DRAFT
  Environmental Impact Statement
  WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND
  TREATMENT FACILITIES
  Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire
  United  States
  Environmental
  Protection Agency
  Region I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING - GOVERNMENT CENTER - BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203

-------
                 DRAFT
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
              PREPARED FOR

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               REGION I
         BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
                  BY
           ECOLSCIENCES, INC,
        VIENNA, VIRGINIA  22180
                   REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
DATE

-------
                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
                                            Page

                                            v-vii

                                            viii &

                                            x-xiv
INTRODUCTION

I.  DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION

    A.  Background

        1.  Location  and  Identification of Study
            and Service Areas
        2.  Existing  and  Proposed Wastewater Treat-
            ment  Facilities
            On-Site Sewage Disposal  Systems
            Raw Waste Discharges
3
4
     B.   Purpose of The Proposed Projects:   Goals
         and Objectives

     C.   Description of The Applicant's Proposed
         Wastewater Treatment Facilities

         1.   General
         2.   Sewage Flows
         3.   Interceptors
         4.   Treatment Plants
         5.   Effluent Disposal
         6.   Sludge Handling
         7.   Costs

II.  EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

     A.  Natural Environment

         1.   Climate
         2.   Air Quality
         3.   Geology
         4.   Topography
         5.   Soils
         6.   Hydrology
             Lake Winnipesaukee
             Surface Water:  Flow
             Surface Water:  Lake Winnipesaukee
                             Resource  Rate
xv & xvi



1-1

1-1

1-4

1-10
1-16

1-17


1-18
                                             1-18
                                             1-19
                                             1-22
                                             1-26
                                             1-27
                                             1-29
                                             1-30
                                            II-l

                                            II-l
                                            II-3
                                            II-4
                                            H_9
                                            II-9
                                            11-18
                                            11-18
                                            11-20
                                            11-21

-------
              Surface Water:   Flood Flows              11-23
              Water  Quality:   Streams,  Rivers  and     11-23
                              Lakes
              Ground Water:                            11-36
              Water  Supply:    Existing  Water Supply   11-37
                              Future Water  Supply     11-42

          7.   Biology                                  11-43
              Aquatic                                  11-43
              Terrestrial                             11-48

          8.   Aesthetics                              11-54

          9.   Historic  and Archaeological Resources   11-55

         10.   Environmentally Sensitive Areas          11-61

      B.   Social and Economic Environment              11-73

          1.   Population Characteristics              11-73
              Year-Round Population                   11-73
              Seasonal  Population                     11-80
          2.   Existing  Land  Use                       11-83
          3.   Economic  Base                            11-106
          4.   Community Services                      11-120
          5.   Other Government Projects for the       11-129
              Area

III.  STATUS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE
      PLANNING

      A.   Planning Agencies  and Activities            III-l

          1.   State Planning                         III-l
          2.   Regional  Planning                      III-3
          3.   Areawide  Planning                      III-4
          4.   Local Planning                         III-4

      B.   Description of Existing Comprehensive      III-7
          Plans and Growth Management Controls

          1.   Regional  and Municipal Development     III-7
              Plans and Related Future Growth
              Guidelines
          2.   Existing Regulatory Controls for       111-10
              Managing Growth
          3.   Interrelationship Between Zoning       111-12
              Regulations and the Proposed Project

      C.   Population Projections and Distribution    111-19

      D.   Federal Environmental Controls             111-34

-------
         1.   Clean Air Act                          111-34
         2.   Federal Water Pollution Control        111-34
             Act Amendment of 1972
         3.   Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974        111-36
         4.   National Flood Insurance Program       111-36
         5.   The National Historic Preservation     111-38
             Act of 1966
         6.   The Archaeological and Historic        111-38
             Preservation Act of 1974

IV.  ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE APPLICANT'S
     PROPOSED PROJECT

     A.  Natural Environment                         IV-11

         1.   Surface Water Quality                   IV-11
         2.   Ground Water                            IV-21
         3.   Water Supply                            IV-21
         4.   Air Quality                             IV-23
         5.   Biology                                 IV-27
         6.   Aesthetics                              IV-35
         7.   Recreation                              IV-36
         8.   Archeological and Historic Resources    IV-38
         9.   Natural Resources                       IV-39

     B.  Social and Economic Environment             IV-40

         1.   Public Health                           IV-40
         2.   Social and Economic                     IV-42
         3.   Land Use: Existing and Future           IV-44

     C.  Adverse Impacts Which Can Not Be Avoided    IV-50

     D.  Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use   IV-53
         of Man's Environment and the Maintenance
         and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

     E.  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments  IV-54
         of Resources Which Would be Involved in
         the Proposed Project Should It be
         Implemented

     F.  Public Controversy and Public Participation IV-56

 V.  IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
     TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT

     A.  System Alternatives                          V-l

         1.   Alternate Maguire Plans A, C-B           V-l
         2.   Peripheral Area Alternatives             V-5
         3.   No Action  (No Federal Funding)           V-7
                        111

-------
    B.   Component Alternatives
        1,
        2.
        3,
        4.
        5,
REFERENCES

GLOSSARY

APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
Treatment System Alternatives
Treatment Site Alternatives
Effluent Disposal Alternatives
Sewage Capacity Alternatives
Sludge Handling and Disposal
Alternatives
Alternative Interceptor Routings
(Water Quality Standards)
(Growth, Eutrophication and Lake
Quality)
(Summary of Biological and Physical
Data on Lakes and Ponds)
(Fish Species)
(Algal Species)
(Common Trees and Shrubs)
(Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles)
(Birds)
(Public Comment)
(Air Quality)
V-8

V-8
V-10
V-ll
V-12
V-15

V-21

R-l

X-l

A-l
B-l

C-l

D-l
E-l
F-l
G-l
H-l
1-1
J-l
                        IV

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES


Number                      Title                            Page


                          Section I
  1-1     Number of Housing Units                            1-11
  1-2     1970 Waste Disposal Facilities                     1-12
  1-3     Gilford Township Septic Tank System Failures       1-13
  1-4     Estimated Septic System Failures                   1-13
  1-5     Generalized Land Suitability for Septic Tanks      1-14
             Within the Merrimack River Basin
  1-6     Summary of Current Raw Waste Discharges in         1-16
             the Lake Winnipesaukee Basin
  1-7     Estimated Sewage Flows—year 1975                  1-20
  1-8     Estimated Sewage Flows—year 1985                  1-20
  1-9     Estimated Sewage Flows—year 1995                  1-21
  1-10    Estimated Sewage Flows—year 2020                  1-21
  1-11    Effluent Limitations for the Laconia Treatment     1-26
             Plant
  1-12    Effluent Limitations for the Franklin Treatment    1-27
             Plant
  1-13    Cost Escalation Since December 1971                1-30
  1-14    Estimated Costs of Proposed Project (Modified      1-31
             Plan B)
                          Section II
 II-l     Mean Monthly Precipitation and Temperature        II-2
             at Lakeport, New Hampshire 1941-1970
 II-2     Air Quality Data for the Winnipesaukee River      II-3
             Basin
 II-3     Characteristics of the Major Soil Associations    11-14
             in Belknap County
 II-4     Characteristics of the Major Soil Associations    11-15
             in Merrimack County
 II-5     Flow Characteristics of Streams in the            11-22
             Vicinity of Lake Winnipesaukee, New
             Hampshire
 II-6     Major Flood Observed Within the Merrimack         11-24
             River Basin
 II-7     Peak Discharges for Expected Flood Frequencies    11-24
 II-8     Water Quality Classifications of Stream           11-26
             Segments in the Study Area
 II-9     Water Quality of Major Rivers in Study Area       11-27
 11-10    Lake Winnipesaukee Sampling Data                  11-32
                               v

-------
 Number                        Title                         Page

 11-11     Nutrient Loadings to Lake Winnipesaukee           11-33
 11-12     Median Stream Flow and Phosphorus Loading         11-36
              to Lake Winnisquam
 11-13     Public Water Supplies-January,  1974               11-39
 11-14     Historic and Archaeological Sites                 11-56
 11-15     Wetland Areas Identified in the Primary and       11-65
              Peripheral Study Areas
 11-16     Year-round Population - Primary and Peripheral    11-74
              Study Areas
 11-17     Resident Population 1974-1975                     11-76
 11-18     Sex, Race and Age Statistics                      11-77
 11-19     Population Densities & Occupancy Rates            11-78
 11-20     Seasonal Population Estimates,  1970               11-81
 11-21     Existing Land Use (1973)                          11-84
 11-22     Existing Industries - Both the  Primary and        11-88
              Peripheral Study Areas
 11-23     Farming Activities on the Belknap County          11-91
              portion of the Study Area
 11-24     Recreational Facilities:  Public, Semi-           11-94
              Public, Private
 11-25     Industrial Covered Employment Fourth Quarter,      11-107
              1973
 11-26     Industrial Distribution of Covered Employ-        11-108
              ment (1960-1970)
 11-27     Characteristics of Commercial Centers             11-114
 11-28     Visitor Population in 1970                        11-115
 11-29     Belknap County Sales, Receipts  - 1967             11-116
 11-30     Farms by Economic Class                           11-117
 11-31     Journey-to-work Commuting Patterns                11-119
 11-32     Existing Public School Enrollment and Capacity    11-122
              of Facilities
 11-33     Existing Police Service                           11-123
 11-34     Fire Protection Service and Insurance Rating      11-124
 11-35     Existing Solid Waste Disposal Facilities          11-126
 11-36     Current Per Capita Refuse Generation Rates        11-127
 11-37     Other Major Governmental Projects in Study        11-128
              Area
                          Section III
III-l      Status of the Most Recent Comprehensive          III-5
              Plans of Towns and Cities Within the
              Primary and Peripheral Study Areas
III-2      Types of Existing Land Use Controls and          III-ll
              Extent of Use by Municipality
III-3      Zoning Restrictions on Minimum Lot Size          111-14
              and Their Relationship to On-Site and
              Off-Site Water and Sewer Service
                              VI

-------
Number                       Title

III-4     Potential Development Yields and Population
             Permitted by Existing Zoninq
III-5     Pomilation Proiections                            111-20
III-6     ANCO Population Projections                       111-21
III-7     National Economic Development Population          111-23
             Projections
III-8     Maximum Desirable Population Densities            111-24
             Development Capability Areas, NHOCP
             Guide Plan
III-9     Environmental Quality Maximum Desirable           111-25
             Population Levels
111-10    Environmental Quality Alternative Population      111-27
             Projections
III-ll    Population Projections                            111-29
111-12    Population Projections, C. E. Maguire, Inc.       111-30
111-13    Comparison of Available Population Projections    111-31
111-14    Composite Population Projections                  111-33


                         Section IV
 IV-1     Summary of Environmental Impacts Resulting         IV-4
             from the Proposed Regional Sewerage in
             the Winnipesaukee River Basin.
 IV-2     A Comparison of the Average Nutrient Exports       IV-17
             from the Lake Winnipesaukee Drainage
             and Available Data for Forest Watersheds
 IV-3     Export Rates for Pollutants from Non-Point         IV-18
             Sources from Proposed Sewer Service Areas
 IV-4     Projected and Allowable Increment in Air           IV-26
             Quality
 IV-5     Proposed Criteria for Maximum Continuous           IV-30
             Chlorine Concentration to Protect
             Freshwater Aquatic Life
 IV-6     Residual Chlorine Immediately Below the            IV-30
             Franklin Treatment Plant Outfall
 IV-7     Primary Impacts from Vegetation Removal in         IV-32
             Sewer Corridors
 IV-8     Effects of Reduced Minimum Lot Areas on            IV-46
             Potential Development Yields and Population


                          Section V
  V-l     Possible Sludge Disposal Alternatives               V-16
                            VII

-------
                  LIST OF FIGURES


Number                 Title                         Page

                     Section I

 1-1        Major Drainage Divisions of the State    1-2
              of New Hampshire Showing Location
              of the Winnipesaukee Study Area
 1-2        Delineation of the Primary and Periph-   1-3
              eral Study Areas, Showing Existing
              and Proposed 2020 Sewer Service Areas
 1-3        Jurisdiction of the Lakes Region Plan-   1-5
              ning Commission Showing the
              Winnipesaukee River Watershed, The
              208 Planning Area, and the Study Area
 1-4        Existing Wastewater Treatment Facili-    1-6
              ties and Raw Waste Discharges
 1-5        Laconia Sewage Treatment Plant Flow      1-8
              Diagram-Physical Chemical Treatment
              Years 1975-1985
 1-6        Proposed Interceptor System for the      1-23
              Winnipesaukee River Basin
 1-7        Basin Wastes Treatment Facilities at     1-28
              Franklin

                    Section II

II-l        Bedrock Geology                         II-6
II-2        Surface Geology                         II-8
II-3        Slopes                                  11-10
II-4        Soil Associations, Lake Winnipesaukee   11-11
              Study Areas
II-5        Lake Winnipesaukee Monthly and Daily    11-19
              Discharge Statistics 1933-1972
II-6        Lake and Stream Sampling Stations,      11-28
              Winnipesaukee Study Area
II-7        Existing Water Quality-Winnipesaukee    11-29
              Study Area
II-8        Areas with Shallow Depth to the Water   11-38
              Table
II-9        Historic and Archaeological Sites       11-60
              Within the Study Area
11-10       Environmentally Sensitive Areas         11-62
11-11       Relationship Between and Proposed       11-69
              Franklin STP Site and the 100-year"
              Flood Plain of the Merrimack River
11-12       Existing Land                           11-86
11-13       Existing Recreational Facilities        11-102
                       Vlll

-------
                     Section III

III-l        Jurisdiction of the Lakes Region        III-2
               Planning Commission Showing the
               Winnipesaukee River Watershed, the
               208 Planning Area, and the Study
               Area
III-2        Existing Zoning                         111-13

                      Section V

  V-l        Available Unit Processes for Sludge       V-16
               Treatment and Disposal
                        ix

-------
                    SUMMARY AND CONCLDSIONS
           (X)  Draft Environmental Impact Statement
           ( )  Final Environmental Impact Statement

             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                            Region I
                     Boston, Massachusetts
1.  NAME OF ACTION;

    Administrative    (X)

    Legislative       ( )


2.  DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION;

    The proposed project involves Federal financial assistance
for the construction of a regional sewage treatment plant and
a series of interceptor sewers to serve the Winnipesaukee River
Basin.  The proposed sewage treatment plant is to be located
south of Franklin, New Hampshire, and is designed to handle
11.5 million gallons per day.  When completed, sewage from all
major communities between Meredith and Franklin, i.e., Gilford,
Laconia, Sanbornton, Belmont, Tilton and Northfield will be
treated at the Franklin facility.  The effluent from the Franklin
plant will be discharged to the Merrimack River and the sludge
will be disposed of by land-fill or land spreading.  It is
estimated that the proposed project will cost, in April 1975
dollars, $55.0 million dollars.  Annual operation and maintenance
costs will be $490,000 dollars in 1985.

     Federal financial assistance has been requested under the
statutory authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500).  The State of New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (NHWSPCC) has
applied to EPA via a construction grant application for financial
aid in constructing the project.


3.  PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION;

     The* primary purpose of the proposed project is basically
threefold:  (1)  provide an immediate and long-term means of prop-
erly handling the Winnipesaukee River Basin wastewater disposal
needs for its present and future population (2020); (2) improve
the Basin's surface and ground water quality, particularly as
they relate to Lake Winnipesaukee, Lake Winnisquam, the Winni-
pesaukee,  Merrimack and Tioga Rivers; (3)  protect the public's
health and general welfare through the prevention of water
quality related problems.

-------
    In addition, the project is intended to provide the means
for communities in the Winnipesaukee Basin to be in conformance
with the State of New Hampshire's regulation adopted under
(RSA 149) which forbids any new discharge of phosphates into
the lakes.  Similarly, completion of the project is designed
to satisfy the goals and objectives of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) which
require the elimination of pollutant discharges into navigable
waters by 1985.


4.  PROJECT EVALUATION;

    A.  Needs Justification

        It has been clearly documented that the Winnipesaukee
River Basin is experiencing serious water quality problems
because of the discharge into the Basin's waterways of partially
treated and raw sewage.  Laconia, Meredith, Center Harbor,
Moultonboro and Wolfeboro are presently the only communities
within the Basin that provide some treatment of wastewater.  How-
ever, their partially treated wastewaters are discharged into
the lakes and are significant point sources of nutrient
loading which is causing problems of localized water quality
degradation.  Franklin, Tilton, Northfield and Belmont are
sewered but discharge raw domestic and industrial wastewater
into the Winnipesaukee, Pemmiqewasset and Tioga Rivers.

        In areas where centralized sewage treatment facilities
do not exist, disposal of wastewater is limited to on-site
facilities, mainly septic tanks and leaching fields.  Because
of poor and marginal soil conditions in the Basin, many existing
septic systems are failing.  As future development occurs and
at higher densities, the problem of malfunctioning septic
systems will substantially increase thus posing a public health
hazard and contributing to the degradation of surface and
groundwater resources.

    B.  Concept of Regional Sewage Treatment

        Construction of the proposed regional sewage collection
and treatment system represents the most cost-effective and
environmentally sound method of handling the design service
area's wastewater needs.  A regional sewage system offers the
advantages of central control, uniform treatment of wastewater,
maximum operation of reliability, and efficient use of scarce
resource.  In addition, a regional sewage system offers the
best protection of the Basin's water resources.

    C.  Environmental BenefitsandCosts

        The anticipated beneficial effects of the proposed
project include:
                            XI

-------
        (1) Elimination of many of the Basin's existing mal-
functioning septic systems and reduced future proliferation of
septic systems in areas immediately adjacent to major bodies of
water;

        (2) Discontinued raw sewage discharges at Franklin,
Tiltonf Northfield, and Belmont;

        (3) Provide the means for phasing out existing sewage
treatment plants now discharging partially treated wastewater
into Lake Winnipesaukee and Lake Winnisquam, i.e., Meredith
and Laconia; and

        (4) Offer a possible alternative for the collection
and treatment of wastewater from other municipalities in the
peripheral area of the Basin.

        As a result, the beneficial environmental impacts of
these actions will cause the improvement of ground and surface
water quality, improvement of aquatic habitat, increase the
Basin's recreational potential, reduce public health hazards
and provide an immediate stimulus to the Basin's economy and
its long-term economic growth and development.

    D.  Possible Adverse Effects

        Short-Term adverse impacts are expected to occur
during construction of the project.  These construction associ-
ated impacts will be primarily minor in nature and will result
in increased erosion and sedimentation, increased nutrient
loading of the Winnipesaukee River, Disturbance of aquatic and
wildlife habitats, and disruption of social, economic and
aesthetic conditions.  However, many of these impacts can be
mitigated through sound conservation and construction tech-
niques.

        Long-term adverse impacts are related to secondary
impacts on land use, socio-economic characteristics and air
and water quality.  These impacts have the potential of being
moderate to significant and can be mitigated only through
adoption and/or enforcement of appropriate land use controls.


5.  CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES;

    Numerous alternatives have been evaluated based on environ-
mental and economic considerations.  Alternatives encompassing
both component (separate sigments of the system) and system
options including "no action" were studied.

6.  CONCLUSIONS:

    The proposed project will achieve the stated objectives of
Winnipesaukee Basin Plan and is consistent with the goals  and
                            xii

-------
objectives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (PL 92-500).  The project does not foreclose
future regional options for treatment of wastewater from com-
munities on the eastern side of Lake Winnipesaukee, i.e.,
Alton, Wolfeboro, Tuftonboro, Moultonborough,  and Center Harbor
The over-sizing of the project's interceptors  to accommodate
flows greater than the design service area's anticipated 2020
population provides "insurance" that wastewater from these
communities will be properly handled, if other sewage collec-
tion and treatment options fail.  The experiences of Alton
and Wolfeboro in seeking to solve their wastewater problems by
land treatment reinforce this precautionary measure by NHWSPCC.

    The draft EIS proposes a series of measures, both adminis-
trative and legal, which should be incorporated in the Basin
Plan in order to insure attainment of the project's antici-
pated benefits.  These measures are summarized as follows:

    1.  The State should obtain the authority  to require that
        all possible connections be made to the interceptors
        as these lines become operational.  As the eutrophi-
        cation potential of the lakes is directly related to
        the number of point and non-point discharges, it is
        imperative that the system be utilized to the maxi-
        mum extent possible;

    2.  The State should begin the immediate evaluation of
        the peripheral area's future wastewater treatment
        needs, to determine sewage treatment options and to
        consider the cost effectiveness of utilizing the pro-
        posed regional sewage system versus other alternative
        methods of wastewater treatment;

    3.  The State should require as part of its construction
        grant contracts that appropriate siltation and erosion
        control measures will be promptly employed in all
        construction impact areas;

    4.  The State should require as part of its construction
        easement agreements a public disclosure statement of
        impending action for the benefit of visitors and
        tourists who may be potential renters  of property
        to be impacted by construction;

    5.  The State and EPA should require that  procedures
        necessary for compliance of the National Historic
        Preservation Act of 1966 and the Archaeological
        and Historic Preservation Act of 1974  be implemented.
 7.  PUBLIC COMMENT;

    To  insure that the public  is kept  completely  informed re-
                             Xlll

-------
garding the proposed action, and that it participates tb the
fullest extent possible in EPA's decision-making process,
this draft EIS will be made available to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality and the public for a period of 45 days.
                           xiv

-------
INTRODUCTION

     In recent years, a growing concern about water quality  in
the Lakes Region of New Hampshire has motivated the State Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission to initiate action to
preserve and protect those waters exhibiting no degradation  and
to eliminate sources of pollution to those waters which have
already deteriorated.  Accordingly, a study was commissioned to
Charles A. Maguire and Associates "...to establish a comprehensive
basin plan for waste water collection and disposal facilities in
the Winnipesaukee River Basin—" (Maguire, 1972).  In the study,
completed March, 1972, nine alternate plans for providing pollu-
tion abatement in the Basin were considered, and one system  was
recommended for implementation.

     Construction of the interceptors and sewage treatment plants
(STP) proposed in the Maguire report are eligible for Federal
funding and qualify as "major Federal actions significantly  affect-
ing the quality of the human environment."  In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) [Public Law 91-
190] and Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970 entitled "Pro-
tection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality", all Federal
agencies are required to prepare an Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) in connection with their proposals for major Federal
actions having a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment.  EPA, Region I, Boston, Massachusetts, is the
"Responsible Federal Agency" required by NEPA to prepare the EIS
for this proposed basin plan.  The following EIS has been prepared
pursuant to NEPA and Executive Order 11514 and in accordance with
the guidance and regulations set forth in both the Council on En-
vironmental Quality  (CEQ) guidelines of August 1, 1973 and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Final Regulations for  Prep-
aration of Environmental Impact Statements (40 FR 72, April  14,
1975).

     This EIS has been prepared on the proposed Basin Plan,  as
submitted to EPA by the applicant (i.e.,  the New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission), and is based on
currently available data and information.  The purpose of the EIS
is to describe and evaluate the probable  effects,  beneficial  and
adverse, which may be anticipated  from construction and operation
of the proposed system,  and thereby  give  meaningful consideration
to the environmental issues involved.   This  document is neither
a justification for previous decisions nor a dictation of an
ultimate solution to water quality management for  the area.
Pollution abatement is a continuous  endeavor in which Federal,
state,  county and local  governments  share the responsibility  to
achieve and maintain the water  and air quality goals mandated by
Federal and State laws.
                           xv

-------
     In accordance with the CEQ guidelines, this EIS examines
the relationship of the proposed action to land use plans,
policies, and controls of the study area.  This report examines
the population and growth assumptions used to support the pro-
ject and attempts to determine secondary population and growth
impacts resulting from the proposed action and its alternatives.
Also, the project's effects on the area's economic growth are
investigated; however, it is evident that growth is presently
occurring and is forecast to continue whether or not the pro-
posed sewerage facilities are installed.  The potential growth
inducement effects attributed to the project such as changes
in development yields, population densities, and total popula-
tion are identified and quantitatively assessed.  The subsequent
growth impacts upon the resource base, including water, air,
and use, etc., are analyzed for the affected area.

     Despite the fact that some alternatives for wastewater
treatment and various identifiable environmental impacts
(primary and secondary) may be beyond the explicit regulatory
and enforcement authority of EPA, NEPA mandates a full public
disclosure of all responsable alternatives and of their possible
environmental impacts.  This disclosure and discussion is the
intent of this EIS.  Since EPA does not have the direct author-
ity to limit land development or to dictate means of land
development, the discussion of secondary effects is presented
in order that state, county and local governments may evaluate
their related pollution problems to insure that environmentally
sound solutions for minimizing the future environmental impacts
of urban development are ultimately adopted.

     To insure that the public is kept completely informed
regarding this action, and that it participates to the fullest
extent possible in EPA's decision-making process, this EIS is
being circulated for a 45-day review as required by the CEQ
guidelines.
                           xv i

-------
                     SECTION I
   DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
The following section of the environmental impact
statement contains information concerning existing
and proposed sewage collection and treatment facili-
ties in the Winnipesaukee River Basin.  The discussion
locates the study area and defines the goals and
objectives of the proposed project.  The discussion
includes a description of the existing Laconia and
Meredith sewage treatment plants, their attendant
problems and limitations, and describes the proposed
modifications to these facilities.  Information devel-
oped in this discussion will be incorporated into the
analysis of the proposed project's environmental im-
pact (Section IV) and into the analysis of feasible
alternatives to the applicant's proposed project
(Section V).

