Photos of Erosion and Other Ills

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by loonguy

My property retains trees and other vegetation, but erosion still occurs. Although the erosion is so gradual that it might not be noticed from one year to the next, a telling indicator is that a surveyor's post from before my time on the property, presumably 30 years ago or so, is now two feet on the water side of the shore line.

And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded?

Originally Posted by ApS

When oversized boats pass by, their wakes artificially raise the lake level, invisibly (and "innocently") pulling even more soil contents into the lake..

This is the most ridiculous statement ever – so the waves of a boat that you classify as “oversize” without definition are the ONLY thing that is supposedly doing this. So I can easily throw a 2.5 foot wake behind my 14’ aluminum boat, I guess that if it doesn’t make your “oversized” list won’t do a thing but the same sized wake from a boat you don’t like or classify as “oversized” is destroying the shore? I’m trying not to laugh to hard at that one. How about the wakes created by passing sailboats? Oh right those are OK because they are on the “approved” APS list of boats.

Originally Posted by ApS

This tree, which is obviously falling into the lake, could not have started as a sapling at "full pond". This tree is slowly releasing soil into the lake. Like many of the trees along Winter Harbor's shoreline, only a few shoreline rocks are delaying its slow slide into the lake.

This tree is not obviously falling into the lake, in fact it looks based on the size and shape of the base of the trunk been there for a long time. In fact, if you look at the tree right next to it in the same picture grew out nearly horizontal before making a 90 degree angle and grew quasi vertically. Based on the size of that trunk both have been there a long time. Again, though for the purposes of over dramatization trees never start to grow anywhere unless it was perfectly cultivated. It’s not in the least bit possible that trees don’t prefer to grow in a direction where their unimpeded by surrounding trees or for that matter in the direction of where they would be exposed to the most sun – in this case over the water? Nah could never happen on planet APS. Last time I was in winter harbor I’m sorry but I missed “many of the trees” along the shore are at risk of “sliding into the lake”. You’d think Winter Harbor is a pending disaster area with all these dangerous trees along the shore on the verge of falling into the lake and killing somebody! BTW in taking a walk along my frontage yesterday I spied several saplings growing at precarious angles out over the water right out of the shore line rocks. Shockingly it happens.

Originally Posted by ApS

The article fails to address the compounding of two or more wakes which extends the invisible reach of water to shorelines

There is a reason for that, because waves of this kind do not “compound”. May want to read up on the science of waves in water.

Originally Posted by ApS

Like our neighbors (and islanders), we draw water from the lake. Early in the season, lake water appears different. Can you guess which container just might have the results of nine months of precipitation, an artificially-raised Spring lake level, and a sun-filled weekend of oversized-boat traffic?

Wait a minute…. Didn’t you say this?

Originally Posted by ApS

When oversized boats pass by, their wakes artificially raise the lake level, invisibly (and "innocently") pulling even more soil contents into the lake..

So which is it? Now you are contradicting yourself by saying this is happening invisibly then post a picture of a bottle of water visibly that suggests otherwise.

Embellishing your argument makes you look silly, how is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously? LOL I certainly don’t.

[loonguy]

Originally Posted by loonguy:
My property retains trees and other vegetation, but erosion still occurs. Although the erosion is so gradual that it might not be noticed from one year to the next, a telling indicator is that a surveyor's post from before my time on the property, presumably 30 years ago or so, is now two feet on the water side of the shore line.

MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded? "

You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by loonguy

Originally Posted by loonguy:
My property retains trees and other vegetation, but erosion still occurs. Although the erosion is so gradual that it might not be noticed from one year to the next, a telling indicator is that a surveyor's post from before my time on the property, presumably 30 years ago or so, is now two feet on the water side of the shore line.

MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded? "

You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.

Apparently you haven't read my prior posts in this thread where I suggested that the shore erosion problem needs to be looked at especially with the increased popularity of wake surfing - furthermore I stated the following and I quote myself here:

Just as a casual observer it's hard to imagine the wakes thrown by wakeboard boats aren't having some effect. I mean common let's be honest here. To what extent is really the question that needs to be answered. I think it completely ludicrous to turn a blind eye to at least the possibility. That said, the overall effects may very well be way overstated and hey not for nothing, could be found to have little impact.


