three acres to four and a half acres by the time the goats arrived. The chair described the goats as fenced with an electric perimeter and said land trust staff pre-screen the area to remove anything that could harm the animals, citing ferns as one plant initially flagged for review. Separately, the chair reported Inland Wetlands Commission and town planning approval for two pedestrian bridges: one across a brook on land trust property near what the chair called the Dow property, and one on property owned by the utility Eversource.

On the land acquisition itself, the chair said the remaining steps are an updated title insurance policy and a signed affidavit from Evergreen Properties, the operator of a mobile home property whose equipment sits on land the land trust is acquiring. The chair said Evergreen's attorney agreed in a phone call to sign an affidavit, as an alternative to a quitclaim deed that Evergreen's commercial lenders would not permit, and that the town's attorney, identified by name as Ken McDonald, sent the signed-off affidavit language to Evergreen roughly one to two weeks before the meeting. Once title insurance and the affidavit are complete, the chair said, the full package goes to the state, which previously estimated one to two weeks for the attorney general to sign and for a closing to be scheduled. A commission member identified as Larry, described in the discussion as an attorney, offered to follow up informally.

The deliberation: "How do we get title insurance if we don't want to get?" one member asked, prompting the chair to explain the process: "You sort of go to the title insurance company, you say we are going to own this. Can you ensure that the title is clear and clean, which they will do. They did it before and they just have to update it." Larry, asked by the chair to reach out to McDonald directly, replied: "I can touch base. Yeah, like I did in my prior," adding later, with some humor, that he is "ankle bitten to the point where I'm no longer allowed to contact him via text."

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was required or taken on this item; it was a status update.

Implications and what is next: The chair characterized the deal as down to "one or two steps," with the main open item being Evergreen's signature on the affidavit.

Habitat Management Notes: The Goats in Practice

Several members who had not yet visited the goat-grazing site asked practical questions about safety and containment. One member who arrived partway through the meeting, apologizing for missing the update because of a physical therapy appointment, was told by another member: "You missed the part about the goats," to laughter. Members confirmed the goats are fenced and should not be approached or fed: "Don't try to, as they say, don't hurt the goats." The chair said the Kennorth Forest grazing project is intended partly as a pilot to see whether the method can be scaled to other invasive sites in town, noting the herbicide and labor cost of manually clearing four acres would have been prohibitive.

Old Business: Composting Participation and a Possible Social Media Page

Background and stakes: The commission has previously promoted residential food composting and discussed town communications, both lower-stakes but recurring agenda items.

The question before the body: Whether composting participation remains steady and whether the commission should pursue a social media presence.

Substantive content: Members said anecdotally that participation in home composting continues among people already doing it, including several members themselves, but that overall numbers appear to be declining. The chair suggested the commission "may need to reinvigorate the marketing campaign" around the program and said it would help to have a committee member familiar with social media. A separate suggestion raised the idea of the commission maintaining its own social media page, as some neighboring towns' conservation commissions do, distinct from the town's existing Facebook page, which one member said is run through a different office. One member recalled that a staffer identified only by the first name Brett, described as working on sustainability, had previously tried without success to connect with that office about communications support. A member who was not named by surname volunteered to ask: "I always think it's better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission on something like this."

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken; the matter was left as an open idea with one member agreeing informally to make an inquiry.

Implications and what is next: Any social media launch would depend on coordination with town communications staff that has not yet occurred.

Sustainability Committee Update: Bronze Certification

Background and stakes: A separate town sustainability committee has been pursuing Sustainable CT certification, a statewide municipal sustainability recognition program, and reported results to the commission.

The question before the body: An informational update only; no action was requested of the conservation commission.

Substantive content: A member reported the sustainability committee "successfully achieved bronze certification for Sustainable CT" and had originally intended to pursue the higher silver tier with an August or September submission. However, after losing some committee members, that committee instead "decided to vote on it," meaning accepting bronze rather than pressing forward immediately for silver. A member asked whether the bronze certification is permanent; the answer given was yes, though renewal and additional certification levels involve ongoing administrative work described as "gathering from every corner."

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote by this commission; purely informational.

Implications and what is next: The sustainability committee's certification status does not require conservation commission action, but ties into the broader town sustainability efforts members referenced throughout the meeting.

New Business: A Three-Part Invasive Species Initiative

Background and stakes: Members described invasive plants, especially Japanese barberry and phragmites, as a worsening, townwide problem visible across land trust and town-owned open space, prompting a push to formalize a strategy heading into the next year.

The question before the body: What new initiatives should the commission prioritize, with invasives emerging as the lead proposal.

Substantive content: One member proposed seeking state funding, including asking state representatives for support and asking environmental organizations the town already contributes to "to put their own two cents into lobbying with state legislators." The chair noted the town's budget had already eliminated funding for expanded GIS mapping capability this cycle "because they just didn't have any money," tying the loss to a broader town revaluation-driven budget squeeze. A member identified as Mark offered to help build an invasive-species map "with a mapping piece of that," noting free tools exist such as OpenStreetMap, but said "it would be most effective if we could include it in the GIS," since the town's ArcGIS platform already supports that functionality. By the end of the discussion, the chair summarized the plan as having three parts: identifying and mapping infestations, developing control solutions, and pursuing funding.

