Boston Globe Article

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Also this was in the budget bill HB2:

485-A:61 Cyanobacteria Mitigation Loan and Grant Fund Established. There is hereby established in the department of environmental services the cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund which shall be maintained by the state treasurer in distinct and separate custody from all other funds. The state treasurer may invest the fund in accordance with RSA 6:8. Any earnings on fund moneys shall be added to the fund. All moneys in the fund shall be nonlapsing and continually appropriated to the department of environmental services. The cyanobacteria mitigation loan and grant fund shall be used to fund loans, grants, and reimbursements in accordance with this subdivision. Funds from any bond proceeds, grants, loan repayments, legislative appropriations, donations, "Love NH Lakes" number plates under RSA 261:97-g and RSA 261:97-i, and other funds shall be credited to this fund.

168 Water Management and Protection; Water Pollution and Waste Disposal; Sewage Disposal Systems; Fees. Amend RSA 485-A:30 to read as follows:

485-A:30 Fees.

I. Any person submitting plans and specifications for a subdivision of land shall pay to the department a fee of [$300] $450 per lot. Said fee shall be for reviewing such plans and specifications and making site inspections. Any person submitting plans and specifications or an application for a permit by rule as provided in RSA 485-A:33, IV for sewage or waste disposal systems shall pay to the department a fee of [$290] $450 for each system. Said fee shall be for reviewing such plans and specifications or application for permit by rule, making site inspections, the administration of sludge and septage management programs, and establishing a system for electronic permitting for waste disposal systems, subdivision plans, and permits and approvals under the department's land regulation authority. The fees required by this paragraph shall be paid at the time said plans and specifications or application for permit by rule are submitted and shall be deposited in the subsurface systems fund established in paragraph I-b. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "lot" shall not include tent sites or travel trailer sites in recreational parks which are operated on a seasonal basis for not more than 9 months per year.

I-a. In addition to fees required under paragraph I, any person submitting plans and specifications or an application for a permit by rule as provided in RSA 485-A:33, IV for sewage or waste disposal systems shall pay to the department a fee of [$10] $25 for each system for use in the septage handling and treatment facilities grant program to municipalities under RSA 486:3, III. The fees required by this paragraph shall be paid at the time said plans and specifications or application for permit by rule are submitted and shall be deposited in the septage management fund established in paragraph I-c.

I-b. The fees collected under paragraph I shall be deposited in the water resources fund established in RSA 482-A:3, III for the purpose of paying all costs and salaries associated with the subsurface systems program and other land resources management programs.

I-c. There is hereby established the septage management fund into which the fees collected under paragraph I-a shall be deposited. The fund shall be a separate, nonlapsing fund, continually appropriated to the department for the purpose of paying costs associated with the septage handling and treatment facilities grant program or for research, engineering analysis, or septage sampling and analysis by the department to advance septage management in the state of New Hampshire.

Both good. But both small compared to the problem

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Both good. But both small compared to the problem

I think it will be education and enforcement at the retail levels.

Scotts Starter for 5000 square feet is 15lbs.
So roughly administering 3lbs per 1000 square feet.

It has an advertised N-P-K of 24-25-4.
So roughly 24% Nitrogen, 25% Phosphorus, 4% Potassium, and 47% inert filler.

3lbs would contain .75 lbs of Phosphorus, if my math is correct.

That would violate the .5 lbs annually allowed by the new law.

Other than new lawn, repair, or one tested and found to be deficient in phosphorus is to use Starter; and the remainder is supposed to be no phosphate.

We also have application restrictions based on conditions.

Not sure how much tighter they could go.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I think it will be education and enforcement at the retail levels.

Scotts Starter for 5000 square feet is 15lbs.
So roughly administering 3lbs per 1000 square feet.

It has an advertised N-P-K of 24-25-4.
So roughly 24% Nitrogen, 25% Phosphorus, 4% Potassium, and 47% inert filler.

3lbs would contain .75 lbs of Phosphorus, if my math is correct.

That would violate the .5 lbs annually allowed by the new law.

Other than new lawn, repair, or one tested and found to be deficient in phosphorus is to use Starter; and the remainder is supposed to be no phosphate.

We also have application restrictions based on conditions.

Not sure how much tighter they could go.

Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance had a brochure a year or two ago advising zero phosphorous, the middle number, anywhere near the lake. That's good with me. I think 11 or 12 states have already banned it

[barefootbay]

Too many people , too many Geese ! If steps are not taken soon the lake is TOAST !