-------
I.   DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION

A.   Background

     1.  Location and Identification of Study and Service Areas

     Area limits have been selected to clarify the discussions of
the proposed project throughout the EIS.  These limits also con-
fine discussions to areas immediately or potentially affected by
the proposed project.  For this project, the area limits are as
follows:

     Merrimack River Drainage Basin.  Figure 1-1 locates the study
     area in relation to the major drainage basins of the State of
     New Hampshire.  The proposed project is situated primarily in
     the Winnipesaukee River Basin, which is a subbasin of the
     Merrimack River Drainage Basin.

     Study Area.  The study area lies within three counties -
     Carroll, Belknap and Merrimack, and is generally confined
     to the drainage basin of the Winnipesaukee River and its
     tributaries and a portion of the drainage basins of the
     Pemigewasset and Merrimack Rivers.  The study area encom-
     passes the existing and proposed year 2020 sewer service
     areas, and is divided into a primary and a peripheral area
     as defined by Charles A. Maguire & Associates, Inc. (1972) .
      (Figure 1-2).

         Primary Study Area.  This portion of the study area
         presently has the higher population density and the
         most critical pollution problems  (Maguire, 1972).
         It includes the Townships of Franklin, Tilton, North-
         field, Sanbornton, Belmont, Laconia, Gilford, and
         Meredith.

         Peripheral Study Area.  This portion of the study area
         encompasses the less densely populated communities
         surrounding Lake Winnipesaukee.  It includes the Town-
         ships of Center Harbor, Moultonborough, Tuftonboro,
         Wolfeboro and Alton.

     Design Service Area.  The design service area includes the
     Existing Service Area and Anticipated Service Area to 2020
      (Figure 1-2).

         Existing Service Areas are those presently served by
         the treatment facilities in Laconia, Meredith, Center
         Harbor, Moultonborough and Wolfeboro.

         Anticipated Service Areas include those sectors in the
         study area where more concentrated growth and develop-
         ment are expected to occur through the year  2020.  In
                              1-1

-------
FIGURE 1-1.
MAJOR DRAINAGE DIVISIONS OF  THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SHOWING LOCATION OF THE  WINNIPESAUKEE STUDY AREA.  '
                             1-2

-------
FIGURE 1-2.   DELINEATION OF THE
              PRIMARY & PERIPHERAL
              STUDY AREAS, SHOWING
              EXISTING & PROPOSED
              2020 SEWER SERVICE
              AREAS.
         Existing Service Areas

         Proposed Service Areas
                      1-3

-------
         the primary study area, the anticipated service area
         is based on a proposed regional wastewater treatment
         system.  In the peripheral study area, the anticipated
         service area is based on several proposed local treat-
         ment systems.

     Planning Areas.  For purposes of data collection and analysis,
     the study area of the Lakes Region Planning Commission is also
     discussed.  The jurisdiction of the Commission encompasses the
     entire study area plus several adjacent townships (Figure 1-3).

     2.  Existing and Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities

     Problems associated with pollution have arisen in the Winni-
pesaukee River Basin in recent years because of the discharge into
the waterways of partially treated and untreated sewage.  Laconia,
Meredith, Center Harbor, Moultonborough, and Wolfeboro are presently
the only communities within the entire study area that provide for
treatment of wastewaters.  Franklin, Tilton, and Northfield discharge
raw domestic and industrial wastewaters ito the Winnipesaukee River
Figure 1-4 indicates the location of the existing treatment facili-
ties and raw waste discharges in the study area.

     Laconia Sewage Treatment Plant, and Collection System.  The old
     sewage treatment plant at Laconia was built in 1952 to provide
     primary treatment for an average daily waste flow of 1.6 mgd,
     with discharge to Lake WinnisguamL  In later years, excessive
     infiltration during the wet season caused flows to exceed the
     hydraulic design capacity of the plant and reduce the treat-
     ment effectiveness.  Sludge was treated, not always successfully,
     by anaerobic digestion.  The majority of wastes treated are
     domestic, with industries contributing approximately 16 percent
     of the total flow.

     Laconia is served by a sewer system which dates back to the
     late 19th century.  A system of interceptors was built in con-
     junction with the treatment plantj in 1952.  In 1967, a major
     new interceptor was constructed along the eastern shore of
     Paugus Bay to serve shoreline developments, Weirs Beach,
     and part of Gilford.  As is the case with many old sewer
     systems, infiltration and inflow  (I/I) are serious problems in
     Laconia.  And inspection and control program is underway to
     reduce the extraneous I/I waters to an acceptable level.

     Because the need to correct nutrient discharge to Lake Winnis-
     quam was considered urgent, construction of a new 4.75 mgd
     plant was begun in 1974 on the site of the old plant.  The
     basin study  (Maguire, 1972) recommended a treatment process
     that would remove 85 percent of the BOD, 70 percent of the
     total nitrogen, and 90 percent of the total phosphate from
     the raw wastes.  This was to be accomplished by a physical
     chemical treatment plant using lime and powdered activated
     carbon.  However, the activated carbon absorption process was
                                       i

                               1-4

-------
                                       I—I  Winnipesaukee River Watershed

                                     	Proposed  208 Planning Area

                                           Planning  Jurisdiction of Lak.es
                                            Region Planning Commission

                                           Townships within the Study Area
FIGUR|  1-3.
JURISDICTION OF THE  LAKES REGION
PLANNING COMMISSION  SHOWING THE
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER  WATERSHED. THE
208 PLANNING AREA, AND THE STUDY
AREA.
                                    1-5

-------
                                                                     FIGURE  1-k.   EXISTING  WASTEWATER
                                                                                   TREATMENT FACILITIES  &
                                                                                   RAW DISCHARGES.
                                                                         Treated Wastewater Discharge

                                                                         Raw Wastewater Discharge
^Belmont
                                                                                      1-6

-------
eliminated, due to subsequent budget reductions, thereby low-
ering the BOD removal capability to approximately 50 percent.

The new plant uses a physical chemical  treatment process,
as outlined in Figure 1-5.  To precipitate phosphates, a
maximum of 400 mg/1 of  lime is added before the clarifiers,
along with a coagulant  aid, if necessary.  Alkalinity and
heavy metals also are precipitated, and the resulting sus-
pension helps trap organic materials.   The mixture  is settled
in the clarifiers and the pH is adjusted using carbon dioxide.
A mixed media filter provides final polishing before the
processed wastes are chlorinated and discharged.  The sludge
is processed through sludge thickeners  and storage  tanks
which were converted from the two  anaerobic digesters of the
old treatment plant.  The sludge is then dewatered  on vacuum
filters and disposed off-site.  Lime is added to the sludge
to raise the pH to about 11 and to provide disinfection.

Construction and startup of the new plant is nearly complete.
The clarifiers are treating sewage flows of 1.8 to  2.0 mgd
and achieving phosphorus removal to 0.4 mg/1, which is more
efficient than anticipated.  The sludge dewatering  equipment,
designed to achieve a 20 percent solids content, is presently
achieving 35 percent solids content.

Effluent from the new Laconia plant is  presently discharged
via a new outfall to Lake Winnisquam.   An outfall line
discharging to the Winnipesaukee River  below Silver Lake is
planned as part of the  proposed project.

The design life of the  Laconia plant is only to about  1980,  at
which time, it is planned for connection with a regional sewage
treatment plant in Franklin.  The  Laconia plant then will
either be abandoned, except for the pump station, or maintained
as a primary treatment  plant for preventing solids  deposition
in the long interceptor lines.

Sludge is stored at the old incinerator site approximately
four miles northwest of the treatment plant.  The lime sludge
produced appears to be  inert, with little odor.  A  plan is
being developed  (Rose,  1975) to apply the sludge as a soil
conditioner to land near the Laconia Airport.   This will be
conducted as a demonstration project in cooperation with the
University of New Hampshire and will include monitoring of
both the surface and ground water  near  the site.  Should un-
acceptable conditions occur, the sludge can be landfilled
at the existing storage site.  The maximum anticipated dura-
tion of this demonstration project will be two and  one-half
years.  Ultimately, it  is planned  that  sludge will  be trucked
from Laconia for treatment at the  regional sewage treatment
plant in Franklin.
                          1-7

-------
lant
fluent
Rack
             Grit
           Chambers
                        Comrninutors
                                             Raw Sewage Pumps
                Sludge
                                                                   Lime   — Coagulants
                                                                        or
                             Carbon
                            D i ox i de"
                               >\     I
                             Recarbonation
                                Chamber
                                                        Recarbonation
                                                          I Chamber
                                                                           00
                                                                           Q)
                                                                           r>
          Filter Cake
          to Disposal
                                                                     Chlorinators
                                                                      -O
                                                               Chlorine Contact
                                                                  Chambers
                                                              Parshall Flumes
                                                                  Effluent
       FIGURE  1-5.
              LACONIA SEWAGE TREATMENT  PLANT
              FLOW DIAGRAM - PHYSICAL CHEMICAL  TREATMENT
              YEARS 1975-1985.
                                       1-8

-------
Meredith Sewage Treatment Plant and Collection Systern.
Meredith is currently served by a trickling filter plant
with a capacity of 0.262 mgd.  Treatment units include
Imhoff Tanks, a high-rate trickling filter, secondary
settling tanks, and a chlorine contact chamber.  Effluent
quality is monitored.  Sludge is dried, raw, on drying
beds.

Most of the central business district of Meredith is
sewered.  Almost all the sewage is domestic or commercial
in origin.  The only reported industrial wastes (Maguire,
1972 are 100,000 gallons per year from the American
Asbestos Corporation and 40,000 gallons per month from
two laundries.  All sewage is collected either by gravity
or by a pump station near Meredith Bay and pumped uphill
to the treatment plant located off Route 3 near Hawkins
Brook.  The 1972 sewered population was 1,400, with an average
flow of approximately 150,000 gpd, including infiltration
and industrial flows  (Maguire, 1972).  High flows occurring
during both the tourist season and spring infiltration
overload the plant and reduct treatment efficiency.

The treatment plant discharges directly to Hawkins Brook,
which flows into a pond and swamp just northwest of Route
25.  During the dry summer season the treated effluent con-
stitutes most of the flow in the brook.  In addition,
nutrients in the effluent support a large crop of duck-
weed in the pond and swamp.  A screen at the outlet of the
pond prevents weeds from entering Lake Winnipesaukee.

Center Harbor and Moultonborough Sewage Treatment Plant and
Collection System.  Center Harbor and the western part of
Moultonborough are jointly served by sewers, a pumping station
and a treatment plant, all constructed after 1965.  Sewage is
almost entirely domestic and commercial in origin.

The treatment system consists of three four-acre ponds,
operable in parallel or in series, with discharge to a small
brook tributary to Lake Winnipesaukee.  Data on effluent
quality is not available.  The design population of the ponds
is 2,500 seasonal and 700 permanent residents.  A critical
factor in the design of the ponds is the limited volume of
water available in the receiving stream during low flows.
Therefore, the ponds were designed to retain sewage flows
from May 1 to October 1, when the brook is sometimes com-
pletely dry (Maguire, 1972).

Wolfeboro Sewage Treatment Plant.  Wolfeboro has a sewer system
serving approximately 1,200 people.  The extent of the sewerage
includes most of the central business district, but only a small
                         1-9

-------
     part of the lakefront and none of the newer development
     northward along Routes 28 and 109A.  The only industrial
     discharger is Wolfeboro Products Corporation which makes
     electronic components and uses pretreatment before dis-
     charging to the sewers (Maguire, 1972).

     The town is in the process of replacing its deteriorated
     primary treatment plant with an extended aeration plant,
     followed by land disposal.  The new units include an
     aeration tank, a secondary settling tank with sludge re-
     turn to the aeration tank, and a chlorine contact chamber.
     Treated effluent will be sprayed on forested land.  The
     treatment efficiency is anticipated to be equivalent to
     that of advanced waste treatment.  The unusually large
     aeration tank is capable of storing sewage during winter
     months, when spraying is not possible.

     3.  On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems

     In areas where a centralized sewage treatment plant is not
available, disposal of wastes is limited to on-site facilities.
By far the most common of these is a septic tank/leach field
installation.  The treatment and dispersal of the waste flows in
this type of system relies upon anaerobic bacterial action in the
tank and the assimilative capacity of the soil.  While the tank
is sized mainly by the amount of flow, a number of additional
factors  (e.g. soil type, slope, depth to bedrock, height of the
high water table) influence the design.of the leach field.  In
most cases, these additional factors determine the applicability
of using septic tanks.

     In the Lake Winnipesaukee area, the low density of develop-
ment has precluded the use of municipal treatment facilities in
most instances.  Therefore, most of the residences use on-site
septic tank systems for the disposal of liquid wastes.  Although
there is no accurate count of the number of septic tank installations,
it is possible to derive some reasonable estimate.  Table 1-1 lists
for each township the total number of housing units in 1970,
divided into year-round and seasonal residences.   While the count
of the number of year-round homes is felt to be fairly accurate,
the number of seasonal houses is uncertain.  Due to the enumera-
tion procedures of the Census Bureau, in areas with a large number
of seasonal homes, many are often not counted (Section II.B.I).
It is probable, therefore, that the census count underestimates
the number of seasonal residences.  In order to determine the
number of septic tanks, the number of dwellings connected to a
public sewer must be subtracted from the total number of dwellings.
The remaining houses are assumed to be using septic tanks.  Using
this procedure, the total number of dwelling units, by township,
has been disaggregated on the basis of public sewer or on-site
septic tank use.  The results of this analysis are presented in
Table 1-2.
                             1-10

-------
                          TABLE 1-1

                 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS
                 (Source:  1970 Census)


                   Year^Round        Seasonal         Total

Alton                  157              791             948
Belmont                744              235             979
Center Harbor          187               55             242
Franklin             2,345
Gilford                994              516           1,510
Laconia              5,116              145           5,261
Meredith               991              677           1,668
Moultonborough         447             1,150           1,597
Northfield             647
Sanbornton             316              296             612
Tilton                 848               50             898
Tuftonboro             340              497             837
Wolfeboro            2,259              925           3,184
          TOTAL     15,391            5,337          17,736
 Note:  Due to the census procedures, the number of seasonal
 housing units may be significantly greater.
                            1-11

-------
                           TABLE 1-2

               1970 WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
                     Total NO.
                      of Units         Sewered        Septic

 Alton                  948                            948
 Belmont                979              290           689
 Center Harbor          242               71           171
 Franklin
 Gilford              1,510              	         1,510
 Laconia              5,261            4,467           794
 Meredith             1,668              478         1,190
 Moultonborough       1,597              170         1,427
 Northfield
 Sanbornton             612                            612
 Tilton                 898              381           517
 Tuftonboro             837                            837
 Wolfeboro            3,184              790         2,394
           TOTAL     17,736            6f,647         11,089
     The lifetime of a septic tank/leach field system is highly
variable and depends not only on the same factors that govern
the design of the leach field, but also on the type of maintenance
program used.  A system installed in an excellent natural location
will probably last much longer than one installed in an area which
is marginal or requires modification of the existing site.  The
failure rate for septic tanks in the Lake Winnipesaukee area is
difficult to determine and is probably highly dependent upon what
government regulations were in effect when the system was construc-
ted.  The first limited efforts to regulate septic tank installations
resulted in a permit program  (RSA-149-E), but this program applied
only to septic tanks within 1,000 feet of surface waters.  The
coverage of this law was then expanded in 1971 to include all new
septic tank systems within the whole state.  The law still does not
require that a registered engineer design the system as long as there
is five feet of soil above a ledge and the anticipated flow is less
than 2,500 gpd.  All systems designed prior to passage of these laws
have been unregulated.  The only data on system failures exist for
Gilford township (Table 1-3).  This data is a compilation of the
number of systems that required either replacement or repair, includ-
ing excavation.  The estimated number of septic tank systems in
Gilford is 1,510 (Table 1-2).  The average failure rate for the past
five years is 2.1 percent per year, i.e., 32.4^1510.  The highest
yearly failure rate was 2.8 percent in 1971, and the lowest rate was
1.3 percent in 1974.  Application of these extrapolated failure rates
to the other jurisdictions provides an estimate of the failure rate
for all the municipalities in the study area (Table 1-4).

                              1-12

-------
                          TABLE 1-3


       GILFORD TOWNSHIP SEPTIC TANK  SYSTEM  FAILURES*
     (Source:   Personal communication:  with Mr. Joe April,
               Gilford Town Engineer)
              Year

              1970
              1971
              1972
              1973
              1974

                             TOTAL

                             Average

              1975 (through July)

 * Requiring repair or replacement
                     Number of Failures

                             36
                             42
                             40
                             24
                             20
                             62

                             32.4  (excluding  1975)

                             17
                          TABLE 1-4

             ESTIMATED SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURES
Alton
Belmont
Center Harbor
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Moultonborough
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Low Rate
 (1.3%)

   12
    9
    2

   20
   10
   15
   19

    8
    7
   11
   31
Failures per Year

    High Rate
      (2.8%)

        27
        19
         5

        42
        22
        33
        40

        17
        14
        23
        67
Average Rate
   (2.1%)

    20
    14
     4

    32
    17
    25
    30

    13
    11
    18
    50
     TOTAL
  144
       309
   234
                            1-13

-------
       Applying the average failure rate  for Gilford over  the
  entire basin probably underestimates the actual number of
  failures.  This  is because Gilford has  a larger percentage
  of  the most suitable soils for septic tanks than any other
  township.  Table 1-5 presents a disaggregation by township of
  the general land suitability within the Merrimack River  basin
  for septic tank  use.  The land within each township has  been
  classified into  one of three suitability categories-slight,
  moderate, or severe.  Each category is defined by a composite
  set of factors imposed by the area's natural conditions  upon
  the use of leach fields.  To construct the table the general
  characteristics  that are critical to septic tank suitability,
  i.e., depth to bedrock, height of water table, etc., were com-
  piled for each township and placed on a composite map.   A
  rating system  was developed to designate the land to one of
  the three limitation categories depending upon the integrated
  set of natural constraints.  While this technique is not
  detailed sufficiently to provide design data for a specific
  site, it is very useful as a general measure of septic suit-
  ability on an areawide basis.  As indicated in Table I~5f
  every township except Gilford has moderate to severe limitations
  on  over 50 percent of their land.  Nearly half (6 out of 13) of
                            TABLE  1-5
             GENERALIZED LAND SUITABILITY FOR SEPTIC
                    TANKS BY TOWNS WITHIN THE
                MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN  (PERCENTAGE)
(Source:  N.H.  Office of Comprehensive  Planning,  (unpub.
  Alton
  Belmont
  Center Harbor
  Franklin
  Gilford
  Laconia
  Meredith
  Moultonborough
  Northfield
  Sanbornton
  Tilton
  Tuftonboro
  Wolfeboro
                         Slight
37
25

30
55
15
 5
 5
20
20
35
           Limitations
             Moderate
                                  Percentage of Land
15
90
50

20
60
45
35
15

60
55
                             1974)
             Severe
65
60
10
20
45
75
35
50
45
65
65
40
45
                               1-14

-------
the townships have severe limitations on  50  percent  or more
of their land.  The limited suitability of the  study area
septic tank use is attributed to mainly three factors:
1) low depth of soil; 2) high ground water tables for certain
times of the year; and 3) the occurrence  of  ledges or impermeable
layers of soil or bedrock close to the surface.  A number of
techniques, including large-lot zoning requirements  and construction
of "indian mounds," can be used to compensate for these limitations
but they also can significantly increase  costs.  The practice of
trying to avoid a prohibitively expensive system yet, still develop
the available land, tends to promote marginal system installations
and place excessive pressure on health officials for approval.

     Historically, as noted above, the procedures and regulations
governing septic tank installation in the study area have been
weak.  The enforcement and effectiveness  of  the law  are limited by
the amount of time available at the state level for  reviewing plans
and inspecting sites.  Within the study area only four towns, i.e.,
Gilford, Meredith, Laconia and Alton  have town engineers or local
health officials who have been designated by the State to aid in
the permitting and enforcement program.   In  all the  other towns,
applications are forwarded directly to the state.  Recently,
state officials have been keeping a list  of  those systems that were
approved, but considered "marginal," and they intend  to return at a
later date for a system inspection.  Before  this, marginal systems
were approved without notation or conditions.

     There are no recorded instances in the  Winnipesaukee area of
a public health problem resulting from septic tank malfunctions.
This is due probably more to the relatively  low density of popula-
tion and the large dilution of the lakes  than to effective operation
of septic tanks.  It is known that in Gilford, which has some of ths
best natural conditions of the area, there is a failure rate of 2
percent per year.  In other areas with more  severe geologic condi-
tions the failure rate is probably higher.   Marginal systems con-
tinue t9 be built which are also prone to failure.   And, as devel-
opment increases the area's limited environmental^ capacities will be
further taxed.  As these situations continue and compound them-
selves the probability of a serious public health problem in-
creases.  In order to avoid this possibility, the future use of
septic tanks should be strictly regulated.   Regulations should be
carried out with the goal of minimizing the  future public hazards
associated with septic tank system failures.

      Periodic  cleaning  is  required  to  remove buildups of  inert
 suspended  solids  and scum  from  septic  tanks. Assuming a  three
 year cleaning  interval,  septic  tank cleaning wastes  will  average
 approximately  300  gallon per  year per  dwelling  unit.  Thus,  the
 11,089  dwelling units  identified  in Table 1-2 for  the year  1970
 could result  in 3.3  mil gal/year  of septic  tank cleaning  wastes.
 However, it  is doubtful that  all  homeowners  follow the good
 practice of  regular  septic tank inspection  and  cleaning;  also,
 seasonal occupancy probably helps prolong the cleaning interval.
 No  exact figures  are available  for  the volume of septic tank
 wastes,  but  1  to  2 mil  gal/year appears to  be a reasonable
 estimate.
                              1-15

-------
     Septic tank cleaning wastes from all towns except Meredith
and Franklin are disposed of in Tilton at a site provided by  the
Tilton Sand and Gravel Co.  Meredith provides for disposal at its
treatment plant and the disposal location for Franklin is unknown.
The regional wastewater treatment system will provide for the
disposal of septic tank cleaning wastes (WSPCC, 1975) .  These
wastes, although suspended solids concentrations are high, have
relatively low BODg values and will have little effect on the
treatment processes.


     4.  Raw Waste Discharges

     The current raw waste discharges into the Lake Winnipesaukee
basin are occurring at Belmont,  Franklin,  Northfield and Tilton,
Table 1-6 summarizes the estimated flows and loadings at these
locations based on the findings  of several studies:  Maguire's
"Basin Plan" (1972); Fenton G.  Keyes Associates'  "Preliminary
Engineering Survey and Report on Control of Water Pollution"
(1970); Camp,  Dresser and McKee's "Report on Sewerage and Sewage
Treatment"  (1965); and Morgenroth and Associates' "Report on
Sewage and Sewage Treatment" (1967).  Adjustments have been
made to reflect discharge changes such as the discontinued
operation of the Fenwick Hosiery Mill in Belmont and the J. P.
Stevens and Company in Franklin.
                          TABLE 1-6
            SUMMARY OF  CURRENT RAW WASTE DISCHARGES
                IN THE  LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE BASIN
Location

Belmont
Franklin
Northfield
Tilton
Flow (mgd)

   0.174
   4.920
   0.113
   0.146
BOD (Ibs/day)  SS (Ibs/day)
      395
    3,722
      559
  469
2,304
                               1-16

-------
B.   Purpose of the Proposed Projects;  Goals and Objectives

     The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the quality
of surface and ground waters in the study area and to prevent
potential water quality problems through planning to meet the future
needs for sewage treatment capacity.  Also, the project is intended
to satisfy the goals and objectives of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972  (PL 92-500) as well as State and
local water quality objectives.  Provisions of PL 92-500  (Section
101) require the elimination of pollutant discharges into navigable
waters by 1985 and the development and implementation of waste
treatment management processes by each state.  National interim
water quality goals proposed the attainment of water quality which
provides for "the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water..."
 (PL 92-500).

     To achieve these goals, the objectives of the project are:
1) to eliminate the discharge from failing septic tank systems along
the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee, Paugus Bay, Lake Winnisquam,
Silver Lake, and tributary streams; 2) to permit the existing treat-
ment plants at Meredith, Laconia, and possibly Center Harbor and
Wolfeboro to be phased out; 3) to prevent the continued prolifera-
tion of on-site septic tanks in areas of poor and marginal soils;
4) to improved regional water quality management through the preven-
,tion of duplication of services; and 5) to realize the economies of
scale through coordinated implementation, and advanced planning to
assure adequate public sewer service in meeting expected future
population needs through the year 2020.
                                1-17

-------
C.   Description of the Applicant's Proposed Wastewater Treatment
     Facilities

     1.  General

     The applicant's project is proposed to implement the recommen-
dations of a 1972 study on water quality control for the Winnipe-
saukee River Basin  (Maguire, 1972) .  Based upon an in-depth study of
numerous engineering and water-quality reports, the Basin Plan pre-
sented seven (7) alternative plans for sewering the primary study
area and two (2) alternative plans for sewering the peripheral study
area.  Of the several alternatives, one, i.e., Plan B, was recom-
mended and became the basis for the proposed action.

     Briefly, the "Maguire Plan B" consisted of upgrading of the
existing treatment plant at Laconia (already accomplished), con-
struction of a  series of interceptors, and construction of a new
STP at Franklin.  When complete, sewage from all major communities
between Meredith and Franklin, i.e., Gilford, Laconia, Sanbornton,
Belmont, Tilton and Northfield will be piped to the Franklin regional
STP for treatment.  The effluent from the Franklin STP will be dis-
charged to the Merrimack River and the sludge will be disposed of
by land-fill or land spreading.  Incineration of the sludge prior
to disposal will be considered as a process alternative.  At com-
pletion of the project, the system will be in conformance with
State policy which forbids any new effluent discharge into the Lake.

