Flushing Time Versus Residence Time for the Great Bay Estuary

The terms “flushing time” and “residence time” have cropped up often in discussions about water quality and eelgrass health in the Great Bay Estuary. Flushing time and residence time are not the same thing and should not be used interchangeably. Flushing time is defined as the time it takes to replace a certain water mass in a coastal system and is most often used as a general measurement of water exchange in an estuary used to relate water exchange from one estuary to another. The most recent estimates of flushing time (2013) for the Great Bay are between 2.5 and 7 days. Residence time describes how long a parcel, starting from a specified location within a waterbody, will remain in the waterbody before exiting; residence time is more often used to understand or predict chemical and biological processes for a particular system. The most recent estimate of residence time for the Great Bay (2005) is between 5 and 20 days

Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended Solids Concentrations in Tributaries to the Great Bay Estuary Watershed in 2017

Nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to the Great Bay Estuary are a constant concern. The Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (PREP) calculates the nitrogen load from tributaries to the Great Bay Estuary for its State of Our Estuaries reports. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to collect representative data on nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids concentrations in tributaries to the Great Bay Estuary in 2017. The study design followed the tributary sampling design, which was implemented by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) between 2001 and 2007 and sustained by the University of New Hampshire (UNH) from 2008 to the present, so as to provide comparable data to the previous loading estimates. The purpose of this memorandum is to document the results of quality assurance checks on the 2017 water quality data collected by UNH for the Great Bay Estuary Tidal Tributary Monitoring Program, so that PREP can calculate the nitrogen load from tributaries to the Great Bay Estuary. This program was previously established in the NHDES Environmental Monitoring Database with a project identifier of “GBETTMP.” PREP reviewed these data to ensure that they met data quality objectives for PREP and for Section 305b water quality assessments

Producing science that gets used by coastal communities: What funders should do to link more science with decisions

Many reports have noted that a significant portion of coastal science that is funded to help society address resource management issues does not actually link to decisions. Here, I report on 13 case studies involving new tools and science to help diverse decision makers better protect coastal resources. My qualitative analysis indicates that the programs\u27 efforts to better link science with decisions have had varied results: some encouraging and some less so. In contrast, all 13 project case studies clearly confirm that the funding programs could have done more to link science with decisions. These case studies, combined with this work\u27s culminating study---a focus group involving 10 different funding programs---point to a series of specific recommendations that funders should consider. Most critically: 1) if solving problems is important, funders need to spend more money on better problem formulation, with an emphasis on involving more people outside of academia and the government sector; 2) if funders are interested in linking science to decisions, they need to allocate more resources to linking, which may involve less resources to science. By linking, I mean supporting activities related to problem formulation to enhance the relevancy of the science to intended users as well as communication of findings to enhance the societal awareness of any new knowledge produced. This dissertation concludes with 10 recommendations in all. While some of these recommendations have overlaps with previous studies and reports, some of them are unique---such as an emphasis on changing proposal review processes---and provide a new contribution to the important debate on how public dollars should be spent within science organizations charged with managing natural resources