Cyanobacteria Alert Issued for Blackey Cove (Moultonborough)

[Descant]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

... OR it could be that the homeowners and state, find grounds that will allow for federal funding and grants, and it ends up costing the state and the homeowners nothing.....

HaHaHa. I love it when people think it costs nothing if the feds pay for it. LMAO.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by root1

Everyone seems to agree that the condition of our lakes are getting worse .... at an ever increasing rate.
Does anyone wish to comment about how they view the lakes are improving with age? Anyone? Bueller? Without being too Draconian; and as distasteful as encouraging more state control/interference would be, I would happily like to see a line item on my RE tax bill to support a program like this: The state (DES) can go through their records and force property owners (within 250' of the lake AND having no record of an approved septic system) to update/replace their system within five years.
The state could provide low interest loans (with the property as secured collateral) for those who cannot afford the update/replacement. After eight years, 'non-compliants' will have a lien placed on their property. Records of 'pump-out' must be submitted to the state.

If something isn't done soon, we are going to regret having ever purchased our waterfront homes. It might take 5 years ...... it might take 50 yea rs ..... might take 100; any way you clock it, the lake is dying. And its OUR responsibility to slow it's demise. I encourage everyone to write their state rep, demanding corrective action, before it's too late. Just my two cents worth .......

Why not add septic systems to the usual inspections accomplished on every sale of real estate? Roof, termite, survey, structural defects, building code violations—among others--chimney, furnace.

'Seems like NH Realty groups would advance such mandatory inspections to reduce lakes' toxicity.

ETA:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ad.php?t=29209

The above new thread lists this:

"7. Consider updating RSA 485-A:39 to require replacement of septic systems determined to be in failure at the time of sale of property. Advisory Committee Recommendation.  "

Page 84, (Supplemental Actions)

[Descant]

ApS, I don't think we need to add more RSA requirements for things that should be part of a buyer's due diligence. Many of them come up in other ways or aren't part of the buyers plan if there will be a bulldozer or a major addition. Most buyers hire a home inspector and banks and/or insurance companies have their own requirements. My last two deals were cash buyers who had not desire to spend $500 for a home inspection because the negotiated price allowed for some unknowns. Condition of roof and furnace are obvious to an observer without great skill or training. A septic system on an unused camp may pass in the spring and fail by August when the new owner brings in three generations of his family to enjoy the new place.

[John Mercier]

NH doesn't have any inspection requirement at the time of sale/transfer.

Your mortgage company may have one, and your insurance company may have one... but the state doesn't.

Also, many properties do not go to sale or transfer for decades, if ever.

But I would guess a lot more human waste enters the waters directly rather than private septic system failures.

[DickR]

NH does require a septic assessment prior to sale of any property on a water body covered by the shoreline protection laws. Here is a link: https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files...-01/ssb-10.pdf

[John Mercier]

Didn't know that...
But it doesn't seem to have stopped the problem.

So what step do you go to next? Periodic? Over what period of time? At what cost? And how does a legislator handle the push back from landowners questioned the number of boaters - mostly not waterfront owners paying higher taxes - going directly into the water?

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by DickR

NH does require a septic assessment prior to sale of any property on a water body covered by the shoreline protection laws. Here is a link: https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files...-01/ssb-10.pdf

I'm pretty sure that if you look at the site assessment form in the link, it shows that an evaluation of the land is required, and a statement that the land has a septic system; but it does not require that the system itself be inspected and confirmed to be in good working order.

[John Mercier]

It does state since 1993 to require on on-site inspection. Not sure to the level of quality that would be.

But it also doesn't go to the State, just the buyer as part of the P&S agreement.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Didn't know that...
But it doesn't seem to have stopped the problem.

So what step do you go to next? Periodic? Over what period of time? At what cost? And how does a legislator handle the push back from landowners questioned the number of boaters - mostly not waterfront owners paying higher taxes - going directly into the water?

Any boat that has a head is supposed to be inspected and have an inspection sticker on it. Marinas are not supposed to launch boats that are not properly equipped. So, all grey water and black water goes into a holding tank to be pumped into an approved system. Free at most gas docks/marinas. That works OK for boats with a cuddy cabin and a head. As we get more and more bow riders and pontoons, it appears these don't have an onboard head and/or holding tank.
We hear a lot of suspicion and accusations about "improper discharge" at the sand bars, but I've never heard of anybody actually testing the water at a sandbar. What do the 'tooners do? I've heard that in other states there are barges that travel the sandbars with pump out and porta-pottis that travel around to provide "relief".
Is this really a problem, or do we just think it is because we don't know? This doesn't seem to bother the folks who go to the sandbars.

[John Mercier]

All those boats floating at the sandbar for hours do not have a ''head''. The occupants simply slip into the water and do their ''thing''.
You don't think they are holding it for hours on end?

Also Bayside Cemetery has a problem with ''trespassers''... they aren't there visiting... they are making a ''deposit'' right beside the lake.

Kayakers and canoeist sometimes do the same thing.

If the Legislature adds a large cost to waterfront owners... and we need to think about all the brooks, streams, and rivers in the watershed... they are going to point out correctly that issue. And to my way of thinking... the Legislature has nothing that they can do about it.

[ITD]

I've been through two of the septic assessment, they are quite thorough. I looked at a couple properties that had tight box septics (no discharge, need to be pumped) when we were buying, they couldn't pass the inspection, were small properties that could support a new system. Honestly I thought the rule applied to all NH properties, that it doesn't is a little shocking, it should be required for all properties. If you are looking for a smoking gun for this problem, malfunctioning or inadequately designed systems on watersheds and beyond are a big problem.

[John Mercier]

If they are urinating and defecating directly into the water, or onto the nearby shore, how is fixing septic systems going to make any difference?

The 2013 fertilizer law helped.
But a mixture of misapplication (not following directions), over application (using too much for the actual square footage), and not going for a phosporus-free (like Bonide) for existing lawn applications results in a lot of it just ending up in the run-off.

The application is virtually worthless on sloped terrain... and no one watches the forecasts for correct application... because we seldom have the correct conditions for usage in our area.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If they are urinating and defecating directly into the water, or onto the nearby shore, how is fixing septic systems going to make any difference?

IF?????? We see it all the time.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Descant

Any boat that has a head is supposed to be inspected and have an inspection sticker on it. Marinas are not supposed to launch boats that are not properly equipped. So, all grey water and black water goes into a holding tank to be pumped into an approved system. Free at most gas docks/marinas. That works OK for boats with a cuddy cabin and a head. As we get more and more bow riders and pontoons, it appears these don't have an onboard head and/or holding tank.
We hear a lot of suspicion and accusations about "improper discharge" at the sand bars, but I've never heard of anybody actually testing the water at a sandbar. What do the 'tooners do? I've heard that in other states there are barges that travel the sandbars with pump out and porta-pottis that travel around to provide "relief".
Is this really a problem, or do we just think it is because we don't know? This doesn't seem to bother the folks who go to the sandbars.

