Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shaw S Pond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Water-quality committee outlines erosion fixes and $164,000 concept for Shaw's Pond access
Summary
Lauren Neve presented a watershed plan that identified erosion at the Shaw's Pond Beach Street access as a major phosphorus source; the conceptual mitigation for the access point is estimated at roughly $164,000 and would reduce phosphorus and sediment loading, but the committee and select board must clarify maintenance responsibility (town vs. private) and funding matches before committing town funds.
Lauren Neve, chair of the New Durham Water Quality Committee, described watershed monitoring that showed Shaw’s Pond moved from excellent (2018) to eutrophic (2022) with a cyanobacteria closure in September 2024. She said a watershed plan costing $26,000 identified 17 nonpoint-source problem sites in the pond’s watershed and recommended focusing mitigation at the primary access point (Beach Street/Shaw's Pond access) because it would have the greatest local impact on phosphorus and sediment loading.
Neve presented conceptual mitigation options—bioretention basins, a perched beach to trap sand, revegetating a 10-foot shoreline buffer, and permeable pavers for boat launch/back-up areas—and said the consultant’s conceptual price was about $164,000. She also said an engineer’s shovel-ready estimate of roughly $23,300 would be needed to produce firm construction numbers and that grant matches (40–50%) would affect the town’s required contribution. She noted uncertainty about road classification (class 5 vs. class 6), which affects whether the town is responsible for maintenance. "I just care that it's maintained so I can get the rent," Neve said; board members said the legal classification must be verified by town counsel or the governor and council before the town commits to match funding.
The discussion touched on recurring operational costs (milfoil treatment and monitoring), whether herbicide/DASH treatments recommended by DES are affordable, and the challenge of accounting for grant receipts and earmarking grant funds rather than letting them be absorbed into general funds. The committee asked the water-quality group to clarify who will maintain the access, obtain engineering costs, and identify funding sources and a recommended mechanism (CRF/ETF/operating budget) before returning with a warrant‑article or CIP request.
