Follow the Harvard Press on FacebookFollow us on Facebook!  and TwitterFollow us on Twitter!

Wednesday, February 08, 2012  ·  Contact Us Register  ·  Subscribe/Renew  ·  Login
 
Committee steps up efforts to protect pond

A bare-bones chronology
of Bare Hill Pond

  • Early 1800s: First dam constructed, for downstream water power.
  • Ca. 1930s: Dam modified to current configuration.
  • 1956-58: Weed problem had become acute.
  • 1959: Bare Hill Pond Committee appointed by selectmen.
  • 1960: Funds raised, mainly from abutters, to apply herbicide to the whole pond, leaving it clear of weeds. Small weed cutter also purchased.
  • 1961-64: Spot herbicide treatment of weedy areas.
  • 1965-70: No Bare Hill Pond Committee; no weed removal activities.
  • 1971: Weed coverage was again acute
  • 1972: Bare Hill Pond Study Committee established as subcommittee of the Conservation Commission. A mechanical weed harvester was deemed ineffective after a one-day trial.
  • 1973: Committee recommended chemical treatment program, which continued intermittently until 1982, interspersed with some harvesting and manual pulling, as well as an occasional small drawdown.
  • 1983: Town Meeting voted a moratorium on the use of herbicides; the town ordered a new harvester.
  • 1984: New (current) harvester delivered, and harvested 387 tons.
  • 1985-90: Harvesting continued, ranging from 250 to 690 tons recorded; a drawdown was added in 1988.
  • 1987: Bare Hill Pond Watershed Management Committee formed (seven members), reporting to selectmen.
  • 1991: Harvester mothballed for lack of funds and transferred from Watershed Committee to Department of Public Works.
  • 1993-98: Harvester back in limited operation with donated funds; volunteer weed pulls up to 4 times a year.
  • 1997: Weeds very heavy in all areas less than 8 feet deep.
  • 1998: Town paid for harvester restoration, but boulders forced shallow cutting; weeds grew back rapidly.
  • 1999: State declared the pond endangered.
  • 2006: New pumping station completed in hopes of facilitating deeper, more effective drawdowns.
  • 2009: Town Meeting voted the funds needed to secure state DEP grant for storm-water treatment.
  • 2010: Weed pulls will take place on June 19, July 17, and August 7.


NOTE: Chronology up to 1998 based on version by M. Mattson. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/fbh81007.pdf

Construction will begin in May on projects to treat the storm-water runoff that pollutes Bare Hill Pond, according to the Bare Hill Pond Watershed Management Committee. Runoff carries phosphorous and other pollutants, contributing to the weed growth that threatens the pond’s survival, Pond Committee Chairman Bruce Leicher explained at a public forum on March 18. Phosphorous is a particular problem because, as a fertilizer, it promotes rampant growth of the three main problem weeds in the pond—water chestnut, milfoil, and fanwort.

The committee’s goal is simple, Leicher stated: to get Bare Hill Pond off the state’s list of endangered ponds, where it has been since 1999. “Everything that enters into the watershed eventually enters the pond,” Leicher told the small but attentive audience in Volunteers Hall. According to Pond Committee documents, the pond could become a weed-choked marsh in less than a century, 10 times faster than the natural transition of pond to marsh, if the polluted runoff and invasive weeds are left unchecked.

The Pond Committee has put together a $975,050 storm-water management program, with approximately two thirds of the money coming from federal funds administered through the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The local share of the costs will be drawn from a variety of resources. Community Preservation Committee funds were approved at the 2009 Annual Town Meeting. The Department of Public Works already spends a portion of its budget on runoff-related issues, and the town can credit these costs toward its share of the project, under state and federal guidelines. Likewise, Harvard can claim credit for volunteer efforts, including water chestnut pulls and professional services, at a set hourly rate.

For each major drainage area around Bare Hill Pond, the committee asked the design firm Horsley Witten to develop a treatment project suited to the terrain and volume of runoff. Proposed solutions range from dry swales that capture runoff to bioretention systems that create an artificial wetland with carefully chosen plantings over a gravel base. In each case, vegetation absorbs the fertilizer components in the storm water, preventing them from entering the pond, while soil and gravel filter out other pollutants.

Committee member Bill Johnson identified the eight areas that have been targeted for treatment to deal with runoff. The worst area, Johnson said, was the north shore near Route 111 and Pond Road, where rain washes road salt and lawn fertilizer into the pond.

Besides storm-water runoff, another major problem is the phosphorous already held in the peat layer on the pond bottom. Johnson described a three-year pilot program, with grant financing, to excavate the all-too-fertile peat in the beach area. Johnson expressed the hope that the peat, which tests have shown to be free of harmful contaminates, could be marketed as a garden soil supplement. Its sale could help to finance peat removal from other areas of the pond bottom.

About water chestnut

  • Water chestnut (T. natans) is on the Massachusetts Prohibited Plant List (since Jan. 1, 2006)
  • Water chestnut is native to Eurasia and in 1897 was planted intentionally in Fresh Pond, Cambridge, MA, and a few other ponds, by a gardener. The plant rapidly spread into nearby rivers and ponds, and reached western portions of the state by 1920.
  • Water chestnut is considered rare in many of its original native regions.
  • The fruits of T. natans have been used in liniments for treating sunburns and sores.
  • During a single season, one acre of water chestnut can produce enough seeds to cover 100 acres the following year.

Weed control on Bare Hill Pond remains a knotty problem on which opinions differ. Dr. Jeff Harris, a longtime observer of the pond, recalled in a conversation with the Press, “We nearly lost the pond in the 1960s. Herbicide treatments saved it.” Harris, who is a medical doctor and a former member of the Board of Health, expressed doubts about the effectiveness of drawdowns in eradicating the invasive plant species, saying that some are winter-hardy in this climate zone.

Abutters on Lake Shirley, in Lunenburg, have taken a different approach to weed control, according to Joanna Bilotta, president of the Lake Shirley Improvement Corporation. Bilotta said that yearly drawdowns of about 6 feet had been helpful in combating fanwort but ineffective against milfoil. As a result, the private group returned to the use of herbicides three years ago. Through their annual dues of $300, corporation members cover costs of $30,000 to $70,000 per year for treatments of copper sulfate to control algae and an herbicide to combat milfoil. Costs vary with the acreage treated.

Filed under: News
Comments
 
 
Post Comment
 

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above:

 
CLICK AN AD!
Chimney Doctor
Apex Painting
Inspired Design
Global Fitness
Bull Run Restaurant
Kitchen Outfitters
Koko Fitclub
Tre Amici Restaurant
David Alexander, CPA
O'Shea Chaplin Irish Dancers
Copyright 2006–2012 by The Harvard Press LLC  ·  PO Box 284  ·  Harvard, Massachusetts 01451  ·  Phone 978.456.3700  ·  Fax 978.274.5605  ·  Terms Of Use  ·  Privacy Statement  ·  Site Credit