This is why I avoid sandbars! Just the thought of swimming in all that urine grosses me out. And when you get to be my age you have to pee every 1/2 hour.

[barefootbay]

At the risk of repeating myself the problem is too much
money , too many people !

[John Mercier]

Well, those people will more than likely fork it out to keep the blooms out of their area.

[Descant]

I thought we might have comments from 'headless" boaters as to how they deal with these issues when they spend the day at the bar. Posting "I don't go there" isn't informative to any solution, any more than claiming that "everybody does it."
I have to guess that the headless folks don't post in this discussion because they do exactly what they're accused of. But I never hear of anybody being sick after swimming at a sandbar all day.

If we test water at public beaches and pools routinely, should DES or HHS be testing at the sandbars? LWA takes samples all around. Perhaps they would test for the general health of the lake in these congested areas?

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Descant

I thought we might have comments from 'headless" boaters as to how they deal with these issues when they spend the day at the bar. Posting "I don't go there" isn't informative to any solution, any more than claiming that "everybody does it."
I have to guess that the headless folks don't post in this discussion because they do exactly what they're accused of. But I never hear of anybody being sick after swimming at a sandbar all day.

If we test water at public beaches and pools routinely, should DES or HHS be testing at the sandbars? LWA takes samples all around. Perhaps they would test for the general health of the lake in these congested areas?

As a headless boater....first off I only deal with #1 issues...if it's #2 we are going to a mainland bathroom or back to camp... there is no other option!

For #1 issues, Reliance makes toilet waste bags that are great. We keep a simple 5 gallon home depot bucket on board with one of those toilet seats that fits on top. The reliance waste bag fits nicely inside and solidifies liquid waste for easy storage and disposal. The changing room on the pontoon works great... Use these same bags while ice fishing...

Dan

[Descant]

Thanks. I knew there had to be some creative solutions.

[ITD]

This isn't good for the lake.


From the Center Harbor Fire Department Facebook page:

November 10

At 2:25 this afternoon, Center Harbor firefighters responded to assist with a wastewater line rupture in the area of 183 Whittier Highway. Upon arrival, it was determined that a 10" line had ruptured, causing approximately 1500 gallons of partially treated wastewater to spill into a small stream and into Lake Winnipesaukee. Crews worked to mitigate the further release of wastewater into the surface water while the line was shut down and a vacuum truck was called to remove as much material as possible. As a precaution, we advise people to stay out of the water in the area south of Half Mile Island to Bullrush Cove. Local and state health officials will be coordinating further testing if needed and recommendations regarding water safety. Currently, there are no restrictions on water or sewer usage in the Center Harbor area.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

Thanks. I knew there had to be some creative solutions.

You noticed that the #2 is back to the mainland or camp bathroom.
Many of the boats are not leaving the area all day.

It isn't like swimming at a beach where we learned our lessons and put bath houses with certified septic systems close by for quick access.

Which is why they also notice the problem at Bayside. Years ago, the Boy Scouts and then other organizations would develop Tread Lightly and finally Leave No Trace. A cathole 6-8 inches deep at least 200 feet from surface water at one time was possible without all the developed land around the lake.

It now takes extraordinary measures packing out waste... that people aren't likely to do.

[Lakegeezer]

While giving a nod to the gross factor, keep the urine problem in perspective. If an acre of water, 10 feet deep, had the state maximum phosphorus level (8 parts/billion), it would take 40,000 average doses of pee to bring it up to 10 parts/billion, where algae blooms start to happen. There are other phosphorus sources of course, but headless weekender contributions are insignificant compared to the impact of the boats they arrive in. Prop wash and boat wake add measurable phosphorus to the water column by stirring up bottom sediment, where centuries of nutrient deposits reside.

[John Mercier]

And the Legislature will have a tough time dealing with that issue from a statutory point.

So stopping the addition of the nutrients, and stopping the agitation of the existing sequestered nutrients, is a much bigger issue than our Legislature is willing to face.

The lakes that have the least amount of shorefront development, the most bath houses around them, and the least amount of motorized traffic should fair the best... but even that is only the amount of time.

We simply ''love'' our lakes to death.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

The cyanobacteria alert issued for Blackey Cove on 10/30 will remain in effect until further notice. Despite the dissipation of the bloom in the cove, Lake Kanasatka remains under advisory. Samples collected in Lake K on 11/15 significantly exceeded the state limit of 70,000 cells/mL. The highest observed sample was too numerous to count (>3 million cells/mL). An additional sample taken near the dam site had 350,000 cells/mL (Dolichospermum and Woronichinia) of cyanobacteria present. Furthermore, a 1.5' drawdown for Kanasatka is currently in progress. NHDES urges the public to refrain from recreational activities or water use in the Blackey Cove area until further notice. This drawdown is a crucial measure to safeguard the shoreline and regulate water levels.

Cyanobacteria continues to pose a significant threat to our lake. However, we value the opportunity it presents for fostering increased discussion about other threats, including stormwater runoff, failing septic systems, escalating development, recreational pressure, shoreline erosion, sedimentation, nutrient concerns, and invasive species. In the upcoming weeks, we will address the questions posed in the initial post and share any additional info on what we are doing to combat these threats. Thank you for engaging in this thought-provoking thread!

[SAB1]

How about the outdoor showers you can spot poking around the shoreline…..

[John Mercier]

Why would an outdoor shower add nitrogen or phosphorus to the lake?

The general factors of additional nutrients is pretty well been known.

But you can't ask lakefront owners to spend money every year to determine that their septic is working correctly - since it will most years pass - if you are letting others dump human waste directly into the water or nearby shoreline to be washed in.

You can't demand we stop the run-off from lakefront lawns, if we are going to allow the lawn right across the street to have lawn run-off into the ditch that proceeds to the lake.

The problem is staggering because slowing/stopping environmental change requires a ''groupthink'' that does not exist.

[SAB1]

https://bkind.com/blogs/kind-words/n...soap-in-a-lake

Any soap entering the lake is not good. Full of nutrients.

[SAB1]

Phosphates are chemical compounds containing the element phosphorus. They are widely used in cleaning products such as detergents, soaps, and shampoos because of their ability to remove dirt, grime, and oil. In vehicle washing soaps, phosphates are added to enhance their cleaning power. Phosphates have been linked to several environmental problems, including water pollution, eutrophication, and algal blooms.

[John Mercier]

Outside showers are generally to rinse off...
But even the addition of soap would really mostly effect only the shower area.
Plants readily absorb it.

Run off only works because it is directly near the lake (lawn fertilizers) or because of the large area that it covers in a watershed.

NH made a statute on fertilizer in 93 because we could show the direct impact.
It made it throughout the entire State... with some specifics for areas near water.

The product sold in NH meets the guidelines, but its usage not so much.