     Since 1972, subsequent delays, engineering modifications and
financial considerations have caused some changes in Plan B.  Prin-
cipally, Public Law 92-500 increased the share of federal funding
and eliminated the need for phased construction.  It is now planned
to construct all elements of the project as fast as good design
and construction practices will allow.  Modified Plan B can be des-
cribed as follows:

     Phase I - Work completed 1972-1975.  Upgrade the Laconia plant
     to remove phosphates and achieve a higher BOD removal.  (This
     work was performed under a separate federal grant, and is no
     longer a part of the proposed action.)

     Phase II - Work to be completed 1975-1980.  Construct a regional
     STP at Franklin with capacity to serve the primary study area
     until 1995, with provisions for upgrading in the future.

     Construct interceptors in Franklin to serve Franklin residents.

     Construct an interceptor between Laconia and a point south of
     Silver Lake to carry the effluent from the Laconia STP to the
     Winnipesaukee River.  (The discharge to the Winnipesaukee
     River will last for an estimated 3 to 6 months.

     Extend the Franklin interceptor to collect sewage from Tilton
     and Northfield.

     Construct the Gilford and West Paugus interceptors.


                              1-18

-------
     Construct the interceptor from Tilton and Northfield
     to join the interceptor from Laconia at a point south
     of Silver Lake.  This will provide the link between
     the southern and northern halves of the system, and the
     Laconia plant then will be abandoned or modified.

     Construct interceptors to serve Meredith, Belmont and
     Sanbornton.

     The peripheral study area, including the towns of Center
Harbor, Moultonborough, Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro and Alton, was
also examined in the basin study.  It was concluded that instal-
lation of local advanced waste treatment facilities would be more
cost effective than extention of regional sewerage around Lake
Winnipesaukee.  However, in planning advanced waste treatment for
Alton and Wolfeboro, difficulties are being experienced in finding
a suitable discharge location, since New Hampshire law prohibits any
new discharge,even highly treated sewage,to any lake.*  Therefore,
it is proposed that the interceptors be constructed with suffi-
cient  excess  capacity  to  include sewage  from  the peripheral
area.

     2.  Sewage Flows

     The estimated  sewage flows in the primary study area for 1975
to 2020 are summarized in Tables 1-7 through  1-10.  Domestic sewage
flows  are greatly influenced by the  recreational character of the
study  area.   Therefore, all new facilities are being designed for
the  peak seasonal population rather  than the  permanent population.
Per  capita domestic sewage flows are assumed  (Maguire, 1972) as
follows:

              1975    -   80 gallons per capita daily  (gcd)
              1985    -   90 gallons per capita daily  (gcd)
              1995    -   100 gallons per capita daily  (gcd)
              2020    -   120 gallons per capita daily  (gcd)

     In Tables  1-7  through  1-10  the  proposed  allowance  for  industrial
flows  takes  into  account  a  substantial amount of  expansion  in the
region's industrial base.  This  expansion is  expected to be centered
in the cities of  Laconia  and Franklin and the towns of Tilton and
Northfield, which are  actively trying to attract  industries.  Recent
projections of  industrial flows are  lower than earlier estimates,
chiefly because of  the loss of J. P. Stevens  Company  in Franklin
 (Section 1-4).  These  flow reductions have been considered  in the
preparation of  Tables  1-7 through 1-10.

—*—New Hampshire  Water  Supply and  Pollution Control Commission,
     Rules and  Regulations Implementing  RSA 149, Number 16a,
     October  31,  1973.
                              1-19

-------
                           TABLE I\7

             ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS - YEAR 1975
              (.Source:  Update of Maguire, 1972)

Town
Meredith
Laconia
Gilford
Sanbornton
Belmont
Tilton
Northfield
Franklin
TOTAL
Domestic
mgd
.16
1.02
.14
—
.12
.21
.14
.55
2.34
Industrial
mgd
.02
.30
.02
—
.02
.07
.02
0,10
0.55
Infiltration
mgd
.12
.50
.10
—
.08
.16
.11
1*30
2.37
Total
mgd
.30
1.82
.26
— —
.22
.44
.27
1.9.5
5.26
                           TABLE 1-8

             ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS - YEAR 1985
              (Source:  Update of Maguire, 1972)
Town

Meredith
Laconia
Gilford
Sanbornton
Belmont
Tilton
Northfield
Franklin
Domestic
   mgd

   .31
  1.56
   .45

   .23
   .25
   .20
   .75
Industrial
    mgd

    .04
   1.01
    .04

    .03
    .08
    .06
   0.20
Infiltration    Total
	mgd	     mgd

     .20         .55
     .86        3.43
     .28         .77

     .15         .41
     .16         .49
     .13         .39
    1.40        2.35
   TOTAL
  3.75
   1-46
    3..18
8.39
                             1-20

-------
                           TABLE  1-9

             ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS - YEAR 1995
              (Source:  Update of  Maguire, 1972)
Town

Meredith
Laconia
Gilford
Sanbornton
Belmont
Tilton
Northfield
Franklin
    TOTAL
Domestic
   mgd

   .47
  2.08
   .75
   .10
   .35
   .28
   .25
   .93
  5.21
         Industrial
             mgd

              .05
             1.75
              .07
              .01
              .04
              .10
              .10
             Ot20
            2.32
              Infiltration
              	mgd

                   .28
                  1.20
                   .45
                   .06
                   .21
                   .17
                   .15
                  1-49
                              4.01
                Total
                mgd
                5,
                1,
  80
  03
  27
 .17
 .60
 .55
 .50
2.62
                            11.54
                            TABLE I-10

              ESTIMATED  SEWAGE  FLOWS  -  YEAR  2020
               (Source:  Update of Maguire, 1972)
 Town

 Meredith
 Laconia
 Gilford
 Sanbornton
 Belmont
 Tilton
 Northfield
 Franklin
Domestic
   mgd
   2.
   1,
  80
  56
  92
 .24
 .66
 .43
 .45
1.50
Industrial
    mgd

    .07
   2.03
    .16
    .02
    .06
    .20
    .20
   0.40
Infiltration    Total
	mgd	     mgd

     .40         1.27
    1.47         6.06
     .96         3.04
     .12          .38
     .33         1.05
     .22          .85
     .27          .92
    1.70         3.60.
    TOTAL
   8.56
                                3.14
                            5.47
                              17.17
                              1-21

-------
     Many of the existing sewers are old and subject to ex-
cessive infiltration and inflow (I/I).   Programs are or will be
underway in each sewered community to evaluate and correct ex-
cessive I/I.  In Tables 1-7 through 1-10 the estimated infiltra-
tion flows take into account both removal of excessive I/I in
existing sewers and addition of I/I as  the sewerage systems are
expanded.  The excess capacity allowed  for the peripheral area
is as follows:

                                 Average Flow, mgd
                     1975        1985        1995        2020

Center Harbor        0.16        0.21        0.26        0.57
Moultonborough       0.21        0.26        0.30        0.60
Tuftonboro           0.14        0.19        0.24        0.48
Wolfeboro            0.38        0.49        0.60        0.95
Alton                0.22        0.31        0.40        0.90

     All sewage was assumed to have a BOD5 of 200 mg/1, a total
nitrogen of 50 mg/1 and total phosphorus of 10 mg/1.  These are
values typical of domestic sewage.  Any industry discharging
wastes with components in excess of these concentrations, could
be required to pretreat its waste.

     3.  Interceptors

     The routes of the proposed interceptors and the design average
and maximum sewage flows are indicated in Figure 1-6.  In most cases,
interceptors will have a 20-foot permanent easement and a 50-foot
construction easement; however, these widths can be modified where
structures or topography justify smaller easements.  Because the
buried lines will be exposed to high ground water tables, most
will be constructed of reinforced concrete pipe with locking joints
in order to minimize infiltration from ground water.  All inter-
ceptors are designed to carry flows projected for the year 2020.

     Winnisquam Outfall System.  The Winnisquam outfall system,
     now in late stages of engineering design, will carry
     treated sewage from the Laconia STP to a discharge point
     on the Winnipesaukee River below Silver Lake.  After the
     Laconia plant is abandoned or modified, this same
     line will transport raw or partially treated sewage to
     the Franklin STP.

     Details of the interceptor design are discussed in other
     reports (S-E-A Consultants, Inc., 1975) and are only
     summarized here.  The outfall line will start at a pump
     station to be constructed at the site of the Laconia STP.
     A 30-inch diameter force main will cross under the Winni-
     pesaukee River and then, follow the east side of the Boston
     and Maine railroad track for a total length of 5,800 feet.
     The force main will be followed by a 60-inch diameter
     gravity sewer which will continue along the east side of
     the railroad track for most of its 31,200-foot length.
                            1-22

-------
FIGURE  1-6. PROPOSED INTERCEPT:
             SYSTEM FOR  WINNIPE-
             SAUKEE RIVER  BASIN.
   3.9!* Average Daily  Flow, MGD
       Year 2020

   ^^ Treatment Plant

    P Pumping Station

    A Temporary Discharge

  •—Gravity Flow

    •• Force Main
                    1-23

-------
The outfall will end about 1,800 feet before Route 140.
The center of the interceptor will be placed 16 feet
from the center of the railroad track.

Franklin Interceptors.  The main Franklin interceptor,
which will ultimately carry most of the basin's sewage,
will start at the Boston and Maine  (B&M) railroad, near
the eastern town line.  It will parallel the railroad
into town, then follow the bank of the Winnipesaukee River
(while the railroad crosses and re-crosses the River) and
then rejoin the railroad and turn south.  At some points
along this latter stretch, the interceptor will cut through
city streets to achieve a slope more favorable for gravity
flow.  The sewer will finally follow the railroad through
the Franklin sanitary landfill and enter the Franklin treat-
ment plant site.

The Pemigewasset interceptor will start on the west bank
of the pemigewasset River^ an£ f0now the river bank south-
ward for about a half mile.  It will then cross under the
Pemigewasset and Winnipesaukee Rivers by means of two
inverted siphons and join the main Franklin interceptor
near the sanitary landfill.

Completion of the Franklin interceptors will eliminate
existing raw sewage discharges from Franklin into both
the Pemigewasset and Winnipesaukee Rivers.

Tilton-Northfield Extention.  This will be an extention
of the Franklin interceptor along the B&M raiiroaa between
Tilton and Northfield.  In Tilton, the sewer will diverge
from the railroad and pass down the main street of town,
then cross the Winnipesaukee River at a parking lot opposite
Citizen's National Bank, and rejoin the railroad in North-
field.  Completion of this interceptor will eliminate raw
sewage discharges from Tilton and Northfield into the Winni-
pesaukee River.
                   i
West Paugus Interceptor.  The.West Paugus Interceptor will
collect sewage from the Meredith and Gilford interceptors,
and from Weirs Beach (which now discharges to the Laconia
sewers).  Starting at Weirs Beach, the line will follow the
B&M railroad along the west shore of Paugus Bay.  Causeways
across Moulton and Pickerel Cpves will be widened.  A pump-
ing station located two-thirds down Paugus Bay will pump the
seWage across the gold coursejto the north shore of Opechee
Bay.  Another pump station located halfway down Opechee Bay
will provide enough lift to bring the sewage to the Laconia
plant.
                        1-24

-------
Gilford Interceptor.  The Gilford interceptor starts near
the eastern township line near Ellacoya State Park and
follows the shore of Lake Winnipesaukee to Weirs Beach.-
Much of the route is along an old abandoned railroad right-
of-way.  Pumping stations at Ellacoya, Smith's Cover,
Gilford Marina and Pendleton Beach will provide energy
to move the sewage along the Lake.  Because the land between
the steep hillsides and the Lake is narrow in many places,
the sewer will pass close to a number of houses, but none
will be torn down.  This interceptor will collect sewage
from one of the most heavily developed sections of shoreline
on Lake Winnipesaukee, including several marinas.  Governors
Island, located just east of Pendleton Beach,could also be
served by the interceptor.

In the original design  (Maguire, 1972), the Gilford inter-
ceptor was very limited in length, extending only from the
Gilford Marina in Sanders Bay to Belknap Point  (approximately
5.25 miles east of the Marina).  An interceptor from Sanders
Bay would have run towaras the Laconia Airport, where it
would have connected with the Laconia sewers.  This system
would have left the heavily populated Winnipesaukee shoreline
from Weirs Beach to Sanders Bay unsewered.   Because diffi-
culties are now being encountered in finding a suitable land
disposal site for the proposed STP at Alton, there is a
possibility that Alton will have to join the regional system
instead of constructing its own treatment plant.  In this case,
the proposed sewerage in Alton would have to be extended
along the Winnipesaukee shoreline and connect to the Gilford
interceptor.  Under the original design, the Laconia sewers
could not handle the increased flow anticipated from Alton,
so the Gilford interceptor was rerouted along the shoreline
to Weirs Beach, where it will tie into the regional system.

Meredith Interceptor.  The Meredith interceptor will start
at the existing pump station in Meredith and paralleling
the Meredith Bay shoreline, follow the B&M right-of-
way to Weirs Beach.  Construction of this line will allow
the treatment plant at Meredith to be abandoned.

Laconia Connection.  The Franklin interceptor will be ex-
tended northeastward along the B&M railroad to join the
Winnisquam outfall.  This will allow sewage from the com-
munities northeast of Tilton-Northfield to be treated at
the Franklin STP and will permit abandonment, or modifica-
tion of the Laconia STP.
                         1-25

-------
Belmont Interceptor.  The Belmont interceptor will start
in the Belmont Village area and proceed westward for
approximately two miles along an abandoned railroad right-
of-way on the south side of the Tioga River to Route 140.
Then, the interceptor will follow Route 140 the remainder
of the way to the Laconia Connection.  It is anticipated
that the Belmont interceptor will carry wastewater by
gravity flow for the entire length of the route.  However,
there may be a possible need for a pump station at the
extreme western end of the route.

The essential features of the Belmont interceptor align-
ment are:  (1) four stream crossings; (2) two road cross-
ings;  (3) a requirement for additional fill material to
increase the width of Route 140's shoulder; and (4) the
necessity to make two cuts of 15 foot depth along Route
140's shoulder.
                      1-25.a

-------
    Sanbornton Interceptor.  The Sanbornton interceptor will
    follow the west shore of Lake Winnisquam for about three
    miles, cross the Route  3 bridge over Lake Winnisquam, and
    then join the Winnisquam outfall.

    4.  Treatment Plants

    Laconia STP.  The  Laconia  sewage treatment plant is de-
    signed for interim use  until regional sewage treatment
    can be provided at Franklin.  The plant was constructed as
    a demonstration project using physical chemical treatment.
    The need for phosphate  removal at the Laconia STP was
    considered urgent, as the  plant discharges to Lake Winnis-
    quam, and the Lake is rapidly eutrophying.  Section I.A.2.
    describes the Laconia STP  in greater detail.

    The STP will have  a  1985 average daily flow of 4.75 mgd
     (=7.35 cfs).  Table  1-11 summarizes the effluent limita-
    tions for the plant.  The  STP is designed to produce a
    discharge with quality  equivalent to or better than the
    effluent limitations.

    In about 1980, when  the proposed interceptor to Franklin is
    completed, the Laconia  plant, except for the pump station,
    will be abandoned  or modified.  If continued as a primary
    treatment plant,  it  will remove settleable solids from
    the waste flows,  thereby helping prevent solids deposition
    in the interceptors  during low  flows.  Other processes,
    such as grit removal and chlorination might also be re-
    tained.  Some units  may be salvaged for use at the Franklin
    STP.  These decisions will depend on economics and sewage
    characteristics.
                          TABLE I- 11

    EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE LACONIA TREATMENT PLANT
                      (Source:  NHWSPCC)

                            Maximum          Maximum      Maximum
Parameter                   Monthly           Weekly      Any Time
                         mg/1Ib/day    mg/1   Ib/day     mg/1

5-day BOD                 30    1188.5     45    1782.7      50
Total Suspended Solids    15     594.2     20     792.3      25
Settleable Solids         N/A      N/A     0.1 ml/1          0.3 ml/1
Total Phosphorus          1.0      N/A     N/A               2.0
Total Coliform            Less than  240/100 ml at all times
pH                        6.5 £ pH £ 8.0 at all times
                             1-26

-------
    Franklin STP.  The Franklin plant site is located near
    the sanitary landfill approximately two miles down the
    Merrimack River from Franklin.   Although physical
    chemical treatment was originally recommended  (Maguire,
    1972) , it has been determined that an activated sludge
    plant could meet the existing effluent limits, and at
    a reduced cost.  Thus, although not yet fully designed,
    the Franklin plant will use the conventional activated
    sludge process with anaerobic sludge digestion.  Figure
    1-7 shows a typical flow diagram for this process.
    The plant will be designed to meet or exceed the effluent
    limitations defined for 40 CFR 133 for secondary treatment
    (Table 1-12 ) .
                          TABLE  I*-12

    EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS  FOR THE FRANKLIN  TREATMENT  PLANT
                    (Source:   40CFR  133)

                            Maximum           Maximum
Parameter                   Monthly           Weekly
	                     mg/1             mg/1

5-Day BOD                     30               45
Suspended Solids              30               45
Fecal Coliform             200/100 ml       400/100  ml
pH                         6.0 £ pH  < 9.0  at-all times
    5.   Effluent Disposal

    Laconia Outfall  Below  Silver  Lake.   For  approximately  a  3  to
    6 month period between completion of the Winnisquam Outfall
    of  the Laconia Connection  (See  Section  I.C.3)  treated  efflu-
    ent from the Laconia STP will be discharged  to the  Winnipe-
    saukee River about 1,800 feet northeast  of Route  140.  A
    diffuser outfall will  insure  an even dispersion of  the
    effluent in the  river.

    The Laconia plant will have a 1985  average daily  flow  of
    4.75 mgd (7.35 cfs)  and effluent characteristics  equivalent
    to  or better than the  effluent  limitations  (Table 1-11).
                              1-27

-------
Plant
Influent
           Rack
                      Grit                   Raw  Sewage Pumps
                      Chambers   Communitors         _-Q__
       Sludge
       Flotatio
       hickene
                                                                   Secondary
                                                                   Clarifier
                              Secondary
                              Clarifier
                                                                              Scum
            To Sanitary
             Landfill
                                                                   Chlorinators
                                                                     o
                                                             Chlorine Contact
                                                              Chambers
                                                           Plant Effluent
                                                LJ  1975 Construction
                                                    Future Construction
      FIGURE  1-7.
BASIN  WASTES  TREATMENT FACILITIES AT  FRANKLIN
FLOW DIAGRAM  - ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
                                      1-28

-------
Flow in the Winnipesaukee River is maintained, by use
of a dam, at 200 cfs minimum.  The section of the river
from Silver Lake to below Route 140 is relatively calm,
and has a number of sandbars.  When Route 140 was re-
cently widened at its river overpass, a new channel was
cut through an ox-bow of the river and the remains of
this ox-bow still exist as a quiet backwater.  The section
of river below Route 140 has a series of rapids which con-
tinue beyond the Tilton area.  Due to this variable nature
and rate of flow of the river, there will be good mixing
and reaeration of the plant effluent once it passes Route
140 and the quiet stretch of water.

Franklin Outfall.  The discharge of the Franklin plant
will be to the Merrimack River, below the proposed plant
site.  At this point, the river flow divides into two
channels around an island.  The exact discharge location
in relation to this island has not yet been selected.

At the plant's full capacity, the flow will be 11.5 mgd
and will have constituents in concentrations equivalent
to or lower than those of the prescribed effluent limita-
tions (Table 1-12).

6.  Sludge Handling

Laconia.  At its design capacity of 4.75 mgd, the
physical chemical treatment process will produce 120,000
pounds of dry solids per week.  At the design solids con-
tent of 20 percent, the sludge would have a total weight
of 600,000 pounds per week.  However, the plant is currently
achieving a 35 percent solids content, which would amount
to 340,000 pounds per week total weight.  Assuming a constant
flow increase to its design capacity, the Laconia plant will
thus produce a total of 14 to 25 acre-feet of sludge over its
lifetime of five years.


The State's current plans, described in Section I.e.6., are to
apply sludge as a soil conditioner at the Laconia Airport.
This project would consume a total of about 10 acre-feet
of sludge.  It was originally planned to truck the remain-
ing 4 to 15 acre-feet of sludge to Franklin for lime
recovery, but this is no longer likely due to a modifica-
tion in the proposed Franklin treatment process, i.e., to
activated sludge.  Instead, it will be placed in a sani-
tary landfill of 5 to 20 acre-feet in volume including
cover.  Based on a regional study of solid wastes (Metcalf &
Eddy, 1974), this would increase the cumulative 1985 sani-
tary landfill needs of Laconia, Meredith and Gilford
up 2 percent.  At present, the site for the landfill has
not been chosen.
                          1-29

-------
Franklin.  A typical activated  sludge plant with  anaerobic
digestion and vacuum filter dewatering will produce  1,400
pounds of dry solids per million  gallons  of sewage.  At  its
full capacity of 11.5 mgd, the  Franklin plant will produce
disposal approximately  8.4 acre-feet per  year of  dewatered
sludge.

During the past several months  the  New Hampshire  Water Supply
and Pollution Control Commission  has been reviewing  all
feasible alternatives for the disposal of sludge  that will
be generated at this plant.  A  decision was reached, during
the later part of  October, to use land application for the
final disposal of  the digested  sludge.

Two methods of land application for the final disposal of
digested sludge are being considered.  The first  being through
application of wet digested  sludge  directly to  land  to provide
soil enrichment in areas used for ensilage crops.  The second
method is disposal through trenching and  backfilling.

The area proposed  for either method would be immediately
adjacent to the proposed treatment  plant. The  land  is currently
owned by the City  of Franklin.  They have provided the Commission
with an  easement of 50  acrea of the total 22 acres that  they
have under ownership.   They  have  also advised them that  as
much of  the 220 acres as will be  needed can also  be  obtained.

Much of  the area is currently being actively farmed  through
growing  of corn which is for livestock ensilage.

It  is proposed that the digested  sludge be spread in the
same concentration as it comes  from the digesters through
the use  of a tank  truck and  proper  spraying devices.  The
application rate would  be  approximately  20 tons of dry solids
per acre per year. Based  upon  this application rate, we
have estimated that approximately 73 acres of  land would be
necessary to accommodate anticipated digested  sludge production
during the initial 10 years  of  plant operation.  This area
is  available at the plant  site.

There would be an  expansion  of  the  current agricultural  uses
of  the area through planting and  harvesting  ensilage crops.

While this method  of  disposal would require  more  land than
the alternative method, the  land is available,  cost  of
application is relatively  low,  and it  has the  advantage  of
returning organic  and nutritive substances to  the soil.   The
digested sludge would be  relatively free of  pathogens  and
produce  little or  no  odor.
                           1-30

-------
     An alternative method of disposal of vacuum dried or centrifuged
     digested sludge would be through development of trenching
     and burial.   Under this method,  trenches approximately 10 feet
     wide and 6 feet deep would be excavated to an estimated length
     of approximately 500 feet.  Digested sludge would be placed
     in the trench to a depth of 5 feet with a one foot layer of^
     cover material.  The first 10 years of operation would require
     a total of approximately 16 acres.

     The only advantage that this alternative method would have
     over the proposed method would be that less land area would
     be required.   This advantage is, however, a minor one since
     land for the  first method is available at a very modest cost.
     The cost of excavation, filling, and cover would be much greater
     than that of  the proposed method.  A second, and more serious
     disadvantage  of this alternative would be that the very
     considerable  value of the sludge would be irretrievably lost
     through burial.

     Further studies are necessary to determine the potential
     environmental impact of these proposed methods.  The Commission
     intends to utilize the EPA draft Technical Bulletin on Municipal
     Sludge Management for guidance for this evaluation.  The
     information contained in these studies will be incorporated
     into the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

     7.  Costs

     Since the original cost estimate was made for Plan B (Maguire,
1972), inflation has caused construction costs to escalate sharply.
Table 1-13 shows the change in cost indices since the original
December, 1971, estimate.  To bring the costs of the proposed
project into proper perspective, all were scaled to the latest
appropriate EPA index.
                              TABLE 1-13

       COST ESCALATION SINCE DECEMBER 1971  ($  MILLION DOLLARS)
   Cost                  Value
   Index                 Dec.71       Current Value         Ratio

   ENR Construction Cost   1,950*   2,290 Jul  75              1.388
   EPA Sewage  Treatment      159    240.3 Apr  75  (Boston)     1.511
     Plant
   EPA Sewer                 166    265.5 Apr  75  (Boston)     1.599

   * Maguire, 1972
                              1-30. a

-------
     Several modifications to Plan E have affected the original
cost estimate.  The Gilford interceptor has been rerouted and in-
creased in size to accommodate possible flows from Alton.  The
Franklin plant has been reduced in size from 13.5 mgd to 11.5
mgd and will use the activated sludge process rather than physical
chemical treatment.  Finally, the Laconia plant has eliminated
usage of activated carbon.  The costs for these modifications were
estimated by procedures similar to those of the original estimate
or by applying appropriate scaling factors.

