Your browser may not support display of this image.CONSERVATION COMMISSION

MINUTES OF September 4, 2008

Present: Chris Giordano-Chairman, Judy Jervis, Sheila Johannesen, Laura Games


Others Present: Janet Denison-CC clerk, Barbara S. Byrne, Butch Sanborn, Grace S. Ross, Wally Fries, Ed Moses, Ken Rota, Carol Cohen, Pete Doucet, Michael and Lorraine Fleck, Robert Griffin, Richard and Rosemarie Holt, Leo and Carol Trahant, Shane Griffin, Ellen Moore, Gary Bertram, Frank Caparco

The meeting opened at 7:30


Amy Smagula, a limnologist and Exotic Species Program Coordinator with NH DES, presented information about the milfoil in Long Pond. She introduced herself and explained that she heard one month ago about the milfoil in Long Pond. She asked those present when they first noticed this plant. She said that she did a full survey of the pond and suspects that it has been growing there for close to three years.

She described the plant, variable milfoil, and showed photographs of what an infestation looks like. She explained that it grows wherever sunlight can reach the floor of the waterbody, usually to about 10’ deep, but it has been seen in water as deep as 23’.

She also showed a photograph of fanwort and advised those present to be on the lookout for this plant as well. She described the structure of fanwort as having opposing fan-shaped leaves whorled on the stem, which can grow up to be 10’-15’ long.

Mrs. Smagula had mapped the areas where the milfoil was found. It equals about 20 acres total, mostly on the southern shorelines around the pond. She explained that treatment entails an herbicide followed by other techniques such as hand-pulling or suction.

Based on her site assessment she would like to put together a long-term management plan. She can’t promise that the pond will be rid of it forever, as there are few success stories in that regard, but the management of milfoil is highly probable. The written plan will include a summary of the pond describing the ecology and biology of the water.

Mrs. Smagula encouraged the residents to start a water quality monitoring program. They have a Volunteer Lake Assessment Program in which volunteers can be trained to go out once per month to collect water samples which are then sent to Concord for analysis. They will issue a mini-report every year based on these samples. This will give the residents a long term trend analysis. Water quality is very important; as more nutrients are added to the water, more plants will be growing.

She will help establish goals, which include control and hopefully eradication. She explained different methods with their probable level of success in Long Pond.


Restricted use area-with the ring of milfoil around the pond, this is not feasible. This may be possible some day if it can be contained to one area. no
Fragment barrier-this contains the pieces and keeps the pieces from drifting to other areas. maybe
Hand-pulling-this can’t be done now as there is too much. yes
Diver-assisted suction-this is a super sized vacuum that sucks up the root system. This is limited on the size of infestation. possible
Benthic barrier-these are like window screens that are staked to the bottom which compress the plant to the sediment. This prevents them from being broken off. These are expensive. The compression also produces gasses which will make the structure balloon from the bottom of the lake. This is not feasible for large areas; they like to only do a 20’x14’ area. possible
herbicide-This is recommended. yes
extended drawdown-this is also not feasible. The milfoil turns into little cacti during drawdown. This doesn’t work for milfoil. no
dredge-this would cost millions. no
bio control-there is a weevil that eats some milfoil, but not variable milfoil. UNH is looking at a type of worm that eats variable milfoil. Further research is being done to ensure this worm will work. none available
no control-if no control is taken, the lake can be lost. no

As the herbicide treatment is recommended, Mrs. Smagula explained this method. She said they do about 20-25 treatments in the state every year on different water bodies. They have been doing these treatments since the 60’s using licensed applicators. She said these are proven methods and safe.

Mrs. Smagula recommended treatment begin in spring of 2009. They use 2,4-D which kills the plant and the roots. Lily pads and other things will not die. It does not bio-accumulate like DDT and has no reproductive issues. In addition to the herbicide, they would like to start a weed-watcher volunteer program. This would allow someone to be trained to monitor sections of the water body. If milfoil is seen, an email can be sent to Mrs. Smagula who will then send a diver to do bottom-area work so that an herbicide treatment will not have to be done again.

She explained that management entails treatment, monitoring, and follow-up. She said that as in a lawn, you can’t mow it once and expect it to never grow again.

In 2010 Mrs. Smagula will see if a follow-up herbicide treatment is needed. After that it would be several years before another treatment is probably needed. Meanwhile other techniques are used to control the milfoil. During 2010 weed watching will continue in conjunction with diving and hand-pulling. This method continues in subsequent years.

Mrs. Smagula explained that the herbicide treatment can’t start now because the plants need to be actively growing to take the herbicide into the root system. There is also a period of time that the water should not be used following an herbicide treatment. The Department of Agriculture sets a restrictive area within 1200’ of the treatment zone. Domestic purposes, such as showering and washing dishes, should not be done until the concentration reaches 70 parts per billion. She said she will look into this and have details in the management plan. There is probably a 7 day swim restriction and a 2 week domestic use restriction.