People regularly over fertilize because they think they must use everything in the bag regardless of application guideline, almost never do a random plot soil sample for further additions, either do not follow the surface water and run off setbacks - or under estimate the distance (same as they do with the 150 foot rule in boating), and many times do not ''water in'' when recommended - short watering or letting Mother Nature do it is not the solution.

It would take a lot of soap to have that effect. But all of that would still fall under the run off category.

So the ''shower'' problem could be fixed with just a dense planting of flowers around the outside screen or the perimeter of the base. Much the same as dense planting within the last several feet of shore front makes a dramatic difference.

[John Mercier]

All of that gave me an idea...

We regularly show off new large lake homes built in October as part of the Parade of Homes... they have immature landscaping being new builds or large renovations.

A spring garden show of lake homes with mature landscaping best designed to minimize run-off into the lake while giving that strong classic lake ambience may change the mindset on the value of landscaping to protect the lake while still enjoying a property.

[SAB1]

Actually no John they are more than rinse off. Most of the camps with them, noticeable on islands, have them as a primary bathing setup because their septic can't handle the load of them and guests or the owner doesn't want to introduce the volume even if it could handle it. Then there are folks that just plain like the ambiance of the outside shower. Is it a huge factor, probably not like fertilizers but when we get those flooding rains we're accustomed to now you can bet its running into the lake.

[John Mercier]

If nutrients are watered into plants around them... they generally get absorbed.

This why the instructions on the fertilizer exist.
They know that if you apply to a damp lawn when asked, the product will stay put. They also know that if you water in when asked... the product will be absorbed. The correct landscaping can diminish or even stop surface run off.

But outdoor showers are being added without any permits... so the State has very little power to control them.
And would have no control over those that were deemed ''grandfathered''.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

All of that gave me an idea...We regularly show off new large lake homes built in October as part of the Parade of Homes... they have immature landscaping being new builds or large renovations. A spring garden show of lake homes with mature landscaping best designed to minimize run-off into the lake while giving that strong classic lake ambience may change the mindset on the value of landscaping to protect the lake while still enjoying a property.

Much "landscaping" within the last several decades has consisted of adding impervious granite to lakeside property. Parking areas are demarcated using huge concrete blocks, and the flow of runoff is accelerated by paving-over driveways formerly left to naturally filter runoff through sand and soil.

Cutting down mature trees--after the required inventory and sale of a property--is rampant.

One (of the two) most recent three-lot mansions built near me has none of the many "cathedral pines" that existed prior to the three years it took to build it. The newest five-family rental mansion on the north side began with only three barely-mature trees, and now sports a 300-foot lawn. (A uniformly dark green lawn right to the water's edge).

But what about the lessons of Lake Kanasatka?

1) I ask, is it possible that only a single lawn could be responsible for all the bloom?

2) Should "lawn maintenance" outfits be licensed--or otherwise regulated?

3) One cow can produce 27-times the waste products of one adult person. What does Lake Kanasatka have in the way of an ungulate population? Surely, the deer population can't be responsible for all Kanasatka's algal mayhem.

4) Will this past season's drenching result in a 2024 summer of increased algae angst?

[Lakegeezer]

To maintain high property values and protect water quality, it's necessary to revise development regulations. Consider the pictured 1.5-acre Winnipesaukee lot, previously forested, recently cleared. Although its clearing meets current legal standards, including a DES permit and tree map, it doesn't appear to be good for lake health. This type of clearing increases runoff via reduced water absorption and tree expiration into the atmosphere. Without changes in regulations, we continue to prioritize construction over lake preservation.

[John Mercier]

While the trees do move massive amounts of soil moisture into the atmosphere... they don't actually stop run off.
There existence protected the lake in the format of forcing building and other hardscape further back from the water's edge.
That meant that some ground level planting could filter and absorb the run off.

But I don't think the State is going to be able to change the course of what is happening even if it banned all new development within a 1000 feet of the water's edge. We still have a lot of tributaries that deliver nutrients from locations in the watershed that for many do not seem to be ''waterfront''.

Laconia taxpayers spent millions on bathhouses hooked to public sewer, hooking all there homes to public sewer, making as much of the lakefront around Opechee public to control development, and literally has very little boating and no sandbars to ''float'' at. Yet it still had a bloom.

It upsets the city residents and visitors when they see the beaches closed, but no risk of the loss of property value.

But they will also be called on by the State to spend millions more to further turn this issue around.

I can't imagine what some towns around the lake that has far more boating/sandbars, less beach bathhouses and homes attached to public sewer, and so much more lakefront being developed will be forced to spend to protect their lakefront property values.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

All of that gave me an idea...

We regularly show off new large lake homes built in October as part of the Parade of Homes... they have immature landscaping being new builds or large renovations.

A spring garden show of lake homes with mature landscaping best designed to minimize run-off into the lake while giving that strong classic lake ambience may change the mindset on the value of landscaping to protect the lake while still enjoying a property.

NHLAKES has developed criteria for properties to be "Lake Smart". Landscaping, septic, low volume flush, etc. You can do a self evaluation online, and if you like, they will send somebody to look your place over and certify the property as Lake Smart. To me, there should be a market value bonus for certified properties.

[John Mercier]

But they have no tour like we do for the builders...

The PoH has a landscaping award in it... but that is usually new immature landscaping.

Because the blooms are becoming more predominate, in every water body, the fix - if it even exists - is going to be expensive.

Laconia might have been better off to build its own HUB with several indoor pools instead of spending all the money on the beaches. Because I have no idea what more the city can do to protect Opechee.

[John Mercier]

When I read the shoreland protection act. No fertilizer can be applied within 25 feet... not just of the lake, but any fourth order stream or river.
And anything applied within the 250 foot shoreland protection area requires a licensed professional.

But how many people actually obey this? How many even know what a first order stream is? How many know if they live close to one?

The Winni empties into the Merrimack... so the Winni is a third? But what about the rivers/streams/brooks that enter the Winni? Durkee Brook and the Tioga in our area would qualify as second? And anything entering them would qualify as a first?

I am betting there is a lot of violation far from the merger points seeing the blooms.

[secondcurve]

The Shoreline Protection Act is good in theory but there is no enforcement so it has little value in my opinion. The only thing that may save Lake Winni is the same thing that is killing it today. Money. There is so much value on the shores eventually the home owners will wake up and something will be done. Hopefully, it won’t be too late.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

The Shoreline Protection Act is good in theory but there is no enforcement so it has little value in my opinion. The only thing that may save Lake Winni is the same thing that is killing it today. Money. There is so much value on the shores eventually the home owners will wake up and something will be done. Hopefully, it won’t be too late.

The problem is that many of the new generation shore front owners, don't understand the Damage that there beautifully landscape yards and perched beaches can and do create. They just want their paradise.... And while they see the changes in the lake, many take the attitude that the damage will never be catastrophic in their life time, so ignore it....