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by barefootbay

Too many people , too many Geese ! If steps are not taken soon the lake is TOAST !

Ideas to get rid of people and geese?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Ideas to get rid of people and geese?

Some in our group celebrate Canadian Thanksgiving. Maybe we should serve Canada Goose instead of American Turkey. Same for Boxing Day.

[John Mercier]

It isn't the eating.
It is the acquiring.

They outlawed hunting in most of the watershed.

[barefootbay]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Ideas to get rid of people and geese?

Getting rid of geese is easy , people not so ! Perhaps I should have said too much money .

[SAB1]

If getting rid of geese was easy they wouldn’t be here lol.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by barefootbay

Getting rid of geese is easy , people not so ! Perhaps I should have said too much money .

Not sure that too much money is really the issue.
Lawn is pretty basic from a landscaping standpoint.

While a more luxurious landscape usually involves time and money to achieve.
Time and money being somewhat fungible, as the property owner can hire a gardener or choose to invest their own time in achieving the results.

[Lakegeezer]

Watershed research led by the Lake Winnipesaukee Association shows that big storms are the big problem. The damage is done in only 5-6 events a year, when gully-washers act like Mother Nature yanking a giant toilet handle. All the built-up gunk—leaky septics, phosphorus laden fertilizer, leaves, goose (and dog) poop and road salt flush downhill and straight into Lake Winnipesaukee.

Regulations can’t fix the problem – it has to be a community-wide project.

First step is to reduce the buildup by fixing septic systems, skipping the phosphorus fertilizer near the water, keeping 70% of shoreline properties porous and not cutting down trees that move over 100 gallons of water a day into the air.

But, the real solution is based in reducing storm-water runoff by convincing the those water gushes to absorb into the ground.

During the next gully-washer, toss on a raincoat and check the shoreline. If you see water racing to the lake, add a rain garden, small berm, or trench it into the woods so that it soaks in before reaching the lake.

[Descant]

Lakegeezer makes good points about storm water runoff. In many instances, where regulations don't address soil types and slopes the runoff impact may come from 500 or 1000 feet, not the 250' we now pay attention to. Especially in a year like this one where the watershed has been saturated all through the spring, big storms carry a lot of junk into the lakes, all lakes, not just Winnipesaukee.
In the 60's and 70's we built the Winnipesaukee River drainage project bringing sewer to Lake Winnipesaukee's west side and taking it all to the Franklin Wastewater Treatment Facility. Lots of federal funding. A project like this for the east side of Lake Winnipesaukee would be a great bonus for lake water quality.

[hemlock]

Sewage treatment is important but it doesn't help when your infrastructure fails.

Read the below report and it will give pause.

https://www.centerharbornh.gov/sites...se_1152024.pdf

In addition the town of Wolfeboro added sewer capacity by adding to their existing spray irrigation fields what they called rapid infiltration basins near 19 mile brook. These basins very quickly failed causing nitrate levels to rise in the brook which leads to 19 mile bay.

Center Harbors sewage lagoons are also located above Lake Kanasatka.

It makes one wonder if there is leakage that is escaping notice. Blooms are being noticed in these specific areas.

[SAB1]

Idk if it’s still the case but when I went to the Lakes Region Watershed meeting in Wolfeboro it was stated in that meeting the town of Wolfeboro catching basins all along Main Street drained directly into the lake.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Idk if it’s still the case but when I went to the Lakes Region Watershed meeting in Wolfeboro it was stated in that meeting the town of Wolfeboro catching basins all along Main Street drained directly into the lake.

This is an unfortunate situation in many areas. Combining storm water and sewer water in many instances will overload the ability to handle that volume and the result is overflow into the river or lake. Nationally, there is a "Municipal storm sewer separation system (MS4) requirement to remedy that situation. As you would expect, this is not something that many places can fix quickly or at reasonable expense.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by hemlock

Sewage treatment is important but it doesn't help when your infrastructure fails.

Read the below report and it will give pause.

https://www.centerharbornh.gov/sites...se_1152024.pdf

In addition the town of Wolfeboro added sewer capacity by adding to their existing spray irrigation fields what they called rapid infiltration basins near 19 mile brook. These basins very quickly failed causing nitrate levels to rise in the brook which leads to 19 mile bay.

Center Harbors sewage lagoons are also located above Lake Kanasatka.

It makes one wonder if there is leakage that is escaping notice. Blooms are being noticed in these specific areas.