Treatment will start in late May to early June. There is usually a 30 day restriction for watering a lawn but an early test can be pulled to see if the concentration is safe to use. This affects all kinds of wells: point, dug, and artesian wells.

The dam was discussed. The herbicide can be used in flowing conditions. Mrs. Smagula described the herbicide as something like kitty-litter. It is a time-release and is sprinkled around the plants via a hopper and the pellets sink to the bottom. This is more effective than a fluid which does not necessarily reach the roots.

The state has a policy that when an herbicide treatment is done for an infestation, the state pays 100% for the first treatment. After that, they can match 50% if more treatments are needed. These are usually paid through warrant articles or lake associations.

A rough estimate of the cost for treating 20 acres can be about $25,000-$30,000. Mrs. Smagula estimated that for a follow-up treatment, considering reduced acreage and a matching grant, the town would pay roughly $6000-$8000.

Nitrogen and phosphorus are the nutrients that nourish the lake. Mrs. Smagula explained that with increased development, road run-off, septic failure, lawn fertilizers, etc., the lake is fertilized. There is an extensive wetland at one end of the lake which, at different times of the year, either takes up or gives off nutrients. It is not just the immediate abutters who affect the lake quality. She said to think of the watershed as a funnel. Everything within that funnel runs off into the lakes and ponds. It is important to reduce nutrient loading in that watershed in order to maintain the water bodies as best as possible.

There was a question about whether the state has a program which requires boat owners to purchase a noxious weed stamp that provides funding for the very work Mrs. Smagula is doing. Mrs. Smagula explained that right now their funding comes through boat registration. There was a bill that died on the senate floor two years ago. That bill will be re-introduced this year.

It was suggested that since NH has a great pond law, guaranteeing fishing on any body of water larger than 10 acres, and the state has a public boat launch on the pond, the cost and managment should be a complete state responsibility. Mrs. Smagula did not disagree but said there are too many boat launches and too little funding presently for the state to monitor every launch all the time. The launches are staffed during high-use times, such as fishing derbies, etc. She said this underscores the importance of a volunteer program to help monitor the invasive species.

Mrs. Smagula said that the monthly testing can be around $50 per month. Funding of the management and control was discussed. Mrs. Smagula will be able to keep the Conservation Commission and other interested parties apprised of the progress the bill makes this year.

Mrs. Smagula said the best way to control spreading of the invasive species from one body of water to another is to look carefully around the boat and trailer and manually get rid of any plants seen. She suggested looking in the wheel wells, around the license plate and all around the trailer and hull.

The herbicide does not bio-accumulate, meaning it does not build up in the tissue or fat. Fish will take it in but excrete it out. It does not affect the insects either. The herbicides used are called Aqua-clean or Navigate, with the latter being used more often.

Mrs. Smagula asked to get contact information for those in attendance. She can email the management plan and fact sheets about 2,4-D as well as other literature that may be of interest. She will send hard copies to the town hall also.

Mrs. Smagula was asked about the bill that is being sent through Concord. She said she thought it is being lobbied by the senate environment committee. She can keep those in attendance informed of when the bill is introduced. She will also work with Kingston.

She gave her contact information.

Amy P. Smagula

Limnologist/ Exotic Species Program Coordinator with NH DES

29 Hazen Dr., P. O. Box 95

Concord, NH 03301

603-271-2248

Amy.Smagula@des.nh.gov

Chris asked those in attendance if it is their consensus that we move forward with this project in spite of any inconvenience involved. There was positive response from the audience. Jason agreed to head up the volunteer program.

Mr. Fries spoke about the phosphates flowing into the water, and subsequent abundance of vegetation, as a companion problem to the milfoil. He said that this is something that the Conservation Commission will have to address soon. Mrs. Smagula said that native vegetation is slower growing than exotic species like milfoil. Through the volunteer program, the inflow of nutrients can be monitored and then where the nutrients are coming in can be pinpointed. If the native plants become too abundant, there are management techniques.

Mrs. Smagula said that the plants can be cut above the sediment to clear a path to the water. Pulling the plants is not recommended as it disturbs the sediment. The education of the public, about run-off and lawn fertilizers, etc., was discussed. The importance of establishing barriers, especially natural barriers, was discussed briefly.

Mr. Caparco said that his property includes a flooded meadow. He was told years ago the dam was lowered and his field was hayed. Some audience members recalled that happening years ago. Jason asked if this is a worthwhile method that the residents would be amenable to in spite of the inconvenience. Mrs. Smagula said this is another method that can be explored.

Mr. Caprco asked about fertilizers. Mrs. Smagula said within 25’ of the lake edge no fertilizers are allowed at all, except limestone. She suggested watering the lawns with lake water.

The contact information of those present will be sent to Mrs. Smagula.