     Table 1-14 shows the estimated cost of Modified Plan B.
All capital costs include 25 percent for engineering and
contingency.
                               1-30.b

-------
                           TABLE 1-14

    ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Modified plan B),
               (Source:  Update of Maguire,  1972}


Capital Costs                        Cost**  (April,  1975)

  Item
  Interceptors:
    Meredith                              $ 3,298,000
    West Paugus                             7,975,000
    Laconia-Tilton                          9,334,000
    Tilton-Franklin                         9,594,000
    Franklin-STP                            6,056,000
    Gilford*                                5,800,000
    Belmont                                 2,698,000
    Sanbornton                              1,339,000
    Pemigewasset                            4,757,000

    Sub-Total                             $50,851,000


    Franklin STP                           12,259,000
    TOTAL                                 $63,110,000

Operation & Maintenance                   Annual Cost	

  Item                                1985           1995


    Franklin STP                   $490,000        634,000

   Includes 25% for engineering and contingencies
**
                              1-31

-------
                      SECTION II



            EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING


 The following section of the environmental impact
 statement contains a description of the current
 environmental setting of the Winnipesaukee River.
 The environmental setting is discussed in the fol-
 lowing sub-sections:

                  Natural Ehvironment

                    Climate

                    Air Quality

                    Geology

                    Topography

                    Soils

                    Hydrology

                    Biology

                    Aesthetics

                    Historical and Archaeological  Features

                    Environmentally  Sensitive Areas

                 Social and Economic Environment

                    Population Characteristics.

                    Land Use

                    Economy

                   Community,Services

Information developed in this discussion will be
incorporated into the analysis of the proposed
project's environmental impact  (Section IV) and into
the analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed
project (Section V).

-------
II.   ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

 A.   Natural Environment

     The natural environmental setting of the study area and its
 constraints upon future development are described in the fol-
 lowing sections.  This information provides the basis for
 evaluating many of the environmental impacts resulting from the
 construction and operation of a proposed regional sewerage sys-
 tem in the Winnipesaukee River basin.

     1.  Climate

     The Winnipesaukee basin has a north humid continental cli-
 mate characterized by cold winters, moderately warm summers
 and abundant, well-distributed precipitation.  Climatic con-
 ditions are influenced by both the prevailing westerly winds
 and storms which pass over the basin coming from the west or
 southwest or traveling up the Atlantic coast.  Differences in
 elevation and topography produce some local variation in tem-
 perature and precipitation  (NHWSPCC, 1973).  High areas gen-
 erally receive more precipitation and have a wider range of
 temperature extremes.

     The National Weather Service operates only one monitoring
 station in the Winnipesaukee Basin, and it is located at
 Lakeport in Laconia.  The average annual temperature at Lake-
 port is 46°F.  Temperatures range from less than -25°F to  the
 high 90's.  Average monthly temperatures range from 20.4°F in
 January to 70.3°F in July (Table II-l).  The length of the
 growing season is variable throughout the study area depending
 upon proximity to the lakes and local differences in elevation
 (Kitchel, et al. 1963).  In the vicinity of Laconia the aver-
 age date of the last killing frost occurs between May 10 to
 May 30, while the average date of the first killing frost
 occurs between September 30 and October 15.  Killing frosts
 have occurred as early as August or as late as June.

     Average annual precipitation at Lakeport is 40-4 inches.
 Average monthly precipitation ranges from 2.76 inches in
 February to 4.51 inches in November, and is fairly evenly
 distributed throughout the year (Table II-l).  Slightly higher
 monthly amounts are generally recorded in the fall and late
 spring.  Thunderstorms produced by local convective activity,
 tropical hurricanes and continental storms originating in the
 western or central portions of the United States are often
 accompanied by substantial rainfalls.  Snow usually covers
 the ground during the entire winter.  Average annual snowfall
 at Laconia is approximately 80 inches.  Large amounts of snow-
 fall are generally recorded in the mountainous areas around
 the perimeter of the Winnipesaukee basin.  The spring snow
 melt coupled with slightly increased amounts of precipiatation
 often results in flooding.
                              II-l

-------
                         TABLE II-l


        MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND TEMPERATURE
           AT LAKEPORT, NEW HAMPSHIRE 1941-1970

                 (Source:  USDC NOAA, 1974)
January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December
Temperature
   (°F)

   20.4

   22.0

   31.7

   44.0

   55.7

   65.4

   70.3

   68.2

   60.4

   50.1

   38.3

   25.0
Precipitation
  (inches)

    2.84

    2.76

    3.15

    3.12

    3.64

    3.7

    3.41

    3.04

    3.57

    3.17

    4.51

    3.49
Annual
Mean
    46.0
    40.4
                            Summary

      The  study area  is  influenced by the weather patterns
 which dominate the Northeast Atlantic Region.   Streams
 and rivers  are susceptible to flooding in the  spring when
 snow melt is  accompanied by slightly increased amounts of
 rainfall.
                              II-2

-------
     2.  Air Quality

     The study area lies within the Central New Hampshire Air
Quality Control Region  (AQCR).  The State of New Hampshire Imple-
mentation Plan has defined this region as Priority III for all
pollutants for planning purposes, meaning that the measured or
estimated air quality in the  region is currently within all
national standards.  No Transportation Control Plan was required
implying that no special restrictions are needed to attain or
maintain the standards for mobile source pollutants  (carbon
monoxide, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons, and oxides of
nitrogen).  Also, the study area is not a designated "Air Quality
Maintenance Area"  (AQMA) because it is not a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area  (SMSA).

     Air quality data for the study area is very limited as moni-
toring, which began in 1973,  pertains only to measurement of
suspended particulates.  There are only two monitoring stations
in the Winnipesaukee basin.   One is located at the municipal
building in downtown Laconia, and the other at the school in
Tilton.  The available data is summarized in Table II-2.

                          TABLE II-2

                     AIR QUALITY DATA FOR
                 THE WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN

        (Source:  State Department of Health and Welfare
                    Air Pollution Agency)


                Laconia         Tilton         National   National
                  1973   1974   1973    1974   Primary  Secondary

Suspended
  Particulate
  Matter

  -annual         51      43      38      34      75        60
   geometric
   mean,
  -24-hour*      126     230     132     108     260       150
   maximum,
*not to be exceeded more than once per year.


     The National Primary Air Quality Standards have been es-
tablished to protect public health while the goal of the more
stringent secondary standards is the protection of public welfare.
Because the existing data is not based on a continuous monitor,
                              II-3

-------
it cannot be stated whether or not either standard was violated.
The only significant reading was 230 mg/m3 at Laconia in 1974.
However, the next highest reading at Laconia that year was only
110 mg/m3.  A more comprehensive monitoring program is needed
to determine if any standards were violated or if the high reading
at Laconia was merely an aberation.

     The principle sources of suspended particulates are heavy
construction and combustion activities, such as the burning of
coal or sludge.  Since these monitoring stations are located in
the more industrialized and populated portion of the study area,
they probably represent the worst conditions that will be ex-
perienced in the vicinity of Lake Winnipesaukee.

     In addition, there are other factors which may directly af-
fect air quality in the study area.  Concentration and disper-
sal of pollutants is very dependent upon prevailing local
meteorological conditions.  During the winter these conditions
are usually unstable and the increased turbulence promotes dis-
persal of pollutants.  In the summer stagnant high pressure
areas may develop which contain and concentrate pollutants.
This could become critical if it coincided with the summer influx
of seasonal visitors, when the greatest amounts of pollutants are
likely to be emitted.

     Another factor which is important on a microscale level is
the influence of topography upon air movement patterns and hence
pollutant concentrations.  Under certain meteorological condi-
tions a combination of mountains and valleys can function like
a bowl to trap and retain the pollutants emitted in that area.
This would be a very localized effect and would most likely occur
in the vicinity of a significant pollution source.

     3.  Geology

     The geology of the study area is described to provide a
basis for the analysis of the area's topography, soils, and
ground water resources.  The topography of the study area is
the surface manifestation of geologic and hydrologic pro-
cesses  such as subsidence and emergence, and erosion and sedi-
mentation.  The weathering of geologic formations is a pri-
mary source of the area's soils.  The porosity and the perme-
ability of bedrock formations are primary factors determining
the area's ground water resources.

     The Winnipesaukee River basin lies entirely within the
Appalachian geologic province.  It was formed by the excavation
of a weak, more erodible expanse of granite.  On the other hand,
the Belknap, Red Hill and Ossipee Mountains around the margin  of
the lowland area were formed from more erosion resistant rocks.
All of  the bedrock in the basin was formed in the Paleozoic
period.  Compacted marine sediments slid and broke along great
faults, then were intruded from below by molten magma and
finally, were converted into metamorphic rocks.  Erosion, uplift
                                 II-4

-------
and glaciation are the forces largely responsible for the
existing surficial geologic features of the area.  The
lithology of the principal formations in the study area is
discussed below.

    Bedrock Geology.  Major bedrock units underlying the low-
    land portion of the basin are the Devonian Littleton
    Formation and New Hampshire Magma Series, the latter in-
    cluding Kinsman quartz monozite and quartz diorite.
    Kinsman quartz monozite and quartz diorite were formed
    when liquid magma intruded into the Littleton schist and
    then cooled and solidified.  The bedrock units underlying
    the study area are delineated in Figure II-l.

        The Littleton formation has a complex and varied
        lithology.  In the Winnipesaukee area it consists of
        schists formed by the metamorphosis of shales and
        argillaceous sediments.  It contains gray micacious
        quartzite, gray coarse-grained mica schist with min-
        erals such as biotite, garnet sellimanate and gray
        gneisses.

        Kinsman quartz monozite consists of dark-gray to light
        gray medium to coarse-grained biotite quartz monozite.
        It is massive to well  foliated and in many places it
        contains phenocrysts of potash feldspar one to two
        inches  long.  In the Winnipesaukee area it includes
        the Meredith granite.

        Quartz  diorite consists of dark gray to gray medium-
        grained biotite quartz diorite.  It is massive to well
        foliated and  includes  some diorite, granodiorite and
        quartz monozite.  The  Winnipesaukee quartz diorite is
        a weak  rock which has  been severely eroded.

        The Ossipee, Belknap and Red Hill Mountains were formed
        by later intrusions of molten magma and volcanic extru-
        sions of molten magma  and volcanic extrusions which
        occurred during the Mississippian Period.  The rocks are
        referred to as the White Mountain Magma  Series.  The
        Ossippee Mountains were formed by the intrusion of mol-
        ten material  into great circular cracks producing a
        circular pattern or ring dike.  Volcanic action was
        also part of the mountain building process in the
        Ossippees.  The Belknaps were produced by a series of
        molten  surges resulting in a pattern of nested, cres-
        cent ring dikes.  Red  Hill was produced by similar in-
        trusions and volcanic  action.  The rocks in this series
        appear  grouped together in great variety in relatively
        small areas and are mapped as a single unit in Figure II-l.

    Surficial Geology.  Several previous cycles of erosion,
    uplift and giaciation have resulted in the diverse surface
    geology of the Winnipesaukee basin.  Very little erosion
    has taken place in recent  time.  During the Pleistocene

                            II-5

-------
FIGURE II-l.   BEDROCK GEOLOGY
       [Source:  Bill ings, 1968]
     I	1  Littleton Formation

     121  Kinsman  Quartz Monozite

     •  Quartz Dforite

     ^  White Mountain Magma Series
                II-6

-------
    Period, as the Wisconsin glacier moved in a northwest to
    southeast direction, it crossed the study area carving
    out of the Winnipesaukee basin from the weak granite
    masses and scouring the rock surfaces.  Glacial till was
    deposited beneath the ice sheet and during times when
    the ice melted.  Today, a fairly continuous layer of till
    covers most of the study area to an average depth of 32
    feet; however, in the mountains and hilly areas some bed-
    rock ledges are exposed.

    Glacial till is an extremely dense, hetrogeneous mixture
    of clay, silt, sand, pebbles and boulders.  These deposits
    are differentiated on the basis of their topographic ex-
    pression and the nature of their component materials.
    The different types of surficial deposits are delineated
    in Figure II-2 and described below.

        Ground Moraine consists of unstratified till and over-
        lies the bedrock throughout most  of the study area.

        Drumlins are elongated, streamlined hills of glacial
        till or a veneer of till over small bedrock hills.

        Boulder trains are fan-shaped areas of dispersion
        which can be traced to a single source based on grain
        size of a distinct mineral type.

        Stratified gravel and sand or sandy desosits include
        Kanies, eskers and outwash plains.  These deposits
        generally contain very little clay.

        Glacial outwash areas and recent  stream deposits con-
        sist of stratified sand and silt  laid down by melt-
        water streams and recent streams.

    Mineral Resources.  The bedrock of the area is mined for
    materials needed in highway construction, building, decor-
    ative  stone and ceramincs  (Goldthwait, 1968).  Weathered
    syenite, called rottenstone, is excavated for highway sub-
    fill, while rocks containing feldspar and quarried for use
    i$ ceramics.  Granite is quarried in  many places for use
    ill building activities and as decorative stone.  Sand and
    gravel are mined and used for many purposes.

                           Summary

    The geology of the study area is dominated by two meta-
morphic formations:  the Littleton formation and the White
Mountain Magna Series.  Kinsman quartz monozite and quartz
diorite intrude the Littleton formation in the northwest corner
of the primary study area and along all bodies of water.  The
White Mountain Magna Series predominates  in the Gilford portion
of the primary study area and selected locations in the peripheral
study,area.


                          II-7

-------
FIGURE  II-2.  SURFACE GEOLOGY,
               WlNNIPESAUKEE STUDY
               AREA.
        Ground Moraine

        Drum!ins

        Boulder Trains

        Stratified Grave) and Sandy
        Gravel

        Glacial Outwash and Recent
        Stream Deposits
         II-8

-------
    4.  Topography

  i  Dominant topographic features of the study area include
the lowlands in which Lake Winnipesaukee lies and the moun-
tains which border these lowlands.  The terrain ranges from
steep ledges to the gentle slopes of the lowlands.  Much of
the area is characterized by rolling hills dissected by
streams.  Numerous lakes and ponds, formed as a result of
glacial action occur within the study area.  Elevations range
from approximately 330 feet above mean sea level  (msl) at the
bottom of Lake Winnipesaukee to almost 3,000 feet above msl
in the Ossipee Mountains.

    The lowland areas surrounding the northern and north-
eastern margins of Lake Winnipesaukee and adjacent to Paugus
Bay, Silver Lake, Lake Winnisquam and the Winnipesaukee River
generally have slopes of less  than  eight percent  (Figure II-3)
Bed Hill, Ossipee, and Belknap Mountains contain most of the
areas with slopes greater than 25 percent, although steep
lodges and small areas of slopes greater than 25  percent are
found throughout the basin.  The remainder of the study area
generally has slopes between 9 and  14 percent with a  few
scattered areas of slopes between 15 and 24 percent.

    A wide range of channel slopes  are found within the basin.
Waterfalls and rapids have formed at points where streams
hive cut down to the bedrock.  Relatively flat, swampy areas
at the headwaters of many of the  small streams have been
formed.
  I
    5.  Soils

    The U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation  Service  (SCS)  published a
comprehensive soil survey of Merrimack County in  1965, and a
similar study of Belknap County in  1968.  A soil  survey has
nkt been published for Carroll County; however, information
for this analysis has been gathered from a general publica-
tion prepared by the State of  New Hampshire  (State of New
Hampshire, 1968).  Five main soil associations are described
for Belknap County? five are described for Merrimack; and,
fbur are described for Carroll County.  These soil associa-
tions are shown in Figure II-4.  Each major soil  association
contains those soils from which the association s name is
derived.  Several minor soils  may also occur within each
soil association.
                          II-9

-------
FIGURE  II-3. SLOPES
   [Source:  NHOSP  & NERBE,  1975]
           11-10

-------
FIGURE
         -*.  SOIL  ASSOCIATIONS
             LAKE  rt INNIPESA j'E
             STUDY AREA .
 [Source: U.S.  Dept. of Agri c-j 1 1 jr
   Soil  Conservation Ser/icel
     Windsoi—Hinckley-Au Gres

     Gloucester-Shapleigh-Whi tnan

     Hermon-Becket-Canaan

     Gloucester-Paxton-Shapleigh

     Paxton-Shapleigh-Woodbricge

     Gloucestei—Shaple igh-Acton

     Ondawa-Wi ndsor-Agawam

|I   Gloucester-Shapleigh
                 11-11

-------
    The major soil associations for the Belknap County portion
of the study area are as follows:

    The Windsor-Hinckley-Au-Gres Association is the smallest
    of the major associations on the County.  The association
    is usually found as narrow strips along rivers and streams.
    The Windsor and Hinckley soils are excessively drained
    and the Au Gres soils are poorly drained; however, all
    are coarsely textured.  Stones, boulders and rock out-
    crops are absent from this soil association.  On a county-
    wide basis, the soils of this association were farmed
    in the past, but now approximately 75 percent of the
    association is forested.

    The Gloucester'-Shapleigh.-TOiitinan Association occupies
    approximately Ib percent or the county.  TEe
    association is generally confined to the northwest.
    Gloucester and Shapleigh soils are somewhat ex-
    cessively drained and Whitman1soils are very poorly
    drained.  All the component soils are moderately coarse
    textured.  Stones and outcrops of bedrock are common in
    this association.  The  stony nature of the soil prohibits
    extensive farming.  On  a county-wide basis, approximately
    85 percent of this associatioh is forested.

    The Shapleigh-Gloucester Association occupies about 18
    percent of the County.   This association is found in the
    steepest and rockiest sections.  Both soils in the asso-
    ciation are somewhat excessively drained.   Rock outcrops
    are numerous within this association.   Because of the
    stony nature of the soil,  its (use is limited.   Nearly
    all of this association is forested  and its main uses  are
    for woodland and wildlife  habitat.

    The Paxton-Shapleigh-Woodbridge Association is the largest
    in Belknap County,  covering about 45 percent of the total
    acreage.  This association generally occurs on smooth,  broad
    hills.  Paxton soils are deep and well drained.   Shapleigh
    soils are shallow and somewha-f; excessively drained.  Wood-
    bridge soils are moderately well drained.   Paxton and Wood-
    bridge soils have a pan layer japproximately two feet below
    the surface.  The most extensive farming in the County  occurs
    on this association.   The  soils are  suitable for dairy  and
    poultry farming, truck gardening and apple orchards.  On a
    county-wide basis,  approximately 80  percent of this  associ-
    ation is forested.
                           11-12

-------
                                                  comprising about
                 u            are medium textured   The Paxton
     and  Shapleigh soils have a pan layer two feet below the
     surface.   Farming in this association is limited by outcrops
     ana  stone.   On a county-wide basis, 85 percent of this  asso-
     ciation is forested.
 •   ^?he./°i:!-0wing are the maJ°r soil associations  occurring with-
 in  the  Merrimack County portion of the study area:

     The Herman-Canaan-Colton Association is  found  in  the  hilly
     and mountainous areas in the western part of Merrimack
     County.   The Herman soils,  somewhat excessively well  drained
     to  well  drained, are deep sandy soils in the glacial  till.
     Canaan soils are shallow, sandy soils in glacial  till.  Col-
     ton soils are water-sorted sand and gravel.  On a county-
     wide basis,  scattered dairy and poultry  farms  occur within
     the association, but for the most part,  the  soils are in
     woodlots, i.e., over 85 percent of the association is for-
     ested.

     The Hinckley-Windsor-Au-Gres Association is  found on  plains,
     mounds,  ridges and depressions.   The Hinckley  and Windsor
     soils are excessively drained.   The Au Gres  soils are wet
     because  of a high, fluctuating water table.  Sand and gra-
     vel pits are found in this association.


     The  Paxton-Shapleigh-Woodbridge Association  is similar to
     that of  Belknap County.

     The  Gloucester-Shapleigh-Whitman Association is similar to
     that of  Belknap County.

     The  Ondawa-Windsor-Agawam Association  is found along the
    wider valleys  through which  the larger rivers flow.  The
     Ondawa soils are frequently  flooded  sandy alluvium.  The
    Windsor  soils,  which  hold little moisture, are sandy and
     located  above  the flooded areas.   The Agawam soils contain
    more  silt and  clay  than  the  Windsor  soils.  This association
     covers the largest  amount of cleared  land in the County.
    Tillage  of these soils  is easy because of their lack of stones
    and ( gravel .

    Tables II-3 and II-4  summarize the characteristics of the
major soil associations within Belknap and Merrimack Counties,
respectively.
                            11-13

-------
                   TABLE II-3.   CHARACTERISTICS OF THE  MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATION  IN BELKNAP COUNTY.  (SOURCE: USDA, 1968)
                                 [Source:   USDA, 1968].
Soil Association
                                  Depth to
                                  Seasonal
                        Depth    High Water
                      to bedrock   Table
                                               Permeability
                                                                        Homesites
                                                                                          Limitations  to  Community Development
                                                                                                Streets  and Parking Lots     Septic  Systems
Windsor-Hinckley-Au Gris
   Windsor
   Hinckley
   Au Gris
                       10+ feet
                       10+
                       10+
Gloucester-Shapleiqh-Whitman
   Gloucester
   Shapleigh
                       5+
                       1-1.5
H     Whitman             5+
H
M  Shapleigh-Gloucester

      Shapleigh           1-1.5

      Gloucester          5+

   Paxton-Shapleigh-Woodbridge
Paxton
Shapleigh

Woodbridge
                        5+
                        1-1.5
5+ feet   Rapid-Very Rapid
5+        Very Rapid
0-.5      Moderate-Rapid
3+        Rapid
1-1.5     Rapid

0         Slow-Moderate
1-1.5     Rapid

3+        Rapid
2+        slow-Moderate
1-1.5     Rapid

1-2.5     Slow-Moderate
                                                                      Slight-Severe
                                                                      Slight-Severe
                                                                      Severe-High water  table
                                                                      Slight to Severe
                                                                      Severe-shallow bedrock

                                                                      Severe-high water table
                                                                   Severe-shallow bedrock

                                                                   Slight-Severe
                                                                   Moderate-Severe
                                                                   Severe-shallow bedrock

                                                                   Moderate-Seasonal high
                                                                     water tsble
                                                            Slight-Severe
                                                            Slight-Severe
                                                            Severe-High water table
                                                            Moderate to Severe
                                                            Severe-shallow or
                                                              exposed bedrock
                                                            Severe-high water table
                                                                                                Severe-shallow or
                                                                                                  exposed bedrock
                                                                                                Moderate to Severe
                                                                                                   Moderate-Severe
                                                                                                   Severe-shallow or
                                                                                                     exposed bedrock
                                                                                                   Moderate-Severe
                                                                                                                        2
                                                                                                                        2
                                                                                                                        High water table
                                                                                                                        Shallow bedrock

                                                                                                                        High water table



                                                                                                                        Shallow bedrock

                                                                                                                        2
                                                                                        Slow permeability
                                                                                        Shallow bedrock

                                                                                        Slow permeability
 Gloucester-Paxton-Shapleigh
    Gloucester
    Paxton
    Shapleigh
                        5+
                        5+
                        1-1.5
                                       3+        Rapid
                                       2+        Slow-Moderate
                                       1-1.5     Rapid
                                Slight-Severe
                                Moderate-Severe
                                Severe-shallow bedrock
                                                                                             Moderate-Severe
                                                                                             Moderate-Severe
                                                                                             Severe-shallow or
                                                                                               exposed bedrock
                                                                                         Slow permeability
                                                                                         Shallow bedrock
 1 A ratine of severe in the Homesites and Streets categories indicate that steep slopes are the major limiting factors unless otherwise noted.
 2 soil suitability for septic use differs within this major use.

-------
                    TABLE II-4.  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATION OF IJEERIMACK COUNTY.  (SOURCE: USDA, 1965)
Soil Association

Herman-Canaan-Colton

   Herman
   Canaan
   Colton
             Depth to
            Seasonally
  Depth     High Water
to bedrock    Table    Permeability
                                                                                      Limitations to Community Development
 3+ feet
 0-2
 5+
Hinckley-Windsor-Au Gris

   Hinckley             5+

   Windsor             5+

   Au Gris             5+

 Paxton-Shapleigh-Woodbridge

   Paxton              3+
    Shapleigh
    Woodbridge
  0-2
  3+
3+ feet
0-2
5+
             5+

             5+

             0



             2+
 0-2
 1  1/2
Rapid
Rapid
Very Rapid
          Very Rapid

          Very Rapid

          Rapid
Moderate above
  2 feet, slow
  below
Rapid
Moderate above
  2 feet, slow
  below
                                 Homesites
Stones and boulders*
Shallow bedrock*
Gravel and cobbles
                  Gravel and cobbles

                  Loose sand

                  Extreme wetness*
Pan layer two feet below
  surface*

Shallow bedrock*
Fan layer two feet below
  surface, seasonally
  high water table*
                                               Streets and Parking Lots
Stoniness
Shallow bedrock;seepage
Establishment of plants
  on cuts difficult
                              Establishment  of plants
                                on cuts  difficult
                              Erodible

                              High Water Table
                                                         Stoniness; seepage
Shallow bedrock;  seepage
Stoniness; seepage;  high
  water table
                                                                Septic Systems
 Good drainage
 Shallow bedrock
 Very rapid permeability
  hazard to water supply
                              Very rapid permeability
                                hazard to water supply
                              Very rapid permeability
                                hazard to water supply
                              High Water Table
                              Slow permeability
Shallow to bedrock
Slow permeability,
  seasonally high water
 *  Foundation drains usually needed.

-------
                 TABLE II-4.  CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATION OF MERRIMACK COUNTY. (SOURCE: USDA, 1965) Continued.
Soil Association
                          Depth
                        to bedrock
  Depth to
Seasonally
High Water
   Table
Gloucester-Shapleigh-Whitman
Permeability
Gloucester               3+ feet      3+ feet      Rapid
Shapleigh                0-2          0-2          Rapid

Whitman                  -
Ondawa-Windsor-Aqawam

   Ondawa                   5+           3+           Rapid
   Windsor                  5+           5+           Very Rapid
   Agawam                   5+           5+           Rapid
                                                                                             Limitations to Community Development
                                                                                 Homesites
                                                                            Stones and Boulders*
                                                                            Shallow bedrock*
                                                                            Subject to flooding*
                                                                            Loose sand
                                                                            No major problems
                                                                                                          Streets and
                                                                                                          Parking Lots
                                                                   Stoniness
                                                                   Shallow bedrock;
                                                                     seepage
                                                                                       Septic  Systems
                                                                                                                              Good Drainage
                                                                                                                              Shallow bedrock

                                                                                                                              Very poorly drained,
                                                                                                                              water frequently
                                                                                                                              ponds.
                                                                   Subject to flooding Subject to flooding.
                                                                   Erodible              As Above
                                                                   Highly erodible     Good drainage
 *  Foundation drains  usually needed.