I certainly don't believe that even in my life time that the lake will become undesirable.... but ultimately that is what it will take for reversal to happen. The lake will have to get to a point, that it is no longer attracting Tourism dollars, people are no longer able to rent their homes to offset the cost of ownership etc.... and some other location will be the ideal summer spot for tourism...

[mishman]

This particular thread is perhaps the most important on the whole forum. Cyanobacteria blooms are increasing in frequency. We can sit back and hope Winnipesaukee's water quality doesn't get worse or we can do something to protect the lake well into the future. On a personal front, we can all become better educated about how phosphorus finds its way into the lake. Many commenters on this thread have it exactly right - green lawns and hard surfaces are major contributors to phosphorus runoff into the lake. We need to educate every lakefront home owner about the importance of maintaining a buffer of natural vegetation. And if they do have a lawn, they need to insist that their landscape company uses a fertilizer (if they must fertilize) that contains no phosphorus at all.
The Lake Winnipesaukee Association has been fighting this fight for many years and is ramping up efforts to do even more going forward. This effort will combine education, research, monitoring and advocacy to protect and improve the lake's water quality. LWA is the only organization dedicated solely to protecting our lake and they have a proven track record of action.
LWA needs more public support if we are going to fight the good fight. Please consider becoming a member and be better informed about all that LWA is doing. Check out their web site for more information
https://www.winnipesaukee.org
or go to this page to become a member
https://www.winnipesaukee.org/donate/
Don't assume Lake Winnipesaukee will always be the wonderful resource it is today. We need to band together to protect our lake. Please join LWA today!

[ITD]

I was speaking with someone over the weekend about this issue. Apparently there were about 8 houses with failed septic systems on the lake, those have been fixed. Rumor has it there is also a house on the lake whose owner was a prolific fertilizer. Not sure if that has stopped. Those are all issues that need to be addressed, but.....


I posted a link to a sewer line failure on rt 25 in Center Harbor a week or so ago that didn't receive any comments. The break released about 1,500 gallons of sewage. According to my measurement on google maps, the approximate location of break is about 1,500 feet from the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee, much closer to a little stream that feeds the lake. From the pictures in the link you can see that most of the sewage ended up in the lake. What surprised me is the quickness of the contamination from 1,500 feet away. These issues are not just lakefront property owners issue.

I've purchased two lakefront properties in the past 20 years ( bought and sold one, presently living in another.) Each sale required a septic inspection, similar to Title 5 in Massachusetts. I thought this was for all NH RE sales but figured out from a post here, it is just required for properties covered by the wetlands act. That's a little shocking to me, if you sincerely want to clean up the water in NH, these inspections should be required for all RE sales in NH.

The Lake Kantaska issue should be resolved next summer which hopefully will resolve the Blackey cove issue. I would guess a majority of homes in Blackey now have been redone, meaning septic systems are relatively new and not failed. It would be nice to know that homes in the watershed, which can be miles from the lakes but still have a big impact, are held to the same standard. We'll see.

[NH.Solar]

In response to my own earlier post I found out today that Wakondah Pond, which feeds directly into Lake Kanasaka is apparently not experiencing a bacteria bloom, so that narrows the culprit search down to Kanasaka.
A few years ago I I filled in some free time working briefly for Scotts while my new solar venture ramped up. One fact that both amazed and disturbed me was to find out the the Gilford Lowes is one of the highest volume fertilizer stores in New England, and therein I submit lies the main problem!
The solution in my mind is quite simple both to enact and enforce, No lawns or agricultural fields allowed within 150' of any shoreline, no exceptions and no grandfathering allowed. Some of existing homeowners with lawns may not initially like this but it is again a simple solution and for the public good. My waterfront was initially thinly leveled with sand and is heavily mulched over the undisturbed original forest duff and it is wonderful. Pleasantly soft underfoot, safe to trod upon even after a few toddie, the beneficial bacteria are in their original happy state, and any time I need to add fresh mulch over the decomposed former layers it smells great ...and the naturally occuring beneficial ground bacteria are happy

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by ITD

I was speaking with someone over the weekend about this issue. Apparently there were about 8 houses with failed septic systems on the lake, those have been fixed. Rumor has it there is also a house on the lake whose owner was a prolific fertilizer. Not sure if that has stopped. Those are all issues that need to be addressed, but.....


I posted a link to a sewer line failure on rt 25 in Center Harbor a week or so ago that didn't receive any comments. The break released about 1,500 gallons of sewage. According to my measurement on google maps, the approximate location of break is about 1,500 feet from the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee, much closer to a little stream that feeds the lake. From the pictures in the link you can see that most of the sewage ended up in the lake. What surprised me is the quickness of the contamination from 1,500 feet away. These issues are not just lakefront property owners issue.

I've purchased two lakefront properties in the past 20 years ( bought and sold one, presently living in another.) Each sale required a septic inspection, similar to Title 5 in Massachusetts. I thought this was for all NH RE sales but figured out from a post here, it is just required for properties covered by the wetlands act. That's a little shocking to me, if you sincerely want to clean up the water in NH, these inspections should be required for all RE sales in NH.

The Lake Kantaska issue should be resolved next summer which hopefully will resolve the Blackey cove issue. I would guess a majority of homes in Blackey now have been redone, meaning septic systems are relatively new and not failed. It would be nice to know that homes in the watershed, which can be miles from the lakes but still have a big impact, are held to the same standard. We'll see.

May I ask how the Lake Katasaka issue is being resolved?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by NH.Solar

In response to my own earlier post I found out today that Wakondah Pond, which feeds directly into Lake Kanasaka is apparently not experiencing a bacteria bloom, so that narrows the culprit search down to Kanasaka.
A few years ago I I filled in some free time working briefly for Scotts while my new solar venture ramped up. One fact that both amazed and disturbed me was to find out the the Gilford Home Depot is one of the highest volume fertilizer stores in New England, and therein I submit lies the main problem!
The solution in my mind is quite simple both to enact and enforce, No lawns or agricultural fields allowed within 150' of any shoreline, no exceptions and no grandfathering allowed. Some of existing homeowners with lawns may not initially like this but it is again a simple solution and for the public good. My waterfront was initially thinly leveled with sand and is heavily mulched over the undisturbed original forest duff and it is wonderful. Pleasantly soft underfoot, safe to trod upon even after a few toddie, the beneficial bacteria are in their original happy state, and any time I need to add fresh mulch over the decomposed former layers it smells great ...and the naturally occuring beneficial ground bacteria are happy

There is no Gilford Home Depot.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ITD

I was speaking with someone over the weekend about this issue. Apparently there were about 8 houses with failed septic systems on the lake, those have been fixed. Rumor has it there is also a house on the lake whose owner was a prolific fertilizer. Not sure if that has stopped. Those are all issues that need to be addressed, but.....