Cost figures discussed, though informal and drawn from land trust board discussions rather than a formal estimate, put the goat-grazing cost at roughly $1,000 per acre, with one member initially saying $4,000 for four acres before the group clarified the per-acre rate, noting some sites may require a return visit.

The deliberation: "I think with invasives to me it's first you got to identify them and then you got to come up with a plan," Mark said. Another member added a caution about relying only on eradication: "I was insistent about basis. I had an idea about competitive planting instead of just killing the invasives, trying to get competitive plants to take over," though the same member acknowledged "there are invasives that just sort of win every time... they have no predator."

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; members agreed informally to bring research and proposals back to a future meeting, with the chair asking whoever has invasive-mapping background to "bring that back next month."

Implications and what is next: The commission plans to reintroduce invasives as a standing old-business item and expects follow-up reports, though no specific date beyond "next month" was set.

Tick Mitigation: A Boardwalk Proposal for the Elliot Preserve

Background and stakes: Members linked rising tick concerns in town woods and grasslands to reduced public use of open space, raising the idea of channelizing foot traffic.

The question before the body: Whether to pursue wooden or composite boardwalks on land trust property, starting with the Elliot Preserve.

Substantive content: A member described seeing wooden platform walkways without railings in parks visited out of state and proposed a similar approach locally, arguing it would concentrate pedestrian traffic away from tick habitat, reduce the need for regular mowing, and potentially qualify as an ADA-accessible improvement eligible for grant funding. The group identified the Elliot Preserve, land donated to the land trust by the Elliot family for public open-space use with water views, as a strong first candidate because it is relatively flat and already draws visitors despite being, in one member's words, "infamous." Members discussed using composite decking rather than wood for greater longevity despite a cost roughly ten times higher, suggesting the project could be built incrementally as funding allows.

Biological tick control was raised as a complementary idea, with members discussing guinea hens or possums as natural tick predators, modeled loosely on the goat-grazing pilot, with temporary fenced access to trails rather than permanent installation.

The deliberation: "It's one of the open spaces that we have that has the most beautiful view of the harbor. If you want to get people to get out there and enjoy it, we really should put a wooden pathway around and advocate for it," one member said. Another responded that any such project would need to be a joint effort with the land trust, since the property is land trust owned, and suggested establishing the concept locally before seeking outside grant funding: "We can establish the vision and then look for others to establish the financial."

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; members agreed to raise the idea with the land trust and explore funding sources, with no date set.

Implications and what is next: Any boardwalk project would require land trust partnership and separate grant-seeking before construction could begin.

Habitat Management: Beavers and Phragmites

Background and stakes: Two invasive or nuisance-adjacent habitat issues, phragmites marsh takeover and beaver dam management, came up as examples of where ecological management and human infrastructure interests can conflict.

The question before the body: Informational discussion of ongoing habitat issues rather than a specific proposal.

Substantive content: One member described a private beach association's experience obtaining state approval, referred to as from "DE," understood in context to mean the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, to use herbicide on phragmites, followed by manual removal of regrowth using a flame tool, which the member said "seems to be working really well." The same member described a residential "beaver deceiver" device, costing roughly three thousand dollars, that allows a beaver dam to remain in place while regulating water levels, preventing the kind of catastrophic dam failure that occurs when dams are removed by excavator. Phragmites was also discussed as having overtaken a former pond in Chatfield Hollow, described by one member as now "just a phragmite marsh." A historical note was raised that a railroad entity had previously funded saltwater trench construction behind the Elliot property as wetland mitigation, since saltwater intrusion is understood to kill phragmites roots, though that solution does not apply to inland sites such as Chatfield Hollow.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; discussion only.

Implications and what is next: No specific town action was proposed, though the phragmites and beaver management examples were cited as context for the broader invasives initiative.

Tree Ordinance and Inter-Committee Coordination

Background and stakes: A separate town tree committee submitted a draft tree ordinance for the conservation commission's review and has been working with other town bodies, referenced by the first names Lane and Tony, on landscaping guidance for larger development projects.

The question before the body: Whether the commission will review and provide feedback on the draft ordinance.

Substantive content: A member said the tree committee wants to work more closely with planning and zoning-adjacent efforts to recommend specific tree species for new development, including species whose root systems avoid damaging infrastructure. The member said the draft ordinance would be distributed to the full commission for review and feedback, though specifics beyond that were limited. Separately, one member proposed a broader annual joint meeting of all town committees to improve coordination, and another raised an idea for volunteer tree planting along a stretch of railroad-adjacent land near the Indian River, contrasting it with existing stonework installed by Amtrak.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; the chair indicated the ordinance draft would be circulated to the commission.

Implications and what is next: Commission members are expected to review the draft tree ordinance before a future meeting, though no deadline was stated on the recording.