-------
    The following are the main soil associations found within
the Carroll County portion of the study area:

    The Gloucester-Shapleigh-Acton Association is the largest
    association within the Carroll County portion of the study
    area.  The Gloucester soils are deep and droughty, and are
    formed in sandy glacial till.  The Shapleigh soils are
    shallow and droughty, and are formed in a thin mantle of
    sandy glacial till.  The Acton soils are deep and moderately
    well-drained, and have also formed in sandy glacial till.
    The soils of this association are best suited for forestry
    and wildlife; however, some areas are suitable for farming.

    The Herman-Becket-Canaan Association is found in the extreme
    northern portion of the study area.  The Herman and Becket
    soils are deep, well drained, and formed in sandy glacial
    till.  The Canaan soils are shallow and droughty, and soils
    are suitable for forestry and wildlife.   Their steep
    slopes and stoniness present major problems for farming.

    The Hinckley-Windsor-Au-Gres Association is found in the
    eastern section of Carroll County.  The Hinckley soils,
    formed in sand and gravel, are deep and droughty, but have
    formed in deep sand and contain little or no gravel.  The
    Au Gres soils are poorly drained and like the Windsor soils,
    have formed in deep sands with little gravel.  The associ-
    ation is considered good for non-farm uses, as the dryness
    of these soils restricts farming activity.

    The Paxton-Woodbridge Association is found in scattered
    areas along Lake Winnipesaukee.  The Paxton soils have
    formed in compact, loamy glacial till, and are well drained
    and deep.  The Woodbridge soils have formed in com-
    pact, loamy glacial till, and are deep and moderately well
    drained.  This association is well suited for farming and
    wood production.

                           Summary

    There are 14 major soil associations found within the
study area; five in Belknap County; five in Merrimack County;
and four in Carroll County.  Farming is restricted in a signi-
ficant portion of these associations because of steep slopes,
shallow bedrock, high water tables, etc.  A large portion of
the associations in Belknap and Merrimack Counties is forested
                             11-17

-------
6.  Hydrology

Lake Winnipesaukee Hydrology.  Lake Winnipesaukee has a
surface water elevation of about 504 feet above mean sea
level  (msl).  The area of the lake is approximately 69.7
square miles  (44,605 acres — 1,943 million square feet).
Surface area of the lake varies about 6 percent or
about 2,010 million square feet at 0.50 feet gage level.
During an average year, however, the area variation is
only about  2 percent.

The known water sources for Lake Winnipesaukee are the in-
flows from  Lake Waukewan in Meredith Bay, Lake Wentworth
into Wolfeboro Bay, Merrymeeting Lake and Merrymeeting
River into  Alton Bay, numerous brooks, subsurface ground
water flows, direct surface runoff, and direct precipi-
tation.  Total drainage area of the watershed is 363
square miles.

Other than  evaporation, all water from the lake presently
flows out the Weirs Channel through Paugus Bay, the Lake-
port Dam, and down the Winnipesaukee River.  Average dis-
charge recorded by USGS during the past 39 years at Lake-
port is 520 cubic feet per second  (cfs).  The maximum
daily discharge was 2,890 cfs on March 31, 1936 while zero
flow occurred on September 29, 1962.

Figure II-5 displays Lake Winnipesaukee discharge values
by month, monthly and daily averages and extremes, and
monthly medians.  On the average, significantly greater
than annual average discharges occur from February through
May; and significantly lower than annual average discharges
occur from July through November.  A review of all data
shows that during only one year in ten did the discharge fall
significantly below the 250 cfs value cited in RSA 485,
which states that:

    "The total quantity of water drawn from Lake
    Winnipesaukee during the seven days in any week
    between June first and October fifteenth of any
    year shall not exceed the equivalent of two hun-
    dred fifty cubic feet for each second of time
    during said week when the gauge reading	is at
    or below 502.4 feet above mean sea level	"
                        11-18

-------
   3000-
   2500-
in

C£.
UJ
Qu
UJ
UJ  2000
O
OQ
=3
    1500-
O
to
    1000
     5OO-
FIGURE  11-5-   LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE MONTHLY & DAILY  DISCHARGE STATISTICS

                        [Measured at Lakeport Dam  1933-1972]
          Average
          Median
                                                                                                             Highest
                                                                                                             Monthly
                                                                                                             Average
                                                                                                             Monthly
                                                                                                             Average

                                                                                                             • Median
                                                                                                            Lowest
                                                                                                            Monthly
                                                                                                            Average
             D       j       F      M       A      M


     (Source:   Lakes Region Planning Commission)
                           J      J
                           Month

-------
    Lake levels, as measured at the Lakeport dam, are directly
related to water volume.  USGS has defined the zero water con-
tent as the -5.47 feet gage level (bottom of flume at the Lake-
port dam).  However, the lake holds an additional 80 billion
cubic feet (CF) of water below the -5.47 foot gage level.

    In 1966, the USGS assigned the lake a "total usable capa-
city" of 7,220 million cubic feet between gage levels of
+0.65 feet and 4.32 feet (this is the full lake level).

    The USGS ( 1937-1972) provides the following table of
capacities over the range of lake levels:

    Gage Level             Capacity (above -5.47 feet gage level)

       0.000               10,020 million cubic feet
       1.00                11,930    "      "     "
       2.00                13,880    "      "     "
       3.00                15,840    "      "     "
       4.00                17,840    "      "     "
       5.00                19,850    "      "     "

    On the average, over the normal range of lake level vari-
ation, a one-foot change of lake level is equivalent to a
1,966 million cubic foot change in lake volume.

    Surface Water

        Flow.  Stream flow in the study area has a distinct
        seasonal cycle, with the period of highest runoff
        occurring in late winter and early spring (February
        to April); and the lowest runoff occurring in late
        summer and early autumn (August to October).  Winter-
        spring runoff results partially from saturation of
        the soil and maximum storage in the ground.  Most of
        the precipitation falling on the area during this
        period is directed into streams.  Runoff declines
        during the summer because 1) evaporation increases
        during warm weather, 2) more dense and more active
        vegetative cover increases transpiration, and 3)
        scattered rainfall allows the ground to dry-out be-
        tween storms.

        U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations have
        been maintained at the following locations within
        the study area:
                           11-20

-------
        Location                        Date of Record

Lake Winnipesaukee at Weirs Beach       1933 - present
Lake Winnipesaukee at Lakeport          1933 - present
Winnipesaukee River at Tilton           1937 - present
Pemibewasset River at Plymouth          1903 - present
Merrimack River at Franklin Junction    1903 - present

    Significant flow characteristics are summarized in
    Table II-5.

    Flow in the Winnipesaukee River is regulated by the
    water level in Lake Winnipesaukee.  This river is only
    17 miles long, but the watershed encompasses 487 square
    miles, including the  tributaries to Lake Winnipesaukee.
                                                      t
    One flood control reservoir  exists on  the Pemigewasset
    River which controls  1,000 square miles of drainage
    area at Franklin Falls.  Except for a  small pool for
    recreation, this reservoir is  kept nearly empty most
    of the time to permit it to  have minimum storage avail-
    able to hold back flood waters.  It cannot be utilized
    for low flow augmentation purposes.

    In an average year, the lake rises most rapidly in
    April  (+1.27 feet, equivalent  to an increase of 2,561
    million CF of water and falls  most rapidly in August
     (-0.47 foot, or a decrease of  936 million CF of water).
    It changes least in January  (-0.07 feet; -143 million
    CF) and November  (+0-09 foot;  +186 million CF).

    Lake Winnipesaukee Water Resource Rates.  The net rate
    of total water resource that could be  provided by Lake
    Winnipesaukee on a sustained basis is  given by the
    following formula:

    Resource Rate = Runoff +  (Precipitation falling
                              directly onto lake)
                           -  (Evaporation  from lake
                              surface)

    where "runoff" here is used  as the sum of all water
    entering the lake from the "land"  (including lesser
    lakes) area of the watershed (including stream inflows,
    surface runoff, ground water inflow, etc.).  Such run-
    off, of course, combines the effects of:  a) precipi-
    tation falling on the land;  b) evapotranspiration from
    land surfaces;  and  c) land storage as  ground water and/
    or snow pack.  The  resource  rate is expressed in cubic
    feet per second  (cfs) or million  (106) cubic feet/
    month.

    On the average, nearly 56 percent of the annual water
    resource becomes available in  the three-month March
    through May period, and nearly 71 percent in the five-
                           11-21

-------
                                                  TABLE II-5

                                       FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS
                            IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE,  NEW HAMPSHIRE
                                     (Source:  USGS Surface Water Records)
Stream and
Gage Location
Period of
Record
(Years)
Mean
Discharge
(cfs)
Drainage
Basin
(sq. mi.)
Mean Areal
Discharge
(cfsm)
Maximum
(cfs)
Discharge
(Date
Minimum
(cfs)
Discharge
(Date)
7-Day
10-Year
Low Flow*
Lake Winnipesaukee       40        528
outlet at Lakeport,
New Hampshire

Winnipesaukee River      36        690
at Tilton

Pemigewasset River       70       1,342
at Plymouth

Merrimack River at       70       2,745
Franklin Junction
                                                363
                                                471
                                                622
                                              1,507
1.45
1.46
2.16
1.82
 2,890
3/31/36
                                                                                              0.0
 3,810     9/21/38     48
65,400     3/19/36     39
83,000     3/19/36    169
                                                                                                        9/29/62
                                                                                                       8/31/41
                      8/28/65
                                                          200**
                                                                                                        10/1,3,4/48   112
                                                                                                                      589
 *Lowest flow taken over 7 consecutive days that can be expected once  in  10 years.

**Minimum flow by state law.

-------
month period February  through June.  Less than 6 per-
cent is provided during  the  four-month period July
through October, only  some 10 percent during the June
through September period, and less than  4 percent
during the crucial July  through  September months of
heaviest  lake recreational,  and  water resource use
 (Lakes Region Planning Commission, 1974).

Flood Flows.  Major  floods in the Merrimack River basin
are often caused by  a  combination of heavy rainfall and
melting snow in the  spring.  Seventy-eight percent of
the largest floods experienced in the Merrimack basin
since 1846, including  the record event of March 1936 which
occurred  in the months of March, April or May and
resulted  from snow melt  augmented by rainfall.  The
magnitude of these spring floods varied  considerably
depending on the water content of the snow cover, temp-
erature variation and  the amount of rainfall during
the snow  melt period.  Major floods resulting from
heavy rainfall alone can also be experienced during
other seasons of the year, as evidenced  by the floods
of November 1927 and September 1938.

 In recent years three  floods of  major magnitude have
been experienced in  various  parts of the Merrimack
River basin.  Two of these,  November 1927 and September
 1938, were associated  with very  intense  rainfall, while
 the March 1936 record  event  resulted from heavy rains
and considerable snow  melt.  Also, a major river flood
occurred  in April 1960 as a  result of basin snow melt
with moderate rainfall.  A summary of peak stages and
 rates of  discharge for the November 1927, March 1936,
 September 1938 and April 1960 floods is  shown on Table
 II-6.

 Expected  flood flow  discharges for the two major rivers
within the study area  are presented in Table II-6.

Additional flooding  occurs each  spring as a result of
 ice jams. This condition occurs on the  tributaries
 of the Merrimack River as well as on the main stretch,
 and is most frequent in  the  northern part of the basin
where longer periods of  cold weather result in a thicker
 ice cover.

Water Quality

     Streams and Rivers. The major watershed in the
     study area is the Winnipesaukee River and its
     tributary areas.  Parts of  the Pemigewasset River
     watershed and the Merrimack River watershed drain
     the  southern section of the study area upstream and
     downstream from the mouth of the Winnipesaukee River.
     According to the  Merrimack  River Basin Water Quality
                        11-23

-------
                                                        TABLE II-6

                                   MAJOR FLOODS OBSERVED WITHIN THE MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN
                                    (Source:   New England Division - Corps of Engineers)
    Location

    Plymouth, NH
    Pemigewasset
    River

    Franklin Junction,
    NH, Merrimack River
Drainage
  Area
(sq. mi.)

   622
 1,507
 Nov. 1927 Flood
  Peak Discharge
 cfs      cfsm
60,000
67,000
96.5
44.5
         Mar. 1936 Flood
          Peak Discharge
          cfs      cfsm
65,400
83,000
105
 55.2
                      September 1938
                      Peak Discharge
                      cfs      cfsm
                                                  50,900
59,200
           81.9
39.4
                                 April 1960
                               Peak Discharge
                               cfs      cfsm
         19,100
21,800
           81.9
                                                            14.5
H
I
N>
                          TABLE II-7

     PEAK DISCHARGES FOR EXPECTED FLOOD FREQUENCIES  (cfs)
     (Source:   New England Division -  Corps  of Engineers)
    Location

    Merrimack River
    at Franklin
    Junction

    Pemigewasset
    River at
    Plymouth
   5  years

   34,100



   30,000
       10 years       25 years       50 years       100 years

        40,600         57,900         70,800         85,900
        37,800
            49,600
                  60,000
                      72,000

-------
Management Plan  (NHWSPCC, 1973), all streams in
the study area are legally in the "B" classifi-
cation.  This means they are to be acceptable for
risning and swimming.  For those streams or stream
segments which do not presently satisfy the Class
B water quality standards, the goal of the River
Basin Plan is to raise them to this level.  The
water quality standards associated with each
classification are presented in Appendix A (Table A-l).

Surface waters in the sub-basins are divided into
segments for classification.  Table II-8 lists the
location, classification and present quality of
the stream segments within the study area.

Between the years 1973 to 1975, NHWSPCC has main-
tained several water quality stations on rivers
within the study area.  Data was available for
three stations and are summarized in Table II-9.
Locations of the stations are shown in Figure II-6.
These data indicate that the major rivers draining
the study area are of generally excellent quality
in regard to their oxygen content.  Oxygen super-
saturation in the Winnipesaukee River may be due
to production of oxygen by algae in Silver Lake
upstream of the sampling station,but more likely is
related to high reaeration capacity of the river.
Total and fecal coliform counts, however, exceed
the Class B standards (Appendix A-2)  in the Winni-
pesaukee and Merrimack Rivers.  These high coliform
counts are attributable to sewage discharges in
Belmont, Northfield, Tilton and Franklin, and
appear to be the basis for the "C" classification
given to segments 15 B+C (Winnipesaukee River)
and 16 (Merrimack River).

A number of streams tributary to the major lakes
in the study area were reported to be of Class C
quality in the River Basin Plan (NHWSPCC.. 1973).
Figure II-7 illustrates the locations of these
streams.  The water quality classifications of
those streams were based upon sampling data col-
lected in 1967 and 1968 by the NHWSPCC.  As in
the major streams below the lakes area, the cause
for the low classification was high coliform
counts.  Sanitary surveys that would locate
the sources of contamination have not been under-
taken.  Septic tank malfunctions, raw or incom-
pletely treated sewer discharges, and urban run-
off are suspected to contribute to the degradation
of the various streams.
                11-25

-------
                                 TABLE II-8

                      WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
                  OF STREAM SEGMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA
                   (Source:  NHWSPCC, 1975, 305b report)
Merrimack River Basin
Segment    Location in Study Area

  13       Lake Winnipesaukee above
           Weirs Beach

  14       Winnipesaukee River between
           Weirs Beach and confluence
           with Tioga River.  Includes
           Paugus Bay, Opeechee Bay,
           Lake Winnisquam and Silver
           Lake

  ISA      Winnipesaukee River below Silver
           Lake to Tilton-Northfield

  15B      Tioga River below Belmont

  15C      Winnipesaukee River from Tilton-
           Northfield to Mouth
    Future
Classification

      B
      B
      B



      B

      B
   Existing
Classification

     B
                        B
     B


     C

     C
   16       Merrimack River  from confluence        B
           of Winnipesaukee and Pemige-
           wasset  Rivers  south to Contoo-
           cook  River

   12       Pemigewasset River from Newfound       B
           River to Winnipesaukee River
                         B
                                    11-26

-------
                             TABLE II-9

            WATER QUALITY OF MAJOR RIVERS IK THE STUDY AREA
            FROM RECORDS OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY
                   AND POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION.
            STATION NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE IN FIGURE
   THE FOLLOWING DATA CONSIST OF THE MEAN (NUMBER OP OBSERVATIONS)
AND THE RANGE OF OBSERVATIONS.  ALL SAMPLING OCCURRED BETWEEN 1973-1975.










River and Station Temperature







H
H
1
N)







Number
[33-2-WINJ
Winnipesaukee River
Bridge on RoVites 3 &
11 in Franklin, N.H.
C33-1-PMI]
Penigewasset River
Bridge on Route 3 to
Route 3A & 11
Franklin, New Hampshire

[29- HER]
Merrimack River
Bridge on Hoit Road
Boscawen, New Hampshire
• 1973 DataN
( All
»• 1974 DataJ
•*• Log Mean
CO
18.1(17)
7.7-25.5


16.9(13)
6.1-23.3




18.7(16)
7.0-34.5


£H
6.1-7.3
(17)


6.3-6.9
(13)




5.7-7.1
(16)


(mg/1)
9.8(15)
8.3-11.9


9.17(9)
7.7-12.6




9.2(16)
7.8-11.9


other figures represent 1973,






Satura-
tion
Level COD N-NH}
(mg/1) BOD (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
9.52 1.25(12) 11.4(4) <0.1(7)
(.8-2.8) 4.0-14.8 -


9.76 8.66(9) - <.J.1(4>
.2-2.2




9.41 1.03(7) - <0.1(5>
0.0-2.6 -


1974 and 1975 data.




N-kjel
(mg/1)
.24(7)
.09 3-. 35


0.09(4)
.084-. 1




.733(5)
.06 5-. 21







N-NO3
(mg/1)
.11(7)
0.1-.18


.21(4)
.098-. 275




.18(5)
.04-. 253







N-NO2
(rog/1)
.0026(5)
(.001-. 005


.002(4)
.001-, 004




.0028(5)
.001-. 004







P-Ortho

.0056(7)
.002-. 009


.003(4)
.001-. 006




.008(6)
.003-. 018





Fecal
Total*" Coli-
Coliforms forms
P-Total (per/ (per/
(mg/1) 100 ml) ml)
.032(7) *1500(5) *888(1)
.018-. 043 «54,S3S<8) **1556(6)


.027(4) - 70(6)
.026-. 024 - 10-184




.022(6) *977(6) *696(1)
.014-. 027 "12, 260(11) **569(7)






-------
I
to
CO
           O
          1-8
                                                                                         \
NHWSPCC  Lake Winnisquam

NHWSPCC  Studies Stream Stations

Yeo 6 Mathieson Lake
 Winnipesaukee Stations


EPA Lake Winnipesaukee &

 Tributary Stations

LRPC Lake Winnipesaukee

 Stat ions
                       FIGURE  II-6.   LAKE  &  STREAM  SAMPLING  STATIONS,  WINNIPESAUKEE  STUDY  AREA.

-------
I
KJ
vo
                   Class A Quality

                   Class C Quality
         ALL OTHER SURFACE
WATER IS  OF CLASS B QUALITY


       A NHWPCC WATER

         QUALITY STATION
                 FIGURE  II-7.   EXISTING  WATER QUALITY - WINNIPESAUKEE  STUDY AREA

-------
Nitrogen (NH3 + NC-3 + N02) to ortho phosphorus
(inorganic phosphorus) ratios were calculated
for the three major rivers in the study area.
The results are presented below:
                                       Limiting
    River               N/P Ratio*     Nutrient

Winnipesaukee              84.4       Phosphorus
Pemigewasset              232.0       Phosphorus
Merrimack                  78.3       Phosphorus

*Calculated using mean figures from Table II-9.


In heavily polluted streams  (due to domestic
wastes) the N/P ratio would normally be below
10,indicating that the stretch of water is
nitrogen limited.  In addition, the individual
nutrient parameters, i.e., N02, N03, NH3, total
and inorganic P, were relatively low indicating
that water quality was generally good.

This data is not consistent with the conclusions
that were reached in the 1966 study entitled
"Report on Pollution of the Merrimack River and
Certain Tributaries - Pt III Stream Studies Bio-
logical" prepared by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration.  It was determined that
the Merrimack River from Franklin to Boscawen
 (river miles 115.7 to 114.04) was heavily polluted
and represented a zone of active decomposition.
This was based on a sampling of the benthic fauna
species.

However, there are several reasons which can ex-
plain this dichotomy in data.  First, the study
conducted by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration was done approximately ten years
ago and since that time many heavy industries
located on the upper reaches of the Winnipesaukee
and Pemigewasset Rivers have moved away.  In order
to rectify the gap in data that exists a more
recent study of the benthic  invertebrate situa-
tion would be needed.

Secondly, several small municipal discharges do
indeed exist which contribute to the high coliform
bacteria counts on the Winnipesaukee and Merrimack
Rivers.  However, they are small in volume  (.1-.26
mgd) in relation to the high volumes of flow ex-
hibited by the rivers in the study area.


                11-30

-------
Finally, due to the  high  reaeration  capacities
of all streams in the  study  area,  high  levels of
dissolved oxygen are usually present and  conversely
low levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
When raw or partially  treated sewage enters the
rivers an immediate  dissolved oxygen sag  is formed
although a quick recovery occurs a short  distance
downstream.

Lakes.   There are 53  lakes  in the study  area
ranging in size from several acres to the 44,600
acre Lake Winnipesaukee.  Except for the  shallowest
lakes, which might be  prevented by wind action from
stratifying, the lakes are expected  to  be dimictic,
i.e., they mix completely in both spring  and fall.
Due to lack of carbonate  rocks in the watersheds,
the surface waters are naturally soft and have low
alkalinities.

Of immediate concern to this  study are  the five lakes
and bays along the main stream of the Winnipesaukee
River—Lake Winnipesaukee, Paugus Bay,  Opechee Bay,
Winnisquam Lake and  Silver Lake.  A  number of studies
have been performed  on these  lakes in regard to
their trophic status and  nutrient levels.  The most
recent are summarized below.

The National Eutrophication  Survey of the U.S.
Environmental Protection  Agency analyzed the trophic
status and nutrient  loading  of Lake Winnipesaukee
(EPA, 1974).  This study, based upon  data col-
lected in 1972 and 1973,  presented the  following
conclusions:

•  Dissolved oxygen  concentrations in Lake Winni-
   pesaukee ranged from 7.0 mg/1 to  12.9 mg/1;

•  Examination of P/N ratios  for lake samples in-
   dicate that phosphorus would be the  limiting
   nutrient in Lake  Winnipesaukee;

•  Algal assays on control and nutrient-spiked
   lake water samples showed  that "the potential
   primary productivity of Lake Winnipesaukee
   was very low at the time  the sample was col-
   lected as were the levels  of the primary
   nutrients" and that "because of the very low
   levels of both nutrients,  the samples essen-
   tially were co-limited, and the only signifi-
   cant yield response occurred when  both nitro-
   gen and phosphorus were added";

•  Average values of chemical  and physical para-
   meters for EPA's  eight lake sampling stations
   (Figure TI-6)  are reproduced in Table  11-10.


               11-31

-------
                 This  table  summarizes  the analysis of October,
                 1972  samples.   The  lake was completely mixed at
                 that  time;

              •   The sources of nitrogen and phosphorus contribu-
                 tions to Lake  Winnipesaukee are summarized from
                 the EPA report in Table 11-11;

              •   A comparison between the phosphorus loading rate
                 for Lake Winnipesaukee (0.12 grams/square meter/
                 year) and the  "permissible" phosphorus loading
                 rate  as calculated  by  EPA from Vollenweider
                 (Vollenweider, 1973) suggests that the lake
                 as a  whole  is  not receiving a sufficient
                 phosphorus  load to  cause it to eutrophy; and

              •   Despite the generally  excellent water quality
                 in Lake Winnipesaukee, some areas receive heavy
                 nutrient loadings.   EPA cites Wolfeboro Bay,
                 Center Harbor  Bay,  Alton Bay, Gilford Bay
                 (Sanders Bay), Melvin  Bay, and Meredith Bay
                 as "areas with excessive nutrient loadings."

                         TABLE  11-10

               LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE SAMPLING DATA*
                      (Source:   EPA, 1974)


Parameter               Minimum      Mean       Median     Maximum

Temperature (Cent.)       15.9        16.3        16.3        16.6
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)     8.3          8.8         8.8         9.2
Conductivity  (mhos)       50.0         56.0        55.0        60.0
pH (Units)                 6.6          7.0         7.1         7.4
Alkalinity (mg/1)         10.0         10.0        10.0        10.0
Total P (mg/1)             0.004       0.006       0.006       0.015
Dissolved P (mg/1)         0.001       0.003       0.003       0.005
N02 + N03 (mg/1)           0.020       0.033       0.030       0.050

* Figures are average  values for eight  open-lake and bay stations
  sampled when the lake was  completely  mixed, October 8, 1972.