I posted a link to a sewer line failure on rt 25 in Center Harbor a week or so ago that didn't receive any comments. The break released about 1,500 gallons of sewage. According to my measurement on google maps, the approximate location of break is about 1,500 feet from the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee, much closer to a little stream that feeds the lake. From the pictures in the link you can see that most of the sewage ended up in the lake. What surprised me is the quickness of the contamination from 1,500 feet away. These issues are not just lakefront property owners issue.

I've purchased two lakefront properties in the past 20 years ( bought and sold one, presently living in another.) Each sale required a septic inspection, similar to Title 5 in Massachusetts. I thought this was for all NH RE sales but figured out from a post here, it is just required for properties covered by the wetlands act. That's a little shocking to me, if you sincerely want to clean up the water in NH, these inspections should be required for all RE sales in NH.

The Lake Kantaska issue should be resolved next summer which hopefully will resolve the Blackey cove issue. I would guess a majority of homes in Blackey now have been redone, meaning septic systems are relatively new and not failed. It would be nice to know that homes in the watershed, which can be miles from the lakes but still have a big impact, are held to the same standard. We'll see.

Some homes do not change hands very often... lakefront even less so.
If my septic was working in 1996 when I purchased this place would not stipulate that it is currently working.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by mishman

This particular thread is perhaps the most important on the whole forum. Cyanobacteria blooms are increasing in frequency. We can sit back and hope Winnipesaukee's water quality doesn't get worse or we can do something to protect the lake well into the future. On a personal front, we can all become better educated about how phosphorus finds its way into the lake. Many commenters on this thread have it exactly right - green lawns and hard surfaces are major contributors to phosphorus runoff into the lake. We need to educate every lakefront home owner about the importance of maintaining a buffer of natural vegetation. And if they do have a lawn, they need to insist that their landscape company uses a fertilizer (if they must fertilize) that contains no phosphorus at all.
The Lake Winnipesaukee Association has been fighting this fight for many years and is ramping up efforts to do even more going forward. This effort will combine education, research, monitoring and advocacy to protect and improve the lake's water quality. LWA is the only organization dedicated solely to protecting our lake and they have a proven track record of action.
LWA needs more public support if we are going to fight the good fight. Please consider becoming a member and be better informed about all that LWA is doing. Check out their web site for more information
https://www.winnipesaukee.org
or go to this page to become a member
https://www.winnipesaukee.org/donate/
Don't assume Lake Winnipesaukee will always be the wonderful resource it is today. We need to band together to protect our lake. Please join LWA today!

They would need to make it a law... and it would still have some issues.
When I moved from the Tilton Home Depot as the top garden associate to Lavalleys in Meredith; we worked to move towards Bonide Turfgrass fertilizer. Bonide only has phosphorus in the starter mix... which should at best be done in the fall around when overseeding. The main store buyers over ran me and kept sending us the Scotts 4 Step program. I currently keep small amount of Triple on the shelf at Bristol (basically what the buyer sends) but promote a more natural approach were clover can produce the nitrogen the grass needs and no fertilizer is needed - simply don't spread any broadleaf herbicide on the lawn.

But again, that would need to be promoted. And the LRBA that does the PoH has skin in the game to work toward better landscape practices. They make a lot of money off people moving to the lakes region to enjoy our natural environment.

[Pineedles]

ITD’s post of the sewer line breakage is interesting. That’s exactly where 40 -50 cows used to enter the lake many years ago on a daily basis, and we had no cyno bloom then. We also had many aging septic systems or very poor excuses for a system. We did have a big old Mt. Washington come into the harbor twice a day with its huge waves also. What we didn’t have, were property lots stripped of trees, and fertilized lawns. Hmmm, food for thought?

[John Mercier]

That ship has already left the harbor.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

While the trees do move massive amounts of soil moisture into the atmosphere... they don't actually stop run off.
There existence protected the lake in the format of forcing building and other hardscape further back from the water's edge. That meant that some ground level planting could filter and absorb the run off.

1) Trees do a good job of breaking up heavy raindrops. You get just as wet walking beneath them, but the velocity of rainfall is kept in check. The sloping roofs of waterfront homes accelerate the velocity of rainfall. (As does the slope of our driveways). The existence of "flash-flood" isn't limited to our desert states.

2) Then there's the million-years struggle of conifers. Leafy (deciduous) trees will eventually overwhelm conifers, resulting in what forestry scientists call, "The Climax Forest". This condition will be increasingly detrimental to lakewater quality; especially when White Pines are cut down because droppings of sap ("pine pitch") are inconvenient for the citified people who move here. Because humans are so good lately at fire-suppression, conifers--who would normally rapidly restore the natural forest--are being selectively replaced by leafy trees.

3) Leaf litter contains phosphorus and should be removed.

The timely removal of leaf litter can reduce harmful phosphorus concentrations in stormwater by over 80 percent in Madistan, Wisconsin. (USGS).
https://www.usgs.gov/news/state-news...-water-quality

4) Three huge (8-10 feet in circumference) conifers on my shoreline have fallen into the lake. Not much I can do, as the soil on my two lots is being eroded from underneath.This phenomenon can be demonstrated to be the result of boat wakes. This isn't helped by "full pond" plus boat wakes. NHMP hauls them away as "A Nuisance to Navigation".

A mixed-species cluster of mature trees is being forced downslope on my [late] neighbor's property. I've kept a photographic record of that cluster for several years. Half of those original trees have since fallen into the lake or have broken in half, when they can't support their upper trunks. Their root clusters are below the level of "full pond"! Cut down to stumps ln Autumn, even the stumps would be under water by next spring!

[tis]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

ITD’s post of the sewer line breakage is interesting. That’s exactly where 40 -50 cows used to enter the lake many years ago on a daily basis, and we had no cyno bloom then. We also had many aging septic systems or very poor excuses for a system. We did have a big old Mt. Washington come into the harbor twice a day with its huge waves also. What we didn’t have, were property lots stripped of trees, and fertilized lawns. Hmmm, food for thought?

Or did they not test the lake like they do now?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Biggd

May I ask how the Lake Katasaka issue is being resolved?

The plan is to treat the lake with Alum. I believe there is a fundraising effort going on now, plus money from the state. The lake association is very active in identifying and fixing problem areas on the shore also.


There is an association on face book.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by tis

Or did they not test the lake like they do now?

We would have noticed the blue color.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

We would have noticed the blue color.

We would? I haven't seen it, only pictures. But it's really obvious?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ApS

1) Trees do a good job of breaking up heavy raindrops. You get just as wet walking beneath them, but the velocity of rainfall is kept in check. The sloping roofs of waterfront homes accelerate the velocity of rainfall. (As does the slope of our driveways). The existence of "flash-flood" isn't limited to our desert states.

2) Then there's the million-years struggle of conifers. Leafy (deciduous) trees will eventually overwhelm conifers, resulting in what forestry scientists call, "The Climax Forest". This condition will be increasingly detrimental to lakewater quality; especially when White Pines are cut down because droppings of sap ("pine pitch") are inconvenient for the citified people who move here. Because humans are so good lately at fire-suppression, conifers--who would normally rapidly restore the natural forest--are being selectively replaced by leafy trees.