Thanks for pointing this out. The good part is, the system is monitored electronically and the release was caught in short order. Thus, no negative impacts. A failed septic could leach into the lake for an extended time before it is detected.

[hemlock]

Originally Posted by Descant

Thanks for pointing this out. The good part is, the system is monitored electronically and the release was caught in short order. Thus, no negative impacts. A failed septic could leach into the lake for an extended time before it is detected.

This particular report said nothing about electronic monitoring. The spill was noticed by a neighboring towns public works director as he happened to be driving home from work. The pump was started the previous day. The pump has a capacity of 300 gallons per minute. When these kinds of pumps start-up it is not uncommon for water hammer to cause a failure at a fitting or break a pipe.
It is entirely possible that the breach occurred at startup which would mean that it could have been flowing for 24 hours or more. This would mean that
400000 to 500000 gallon of untreated sewage flowed directly into Winni. The report also said that this happened previously on November 10th 2023, January 16 2024 and November 4th and 5th of 2024. The scale of this event
is not comparable to a failed septic. Take a look at the photos in the report!

[BillTex]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Watershed research led by the Lake Winnipesaukee Association shows that big storms are the big problem. The damage is done in only 5-6 events a year, when gully-washers act like Mother Nature yanking a giant toilet handle. All the built-up gunk—leaky septics, phosphorus laden fertilizer, leaves, goose (and dog) poop and road salt flush downhill and straight into Lake Winnipesaukee.

Regulations can’t fix the problem – it has to be a community-wide project.

First step is to reduce the buildup by fixing septic systems, skipping the phosphorus fertilizer near the water, keeping 70% of shoreline properties porous and not cutting down trees that move over 100 gallons of water a day into the air.

But, the real solution is based in reducing storm-water runoff by convincing the those water gushes to absorb into the ground.

During the next gully-washer, toss on a raincoat and check the shoreline. If you see water racing to the lake, add a rain garden, small berm, or trench it into the woods so that it soaks in before reaching the lake.

This. And anybody can do this on their property at little/no cost. Another issue is roof run off: boat houses, sheds, etc that are close to the shore should have gutter to direct water away from lakes.

[SAB1]

Last year I believe we had several blooms that appeared in Cary Beach area of Wolfeboro and also around 19 mile Bay Area in Tuftonboro. So far I have not seen notice of Cyanobacteria this year. Can’t help but think the good ice cover we had this winter played a part in that, especially with the rain we had May thru early June.

[barefootbay]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Watershed research led by the Lake Winnipesaukee Association shows that big storms are the big problem. The damage is done in only 5-6 events a year, when gully-washers act like Mother Nature yanking a giant toilet handle. All the built-up gunk—leaky septics, phosphorus laden fertilizer, leaves, goose (and dog) poop and road salt flush downhill and straight into Lake Winnipesaukee.

Regulations can’t fix the problem – it has to be a community-wide project.

First step is to reduce the buildup by fixing septic systems, skipping the phosphorus fertilizer near the water, keeping 70% of shoreline properties porous and not cutting down trees that move over 100 gallons of water a day into the air.

But, the real solution is based in reducing storm-water runoff by convincing the those water gushes to absorb into the ground.

During the next gully-washer, toss on a raincoat and check the shoreline. If you see water racing to the lake, add a rain garden, small berm, or trench it into the woods so that it soaks in before reaching the lake.

Loose your lawn, geese love to graze on green grass !

[ishoot308]

Lose all the ice eaters along the shore and docks and allow the ice form in the winter! It’s a proven fact that without ice the sun causes more weed and algae growth!

Dan

[SAB1]

I often wonder about the effect of the ice eaters. My gut says it’s a small part but I’m not an expert. They are annoying though. Some places it’s tough to get onto the ice to fish or snowmobile because of them. I put that directly on the State though. They are to blame for allowing all the permanent docks, boathouses and breakwaters where people use them. Can’t blame the people who have them, it’s legal and they are protecting their assets. Crazy and you still see them being built.

[John Mercier]

The State Budget gets a lot of revenue from boating.
They just have to be careful what they expense, because we are near a peak.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance had a brochure a year or two ago advising zero phosphorous, the middle number, anywhere near the lake. That's good with me. I think 11 or 12 states have already banned it

The brochure is good. But I don't think widely read.
This new system, once enforced (State sent someone to me, so I know they are checking) should bear greater results.

About two weeks ago, I saw a lake home with artificial turf and a special drainage bed under it. Not sure what that cost, but I found it interesting.