So with all due respect I have no "agenda" but clearly you do. You cannot possible come up with a conclusion when you have no factual basis in which to formulate such a conclusion other than assumption. You loose credibility when the evidence your bringing is so easily discredited. I'd prefer to leave it to somebody who knows this stuff to look at the problem holistically, study the affects and produce a non-biased set of observations, then suggest means of mitigation if necessary.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by loonguy

Originally Posted by loonguy:
My property retains trees and other vegetation, but erosion still occurs. Although the erosion is so gradual that it might not be noticed from one year to the next, a telling indicator is that a surveyor's post from before my time on the property, presumably 30 years ago or so, is now two feet on the water side of the shore line.

MAXUM: "And you know this for a fact? You readily admit that is marker was placed “before your time” and “presumably” 30 years ago and even though at the time you didn’t witness where it was placed, or when exactly but for the purposes of making your claim you simply throw out arbitrary observation. It’s not in the least bit possible this was placed there instead we are to believe that two feet of shore has eroded? "

You may not like the conclusion because it is inconsistent with your agenda, MAXUM, but it is a fair conclusion based on the facts. Why would a surveyor who is marking the end of a property line place a marker two feet into the lake, which is otherwise public space? The marker is also consistent with the otherwise available plots of the property.

Apparently you haven't read my prior posts in this thread where I suggested that the shore erosion problem needs to be looked at especially with the increased popularity of wake surfing - furthermore I stated the following and I quote myself here:

Just as a casual observer it's hard to imagine the wakes thrown by wakeboard boats aren't having some effect. I mean common let's be honest here. To what extent is really the question that needs to be answered. I think it completely ludicrous to turn a blind eye to at least the possibility. That said, the overall effects may very well be way overstated and hey not for nothing, could be found to have little impact.


So with all due respect I have no "agenda" but clearly you do. You cannot possible come up with a conclusion when you have no factual basis in which to formulate such a conclusion other than assumption. You loose credibility when the evidence your bringing is so easily discredited. I'd prefer to leave it to somebody who knows this stuff to look at the problem holistically, study the affects and produce a non-biased set of observations, then suggest means of mitigation if necessary.

[loonguy]

My only agenda is reporting my observations of the fact of erosion on my property and I stand by the reasonableness of my conclusions. I have not seen any posts by experts who suggest that erosion is not a real issue.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by swnoel

Is that picture showing the original shoreline of the lake?

Not sure what that means. The photo was taken last week. A photo taken a few years ago isn't likely to help (due to distance) but I'll try to make it work.

Originally Posted by MAXUM

This is the most ridiculous statement ever – so the waves of a boat that you classify as “oversize” without definition are the ONLY thing that is supposedly doing this. So I can easily throw a 2.5 foot wake behind my 14’ aluminum boat, I guess that if it doesn’t make your “oversized” list won’t do a thing but the same sized wake from a boat you don’t like or classify as “oversized” is destroying the shore? I’m trying not to laugh to hard at that one. How about the wakes created by passing sailboats? Oh right those are OK because they are on the “approved” APS list of boats.

Since a 40-foot Tri-Toon would definitely make my "approved ApS list, so "oversized" obviously/intentionally doesn't apply to all boats. Note that even the largest—and most heavily loaded—pontoon boat can't compare with most powerboats half that length in damaging shorelines.

Originally Posted by MAXUM

This tree is not obviously falling into the lake, in fact it looks based on the size and shape of the base of the trunk been there for a long time. In fact, if you look at the tree right next to it in the same picture grew out nearly horizontal before making a 90 degree angle and grew quasi vertically. Based on the size of that trunk both have been there a long time. Again, though for the purposes of over dramatization trees never start to grow anywhere unless it was perfectly cultivated. It’s not in the least bit possible that trees don’t prefer to grow in a direction where their unimpeded by surrounding trees or for that matter in the direction of where they would be exposed to the most sun – in this case over the water? Nah could never happen on planet APS. Last time I was in winter harbor I’m sorry but I missed “many of the trees” along the shore are at risk of “sliding into the lake”. You’d think Winter Harbor is a pending disaster area with all these dangerous trees along the shore on the verge of falling into the lake and killing somebody! BTW in taking a walk along my frontage yesterday I spied several saplings growing at precarious angles out over the water right out of the shore line rocks. Shockingly it happens.