3) Leaf litter contains phosphorus and should be removed.


4) Three huge (8-10 feet in circumference) conifers on my shoreline have fallen into the lake. Not much I can do, as the soil on my two lots is being eroded from underneath.This phenomenon can be demonstrated to be the result of boat wakes. This isn't helped by "full pond" plus boat wakes. NHMP hauls them away as "A Nuisance to Navigation".

A mixed-species cluster of mature trees is being forced downslope on my [late] neighbor's property. I've kept a photographic record of that cluster for several years. Half of those original trees have since fallen into the lake or have broken in half, when they can't support their upper trunks. Their root clusters are below the level of "full pond"! Cut down to stumps ln Autumn, even the stumps would be under water by next spring!

If you have ever been on a snowmobile trail in the off season... once the water begins to converge, it picks up speed. Should it hit an undersized or block culvert... it rips a gash across the trail. When it dumps into a river or stream, usually near a bridge crossing, it can erode the bank beneath the bridge or any supports we have placed into it.

Trail admins and managers use everything they can think of to stop/limit this from happening , as the repairs are expensive, but the heavy rain events in the last several years are far too much to manage in all locations and situations. Which is why FEMA helps cover some of the cost when the right conditions are met.

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

ITD’s post of the sewer line breakage is interesting. That’s exactly where 40 -50 cows used to enter the lake many years ago on a daily basis, and we had no cyno bloom then. We also had many aging septic systems or very poor excuses for a system. We did have a big old Mt. Washington come into the harbor twice a day with its huge waves also. What we didn’t have, were property lots stripped of trees, and fertilized lawns. Hmmm, food for thought?

That's a totally different time period and really not comparable. There were a fraction of the number of people and BOATS on the lake then and the stress on the lake now is incredible. Most of the boats back then were fisherman and if you were lucky enuff to own a boat with 85hsp and water-ski you were styling!

[camp guy]

NH Solar posted Gilford Lowes

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by camp guy

NH Solar posted Gilford Lowes

He edited it.

[Pineedles]

I don’t know SAB, in the 60’s and 70’s there were quite a few boats around but my point was that the MT. Washington created enormous shore wave action in Center Harbor bay. There are quite a few more lawns than there were though. We’ve kept our shore frontage grass free with the majority of our trees white pines, and even replaced our septic system this past year. That wasn’t cheap, but absolutely necessary.

[LIforrelaxin]

The problem here is that this problem doesn't have a singular solution. The only clear problem is continued development of the area.....

There are steps that can be taken, to reduce environmental impacts of continued development...... Look at Maine, it its laws regarding direct water front, and leaving a natural buffer... and what you hope is that over time enough reduction in environmental impacts, turns things around. Better drainage plans, natural buffers, education, etc. are all needed. I haven't planned anything or been part of any project in a while in NH, so exactly what is being required these days I am not up to speed on.

What I know is what I see people still being allowed to do, and that is develop right to the shoreline... Good bad or indifferent time will tell.... I have however seen something with some development in my area, that give me hope that people are waking up.... I see improvement being made, that lead to better drainage solutions, Home Owners opting to purchase land on the other side of the road, and put better septic systems in. (this isn't a solution for everyone because of the money involved, but it is good to see)..... I still am concerned in my area about fertilizer application, but hope that landscape companies are trying to follow the rules...

I don't want to see development regulated to the point that development is hampered by it..... But continued regulations that have been shown to help with watershed health and quality have to be enforced and created...

Last outdoor showers, come on really.... people have been bathing in lakes and streams for generations..... I would rather see more outdoor showers, and less people bringing soap down to the lake front.... have even been giving this some consideration myself.... done properly the water just leaches into the ground... verses running on top of it....

[John Mercier]

I think they worked around the solutions... I just think that maybe those of us farther from the lake are not doing our part. We seem to have ''its the other guys problem'' attitude.

I didn't even know until this discussion the Durkee and the Tioga were most likely second order waterways that need to be conserved to protect the greater good. Now I know and can take some action to help.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

The statewide plan to address cyanobacteria is now available and has been posted on the NHDES website. In 2022, legislation was enacted to require the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) to develop a plan that would prevent the increase of and help control cyanobacteria blooms in water bodies throughout the state. Recognizing that cyanobacteria blooms cannot be eliminated, the State included strategies to educate, monitor, and evaluate the potential causes of these blooms. This plan marks an important step for the state in outlining specific strategies and actions to address the threat of harmful algal blooms to our freshwater resources.

Four key strategies were identified as necessary to meet the State's goals to prevent the increase of and eventual control of cyanobacteria blooms in NH's waterbodies. The following is excerpted from the plan:

Develop policies and practices to prevent nutrient inputs. Significant efforts must be made to reduce nutrient inputs into the state's surface waters. Control of nutrient loading to surface waters, in particular phosphorus, is best accomplished through state and local policy implementation, stormwater control and watershed and lake management.

Advance outreach and education efforts for individual assessment and action. Respondents to a public outreach survey identified increasing education and training tools as important to making informed decisions about the use of the state’s surface waters with respect to cyanobacteria bloom presence. Such efforts are important to increase general awareness of the public and specific segments of the workforce who have direct contact with the state’s surface waters for recreation and as a drinking water source.

Enhance monitoring to track frequency, location and duration. Enhancement of cyanobacteria monitoring is needed to track blooms and clearly communicate current conditions to the public. Cyanobacteria blooms vary widely in their duration, severity and distribution.

Establish policies and procedures specific to surface waters used for public drinking water supplies. There are over 560,000 service points in New Hampshire that provide water to the public that originates from surface waters. To date NHDES is aware of nine surface water sources where cyanobacteria blooms have occurred.

Each strategy has a list of priority actions associated with it, which can be found in Appendix C. Appendix B lists ideas and suggestions shared by the Cyanobacteria Advisory Committee, and Appendix D. lists a summary of supplemental actions.

It is worth taking the time to review the plan, its strategies, priorities, and recommended actions. Cyanobacteria blooms are not going away in the near future, and as noted in the Executive Summary, 'the efforts identified in the plan require policy changes, financial investments, partnerships, research, and education.'

LWA was pleased to participate in the Cyanobacteria Advisory Committee, and will continue in our efforts to reduce nutrient loading to the surface waters in the Winnipesaukee watershed, as well as implementing other strategies identified in the plan. Read the Plan Here.

[JoeT]

I am not sure if anyone can say how much the substandard septic systems are contributing to the cyanobacteria problem, but I certainly would support and encourage testing. We bought our house on BC about 5 years ago. Just prior to the purchase we had a local septic company test the system, He noted the tank was dry but contributed that to the house being lightly used for the last few years. We ran water overnight to see if the tank would hold water. It seemed to hold a little water the next day or 2, ans he wrote a inspection report after consultation with the real estate agent stating he thought the tank was OK.

