I share the concern for recreational boating safety when the pond is below “normal.” Regardless of the reason—the drawdowns or the lack of spring rain—significant risk exists for boaters and skiers unaware of rocks nearer to the surface than usual. Proactive planning to map such hazards seems the most prudent and responsible measure in the future. I live on the pond, and I am available to help the harbormaster find, map, and mark concerning rocks. I agree that the larger concern is not about boats or docks; it is about the pond’s relative health, well-being, and availability for public use.
I disagree with limiting the pond drawdown based on this year’s water level or out of an abundance of caution for the entire ecosystem. It has been my observation that the Bare Hill Pond Watershed Management Committee has exercised responsible stewardship using relevant metrics such as phosphorus levels, oxygenation, water clarity, reduction in late summer algae blooms, and control of invasives, while monitoring populations of fish, fowl, turtles, frogs, mussels, and the return of native aquatic flora.
This year the confounding feature was clearly the severe spring/summer drought, as witnessed by the bone-dry vernal pool on my property and lower-than-normal water levels at many nearby lakes and ponds. Still, the pond, although low, remained resilient precisely because of the previous year’s deep drawdown.
To claim the drawdown caused either this summer’s low water level or damage to the entire ecosystem ignores 25 years of data to the contrary. The drawdowns have been deep and shallow, on and off, for many years for various physical and logistical reasons. High phosphorus, low dissolved oxygen, choking invasives, lack of water clarity, and algae blooms appear in response to years with limited or no drawdown.
Tell me again, why would we want to limit drawdowns?
Morey Kraus
Whitman Road