              The Lakes Region  Planning Commission has published
              a series of reports on water quality in several of
              Lake Winnipesaukee1s bays (LRPC: 1974a, 1974b,
              1975).   Water  quality  data were reported for Smith
              Cove, Sanders  Bay and  Meredith Bay.  A sampling
              station  near Timber Island was used to provide
              data representative of the central portion of the
              lake.  Locations  of the sampling stations are
              shown in Figure II-6.   Stations were sampled at
              unequal  intervals from July 1973 to August 1974.
                             11-32

-------
                                          Table 11-11

                     NUTRIENT LOADINGS TO LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE  (EPA, 1974)
                                            Total Phosphorus
                                                       Tjotal  Nitrogen
U)
          Inputs

            a.
            b.
            c.
            d.
            e.
Sampled tributaries
Unsampled tributaries
Sewage treatment plants

Wolfeboro
Meredith
Center Harbor -
  Moultonboro

Septic tanks
Direct Precipitation
          Output Through

                Paugus Bay

          Net Annual
Ibs P
Year
11,460
4,960
8,200
5,210
8,650
3,770
6,960
% of Total
23.3
10.1
16.7
10.6
17.6
7.7
14.1
Ibs N
Year
336,620
145,660
24,820
15,760
41,930
80,070
429,540
% of Total
31.3
13.6
2.3
1.5
3.9
7.5
40.0
                                           49,210
                           11,420
                                     100.0
1,074,400
  299,390
100.0
                Accumulation
                           37,790
                                                                     775,010

-------
The sampling stations used in the LRPC studies
were generally closer to the shorelines of the
bays than were the nearest stations used by EPA
in 1972.  LRPC's nutrient concentrations are con-
siderably higher than EPA's suggesting either that
phosphorus and nitrogen are quickly lost to^lake
sediments or that some of the analyses are in
serious error.  The LRPC study notes that nutrient
concentrations (phosphorus and nitrogen) in the
coves were particularly high after heavy rains
in July, 1973.

The most recent LRPC data available for samples
taken in June, July and August of 1974 (LRPC, 1975),
show that the analytical sensitivity of their mixed
nutrient analysis method has been greatly improved
and concurrently, the concentrations reported are
considerably lower and much closer to the 1972 EPA
values.  Interpretation of LRPC data is made dif-
ficult and tenuous because of the apparent change
in analytical procedures and results.

Earlier data on Lake Winnipesaukee's bays has been
published by Yeo and Mathieson (1973).  Nutrient
analyses of samples collected in 1969 and 1970
gave limited results.  Interpretation of that data
is therefore, not appropriate.  Extensive algal
counts were also reported in Yeo and Mathieson
and are commented on in Section II.A.7 of this report.

The dissolved oxygen content in Lake Winnipesaukee
is generally excellent.  No reductions in oxygen
concentrations  have been reported for the main body
of the Lake.  Smith Cove (LRPC, 1974b), the Weirs
and Wolfeboro Bay (Yeo and Mathieson, 1973)  have
been reported as developing low oxygen levels in
the hypolimnion during thermal stratification in
the summer and early fall.  Such conditions are the
result of direct organic pollution or decay of algal
cells which settle into the hypolimnion.  Continued
organic and nutrient enrichment can be expected to
result in continued and possibly more widespread
occurrences of oxygen reduction in near-shore areas,
particularly in bays and coves which do not mix
well with the main body of the Lake.

Very high total coliform counts have been found
near areas that are extensively developed (LRPC,
1974b).  High coliform counts in Meredith Bay
could be associated with a number of sources,
including the discharge of secondary
treated wastes via Corliss Brook.  For non-sewered
areas,  there is insufficient data to be able to
determine the proportions of bacterial contamination
that are contributed by land runoff, septic tank

               11-34

-------
systems and  recreational  activities on the lake.
All three  are  probable sources of both bacterial
contamination  and  nutrient  discharge to the near-
shore areas  of the Lake.

All of the outflow from Lake  Winnipesaukee flows
first through  Paugus  Bay  and  then through  Opeechee
Bay.  The  water quality in  these  water bodies  is
affected in  part by Lake  Winnipesaukee.  However,
total phosphorus concentrations at EPA sampling
stations in  Paugus Bay and  Opeechee Bay (EPA,  1974)
and at a NHWSPCC station  below Opeechee Bay (NHWSPCC,
1975) suggest  that there  is some  nutrient  loading
to these bays  from surrounding development.  EPA's
1972 data  indicates an average of .007  mg-P/L  for
Paugus Bay and .009 mg-P/L  for Opeechee Bay.   For a
comparable period  (June through October) in 1974,
NHWSPCC data shows that the average total  phosphorus
concentration  for  the  Winnipesaukee River  below
Opeechee Bay was .011  mg-P/L,  which is  nearly  double
the average  total  phosphorus  concentration  of  Lake
Winnipesaukee.

Paugus Bay is  the  water supply for  Laconia.  High
total coliform counts  have  been obtained from  the
bay in the vicinity of the  raw water intake  (De-
Normandie, personal communication)  that might  be
attributable to septic tank malfunctions along the
bay shore.

Lake Winnisquam receives  the  flow of the Winnipe-
saukee River just  south of  Laconia.  The hypo-
limnion in the  central  part of  the  lake was re-
ported to  have  become  anoxic  as far back as 1938
(Hoover, 1938).  Extensive  nutrient loading analyses
of the lake  have been  performed and reported (NHW
SPCC, 1973,  1974,  1975).  Sampling  stations used
by the investigators are  shown  in Figure II-6.
The phosphorus  to  nitrogen  ratio  for the lake
waters was reported to be about 1:20  (by weight).
This indicates  that there is  considerably more
nitrogen available  for  algal  uptake than would be
necessary  for  the  algae to  deplete  the available
phosphorus.  The typical phosphorus to nitrogen
ratio for  living matter is  1:7.   The lake,  there-
fore, appears  to be phosphorus  limited  (NHWSPCC,
1975).   This perhaps is a slightly  low estimate
since loading  from  septic tanks and from unsampled
land areas were not included.   By comparison,  such
sources accounted  for  nearly  18 percent of the
                11-35

-------
              phosphorus  loading  to  Lake  Winnipesaukee (EPA,
              1974).   The 1.71  g/m2/yr  loading  rate  is 2.6
              times  the  "permissible" loading rate of  .44 g/mVyr
              estimated  by NHWSPCC using  a  conservative mean
              hydraulic  retention time  of 0.7 years  for the Lake.
              Complete removal  of phosphorus from wastewaters
              now discharged  to the  lake  would  still reduce the
              phosphorus  loading  rate to  only  .58 g/nr/yr.
              Phosphorus  loading  rates  are  discussed further
              in Section  IV.A.I.  and Appendix B.
                          TABLE 11-12

           MEDIAN STREAM FLOW AND PHOSPHORUS LOADING
                      TO LAKE WINNISQUAM
Source

Winnipesaukee
  River

Other Tributaries

Laconia Sewage
  Treatment Plant

State School Sewage
  Treatment Plant
                            FLOW
 mgd
236.55


  6.36

  1.75


  0.10
Percent
of Total
  96.65


   2.60

    .72


    .04
   PHOSPHORUS LOAD
            Percent
  Kg/yr	of Total
                      244.76   100.01
 8,653.15


   875.55

18,092.83


 1,365.90


28,987.43
29.85


 3.03

62.42


 4.71


100.01
     Ground Water.   Ground water  resources  in the Winnipesaukee
     basin are somewhat limited.   The metamorphic rocks  under-
     lying the study area are too tightly compacted to allow
     water to flow  through them.   Water movement  in the  bedrock
     is restricted  to natural joints which  become smaller and
     less frequent  with depth,  further  limiting water movement.
     Recharge to bedrock joints depends upon local recharge.
     The glacial till overlying most of the study area is gen-
     erally impervious and limits recharge.  Small areas of
     stratified glacial deposits  including  kames, eskers and
     outwash plains are pervious  and supply rapid recharge to
     underlying rocks.  The locations of these formations are
     mapped in Figure II-2.  They generally occur adjacent to
     streams and along the lakeshores.   There are no major
     regional aquifer recharge areas in the study area,  although
     many of the small public water supplies rely on a number
                            11-36

-------
I
of wells or a well field for their source of water.

The ground  water level in the study area is relatively con-
stant and ranges from between 5 to 25 feet below the surface
Seasonal fluctuations occur during the spring when snow melt
raises the ground water level and during the summer when
eyapotranspiration depletes the ground water supply.  Areas
with seasonally high water tables are shown in Figure II-8.

Early wells dug into the glacial till were normally shallow.
Many of these wells are still in use.  They are generally
three to five feet wide and approximately twenty feet
deep.  Movement of water into these dug well is limited by
the dense, clay-rich till.  Water flows slowly into the
shallow wells from a wide area and water levels are sub-
ject to seasonal fluctuation.

In rece; t years, most new wells have been drilled into the
bedrock to an average depth of 100 to 200 feet.  Well dril-
ling produces highly unpredictable results.  Approximately
one of 22 wells never obtains any flow of water, and
penetration to jagged cracks which are irregularly connected
to the water feeding soils above may reach contaminated water
(Goldthwait, et al, 1969).  Wells dug into bedrock overlain
by till yield six gallons per minute  {gpm) on the average
while wells under porous sands and gravels average eight
gpm.  Gravel packed wells such as those supplying Belmont
may have yields as high as 400 gpm.

Water Supply

   Existing Water Supply.  Residents of the primary and
   peripheral study areas rely on both ground water and sur-
   face water for water supply.  According to the New
   Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
   (1974) approximately 42,500 residents of the study areas
   are served by a public water supply.  A public water
   supply is defined as any  water supply providing more
   than 30 services.  More than 15 percent of the permanent
   residents and a large proportion of summer residents rely
   on private wells or draw water directly from one of the
   lakes in the region.  Industrial water users generally
   rely on their own private systems although some are
   served by public systems.

   Public water supplies utilize both ground water  and sur-
   face water sources (Table 11-13).  Total average daily
   consumption in 1974 from all public water supplies was
   4 mgd.  Based on a population serve  of about 42,500,
   average daily consumption was approximately 95 gallons,
   per capita per day (gpd)  and ranged from 38 to 150 gpcd.
   This consumption rate includes some industrial use and
   may be distorted by the inclusion of seasonal users in


                        11-37

-------
FIGURE  II-8.  AREAS WITH  SHALLOW
               DEPTH TO THE WATER
               TABLE.
   [Source: NHOSP & NERBC, 1975]
       60% of Soils with Water Table
       Levels Generally Less  than 5
       Feet from  the Surface
                 11-38

-------
                                                         TABLE 11-13

                                PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES - JANUARY,  1974 (Source:   NHWSPCC,  1974).
                                             Average
                                              Daily
                                Population Consumption
                                  Served     (gallons)
Name of Utility

Alton
   Alton Water Works

Belmont
   Belmont Water Works

Center Harbor
   None

Franklin
   Franklin  Water  Dept.      7,200   1,000,000
              Source of Supply
                                  4,000     180,000       two gravel packed wells
                                     827       52,000       two gravel packed wells
                                                           39 wells  in Sanbornton
                                                           2 wells in Franklin
                                                                                 Treatment
                                          none
                                          none
                                                                                         none
                                                                     Daily per
                                                         Other        Capita
                                                      Communities   Consumption
                                                        Served       (gallons)
                                                                                                        none
                                                                                                        none
                                                                                                        none
                                                                        45
                                                                                                                      63
                                                                                                                     139
OJ
vo
       Gilford
    Gilford Village Water
      District
       Laconia
                                     148
7,000
          Laconia Water Works     16,000   1,750,000
       Meredith
          Meredith Water Dept.     2,000     300,000
                                                     deep well
zeolite
filter
                                                                                                        none
                                                     Paugus  Bay-Lake Winnipesaukee  chlorine PC>4   Lakeport,
                                                     (Weirs  Beach)                                 Gilford,
                                                                                                  Weirs
                                                     Lake Waukewan-Meredith
                                                       Reservoir
                                          hypochlorite   none
                                                                                                                      47
                                                                                                                     109
                                                                                                               150
       Moultonborough
          None

       Northfield
          Served by Tilton-Northfield Aqueduct Company

       Sanbornton
          None

-------
*».
o
      Table 11-13.(Cont'd.)
      Name of Utility
             Average
              Daily
Population  Consumption
  Served     (gallons)
   Source of Supply
 Treatment
               Daily per
  Other        Capita
Communities  Consumption
 Served        (gallons)
      Tilton
         Tilton-Northfield
           Aqueduct Company

      Tuftonboro
         None
  8,000     300,000
Knowles Pond
hypochlorite   Northfield    38
      Wolfeboro
         Wolfeboro Water Dept.    4,317     491,581
                          Upper Beech  Pond
                               hypochlorite    none
                            114
               TOTALS
 42,492   4,080,581

-------
population served.  Both per capita and summer con-
sumption are higher than the annual average consumption
due to the higher seasonal population and the increased
consumption associated with summer.

All of the towns in the primary study area are served
by a public water supplies.   Also, Alton and Wolfeboro,
which^are in the peripheral study area, have public water
supplies.  The water utilities serving Alton, Belmont,
Gilford and Franklin rely on wells as their source of
supply.  These utilities serve approximately 12,000
people and except for the Gilford Village Water District
and Wolfeboro Water Department none provide any treat-
ment.  The quality of the water obtained by wells is
generally very good with the exception of occasional
high iron content.

The Gilford Village Water District is an old, very small
system serving approximately 35 homes in the heart of
the village.  Portions of Gilford are served by the
Laconia Water works.

The Belmont system consists of two gravel packed wells
and has a sustainable yield of approximately 0.6 mgd.
Due to the location of one of the wells in a sandy area,
considerable amounts of sand are pumped resulting in
caving, wear on the pumps and gradual reduction of pump
capacity.  Intense pump maintenance is required to keep
the system operational.  Lack of reservoir capacity
precludes extension of waterlines and limits current
service  (Roberts, 1975).

Laconia, Meredith, Northfield, Tilton and Wolfeboro
utilize surface waters for their water supply.   Lake Winni-
pesaukee and Paugus Bay are the sources for the Laconia
Water Works, the largest utility in the area.  Lake
Waukewan, Meredith Reservoir, Knowles Pond and Upper
Beech Pond are also used as water supply sources by the
various water companies.  Water derived from all surface
sources requires treatment with chlorine prior to dis-
tribution.  Competing recreational uses, contamination
of surface waters by seepage from on-site sewage disposal
systems and undersized or deteriorating public water
supplies relying on surface waters.

Individual water supply systems serving lakeshore
development often draw water from one of the lakes.  A
survey of water supply systems serving lakeshore devel-
opment in Sanbornton was undertaken  (Foudriat).  The
data are probably representative of the types and percent
distribution of systems serving lakeshore development
throughout the study area and are presented below:
                    11-41

-------
             Lake only                  31%
             Lake and shallow well      45%
             Shallow well only          17%
             Deep well                   7%

It can be concluded that direct withdrawal from the lakes,
and shallow wells supplmented by withdrawals during the
summer when shallow wells run dry are the major types
of individual water supply for lakeshore development.
Individual water supply systems in inland areas rely on
both shallow and deep wells.

Future Water Supply.  The New Hampshire Department of
State Planning (NHDSP) and the Lakes Region Planning
Commission have undertaken a number of water supply
studies which involve the Lakes Region.  NHDSP in a
report prepared by Anderson and Nichols, Inc.(1972) re-
commended that surface water supplies be developed to
meet future water supply needs in the primary and peri-
pheral study areas.  Direct pumping from Lake Winnipes-
aukee, the Winnipesaukee River and other surface waters
was recommended as the most dependable means for supplying
future demands.

Historically, and up until the recent past, Lake Winni-
pesaukee has been considered an extractive source of
water for southeastern New Hampshire and the Boston
Metropolitan area.  A report prepared by Biospheric
Consultants International in 1974 for the Lakes Region
Planning Commission analyzed the quantitative water
resources of Lake Winnipesaukee.  The report concluded
that large diversions on the order of 55 to 90 mgd
to meet the southeast New Hampshire requirements for
2000-2010 would be acceptable to the Lakes Region for
only 2-5 years out of 10, if historical levels of dis-
charge at Lakeport were to be maintained.  If a re-
duced discharge of 250 cfs were allowed, the require-
ments might be met 6-9 years out of 10.  Therefore,
the likelihood of sustained diversion of large amounts
of water outside of Lake Winnipesaukee was deemed ex-
tremely unlikely.

Lake Winnipesaukee is the most significant water re-
source in the study area.  The quantity of water avail-
able for diversion for water supply is directly related
to the amount of precipitation falling on the Lake, the
amount of water flowing into the Lake form runoff
including snow melt, minus evaporation from the lake sur-
face and the required minimum discharge at Lakeport.
Although Lake Winnipesaukee has a huge usable capacity,
it also supports a number of recreational activities
crucial to the economy of the area.  The recreational
use of the lakes would be severly impacted if large
fluctuations in lake level were allowed.  The lake
                     11-42

-------
    level is currently regulated  at  Lakeport where discharge
    rates are controlled  to  maintain lake  levels within a
    narrow range and  compensate for  rapid  runoff during snow-
    melt and extremely dry periods.   The average net input
    to the lake  (runoff plus precipitation minus evaporation
    from the surface  of the  lake) ranges from  40 cfs in
    August to 1,587 cfs in April.  Thus, low net input occurs
    during periods when recreational and water supply demands
    are likely to be  the  highest.

    According to the  Biospherics  report, the average long-
    term resource available  is 520 cfs minus a minimum
    Lakeport discharge of 250 cfs to meet  assumed riperian
    requirements.  The average amount of water which could
    be drawn off Lake Winnipesaukee  is then 270 cfs or 175
    mgd.  In another  report, the  safe yield of Lake Winni-
    pesaukee was estimated at 250 mgd by Kitchel and Assoc-
    iates  (1969).  However,  neither  of these estimates
    take into account the long-term  sustainable yield of
    the Lake.  During the months  of  July through September
    when demands for  water supply and water  recreation uses
    are at their maximum, on the  average less  than four
    percent of the annual water resource becomes available
     (Biospherics, 1974).  Runoff  plus precipitation minus
    evaporation results in a relatively small  net input of
    water into the lake.  Conversely, during the spring
    snow melt, the lake is often  overfull  and  the level is
    regulated to prevent  excessive flooding.   Diversion
    of water during periods  of high  precipitation and run-
    off into large storage reservoirs would permit optimum
    management of the lake and provide approximately 170
    mgd of water.

7.  Biology

Aquatic

    General.  This region of New Hampshire contains extensive
    aquatic natural resources, which  provide both aesthetic
    and economic benefits to the area.  According to Maguire
    (1973) , the study area includes  850 square miles of land
    and 116 square miles  of water.   Lake Winnipesaukee (69.7
    square miles) and Lake Winnisquam (6.6 square miles)
    make up 66 percent of the total water area.  The remaining
    area is scattered among  50 other  lakes and ponds of
    varying size.  Lake Squam, second in size  only to Lake
    Winnipesaukee among New Hampshire lakes, is partially
    included in the study area, but  is outside the Winni-
    pesaukee drainage basin.  Aside  from the extensive lake
    and pond environment  in  the area, there are many small
    rivers which drain into  the major lakes.   The Winnipes-
    aukee River, which originates at  the outfall of Lake
    Winnisquam,  provides  the major drainage for the study
    area.   The total study area has  an area of 966 square


                        11-43

-------
miles, 486 of which are in the Winnipesaukee drainage
basin.  The remaining area is divided among a series of
surrounding watersheds.  The entire region is within the
watershed of the Merrimack River.

Since the lakes and ponds of the region represent a valu-
able resource for the area, there is considerable interest
in maintaining their water quality.  The lakes may be
divided essentially into three groups; large cold-water
lakes, cold water ponds and small lakes, and warm water
ponds and small lakes.  The first category includes
Lake Winnipesaukee, Lake Winnisquam, and Lake Squam.
These lakes are the areas of critical interest. All
three support extensive sport fisheries for salmonid fish
which would be jeopardized by any significant decrease in
water quality.  One of the three, Lake Winnisquam, is
currently exhibiting symptoms of enrichment in the form
of blue-green algae blooms during the late summer.  To
date, these blooms have been controlled by copper sul-
fate treatments with little effect on the overall
biology of the Lake.  The lower end of the Lake exhibits
low oxygen values in the hypolimnion caused by the dis-
charge of sewage at Laconia-  Selected embayments in
Lake Winnipesaukee have also exhibited bloom conditions.
A detailed discussion of the water quality problems of
these lakes is presented in Section II.A.6.
Lake Winnipesaukee.  Lake Winnipesaukee is the second
largest lake in New England  (Frey, 1963).   It is a
dimictic lake with a surface area of 44,586 acres, a
mean depth of 43 feet, a maximum depth of approximately
180 feet and a mean hydraulic retention time of four
years  (EPA, 1974).  The Lake supports a wide variety
of fish, including lake trout and landlocked salmon,
which are maintained both by stocking and natural re-
production  (Hoover, 1938; Seamans and Newell, 1973).
The Lake contains a high proportion of littoral area
which is important as a food-producing area for the
predatory game fish.  These fish prefer cold water, and
while they are found throughout the Lake when the water
temperature is low, they concentrate in the hypolimnion
during the summer months.  Along with the game fish,
smelt are stocked to provide forage.  In addition, a
variety of warm water species inhabit the littoral area
and epilimnion (Seamans and Newell, 1973).  Yeo and
Mathieson (1973)  have summarized the available information
on phytoplankton and nutrient levels in the Lake.  Their
results showed that sections of the Lake are eutrophic.
Blue-green algae were the dominant phytoplankters at
all stations, and they usually comprised the major por-
tion of the cell counts.  Using the concept of phyto-
plankton associations, the authors determined that the
                    11-44

-------
Lake was dominated by  a  eutrophic myxophycean phyto-
plankton, but oligotrophic  associations were also present.
They assigned  (using the phytoplankton quotient concept)
a mesotrophic rating for the Weirs, Winter Harbor,
Meredith and Paugus Bay,  while Alton, Wolfeboro, Melvin
Bay, and Center Harbor were categorized as eutrophic.
On the basis of their  evaluation of selected embayments,
Yeo and Mathieson assigned  an overall rating of meso-
trophic to the Lake.   EPA (1973) evaluated nutrient
loading rates for the  Lake  and determined that it was
oligotrophic, with restricted areas of eutrophy.  The
open lake waters are still  highly oxygenated with at
least 6 ppm of dissolved oxygen at all depth (Seamans &
Newell, 1973).  The continued maintenance of the Lake
as a recreational and  natural resource requires that
any trend towards continued enrichment be reversed.

Lake Winnisquam.  The  New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission  (1973) has summarized
conditions of Lake Winnisquam.  It is a dimictic lake
approximately eight miles long and a mile and a half
wide at its greatest width.  It has a surface area of
approximately 4,200 acres,  or roughly 10 percent of that
of Lake Winnipesaukee.   It  is oriented along a north-
south axis, and is divided  into two basins by a shelf
about two miles north  of  the southern end of the lake.
The upper basin has a  maximum depth of 174 feet, while
the lower basin is approximately 65 feet deep.   The
two basins appear to represent essentially separate
systems.  The Winnipesaukee River contributes 95 percent
of the inflow to the Lake,  entering midway on the upper
basin.  In the vicinity  of  the river two effluent  dis-
charges from the Laconia State School and the City of
Laconia enter the Lake.   Lake Winnisquam has been
affected by nuisance myxophycean algal blooms during
the summer months since  the late 1950fs (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1961).  These blooms  were stimulated by fertili-
zation of the Lake by  the sewage effluent from the
City of Laconia and the  Laconia State School.  The recom-
mended corrective measure was removal of phosphorus from
the effluents  (Metcalf and  Eddy, 1961).  This was not
done at the time because  of lack of funds.  Implementation
of this recommendation has  finally occurred within this
calendar year, but its impact on the Lake cannot be eval-
uated as yet.  Since 1961 algal blooms have continued
to occur periodically, and  they have been controlled by
treatment with copper  sulfate.  In 1964, a fish kill
occurred in the Lake,  the cause of which is not known,
but which might have been related either to the copper
sulfate treatments or  to  production of a toxin by a
blue-greem algae.  In  any case, the use of copper sul-
fate continues.  It has  since been determined that the
fish kill was probably caused by a toxin released by a
                    11-45

-------
variety of Aphanizomenon during decomposition.  This has
made it necessary to suspend copper sulfate treatments when
this algae is present.  While the Lake appears dominated
by blue-green and green algae, a wide variety of other
taxa have been identified, and diatoms are a signifi-
cant fraction of the population.  The two basins of the
lake present different physical environments.  The
upper basin is more distinctly stratified and has accept-
able dissolved oxygen (D.O.) values throughout the year.
Values below 5 ppm occur only for brief periods in the
fall and spring, when it is possible for fish to utilize
shallower areas of the Lake.  The lower basin is less
intensely stratified and exhibits periods of low or
zero D.O. in bottom waters during the summer months.  To
compensate for this, artificial destratification tech-
niques have been in use since 1970, and have been partially
effective in relieving the low D.O. values.  However, the
lower basin remains a marginal habitat for salmonid fishes.

Lake__Sguam_.  Lake Squam, the third largest lake in the
study area, is not reported as having any current pro-
blems with eutrophication.  It is a highly productive
cold-water lake, with a large littoral area supporting
extensive aquatic vegetation.  These areas are well suited
to production of warm water fishes, while the deeper
waters are well suited for salmonids.  This Lake is not
as deep as Lake Winnipesaukee and in the past has shown
low oxygen values in some restricted areas (Hoover, 1938).
There is no indication that the lake condition has
worsened, or that the overall quality has been effected.

