The Stocker Pond Association An historical perspective

This year the conversation which dominated all else was over water quality and actions the Association might take or investigate. Complete transcripts of the meeting minutes and subsequent update available.

A motion to increase the annual dues from $10 to $25 was made, seconded and approved to provide funding for the increased costs of monitoring.

The issue of mitigating the effects of runoff from the interstate together with the pressure from the increase in aquatic vegetation led to the authorization to spend up to $2000 to pay for required analysis, fees or other expenditures necessary to develop a program to "control weed growth, reduce silt, improve water flow, and otherwise improve the water quality of Stocker Pond and the surrounding area." Conversations with DES and the Department of Wetlands had already begun by Pat Woolson, and while grants might be available to cover some of the associated costs, property owners would need to provide the rest of the funds in order to implement any action plan.

The period 2006-2009 was one of significant effort to effect a reduction of aquatic vegetation in the inlet. In the end, the State denied permission to hydro-rake the inlet maintaining that the effect would create a new channel in the inlet which would adversely affect the surrounding wetlands. Even though the conclusion of the Association’s efforts are now known, it remains of historical interest to understand the process.

President Rayno read a letter from the Grantham Conservation Commission advising the Association that they would provide up to $6000 to help with the weed removal project being led by Pat Woolson. Pat continued the increased monitoring of the 21+ culverts that carry run-off from Interstate 89 to the Pond; she asked the Association for continued assistance, particularly with early winter, then March samplings.

Pat Woolson also reported that she received an estimate from the Shoreline Weed Control Company for hydro-raking the inlet. They estimate is will take 50 hours at $140 per hour for a cost of $7000 plus the cost of removing the weeds from the shoreline. The Town of Grantham was contacted and reported that the weeds are not considered hazardous materials, and so can safely be composted at the Town transfer station.

The discussion of weed raking continued, and it was voted to appropriate the sum of $1000 for the purpose of preparing and submitting an application to the NH DES for permission to hydro-rake the inlet. David and Glenda Szczesiul and John Belizzi proposed that the Association establish a Weed Removal Fund to augment the current cash balance we have available for the hydro-raking project. They established the fund with each contributing $100. It was agreed that the Secretary-Treasurer would send a letter to the membership when the results of the DES application is learned and solicit additional contributions. Several members in attendance indicated their intention to contribute to the fund.

Discussions with the NH DOT had taken place, and they indicated that there is a need to dig out the culverts and install catch basins. The DOT stated they will assume responsibility for taking similar actions at the outlet. Unfortunately, as of the meeting date, no written confirmation has been received.

An intern with the DES noticed a patch of phragmites australis (common reed) growing on Heinlein’s [property 236-23] beach. It is a reed with narrow, pointed leaves; see images on page 22 of Best Management Practices for the Control of Invasive and Noxious Plant Species. Note that it is a "Type II invasive species" meaning that it is easily spread by construction and maintenance activities, have significant negative impacts on transportation infrastructure, and are very difficult to eradicate; they are a priority target for the NH DOT. Eradication methods are discussed in the handbook referenced above.

Water quality was generally stable with slight degradation attributed to salt use on the Interstate. "The DOT has been advised of our ongoing concern and they have been relatively responsive in monitoring the culverts."

An application to hydrorake the inlet was submitted to the DES in the fall of 2006. In January, 2007 Jodi Connor of the DES inspected the area to review the extent of the plan. After review, the application was denied as the Wetlands Permit Department maintained that we were creating a new channel in the inlet. After several meetings with the DES and Pat Woolson and Maryann Rayno, the DES agreed to revisit their decision. Next steps would include a prehearing to determine if there was sufficient reason to revisit the first decision. The position of the DES seems to be that the proposed activities is tantamount to dredging a new channel.

Emails circulated within the Eastman community raised the issue that worms were found in Stocker Pond fish and these were dangerous. NH Fish and Game reported that virtually all fish in warm water ponds contained these worms which were not dangerous nor poisonous. On the other hand, they reminded all that NH fish have mercury levels and so should not be consumed more than twice per month and when consumed should be cooked thoroughly.

Finally more phragmites were found on Heinlein’s beach, and subsequently dug up. All members are advised to watch for it around the Pond and dig it up if found.

Little new happening this year; just awaiting news on the rehearing by DES. Water quality issues with salt runoff from the highways continues to press.

Overall water quality of the Pond continues to remain relatively constant; there were some upward movement in the readings for turbidity and pH, but no change in conductivity, Chlorophyll-a (phosphorus) and chloride levels. Of particular note was that E. coli levels were 0 at both the inlet and outlet, a first in several years. With low water levels, it was difficult to get a boat into the inlet. The State continues to recommend we test three times in the season: July, August and September.

On July 17, 2008 a hearing was held with the DES to revisit the denial of our application to hydrorake the inlet. Pat Woolson was the only member of the Association allowed to speak, and no new data could be delivered to the commision. State lawyers for the Wetlands Permit Department, DES and the Attorney General’s office were represented. Like earlier meetings with Wetlands department and the DES, there was no spirit of providing guidance on how better to manage the Pond. Instead the tone of the hearing was to reinforce the finality of their denial. No further action is proposed by the Association to develop a weed control program.

The Chairman of the Grantham Conservation Commission joined the meeting to provide additional insight on the new Wetlands Protection Act and how the new rules impacted waterfront development, adding an understanding of the new requirements for building setbacks, land clearing, and beachfront creation.