A year later we had a plumber check the distribution box and piping. It was filled with roots and had not seen and flow for years. We had the survey done and replaced the tank, fields etc. When we remolded we discovered a bricked in holding pit for gray water that we of course sealed off.

I raise this because there are a number of home in the area that were built at similar times and if the owners do not experience any backups or known blockage, they will never know if their property is contributing to the problem. We had no idea our septic was contributing, and ultimately when we pulled out the old tank it had a large crack in it.

I would be a very strong proponent of some sort of dye testing. I believe DES required registering of all new septic system after 1980. We could start by requiring testing of any systems that are not registered. Seems like a cost effective way to pick off some low hanging Cyanobacteria.

[Descant]

That story may be more common than we want to believe. Even an "inspection" cannot uncover some of the strange systems that have been installed over a long period of time and perhaps multiple owners.
If I recall correctly, under the Clean Water Act of 1972(?) the Winnipesaukee River Basin sewer project from Moultonborough to West Alton picked up shorefront properties and tied them into that sewer system; no more septics. I'm surprised that Blackey Cove wasn't part of that system.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by Descant

...
If I recall correctly, under the Clean Water Act of 1972(?) the Winnipesaukee River Basin sewer project from Moultonborough to West Alton picked up shorefront properties and tied them into that sewer system; no more septics. I'm surprised that Blackey Cove wasn't part of that system.

To my knowledge, none of Moultonborough was included in that.

[winni83]

Very limited areas in Moultonborough are served by the Bay District sewer project. See:

https://moultonboroughnh.gov/Documen...wer-System-PDF

[John Mercier]

I think the heavy rainfall washing everything into the lake didn't help.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by winni83

Very limited areas in Moultonborough are served by the Bay District sewer project. See:

https://moultonboroughnh.gov/Documen...wer-System-PDF

This is an interesting read.... with bit of Historical information..... With that said, a larger capacity sewer system is not necessarily an answer... and could be incredibly costly.

Recognizing failing septic systems and getting them addressed helps too of course as someone else mentioned....

But there is more, then just poop management to be addressed.... Hopefully people will recognize that the beauty of the area is there to be lost if it is not taken care off...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I think the heavy rainfall washing everything into the lake didn't help.

Wouldn't everybody's lawn be yellow?

[John Mercier]

Rain can wash nitrogen and phosphorus into the lake....
But not chlorophyll out of the plant.

[ishoot308]

When I first bought my island camp, the lot of land was mostly sand and was just washing away into the lake during every rainstorm of high water wake days.

The first thing I did was buy a bag of the cheapest grass seed at Sam’s club and just threw it out over the sand hoping for the best. Well lo and behold if that grass didn’t grow and grow dam well without fertilizer or anything and that was 16 years ago!

To this day that grass or whatever you want you want to call it (it’s green) has held up and held up well and has never seen an ounce of fertilizer or any chemicals whatsoever! I only water it. It has also kept my land from washing away into the lake!

My point is grass does not need to be fertilized to serve its purpose. Yeah mine won’t win any landscape contest but we love it and it has held up amazingly well!

Dan

[tis]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

When I first bought my island camp, the lot of land was mostly sand and was just washing away into the lake during every rainstorm of high water wake days.

The first thing I did was buy a bag of the cheapest grass seed at Sam’s club and just threw it out over the sand hoping for the best. Well lo and behold if that grass didn’t grow and grow dam well without fertilizer or anything and that was 16 years ago!

To this day that grass or whatever you want you want to call it (it’s green) has held up and held up well and has never seen an ounce of fertilizer or any chemicals whatsoever! I only water it. It has also kept my land from washing away into the lake!

My point is grass does not need to be fertilized to serve its purpose. Yeah mine won’t win any landscape contest but we love it and it has held up amazingly well!

Dan

it's true. I think because it 's so wet around the lake the grass does very well without fertilizer, especially if you have a flat lot.

[Descant]

I didn't remember that side of the island as being sandy. Recall, around 1900, there weren't a lot of trees and sheep were grazed on the island. People also used to row out to go berrying on Welch. Shirley Burns had pix from those days--Sandy and Mike probably still have them.
Yes, Contractor's Rye (Ryegrass) will germinate quickly and help hold soil in place when everything is moved around during construction. That's what we put down when the power line came through, mostly to maintain a firebreak. No maintenance or fertilizer, but we cut it every few years to keep brush down under the power line. We also planted some white pines, again to put some roots into the ground and stabilize the soil. Those were the right steps, but I don't think we connected it to improved water quality in those days. Only zero maintenance.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Descant

I didn't remember that side of the island as being sandy.

Chris,

You are correct as most of my neighbors lots have low cut brush or blueberry bushes garnishing their waterfront. Unfortunately for me, some of the owners before me decided to dig out the shoreline and remove dirt and sand and whatever along most of my waterfront to fill in another property they owned nearby. This was not done recently but years ago…..now I have to live with it.

I changed it in a good way with a lawn! So honestly I am sick of hearing how lawns are bad as they are not! …. Fertilizer is bad!

Merry Christmas Chris!

Dan

[John Mercier]

Lawns provide less natural filter than other formats.
It is the same at my house as it would be if I was lakefront.
The water can travel through them at a greater speed, and thus has less absorption in an incline.

Also if you do not fertilize a lawn, or allow it to grow much longer, it loses its mono-culture.
It is that loss of mono-culture that allows the turfgrass to sustain itself without the addition of fertilizer.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Lawns provide less natural filter than other formats.
It is the same at my house as it would be if I was lakefront.
The water can travel through them at a greater speed, and thus has less absorption in an incline.

Also if you do not fertilize a lawn, or allow it to grow much longer, it loses its mono-culture.
It is that loss of mono-culture that allows the turfgrass to sustain itself without the addition of fertilizer.

Well I can tell you for fact that my grass certainly filters a hell of a lot better than what was there which was basically a river of mud flowing into the lake!

Whatever the hell “mono-culture” is, I’m glad it’s gone if it allows grass to grow without fertilizer!

We should all protest against mono culture!! Mono culture should be a banned substance! Who’s with me??

Dan

[John Mercier]

Mono-culture is when someone is trying to grow only turfgrass.
The application of broadleaf herbicides found in some formats of fertilizer, or applied separately, kills the nitrogen-setting plants leaving only a mono-culture.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Mono-culture is when someone is trying to grow only turfgrass.
The application of broadleaf herbicides found in some formats of fertilizer, or applied separately, kills the nitrogen-setting plants leaving only a mono-culture.

I bet you’re a blast at parties John!

Dan

[The Real BigGuy]

In “English” monoculture of a grass is having a single grass type covering a large area. Like golf courses and lawns of McMansions and “grass nerds.” When you lose monoculture you start to get crab grasses and other weeds and plant species.