All plants grow to reflect geotropism and heliotropism. The "bent" tree you refer to had some environmental "upset"; most likely, it lost its soil base as a young tree, then continued growing normally. Most deciduous trees are capable of growing so as to appear contorted.

Most coniferous trees will grow straight; but if their trunks appear bent, it's because of shifting soil or rocks.

This palm tree had some kind of misadventure, but has responded to gravity and sun to resume growing straight upwards again:


Most alarming is the number of Winter Harbor trees that fall into the lake, which varies every season. When they fall on the ice, they're carried away, they're never seen again—above water. When they land in the lake, these trees remain tentatively attached to the shoreline before they sink. In either case, they add to the nutrient levels in the lake—along with the soil they release. Many are simply cut down. Presently in Johnson's Cove, there's a stack of (apparently useless) cut logs piled directly abutting the lake. Will they be there next Spring?

What the NHMP does with fallen trees when they are called to drag them away—IDK.

Originally Posted by MAXUM

There is a reason for that, because waves of this kind do not “compound”. May want to read up on the science of waves in water.

There's been a confusion of "waves" and "wakes" here.

But as a proponent of "common sense", wouldn't waves and wakes compound one-another, regardless of their direction? Southbound wakes should be expected to add their "throw-weight" to a wave driven by a North wind. Especially a strong wind capable of the erosion suggested here by others.

Or to other wakes whose shoreline throw-weight is randomly synchronized with other wakes?

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wait a minute…. Didn’t you say this? So which is it? Now you are contradicting yourself by saying this is happening invisibly then post a picture of a bottle of water visibly that suggests otherwise. Embellishing your argument makes you look silly, how is anyone supposed to take what you say seriously? LOL I certainly don’t.

That incomplete post has been edited with the following:
—versus the container filled a few days earlier?

What happened here?

[rsmlp]

This thread strikes me hypothetical and fatuous. There is NO WAY big boats will be limited on Winni. We were on our beach yesterday and a boat at least 500 yards out was trolling at the perfect huge wake speed (as they are wont to do). Monster wakes hit us. I'm talking 2-3 footers but frankly this is NOTHING vs a windy day on Windy Point Rd at South point. Mother nature will cause far more damage than a few big boats.

[Lake Winnipesaukee Alliance]

Originally Posted by rsmlp

This thread strikes me hypothetical and fatuous. There is NO WAY big boats will be limited on Winni. We were on our beach yesterday and a boat at least 500 yards out was trolling at the perfect huge wake speed (as they are wont to do). Monster wakes hit us. I'm talking 2-3 footers but frankly this is NOTHING vs a windy day on Windy Point Rd at South point. Mother nature will cause far more damage than a few big boats.

Just to be clear, as the OP--please go back and read the original post. We are simply looking for photos and other info on sources of erosion. This has a very real impact on phosphorous levels which reduce water clarity, increase plant growth, and hurt the general quality of the lake we all love. Our goal is to identify these sources and develop sensible mitigation plans so that the lake is as beautiful for our children and grandchildren as it is for us.

I'm not familiar with Windy Point Rd--but that looks like something we should check out. Thanks!

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by ApS

Not sure what that means. The photo was taken last week. A photo taken a few years ago isn't likely to help (due to distance) but I'll try to make it work.

Didn't realize this would be a confusing question... what part of it is confusing? It's either the original shoreline for the lake or not. The real problem is the manipulation of the waterfront by owners and state. They've removed the natural erosion barriers and now are complaining. My suggestion is to mandate the replacement or rocks , shrubs, and trees to a consistency of what would be expected in a natural environment prior to their removal. Course that would solve only one part of the problem.