Other Lakes and Ponds.  While the three lakes discussed
above are the major bodies of water in the area, there
are numerous small lakes and ponds.  Many of these
support extensive warm or cold water fisheries and are
sensitive to the pressures of increasing development.
At present only four of these lakes appear to have any
eutrophication problems (Dunst, et al., 1974; 1973a).
The lakes involved are Silver Lake, Knowles Pond, Moun-
tain Pond and Lake Waukewan.  No corrective measures are
currently being undertaken in any of them.  Appendix B
is a summary of the available data for all of the lakes,
both major and minor, in the study area.

Rivers and Streams.  Many small rivers and streams drain
into the lakes of the region.  Three major rivers, the
Winnipesaukee, the Pemigewasset and the Merrimack occur
in the study area.  Of these, only the Winnipesaukee River
is entirely within the study area.  This river originates
at the outfall of Lake Winnipesaukee and flows through
Paugus Bay, Lake Winnisquam and Silver Lake before joining
the Pemigewasset River at Franklin to form the Merrimack
River.  The Winnipesaukee is not noticeably affected by
                    11-46

-------
the sewage discharges at Laconia, and exhibits dis-
solved oxygen values at or near saturation in most areas.
Over those portions of its 17 mile  length that are not
in one of the lakes, it is a rapidly flowing stream
with a depth of approximately five  feet and a sand and
rock bottom.  It can be expected to 'support a typical
trout stream fauna, although no extensive year-round
biological surveys are available.   Limited phytoplankton
and zooplankton data do not indicate any significant
degradation.

Biota.  The lakes, ponds, and streams of this area re-
present a varied aquatic habitat, and while there is
extensive literature on the fish populations of the
area, the aquatic fauna is not adequately evaluated.
The phytoplankton populations of Lake Winnisquam and Lake
Winnipesaukee have been well documented because of the
eutrophication problems in those water bodies.  Phyto-
plankton populations in the remaining lakes have not been
evaluated, and the role of rooted aquatics has not been
quantified in any of the lakes.  A  study by Hoover
 (1938) of the Merrimack drainage basin provides a basic
biological background for the area.  The available bio-
logical and physical data for the lakes are summarized in
Appendix C.  Of the 29 species of fish known to occur in
the area, 12 support a sport fishery  (Appendix D).
Warm water species of recreational  value include the
Smallmouth Bass  (Micropterus dolomieui), the Largemouth
Bass  (Micropterus salmoides), and the White Perch
 (Morone americana).  Cold water sport fish are dominated
by salmonids, including Brown Trout (Salmo trutta),
Rainbow Trout  (Salmo gairdeni), Brook Trout  (Salvelinus
fontinalis), Lake Trout  (Salvelinus namaycush) and the
Landlocked Salmon  (Salmo salar).The lake trout and
landlocked salmon are restricted to the cold water
lakes of the area.  The State of New Hampshire maintains
an extensive hatchery and stocking  program designed to
maintain this fishery.  Salmonids are highly susceptible
to any degradation of water quality,  since they require
cold, highly oxygenated water to survive.  This is parti-
cularly important in lakes Winnipesaukee and Winnisquam,
where indications of eutrophic  conditions have been
noted.  These are not the only  areas of concern, however,
since most of the smaller lakes also  support valuable
fisheries, either warm- or cold-water.

Data on zooplankton populations are scarce for  all of
the lakes, but  it may be expected that they  support
typical lake or pond populations.   These organisms are
important food  organism  for many varieties of  larval
fish, and represent an  intermediate link between  phyto-
plankton production and  the higher  tropic  levels..
                    11-47

-------
   Primary production in some of the lakes has been  inves-
   tigated due to the occurrence of algae blooms.  Most
   available data is from Lake Winnipesaukee and Lake
   Winnisquam.  The Chlorophyceae  (green algae) provided
   the greatest diversity with 237 taxa.  The Bacillari-
   ophyceae  (Diatoms) were the second most abundant  group,
   with 83 species.  The Cyanophyceae (blue-green algae)
   ranked third in number of species  (68), but their cell
   counts far exceeded all other groups.  Other algae  pro-
   vided 65  additional species.  Appendix  E lists the
   most abundant algal species found in their study.  It
   must be noted that all eight of their stations were in
   shore or  in bay areas, none were in the open lake,
   which may contain different flora.  No information  is
   available on the role of rooted aquatics in the lake.

   Data summarized by the New Hampshire Water Supply and
   Pollution Control Commission  (1973, 1974) provides  an
   extensive analysis of algal populations in Lake Winnis-
   quam.  Again, no data is given  for rooted aquatics.
   The lake  suffers periodically from algal blooms which
   are made  up primarily of blue-greens of three genera,
   Anabaena, Gloeotrichis and Aphanizomenon.  The variety
   is known  to produce a virulent  endotoxin, and has been
    implicated  in fish kills in the Lake.  Other common
   genera  in the Lake are listed in Appendix E.

   A comparison of Appendix Tables E-l and E-2 illustrates
   clearly that the two lakes have extremely different
   phytoplankton assemblages.

    The remaining lakes and  the rivers have been extensively
    surveyed, but depending  on their trophic state, could
    by expected  to  contain phytoplankton populations  simi-
    lar to  those present  in  these lakes.   In littoral areas
    of the  large  lakes and in  small  shallow ponds,  the  roles
    of rooted aquatics may be  significant  and needs evalu-
    ation.

Terrestrial.   EcolSciences,  inc.  staff inspected the  proposed
pipeline  routes,  immediate and potentially serviceable  areas
and the proposed Franklin  treatment plant  site.  The  following
is a  general  description  of  the vegetation and  animal com-
munities  found  throughout  the  entire study area (both pri-
mary  and peripheral).  Additional,  specific vegetational
patterns  and  animal communities of  each  pipeline corridor,
service area, etc.  are  then  described  in more detail.  See
Section I  for an engineering description of  the proposed
pipelines  and STP  sites,  and Figure 1-2  for  proposed  service
areas and  Figure 1-6  for  pipeline routings*

    General.  Virtually  all  the  forests  that once  occupied
    central New Hampshire have been cut over,  burned off or
                       11-48

-------
cleared for farming at some time  (Braun, 1950).  Second
growth stands that now cover the region are of a northern
hardwood--white pine* forest type.  The hardwood consti-
tuents and the distribution of white pine vary within
the study area and are influenced by the age of the
stand, soils, topography, and other environmental fac-
tors,  in mature forests where trees are 10 inches or
more in diameter, the dominant hardwoods are usually
sugar maple and red oak.  The associates in a mature
forest may include gray, yellow or white birch, ash,
basswood, and black oak.  White pine may be dispersed
within the stand or grow in pure stands.  Hemlock is
locally distributed in mature forests.  An understory
of smaller trees and shrubs includes a wide variety of
shade tolerant species including striped maple, hop
hornbeam, dogwoods, viburnums and other shrubs, and
saplings of species in the canopy.  The understory is
best developed in young stands in which more light pene-
trates.  The forests with an abundant understory offer
more food, cover and nesting sites for wildlife.**
Similarly, in areas where dense vegetation grows in res-
ponse to abundant light, i.e., at the interface of a forest
with cultivated fields, roads, railroads, power lines or
other clearings, wildlife populations are also supported.
Deer, rabbits and other small mammals, game birds, and
song birds utilize this "edge" vegetation.

While upland forest covers most of the region, vege-
tation of another type is associated with the numerous
marshes, swamps and land which is intermittently flooded.
These wet areas occur at scattered locations throughout the
region and are usually small in extent.  Larger marshes
do occur along the Tioga River and other tributaries of
the Winnipesaukee River and on land between Paugus Bay
and Lake Winnipesaukee.

Such wetlands have long been recognized for their value
for wildlife and several that occur in the study area
have been identified by the County Conservation Dis-
tricts as "natural areas".  (See Section II.A.10, for
location and description of wetland area.

Wooded wetlands in the study area are usually dominated
by red maple.  A shrub community of willows, alder, sweet
   *Scientific names of woody species are provided in
    Appendix  F.

  **Animal species anticipated in the study area are
    listed in Appendix G and H.
                     11-49

-------
 gale,  swamp  dogwood and  several  herbaceous  plant species
 including cattail, sedges and  rushes  covers land which
 is more  frequently or permanently  flooded.

 Disturbed areas,  such as  abandoned fields,  road and
 railroad rights-of-way and vacant  lots also  support  a
 characteristic  flora.  Species which  occur  in  "edge"
 vegetation may  be present on these sites  in adddition
 to those species  more commonly restricted to disturbed
 sites.   These plants generally grow rapidly, are toler-
 ant  to light and  acclimate to wide variations  in soil
 and  moisture conditions.  Plants which most  frequently
 are  found in a  sample of disturbed site flora  in the
 study  area are  trembling aspen,  large-tooth  aspen, pin
 cherry,  shadbush, red maple, white pine,  sumac,  alder,
 blackberry,  elderberry, Virginia creeper, poison ivy,
 and  herbaceous  weeds.  While weedy in character,  this
 flora  is of  considerable value in  preventing erosion.
 It is  a  potential food source for  much wildlife,  but
 may  be under-utilized if other wildlife habitat  require-
 ments  such as water, cover, etc. are not  met.

 Some of  the  vegetation in developed sections of  the
 study  area includes the same species present in  disturbed
 areas.   Both natural and introduced species have  been
 used for landscaping material.  The vegetational  pattern
 in the residentially developed area around the perimeter
 of the lakes is generally more similar to mature  forest
 than that of disturbed areas.  In  newer developments,
 there has been minimal clearing of vegetation for con-
 struction of home sites.   Where more  extensive  clearing
 was  made for older homes, the regrowth of pines, maples,
 oaks and other trees present in northern hardwood-white
 pine plant associations has occurred.   Hence, mature
 forest appears to be continuous to the lake shore in
 many communities.

 Primary  study Area.  The service area from Meredith  to
 Franklin includes urban sectors and shoreline residential
 development.  Outside these developed areas, are forests
 which are predominantly immature.  White pine has in-
 vaded land which was once under cultivation.  The Bel-
 mont service area is different in  that a substantial
 amount of the potentially serviceable area is wetland.
 The wooded portion of the wetland  is  dominated by red
 maple;  with willows and alder present both in the under-
 story and in shrub swamps.   Tiltion,  Northfield, and Bel-
mont provide good wildlife habitats as each township has
 an abundance of edge vegetation and water.

The Meredith and Laconia service areas,  in the sectors
where development has not occurred, have thin forests
and typical disturbed area vegetation.  Small areas


                    11-50

-------
also are covered by wetlands or  lakeside plant com-
munities.

    Meredith Interceptor.  Vegetation along the Boston
    and Maine Railroad between Meredith and Weir's
    Beach is composed of scattered, thin stands of
    maple, oak, pine, and aspen, plus trees, shrubs and
    vines which typically occupy disturbed sites.  Ground
    cover is composed of grasses and mixed herbaceous
    weeds.  Occasionally, where houses are sited close to
    the railroad, trees and shrubs serve as visual
    screening of the tracks.

    West Paugus Interceptor.  This interceptor follows
    the railroad and city streets for  much  of  its  length,
    but crosses a partially wooded golf course and culti-
    vated land for a short distance.

    Winnisquam Outfall System.  Along the outskirts of
    Laconia, southward, the sewer line follows the
    railroad through a vegetationally disturbed area,
    where commercial and industrial development has
    occurred.  Outside the city boundary, the vegetative
    composition changes.  The railroad embankment has
    disturbed vegetative cover; however, the wider sewer
    corridor also includes alternate hardwood forest and
    white pine stands faced with edge vegetation.   Near
    the southern end of Winnisquam Lake some wetland
    shrub community is crossed.  In this sector the
    wetland area already has been disrupted by con-
    struction of summer cottages and the roads serving
    them.

    Sanbornton Interceptor.  The portion of the Lake
    Winnisquam through which the sewer corridor passes,
    already has experienced considerable residential
    development.  The vegetation in this sector is
    typical of that in the other lakeside communities.
    Part of the sewer corridor is coextensive with a
    road constructed at the Lake's edge.

    Laconia Connection.  Until final delineation of the
    routing of the Tilton-Northfield Extention is de-
    termined, the pathway of the Laconia Connection can-
    not be described.   However, it is assumed that this
    corridor will include land along the B  & M Railroad
    tracks,  which supports disturbed area vegetation
    similar to that found elsewhere along the railroad.
                     11-51

-------
Belmont Interceptor. Between the interceptor's terminus
in the Village of Belmont and its first crossing of the
Tioga River, the abandoned railroad embankment (approxi-
mately 20 feet wide) is elevated above a wet meadow to
the south and follows the contour of the slope to the
north.  It is heavily vegetated with sapling birch  (Betula
papyrifera) and  (B. nigra) red maple (Acer rubrum) and a
tangle of blackberry briars (Rubus sp.) and honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) for approximately a quarter mile,
then cleared to the first river crossing.  The interceptor
alignment continues westward along the Tioga River to a
point approximately one mile from the Village of Belmont.
Adjacent to this section of the alignment is a wet meadow
with wetland grass cover.  In the vicinity of the cleared
area east of South Road the embankment is elevated above
a shrub swamp and wooded swamp to the north and follows
the contour of a wooded slope to the south.  The wooded
slope is vegetated with young pine (Pinus strobus) and
white birch.  The wooded swamp is dominated by red maple,
green ash  (Fraxinus pensylvanica) and black willow  (Salix
nigra).   Shrub species in this part of the swamp and
farther west are alder (Alnus serrulata), willow and dog-
woods (Cornus amomum) and (C. stolonifera).  The cleared
sector of the embankment transects a pasture to the
second river crossing.  From the river crossing directly
west of South Road, the embankment is elevated above a
seasonally flooded mixed coniferous - deciduous forest.
The embankment and railroad tressels are washed out at
the river crossing.

The interceptor alignment west of its intersection with
Route 140 will be on the south side of the road's right-
of-way.  Construction in this area will remove some pine
forest to the Merrimack County line where the road right-
of-way is cleared.  Adjacent to the south side of Route
140 shrub swamp and swamp forest is present.

From this point the Tioga River was diverted to the west
when Route 140 was reconstructed.  The road is elevated
above the two segments of ponded water which were for-
merly confluent.  The road embankment is stabilized by
grass cover at this point.  The bridge crosses the Tioga
River where it is approximately 60 feet in width.  The
road right-of-way is vegetated with weedy flora from the
bridge to the Boston and Maine railroad tracks.

The swamp and marshland,crossed by the railroad embank-
ment and Route 140,have been identified as natural areas,
unsuitable for building.   The New Hampshire Office of
Comprehensive Planning in their Guide Plan for Water and
Related Land Resources identifies all marshes and swamps
as important surface and ground water resources.  They


                      11-51.a

-------
are often valuable wildlife resources.  However, the
State Fish and Game Department describes this region
as being only "fair" for wild fowl as opposed to
"good" or "excellent" for other swamplands in the
State.

Tilton-Northfield  Extension.  Until  details  of   the
final  corridor alignment  are  complete,  it  is uncer-
tain what plant  and  animal  communities  are present.

Franklin Interceptor.   Where  these interceptors  fol-
low the railroad east of  the  City and along  City
streets the  vegetation  which  exists  in  the construc-
tion corridor is typical  of disturbed areas.  South
of the City, along the  Merrimack River, the  corridor
encompasses  an area  of  northern hardwood - white
pine forest  and  cultivated  farmland.

Treatment Plant  Site at Franklin.  The  proposed STP
site is located  along the Merrimack  River  south of
Franklin.  Natural vegetation is varied and  consists
of:  l)a mixed  hardwood-softwood forest on  the slopes,
2) grasses and herbaceous weeds in cleared areas, and
3) an  alder  thicket  and bottomland trees on  the river
bank.  Part  of the tract  is under cultivation and
was planted  in corn  during  the 1975  growing  season.

Approximately 75%  of the  forest on the  steep slopes
is dominated by  hardwood  species.  Sugar maple and
oaks are abundant  but a wide  diversity  of  other
species including  ash,  butternut, hickory, basswood,
and gray and yellow  birch are present.  The  coniferous
element is primarily white  pine, but hemlock exerts
local  dominance.   Edging  this forest at the  base of
the slopes are several  plant  species, including wild
apple, blackberry, choke  cherry and  viburnums which
offer  suitable food  for wildlife.

The meadow between the  forested slope and  the culti-
vated  field  is locally  wet.   It supports grasses,
sedges, many species of herbaceous annuals and per-
ennials and  a few  shrubs.   An alder  thicket  occupies
part of the  tract.   Black willows are present on
low sites and at the edge of  brooks  draining into
this basin.

The river is fringed by mature silver maple  and
American elm trees.  A  strip  of grass approximately
forty  feet wide  lies between  the river  and the culti-
vated  field.
                11-52

-------
    The northwest side of the parcel supports some ex-
    cellent wildlife habitat by providing water, nesting
    sites and cover.  Some food plants present include
    butternut, choke cherry, dogwood, several viburnums,
    blackberry, apples, elderberry, and wild grape.

 In the service area from Gilford to Laconia, shoreline
development is heaviest westward from Belknap Point.
Residential communities have been built with only minimal
clearing of forests.  Woodlands in these developed areas
are mostly of a sugar maple - oak community type and in-
clude birches and some white pine.  A wetland located
north of the Laconia Airport between Paugus Bay and
Lake Winnipesaukee, lies within the service area of both
Gilford and Laconia, and has been identified as a valuable
wildlife resource.

The potentially serviceable area of Gilford is
extensive and the vegetational pattern is varied.  An
excellent mature forest in the Belknap Mountains is
composed predominantly of northern hardwoods and white
pine, with spruce and fir present at higher elevations.
This forest covers extensive areas, but is interrupted
by pastureland at lower elevations.

    Gilford Interceptor.  Although heavy shoreline devel-
    opment has occurred between Ellacoya State Park and
    the channel between Paugus Bay and Meredith Bay,
    mature trees and generally well established vege-
    tation is present.  Houses are secluded in the
    woodland.  Red and black oak, sugar maple, birch and
    ash are the most frequently distributed hardwoods.
    White pine is the softwood component.  The understory
    is composed of both naturally occurring shrubs and
    trees and those species introduced by cultivation.
    This varied vegetational composition provides ample
    support for a diversity of birds and mammals and
    contributes to the high aesthetic quality of the
    area.

Peripheral Study Area.  Center Harbor, Moultonborough,
and Tuftonboro, located in the northern sector of the
study area, are considered serviceable in the future;
however, plans for interceptors are not included in the
applicant's proposed project.

In this peripheral area, a northern hardwood-white pine
forest forms a patchwork pattern with cultivated fields
and pastures.  In general, woodland in this region is of
moderate density and while some tracts contain mature
forest, young stands predominate.  Lakeside development
has occurred along Lake Winnipesaukee and its bays.
Moultonborough Neck has extensive wetland areas with a
                    11-53

-------
        few  small  lakes which have been identified as wildlife
        resources  (New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Plan-
        ning,  1974).   These wetlands are both within and
        outside  the potentially serviceable area.

        Neither  Wolfeboro  nor Alton are included in the  inter-
        ceptor system  of this project,  but future  potentially
        serviceable areas  have been delineated.  Of the  two,
        Wolfeboro  has  more pasture and  cropland, while Alton
        appears  to have the better developed forests.  Wolfe-
        boro has more  lakeside development and the serviceable
        area includes  part of the shoreline of Lake Wentworth
        in addition to that along Lake  Winnipesaukee.  Where
        development has occurred along  the shorelines  in Wolfe-
        boro, vegetation is heavy and in most areas homes are
        secluded by the woodland.

    8.  Aesthetics

    The aesthetic  quality  or condition  of the environment is a
matter of personal opinion.   Society, however, has  become in-
creasingly aware of the value of the natural environment and of
the extent to which human  activities have altered  the  beautiful
and unique features of nature.

    The Winnipesaukee  River drainage basin contains many natural
features which possess not only great aesthetic appeal,  but
also high recreational value.   The numerous  lakes,  rivers and
ponds are surrounded by an outstandingly beautiful  setting of
rolling, forested  hills and mountains.   The  almost  45,000 acre
expanse of Lake  Winnipesaukee is framed to the northwest by
Red Hill, ascending 2,000  feet in  Moultonborough to the  north-
east by the  Ossipee Mountains,  rising nearly  3,000  feet  in
Moultenborough and Tuftonboro,  and to the south by Belknap Moun-
tain, rising nearly 2,400  feet in  Gilford.

    The many forested  islands and  the irregular shoreline of
Lake Winnipesaukee add to  the panoramic vista.  By providing such
a beautiful  natural setting,  the intricate assembly of bays, coves
and inlets have  attracted  a  tremendous  number of seasonal and year-
round residents.   In many  areas, where  forest cover is still
abundant, the location of  housing  has not significantly detracted
from the shore's aesthetic  appeal.   In  other  stretches, particularly
along portions of  Meredith Bay,  Alton Bay and Weirs Beach, the
high density residential and commercial development has  sub-
stantially degraded the natural  attractiveness of the area.

    Significant  changes in the natural  beauty of Opechee Bay and
Paugus Bay also  have occurred, mainly because of the intense
development  in Laconia's urban center and fringe.  Presently,
parts of the upper western shore of  Paugus Bay are still heavily
forested and developed to a  lesser degree than the eastern shore,
which has been severely intruded by  numberous motels, commercial
cottages/ private  residences including  apartments.


                            11-54

-------
    Around Lake Winnisquam,  as with Lake Winnipesaukee, many
areas have retained their natural beauty, while others have been
spoiled by intensive land use.

    The interior of each township is graced with heavily wooded,
rolling to mountainous terrain, dotted by small lakes and ponds.
The majority of these areas still possess their natural beauty
and solitude.  However, recent "back-lot" development in the
near-shore regions, particularly in the peripheral study area,
is progressively encroaching on the scenery.

    The aesthetic appeal of the region is attributed not only to
the beautiful natural features, but also to the many man-made
structures.  The area is rich with the interest and appeal of
many historic homes, mills and churches.  Most of the older
communities, like Wolfeboro, Franklin, Sanbornton, etc., have
streets lined with stately old residences interspersed with new
homes.  The old mills, dating back to the 1890] s remind resi-
dents in downtown Franklin and Laconia of the industrial era
of yesteryear.  And, as an impressive contrast to the natural
and historic scenery of the region, the Franklin Falls Flood
Control Dam rises from the waters of the Pemigewasset River.

    9.  Historic and Archeologic Resources.

    To develop a comprehensive inventory of the historic and
archeologic resources in the primary and peripheral study areas,
numerous information sources used, including the following:
1) the National Historic Register, 2) files maintained by the
New Hampshire State Historic Office in Concord, 3) County inven-
tories, 4) the Historic American Engineering Record, and 5) a
listing of Historic Indian Trails prepared by the New Hampshire
Archeological Society.  In addition, a letter  was  sent to  each
local historical society describing the information sources
consulted and listing the sites identified in each town.  These
societies were asked to both validate the lists, making additions
or deletions where  necessary,  and  locate each  site on  the map.
Due to the lack of an official, complete archeologic and his-
toric inventory for the study area, it was felt that this
effort would provide the best available data.  To date, only a
few responses have been received from the local historical
societies.  Therefore, although every effort has been made  to
compile a complete  inventory and mapping, the  information ob-
tained is incomplete.  To avoid presentation of incorrect data,
only sites appearing on official inventories or the responses
received from the local historical societies are listed in  Table
11-14.  Figure II-9  shows the  location  of  the  sites  for which  an
exact  location  is  known.

    There are five National Historic Register  sites  in the
primary study area and none in the peripheral  study area.
These  sites  are identified  and described  as follows:
                             11-55

-------
                                                           Table  II-14

                                               HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

                          (SOURCES:  National Register, Historic American Engineering Record, New
                         Hampshire State Historic Inventory and Files, New Hampshire Archeological
                         Society, Historic Inventories for Carroll,  Belknap and Merrimack Counties
                         and personal communications with town Historic Societies)
Site Name Location Date Inventory Listing

PRIMARY STUDY AREA
FRANKLIN
MP#
1 Daniel Webster Family South Main Street
Home ( The Elms )
2 Daniel Webster Law Office
3 J.P. Stevens Textile Mill East Bow Street'
4 Sulphite Railroad Bridge off US 3 over Winnipesaukee
River
GILFORD
5 Historic District
LACONIA
6 Belknap-Sulloway Mill Mill Street
7 Busiel-Seeburg Mill Mill Street
8 Endicott Rock Near the Weirs
9 Jewett Homestead


c . 1880
1897

c . 1823
1853

1870
NHR
X


X

X
X


NHL
X
X







HAER


X


X
X


NHSHI







X
X
NBAS









CI
X



X




H
I
Ul
CTi

-------
                       Site Name
Location
Date
Inventory Listing

11 Pereley Canal Between Beacon Street and
Winnipesaukee Avenue
12 Pump Station Union Avenue
13 Railroad Station
14 Sewage Treatment Plant
15 Site of Druillettes At Weirs
Jesuit Mission
16 Weirs Aquadoctan US. 3 north of Laconia
Archeological Site
17 Meredith Neck Union 4 mi. from Rt. 65
Church
18 Stonedam Island Indian west of Msredith Neck
Campsite
NORfflFIELD
19 Fif ield House Park Street
SANBORNTCN
20 Colby-Leavitt House
21 Historic District
22 Lane Tavern Historic District
23 Winnisquam Indian At Outlet to Lake
Camping Place Winnisquam
24 Woodman Academy Historic District

1818

late 19th

1650


c. 1830



1780

1810


NHR







X









NHL

















HAER

X
X
X
X












NHSHI



X



X









NHAS





X

X


X




X

CI








X


X


X


H
H
I
Ul
-J

-------
                  Q-i
                    te Ns
         location
                                                                       Date
                                                  Inventory Listing
H


00
  25  Congregational Church


      TILTON

  26  Brick and flood Mills

PERIPHERAL  STUDY AREA
      ALTON

  27  Camp Kabeyun

  28  First Free Baptist Church

  29  Oilman House

  30  Historical Society Building

  31  Quannippi Indian Village

  32  Robert's Cove  Indian
       Camping Place


      CENTER HARBOR

  33  Coe Mansion

  34  Dudley-Leavitt Home

  35  Centre Harbor Congregational
       Church

   36  Original segment of the
      College Road from Wolfe-
      boro to Dartmouth College
      laid out by Governor
      Wentworth.
Historic District



West Main Street



Clay Point

US. 28

US. 140

US. 28A and 11

Alton Bay
 N.H. Rt. 25

 Main Street
   1834
c. 1850
   1857
   1820



   1837


   1771
                                                                                 NHR
                                                 NHL
                       HAER
                                                                                                       NHSHI
                                                              x

                                                              x
                                                                                                       NHAS
                                                                        CI
                                                                                                                    x


                                                                                                                    X

                                                                                                                    X
                                     X


                                     X

-------
i
ui
10
Site Name Location Date Inventory Listing

37 Dr. Leonard G. Merrill Plymouth Street
Memorial Park
38 Old Mill Site-Hawkins Hawkins Park Road
Mill
39 Old Mill Site-York Mill Near corner at Hawkins
Pond Road and Winona
Road
40 Sturtevant Home Route 25B



c. 1820
NHR




NHL




HAER NHSHI







X
NHAS



j

CI




      * See Figure  II-9  for  location of sites,

-------
FIGURE II-9.   HISTORIC SITES
      W  Historic  Sites listed in
           the National Register

          Local  Historic Sites

          (See Table  11-15 for Identi-
           fication of Numbers)
                  11-60

-------
    The Belknap-Sulloway Mill on Mill Street in Laconia was
    built around 1823.  It is thought to be one of the oldest
    in-tact textile mills of its type in the area.  The mill
    is a small structure built of brick and wood and is re-
    presentataive of rural manufacturing operations.  In the
    interior, joist ed flooring and open ceilings date back to
    the originai structure,
    The Busiel Seeburg Mill was continued in 1850, with additions
    built in 1878 and 1882.  It is located on Mill Street in
    Laconia r where it operated for many years as the Busiel
    Granite Hosiery Mill.  The structure has a gabled roof,
    decorative brickwork and a tall stair tower with an arched
    window on three sides of the top story.