Barbara S. Byrne and Butch Sanborn presented a map showing three lots equaling about 23 acres that they are not interested in owning any more. They wanted to know what options were open to them. They offered these lots for the Conservation Commission’s consideration.

They were told they can sell the property outright, they can sell the building rights and maintain ownership, or they can put a conservation easement on the property.

They asked what would happen if it is sold to the Conservation Commission. They were told that the Commission is currently trying to put management plans on their properties and put them into the Easement.

Laura explained the stewardship plan and what it does. She said priorities would be made for what is desired for a particular piece of property. This can be for forestry, wildlife, recreation, maple syrup, etc. depending on its location and attributes. Right now the Sanborn land is used for haying. It can be kept for haying if that is their desire.

They are in the process of getting it appraised. It is not their desire to add to schools and traffic by selling it for building lots. Sheila said she has information that explains the different options and will get that information to them.

They will provide the Board with a copy of the appraisal.


The budget is due mid-month. The different line items were discussed.

It was decided that the matching grant fund will be $800.

The wetland evaluation was discussed. Laura talked about Mark West who has done this sort of thing for Nottingham and Epping. There also may be another school that can help with this project. Chris suggested taking the $800 allotted for matching grants and using it to purchase a bulletin board.

Laura asked if the wildlife corridor study being done is a land prioritization. She said Tracy Degman did a study several years ago. This was a land prioritization and was very methodical. However, this was not a wildlife corridor study. This is how the list was made of different pieces of property that were considered for purchase. The natural resource inventory may also have information that would help identify pieces of land ideal for purchase.

Chris said that the amounts in the budget need to be justified. Sheila expressed her opinion that she does like the idea of another board relying on another boards’ budget to take care of their minutes. She said that is not fair to the other committees.

Chris said that the Planning Board is financially responsible for updating the Master Plan.

Dues will remain at $225. Laura mentioned that it may be a good idea to make sure the cost will not increase.

Postage will be set at $100 as more mailings are expected to be sent to Long Pond abutters.

New manuals are needed. The cost will be researched as well to see whether or not new editions are due next January. This line will be left blank until that information is found.

Project expenses were discussed. There was a discussion about putting together educational information to be mailed and other potential projects. This line will be $800.

Mileage reimbursement will be increased to $40.

Educational equipment was added to the ’07 because it was going to be used for the display board. This will be $800.

Matching grant funds were discussed again. Chris reminded the board members that these items need to be justified. Chris will call Ellen Snyder about the cost of a land prioritization schedule.


There was a discussion about the Stewardship Plan and Easement. The issue of motorized and non-motorized issue was discussed. It was agreed that snowmobiles have a lower impact than other motorized vehicles. The problem occurs when the snowmobiles go through areas that are not frozen. Bruce Schwaegler seemed to think the Easement was supposed to forbid all motorized vehicles in the town forest. Chris said that if snowmobiles are allowed, once the easement is in place, the town will be responsible for any damages done. This will be brought up at the next joint meeting.

The shooting issue is still being researched. Chris said that rather than a Planning Board issue, this is a Selectman issue. Judy and Laura said there is evidence that there is shooting all over the place, not just the old gravel pit. Judy said it would be sad to wait until someone gets shot before this is addressed.


Laura is focusing on land purchase grants.


This was discussed tonight. Upon review of the aforementioned land prioritization there may be other parcels of interest to include.

Chris explained to the Board members that Hoyt Builders is donating a parcel of land to the town. The map was reviewed. This is a lot-line adjustment, making the town forest a little larger. The parcel equals approximately 18 acres. Tags will be purchased and placed by the developer to mark the forest boundary. There will also be a 50’ strip of land to allow access to the property.

The Board talked about getting other markers for the town forest. Chris will get the prices and put that in the budget.

Lot access for Terra Realty was discussed. Chris spoke with Tom Waters to see if there is access through his property. There is not. This leaves the powerline corridor as the only other known means of access. There may be other options, or they will have to use Tuckertown Road. They will have to go before DES to get a wetlands crossing permit.

The question was asked if another entrance can be enforced, rather than using Tuckertown Road. There was a discussion about why Tuckertown Road was part of the agreement.




The minutes from the July 17th were discussed. Judy moved and Chris seconded a motion to accept the minutes as written. Sheila and Laura abstained. The motion passed.

Since the discussion will involve consideration of land purchase which, if discussed in public, might benefit a party whose interests are adverse to those of the general community RSA 91-A: 32d should warrant nonpublic session, at 10:25pm Judy moved and Laura seconded a motion to go into non-public session per RSA 91-A: 32d. The Commission was polled and the decision was unanimous in the affirmative.

At 10:55pm Judy moved and Laura seconded a motion to close the non-public session and return to public session.

Judy moved and Laura seconded a motion to seal the non-public minutes of September 4th, 2008.

At 11:00pm Laura moved and Sheila seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed.


*****Next Meeting: September 18th, 2008****




Minutes are prepared by Janet S. Denison, clerk