Coastal Resiliency: Oyster Reefs and the Shellfish Commission

Background and stakes: Members connected water quality problems in the Indian River, which last year prevented shellfish harvesting in town beds, to broader coastal resiliency and waterfront tourism goals referenced in a past ten-year town plan.

The question before the body: Whether to pursue an oyster-reef pilot and formal coordination with the town's Shellfish Commission.

Substantive content: One member described a shoreline resiliency technique using recycled oyster shells, cured outdoors for roughly six months and bundled into wire frames, then seeded with juvenile oysters to build a living reef intended to buffer wave energy ahead of a seawall while also filtering water. The member proposed the reef be managed strictly for habitat and water quality, with no harvesting. Another member tied the idea to the town's existing Shellfish Commission and suggested the conservation commission propose an annual joint meeting with that body to pursue shared waterfront projects, citing the town's prior ten-year plan goal of strengthening downtown-to-waterfront connections.

The deliberation: "To the extent that the waterfront is a major asset to this town... maybe what we should do... is put down as one of our agenda items to have at least once a year meeting with the shellfish commission," one member said. Another member connected the reef idea to the river's pollution problems: "If we figured out a way to line the Indian River banks with oysters, maybe it will" help, though acknowledging uncertainty.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; members agreed to consider adding an annual Shellfish Commission meeting to a future agenda.

Implications and what is next: Any oyster-reef pilot would require coordination beginning with the town conservation administrator, referred to in the discussion only by the first name Abby, before involving other commissions.

Pesticide Use Near Waterways and a Prior Rain Garden Rejection

Background and stakes: Members linked the Indian River's water quality problems, including last year's harvesting ban, to pesticide runoff and septic contributions, and recalled a previously rejected rain garden proposal as a cautionary example of engineering constraints on green infrastructure.

The question before the body: Whether to pursue a pesticide-use restriction near waterways and whether rain gardens remain a viable stormwater tool.

Substantive content: One member proposed exploring a rule requiring approval before pesticide application within 250 yards of a river or stream, while acknowledging the political sensitivity of regulating private property owners: "Before we come out with recommendations that are so onerous on adjacent property owners... we really have to look into that deeply." Members also noted uncertainty about whether septic or other sources still contribute pollution to the Indian River and agreed a member would research primary pollution sources and report back. Separately, members recalled a rain garden proposed years earlier for a parking area near a local business, rejected by the Inland Wetlands Commission because the site lacked sufficient soil depth, roughly two feet before hitting bedrock, against a roughly eight-foot depth the design required, raising concern the structure could collapse toward the river. Members noted the town has a consulting engineer but no in-house geologist or engineer, and cited a successful rain garden built at a different commercial site as an example of a lower-maintenance native-grass design that functions well once established.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; one member volunteered to research Indian River pollution sources, covering the Indian, Hammock and other town rivers, and bring findings back next month.

Implications and what is next: Any pesticide restriction proposal would likely need further research before being brought forward as a formal recommendation, given members' stated concerns about regulatory burden on property owners.

Correspondence and Closing

The chair noted a University of Connecticut Extension plant-identification program is being offered free of charge, aside from a twenty-dollar registration fee the chair had already paid, this Saturday. The chair said there was no other correspondence to report and that a joint plan item was skipped for lack of discussion topics. The meeting adjourned on a motion, a second and a unanimous voice vote.

Commission chair, present, name not stated on the recording. Member identified as Mark, present, offered to assist with invasive-species GIS mapping. Member identified as Larry, present, described as an attorney who offered to contact the town's attorney, Ken McDonald. Member Mary Jo Phelps, present, arrived partway through the meeting. Member Barbara Seagaloff, listed absent at roll call. Member Christine Borderberry, listed absent at roll call. A member referred to in the roll call as Joan Latte, attendance status unclear from the recording. Town staffer referred to only as Abby, described as involved in planning approvals and landscaping coordination. Town attorney Ken McDonald, referenced as handling the Evergreen Properties affidavit and land acquisition paperwork; not present on the recording. Sustainability committee staffer referred to only as Brett, referenced but not present.

Clinton Land Trust — hired the goat-grazing contractor at Kennorth Forest and is the counterparty on the pending land acquisition and proposed boardwalk project. Eversource — utility whose property is crossed by one of the two approved pedestrian bridges. Evergreen Properties — mobile home property owner that agreed to sign an affidavit to resolve encroachments on land trust property. Inland Wetlands Commission — approved the two pedestrian bridge crossings and, in an earlier case, rejected a proposed rain garden for insufficient soil depth. State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General — must sign off on the pending land acquisition package before a closing can be scheduled. Sustainable CT — statewide certification program under which the town sustainability committee achieved bronze-level certification. University of Connecticut Extension — offering a free plant-identification workshop referenced as taking place the Saturday after the meeting. Shellfish Commission — proposed as a partner for an annual joint meeting on waterfront and oyster-reef projects. Tree committee — submitted a draft tree ordinance for commission review and is coordinating with other town bodies on landscaping recommendations for development projects. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (referenced in the transcript as "DE") — cited as having approved herbicide use for phragmites control at a private beach association.