I tend to live by what my dad told me 60 yrs ago when I asked why we didn’t put down weed killer. He said, “They’re green aren’t they?” If it grows without fertilizer, it’s good enough for me!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Parties?
I work six days a week and only take off the Sabbath.

We only close on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

Of course being a farm kid, that sounds like a lot of downtime.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

When I first bought my island camp, the lot of land was mostly sand and was just washing away into the lake during every rainstorm of high water wake days.

The first thing I did was buy a bag of the cheapest grass seed at Sam’s club and just threw it out over the sand hoping for the best. Well lo and behold if that grass didn’t grow and grow dam well without fertilizer or anything and that was 16 years ago!

To this day that grass or whatever you want you want to call it (it’s green) has held up and held up well and has never seen an ounce of fertilizer or any chemicals whatsoever! I only water it. It has also kept my land from washing away into the lake!

My point is grass does not need to be fertilized to serve its purpose. Yeah mine won’t win any landscape contest but we love it and it has held up amazingly well!

Dan

Agreed! I cannot take credit for planting our "lawn"--grass, clover, weeds, moss, all cut but never fertilized or otherwise treated--but it definitely reduces erosion compared to bare dirt

[tis]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

I bet you’re a blast at parties John!

Dan

Well, he no doubt would win every game of jeopardy or trivia.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Agreed! I cannot take credit for planting our "lawn"--grass, clover, weeds, moss, all cut but never fertilized or otherwise treated--but it definitely reduces erosion compared to bare dirt

Bare dirt is also unnatural.

Laconia primary schools used to be highly dedicated to the basics.
It was understood that most would grow up to work locally in careers that did not require a college education, but required a lot of basic knowledge on agriculture and the trades.

So up until the fifth grade, we did a lot of agriculture which was something most of us were used to... then in middle school to finish off our primary training, they added wood and metal shop, home ec/cooking, and sewing for the full three years.

[Descant]

deleted. Not Germain to Cyanobacteria

[Grant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Lawns provide less natural filter than other formats.
It is the same at my house as it would be if I was lakefront.
The water can travel through them at a greater speed, and thus has less absorption in an incline.

Also if you do not fertilize a lawn, or allow it to grow much longer, it loses its mono-culture.
It is that loss of mono-culture that allows the turfgrass to sustain itself without the addition of fertilizer.

John is right: "grass" or lawns have much shallower root structures than native shoreline vegetation, are therefore far less efficient filters, and make for more runoff.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Update: THANK YOU to everyone that submitted remote testimony, emailed the committee, or came in person to the Senate Finance Committee hearing on SB 394-FN-A to allocate $1M to the Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan Fund, with $350K to Lake Kanasatka. The committee received 301 responses in favor and 0 opposed. So what's next? Chairman James Gray indicated that they have a lot of bills with appropriations this session, and they do not intend to move forward with any of the bills proposed until they have a better idea of the fiscal budget.
_

SB 394-FN-A, the bill to appropriate $1M to the cyanobacteria fund and allot $350K of that to Lake Kanasatka is being heard in the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, Jan. 4 at 1:40 pm in Room 103 at the State House. Lake Kanasatka has been experiencing repeated cyanobacteria blooms for the past few years. The blooms in Kanasatka impact Lake Winnipesaukee as well, as Kanasatka drains into Blackey Cove, Lake Winnipesaukee.

Yet another cyanobacteria alert was issued for Lake K on 12/26/23 and removed on 1/2/24. The proposed treatment will bind phosphorus to the sediment, making it inactive under anoxic conditions and therefore unavailable to cyanobacteria. Lake Kanasatka was under an alert or advisory for 128 days in 2023.

It is VERY IMPORTANT that supporters of this bill communicate their support to members of the Committee. There are several ways to do this:

1. Attend the hearing, sign up in support on the forms on the table just inside the hearing room. If possible, also indicate that you want to speak in favor of the bill. Your remarks should be 3 mins and speak to how this bill benefits the region and environment (don’t make it just about a personal benefit) but also say how blooms have impacted you.

2. If you cannot attend, email the committee with your support and why. Again, short and a personal appeal is more likely to be read. Copy and paste the following email addresses to reach the senators on this committee: James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us, Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us, Regina.Birdsell@leg.state.nh.us, Howard.Pearl@leg.state.nh.us, Jeb.Bradley@leg.state.nh.us, Cindy.Rosenwald@leg.state.nh.us, Lou.Dallesandro@leg.state.nh.us, debra.martone@leg.state.nh.us

3. Use the remote sign in form to also share your support for this bill. https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rem...ee/senate.aspx

Please feel free to share this with others who may be interested. Thank you for your support!

[ApS]

1.75 Billion years ago, cyanobacteria started the "Great Oxygenation Event", making life on Earth possible. (As just reported in Nature magazine).

"As reported in a new study, scientists have found the oldest direct evidence of oxygenic photosynthetic structures—ones capable of turning sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into energy and oxygen—inside fossilized bacteria from Australia and Canada. The fossils are 1.75 billion years old, pushing back the undisputed origin of photosynthesis as we know it by at least 1.2 billion years. This key process helped life along by pumping the atmosphere full of oxygen."

--Nature

So cyanobacteria aren't ALL bad. Today, they still oxygenate the air we breathe.

Now I'm wondering if ancient flora started the production of fossilized fuels.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by ApS

1.75 Billion years ago, cyanobacteria started the "Great Oxygenation Event", making life on Earth possible. (As just reported in Nature magazine).

"As reported in a new study, scientists have found the oldest direct evidence of oxygenic photosynthetic structures—ones capable of turning sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into energy and oxygen—inside fossilized bacteria from Australia and Canada. The fossils are 1.75 billion years old, pushing back the undisputed origin of photosynthesis as we know it by at least 1.2 billion years. This key process helped life along by pumping the atmosphere full of oxygen."

--Nature

So cyanobacteria aren't ALL bad. Today, they still oxygenate the air we breathe.

Now I'm wondering if ancient flora started the production of fossilized fuels.

Too much of any good thing always ends up badly...

[Lake Winnipesaukee Assoc]

Very true ApS! They are an essential part of our origin story and can be found in almost every terrestrial and aquatic habitat. Cyanobacteria are such an important part of our ecosystem.

Originally Posted by ApS

1.75 Billion years ago, cyanobacteria started the "Great Oxygenation Event", making life on Earth possible. (As just reported in Nature magazine).

"As reported in a new study, scientists have found the oldest direct evidence of oxygenic photosynthetic structures—ones capable of turning sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into energy and oxygen—inside fossilized bacteria from Australia and Canada. The fossils are 1.75 billion years old, pushing back the undisputed origin of photosynthesis as we know it by at least 1.2 billion years. This key process helped life along by pumping the atmosphere full of oxygen."

--Nature

So cyanobacteria aren't ALL bad. Today, they still oxygenate the air we breathe.

Now I'm wondering if ancient flora started the production of fossilized fuels.