    The Weirs Aquadoctan Archeological Site is the site of a
    village of the Winnipesaukee tribe of the Penacock
    Confederacy.  Although the precise location of the village
    is unknown, it is thought to lie on the north shore of the
    narrows between Lake Winnipesaukee and Paugus Bay.  Some
    areas of the site have been disturbed by the construction
    of the railroad and the cottages in the area.
        Sulphite Railroad Bridge, also called "upside down bridge"
    was built in 1897.  It is the last existing deck-type covered
    railroad bridge in the United States.  It was built by the
    Bridges and Building Department of the Boston and Maine
    Railroad.

    The Daniel Webster Family Home also called the "Elms", is
    a two-and-one-half story residential structure located on
    South Main Street in Franklin.  Ebenezer Webster, Daniel's
    father, moved into the house in 1800 and lived there until
    his death.  Daniel bought the hoiise in 1829 and used it
    as a vacation retreat and experimental farm.

   10.  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

    During the development of an area, preserving natural pro-
cesses and areas of valuable natural resources is an important
consideration.  Environmentally sensitive areas are fragile
features which are not suitable for certain uses without incur-
ring direct and/or indirect social, economic and environmental
costs.  Identification of these areas is a first step in satis-
factorily resolving the inherent conflicts between man and
nature in a developing area.  Figure JII-10 identifies the general
location of many of the environmentally sensitive areas.

                       Surface Waters

    The study area contains extensive aquatic natural resources
which are of prime importance to the aesthetic,  natural,  economic  and
recreational value of the region (Secjtion II. A. 7).



                           £1-61

-------
FIGURE 11-10.  ENVIRONMENTAL-
                SENSITIVE  AREA;
  [Source:   Adapted  from NH Office of
   Comprehensive Planning; NH Depr.  --
   Resources 6 Economic Development  -:
   New England River Basins Commission
   1974.]
    •  Wetlands

     '•  Environmentally Sensitive  Areas

        (See  Table  II-1& for Number
         I dentificat ion)
                      11-62

-------
     Lakes Winnipesaukee, Winnisquaro, and Squam are areas
     of  critical  interest as  they  support extensive sport
     fisheries  for  salmonid fish,  which would be endangered
     by  any  significant decrease in water quality.  Most
     of  the  area's  smaller lakes also support valuable
     cold- or warm-water fisheries.

     Lake Winnipesaukee, supporting a Wide variety of fish
     species, has an extensive  littoral zone which is an
     important  food-producing area for predatory game fish.

     Squam Lake is  a highly productive cold-water lake, with
     a large littoral area supporting extensive aquatic
     vegetation.  The shallower areas are well suited for
     production of  warm water fish, and the deeper waters
     are well suited for salmonids.

     The Winnipesaukee River  can be expected to support a
     typical trout  stream fauna.

     Many of the lakes throughout  the study area also form the
source of public water supplies(Section III.A.6).  Lake
Winnipesaukee,  Paugus Bay, Lake Waukewan, Meredith Reservoir,
Knowles Pond, and Upper Beech Pond are used as supply sources
for many of  the residents in  Laconia, Meredith, Northfield,
Tilton and Wolfeboro.  All use  of  and around Knowles Pond, the
public water supply for Northfield, is restricted (see #9, Figure
11-10, for location of Knowles  Pond).  Hunkins Pond, in Sanborn-
ton, is a recreational trout  pond  and a potential water supply for the
town (see #10,  Figure 11-10), (Office of State Planning, initiated
1968).                                 '

     The Office of  State Planning  has identified the Merrymeering
River between U.S.  Routes 28  and 11 in!Alton, as a "typical
winding river;  fine for fishing, small jboats., canoes, viewing"
(Figure 11-10).                        I

                   Marshland  and Wetlands

     The inland fresh waters  and their twetlands should be of
primary concern in  the Lakes  Region,  inland wetlands refer to
any land submerged under fresh water.  This encompasses any
marsh, swamp, bog or meadow subject to periodic or permanent
flooding, including the surrounding shore and any soil desig-
nated by the National Cooperative  Soil 'survey as poorly drained
or very poorly drained  (Guariglia, 197=
the wetlands within the study area.
).   Figure 11-10 delineates
                            11-63

-------
     The wetlands serve many vital purposes for which they should
be conserved and protected.  These areas: 1) form the breeding
grounds from many aquatic organisms  (bacteria, algae, protozoa,
etc.) which are at the base of the food chain; 2) provide a
nutrient-rich environment for many animal species; 3) filter out
and decompose many pollutants? and 4) help control flood hazard by
storing rain water and releasing it  slowly to the open water
channels. Wetlands are also an important recreational and aesthetic
resource — providing an area for hunting, fishing, bird-watching,
nature studies, etc.  Once destroyed,  i.e., by dredging, filling,
draining, clearing, etc.,  these valuable lands cannot be restored.

     There are several critical wetlands which lie with-
in or near the proposed sewer service area, plus many
small marshes which are scattered over the remaining region.  The
Tioga Marsh/beginning at the  confluence of the Tioga and Winni-
pesaukee Rivers,  is one of the largest wetlands in the study area.
This marsh has already been disturbed to a certain extent by con-
struction of  1-93.  Another large wetland is  located just north-
west of  the Laconia Airport between  Paugus Bay and Lake Winnipesau-
kee.  This area has also been disturbed  somewhat by the roads, the
airport  and surrounding development.

     Wetlands  are also associated with Page Brook  in Meredith
Neck.  This area  is relatively undisturbed, as most of the
present  development is concentrated  along the lake and bay
shorelines and not within  the interior,  marsh region.

     Pickerel Cove and Moultons  Cove, at the  upper northwestern
end of Paugus Bay, are associated with  limited marshlands.  Both
cove outlets  have been restricted by construction  of the  rail-
road track.   Further  reduction of  these  channels  could alter
the size of  these wetlands.

     The Belknap, Merrimack and Carroll  County Conservation
Districts,  in cooperation with  the  Office  of  State Planning,
has initiated an  inventory of natural,  scenic, and historic
 areas  throughout the  region.   Wetland areas identified  in these
 studies  are  summarized in Table 11-15.

      The State of New Hampshire first tried to regulate wet-
 lands  in 1955.  In 1967,  the following revised Dredge  and Fill
 Laws were passed:

      RSA 488-A prohibits excavating or dredging of any
      flat, marsh, bank,  swamp or lake bed that lies
      below the natural mean water mark of any fresh public
      water of the State without first petitioning the Water
      Resources Bond;
                              11-64

-------
     Town

     Laconia



     Sanbornton
l

-------
   TABLE  11-15.   Continued.
                          Name of Identity
              Map No.*       of the Area
Town
Alton
Tuftonboro
                          Woodman's Swamp
                          Twenty-mile Bay
                           (Upper Bay)
Location

U.S. 28
3 miles

Route 109
Present Use
  of Area

Private
                                                                   Private
Description of Area

Swamp — thickly wooded.  Excellent
for hunting furbearing animals

Twenty-mile Brook emptying into this
bay passes through undeveloped wet-
lands housing a variety of wildlife.
The bay has a beach which is used by
families
*Map numbers refer to Figure II-9.

-------
RSA 482;41-e-i restricts the filling in of ponds
over 10 acres without permission of the Governor
and Council;
RSA  483;A-1, the statute governing Excavating  and
Dredging, requires filing with the State Water
Resources Board and  local Town Clerk a notice  of
intention to excavate, remove, fill or dredge  any
bog,  flat, marsh, or swamp in and adjacent  to  any
State water, thirty  days prior to such action.
This  allows the Boards thirty days to check the
site  and take  action, if the proposed project  will
adversely affect the environment or general public
 (Guariglia, 1975);

RSA  149:8-a also governs dredging, filling, excavating
and  constructing in  or on the border of State  surface
waters  and requires  that, for any such project which
significantly  alters the terrain, detailed  plans be
submitted to the State Water Supply and Pollution Con-
trol  Commission at least 30 days prior to start of
activities.  Operations cannot be started without
written permission from the Commission, which  is
authorized to  establish the terms and conditions, of the
permit.  This  does not modify or limit the  duties or
authority granted the Water Resources Board under
RSA  482 and RSA 483-A (Division of Community Planning,
Office  of Comprehensive Planning, January,  1975).

Each  town also has the authority to protect their
wetlands by regulating the uses permitted in these
areas; and

Flood Plains.  The Soil Surveys of Balknap  County
 (1968)  and Merrimack County  (196'5) and the  Resource
Conservation and Development Project for Carroll,
Grafton, and Coos Counties  (1968) have delineated
flood plain soils within the study area  (Figure  II-4) .
These alluvial soils, formed from gravel, sand or
clay  deposited by rivers and streams, belong to  either
the  Hickley-Windsor-Au Gris or Ondawa-Windsor-Agawam
Association.   The principal flood plain  in  the study
area  is that of the  Pemigewasset and Winnipesaukee
Rivers.  Smaller flood plains parallel the  Tioga River
 (in  Belmont),  Alton  Bay and Merrymeeting River (in
Alton), Gunstock River  (in Gilford), and Durkee  and
Jewett  Brooks  (in Laconia and Gilford) .  Development
                         11-67

-------
    along the Pemigewasset River flood plain, in
    Sanbornton and Franklin, is strictly controlled
    by the Federal government (Section II.B.2).

    Several municipalities in the study area are partici-
    pating in or are eligible for participation in the
    National Flood Insurance Program (Section III-D>3).
    Once eligibility is established, member communities
    are required to enact ordinances regulating develop-
    ment in the flood plain.

    The site of the proposed Franklin sewage treatment
    plant is of critical concern as the available land
    lies within the 100-year flood plain of the Merri-
    mack River.  In order to be eligible for insurance
    under the National Flood Insurance Program, any
    sewage treatment plant built with federal funds
    must be protected from damage from the waters of the
    100-year flood.  A January 1975 New Hampshire publica-
    tion, Standards of Design for Sewerage and Waste Treat-
    ment Systems reiterates this provision and also states
    that operation of any sewage treatment plant must con-
    tinue during a 25-year flood.  Therefore, diking or
    elevation of the plant must be undertaken in order to
    receive federal funding and also federally subsidized
    insurance.  Figure II- 11 indicates the relationship
    of the proposed STP site to the 100-year flood plain
    of the Merrimack River.

            Ground Water Recharge Areas

    Ground water resources in the Winnipesaukee basin are
limited.  The glacial till overlying most of the study area
is generally impervious and limits recharge.  Small areas of
stratified glacial deposits, including kames, eskers and out-
wash plains are pervious and supply rapid recharge to under-
lying rocks.  These areas are delineated in Figure II-2.

    Water movement in the bedrock is restricted to natural
joints and depends on limited areas of local recharge.

               Steeply Sloping Land

    The study area has slopes ranging from 0-25% (Figure
II-3).  Lowlands, with slopes, less than 8%, surround
Paugus Bay, Winnisquam Lake, Silver Lake, the Winnipesaukee
River, and the northern and northeastern margins of Lake
Winnipesaukee.  These lowlands grade into many steeply sloping,
mountainous regions.  Red Hill  (Moultonborough), the Ossipee
Mountains  (Moultonborough, Tuftonboro), the Belknap Mountains
(Gilford) Bean Hill (Northfield) and the Sanbornton Mountains
(Sanbornton) contain most of the area's steep slopes, i.e.,


                        11-68

-------
               Approximate  Location

            FRANKLIN  STP  SITE
FIGURE  11-11.   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED  FRANKLIN
                STP SITE & THE  100-YEAR. FLOOD PLAIN  HF
            .•'•THE MERRIMACK RIVER.
                                         10001
                                                    2000'
                                                               3000
                                 Approx i mate  Scale

-------
25% or greater.  In addition to these mountains, steep ledges and
small areas of slopes greater than 25% are found throughout the
study area.  The remainder of the region is in rolling hills of
moderate 8-15% slopes, with some scattered steep slopes of
15-25%.

     To reduce the hazard to streams and lakes of both silta-
tion from the erosion of steep hillsides and contamination from
the leakage of septic tank systems set on steep grounds, the
State Office of Comprehensive Planning has made the following
recommendations (New Hampshire Guide Plan for Water and Related
Land Resources - unpublished, 1974):

     1.  That New Hampshire pass legislation prohibiting
         commercial lumbering on slopes of 25% or greater,

     2.  That New Hampshire pass legislation prohibiting
         construction of any building on slopes 25% or
         greater, unless the lot accommodating the structure
         has an area of at least 25 acres.

                       Forested Areas

     There are no data available on the total number of wooded
acres in the study area.  The LRPC has estimated the amount of
undeveloped land, which includes riot only woodland, but also
cultivated, pasture, swamp and otherwise open land (Section
II.B.2).  The entire study area contains approximately 265,149
acres of undeveloped land  (133,204 acres in the primary study
area and 131,945 acres in the peripheral study area)  - the
majority of which is wooded.  The off-shore areas of each town
have vast woodlands, with Alton and Gilford having particularly
good forest resources.  All of the mountains, i.e., Sanbornton,
Belknap, Ossipee and Red Hill, are heavily forested.   Also, much
of the land within the Pemigewasset flood control area is wooded.
There are several government-managed forests(Table 11-24 and
Figure 11-12) in the area, with Belknap State Reservation in
Gilford being the largest.

           Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species

     The Office of Endangered Species and International Activities,
U. S. Department of Interior, identifies animal species considered
to be endangered.  The Eastern Cougar, (Felis concolar cougar) a
"possible," and the Indiana Bat (Myotois sodalis) are the only
listed endangered species which may occur in the State of New
Hampshire.  The New Hampshire Game and Fish Commission is unaware
of any sitings of the Cougar in the study area.  Further, no known
populations of the Indiana Bay now exist in the State according
to Dr. John Hall, Professor of Biology, Albright College, Reading,
Pennsylvania, an authority on the distribution of this species.
                              11-70

-------
     The U.S. Department of Interior  (July 1,  1975)  has
identified the following plant species in New  Hampshire as
endangered or threatened:

     Astragalus robbinsii vav.  jesupi

     Isotria medeoloides

     Calcmagrostis inexpansa var. novae-angliae

     Trollius laxus

     Geun pedki-i

     Potentilla robbinsiana

     *Prenanthes boottii

     *Paronyohia argyroooma var. alb-imontana

     *Isoetes eatonii

     *Isoetes foveolata

     *Lister-a auflcuiata

     *Cypripediwn arietinim

     *Platanthefa flava
 *   Threatened status.
      Of these, only two species have been recorded as occurring
 in the study area; however, the exact  locations have not been
 identified.   Seymore,  (1969) reported  a  collection of the en-
 dangered small whorled pagonia, Isotria  medeoloides, in Alton.
 Presumably this citation is based on a collection housed in
 one of several herbaria in New England.   The Department of
 Interior list was annotated by the National Herbarium of the
 Smithsonian Institution, which based inclusion of this species
 on the Seymore citation, and had no additional information on
 the location of date of collection.

      Also, Seymore lists the ram's head  lady slipper, Cypripedium
 aurietinum,  as present in Meredith and Wolfeboro.  The National
 Herbarium has no other information on  the collection of this
 threatened species of orchid.  The Society for the Protection
 of New Hampshire Forests, which publishes information identifying
 endangered species and their habitats, notes that the orchids
 listed have wide ranges of adaptability  and are difficult  to
 pinpoint as to exact location.


                              11-71

-------
                     Recreational Areas

     In 1973, leisure and recreational facilities throughout the
study area totaled 7,165 acres with 6,090 acres in the primary
study area and 1,075 in the peripheral area  (LRPC, 1973).  Table
11-24 inventories the existing public, semi-public, and private
facilities.  Presently, facilities for public beaches, docks,
etc. are inadequate and in need of augmentation if they are
to adequately serve projected populations.  Due to the extensive,
private development along the lake shores, public access points
are at a premium.

             Historical and Archaeological Sites

     The study area contains six sites which have been included
in the National Historic Register.  In addition, the State of
New Hampshire, through the State Historic Preservation Office,
is compiling information on numerous sites which require further
investigation and which may be worthy of  special concern (Table
11-14 and Figure II-9).  The entire study area is believed to
contain many sites of archaeological interest, particularly
in the lowlands surrounding the lakes.  Several sites of
archaeological value have already been identified, notably in
the Weirs Beach area  (Section II.A.9).
                             11-72

-------
B.   SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

     1.  Population Characteristics

     The resident population of the Lakes Region consists of
two components—year-round or permanent population and
seasonal population.  Recreational development is of such
major proportions that during the peak summer months total
resident population may be as much as three times the size
of year-round population.  Both elements of the population are
therefore of basic importance in evaluating current and future
service needs within the study area.

     The following section will outline existing population
characteristics of jurisdictions within the study area.  Year-
round and seasonal population elements will be considered
in turn.  Available population projections will then be
reviewed, providing a basis for selection of a composite
population projection to be used in subsequent impact analysis.

     Year-round Population.  Total study area year-round
     population was 50,622 in 1974—41,896 in the primary
     study area and 8,726 in the peripheral study area
     (Table 11-16).  Population growth was rapid during the
     early 1970's, with 1970-1974 growth rates ranging between
     20 and 40 percent in over half of the study area's jurisdic-
     tions.  The primary study area has absorbed an increasing
     share of total study area population growth, although
     growth rates tend to be relatively higher in the peripheral
     study area.  Within the primary study area Belmont,
     Gilford, Meredith and Sanbornton have experienced the
     highest growth rates.  The peripheral study area munici-
     palities, with the exception of Wolfeboro, have grown at
     comparable rates.  The cities of Laconia and Franklin,
     which have the largest year-round populations, have grown
     slowly during the period from 1960-1974.   Laconia actually
     lost population between 1960 and 1970.

     While population growth in the study area proceeded at a
     rapid pace during the early 1970's,  constraints imposed
     by declining economic conditions and fuel shortages have
     slowed the rate of growth considerably.   The 1975 resident
     population estimates, just recently released,  document
     this dampening trend (Table II- 17) .

     The population of the peripheral study area is generally
     older in composition than the population of the primary
     study area (Table II- 18) .  This can be explained by the
     comparatively greater importance of  retirement settlement
     in the peripheral study area.
                            11-73

-------
                         TABLE 11-16
YEAR-ROUND POPULATION - PRIMARY AND PERIPHERAL STUDY AREAS
          (Source: NHOCP, LRPC, and 1970 Census)
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Titlon
SUBTOTAL
PERIPHERAL STUDY
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonboro
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
(B)
(M)
(B)
(B)
(B)
(M)
(B)
(B)
AREA
(B)
(B)
(0
(C)
(C)
19741
3,100
7,663
4,430
16 , 206
3,727
2,437
1,334
2,999
41,896
2,011
666
1,641
1,256
3,152
8,726
50,622
1970
2,493
7,292
3,219
14,888
2,904
2,193
1,022
2,579
36,590
1,647
540
1,310
910
3,036
7,443
44,033
1960
1,953
6,742
2,043
15,288
2,434
1,784
857
2,137
33,238
1,241
511
840
678
2.689
5,959
39,197
1970-1974
% change
24.3
5.1
37.6
8.9
28.3
11.1
30.5
16.3
14.5
22.1
23.3
25.3
38.0
3.8
17.2
15.0
1960-1970
% change
27.6
8.2
57.6
-2.6
19.3
22.9
19.3
20.7
10.1
32.7
5.7
56.0
34.2
12.9
24.9
12.3

-------
       TABLE  11-16.  Continued.
      NOTE:      (B) = Belknap County

                 (C) = Carroll County

                 (M) = Merrimack County
1974 figures were derived be addition of 1970 Census group
quarters population counts to 1974 NHOCP resident population
estimates - these adjustments were necessary in order to
assure comparability between 1960 and 1970 Census figures
and 1974 estimates.
01

-------
                             TABLE 11-17

                 RESIDENT POPULATION,  1974-1975
                        (Source:   NHOCP)
                            1974
PRIMARY  STUDY AREA
   Belmont
   Franklin
   Gilford
   Laconia
   Meredith
   Northfield
   Sanbornton
   Tilton

Subtotal
                          41,199
 1975      Percent Change
 3,062          -1.2
 7,538          -0.3
 4,751           7.2
15,575          -1.2
 3.720           1.1
 2,469           3.0
 1,383           3.7
 2,894          -1.1

41,392           0.5
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
   Alton
   Center Harbor
   Mou1tonborough
   Tuftonboro
   Wolfeboro

Subtotal

TOTAL
2,000
635
1,640
1,166
3,144
8.585
49,784
2,007
642
1,848
1,122
3,160
8,779
50,171
0.4
1.1
12.7
-3.8
0.5
2.3
0.8
Note:  Resident population differs in certain respects from
       Census year-round population category.  The primary
       difference involves the exclusion of population in
       group quarters from the resident population count.
                             11-76

-------
     TABLE 11-18
SEX, RACE & AGE STATISTICS
 (Source:  1970 Census)
        SEX
RACE
                                   AGE

PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonboro
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Male
1,242
3,424
1,610
7,078
1,417
1,075
519
1,295
781
267
675
446
1,435
Female
1,251
3,868
1,609
7,810
1,487
1,118
503
1,284
866
273
635
464
1,601
%
Non
White
.4
.1
.2
.5
.3
.5
.9
.4
_
.7
.2
.1
.3
Median
26.5
29.5
30.1
31.1
31.9
25.6
30.8
30.8
35.9
33.7
28.9
42.7
35.7
%<18
37.8
35.4
35.8
32.9
32.0
38.8
35.0
33.4
32.9
29.6
30.6
28.4
31.8
%>65
7.2
12.2
9.4
13.3
11.8
8.4
11.2
14.2
17.3
18.5
11.6
19.5
14.4
       11-77

-------
Non-white population represents less than one percent of
total study area population  (Table 11-18).  Negro popula-
tion comprises less than one tenth of one percent of total
year-round population.

Average population densities are significantly higher in
the primary study area than in the peripheral study area
 (Table 11-19).  The primary study area is generally far
more heavily  developed than the peripheral study area,
which remains somewhat less accessible.
                      TABLE 19

      POPULATION  DENSITIES  & OCCUPANCY RATES
              (Source:  1970 Census and LRPC)
                         Persons per
                         Square Mile
Persons Per
 Household
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Til ton
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonboro
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
1974
104.0
272.7
115.7
798.3
93.4
83.7
38.1
260.8

31.4
58.9
28.3
30.5
65.0
1970
83.7
259.5
84.0
733.4
72.8
75.4
21.5
224.3

25.7
47.8
22.6
22.1
62.6
1970
3.35
3.11
3.24
2.91
2.93
3.39
3.23
3.04

2.96
2.89
2.93
2.78
2.84
                        11-78

-------
                          Summary

     Estimated year-round population in the study area in 1974
was 50,622—41,896 in the primary study area and 8,726 in the
peripheral study area.  The major share of growth in the perma-
nent population has been absorbed by the primary study area,
although growth rates for the more sparsely populated peripheral
study area were relatively higher.  The primary study area can
generally be characterized as both more densely populated and
younger in age.
                             11-79

-------
Seasonal Population,  Seasonal population has been
estimated at close to 50,000 within the  study area in
1970,  Almost 60 percent of total seasonal population
has been distributed throughout the peripheral study
area.  Moultonborough, Alton, and Wolfeboro have been
the most attractive municipalities for seasonal develop-
ment.  Previous estimates of seasonal population are
known to be subject to considerable error, for reasons
outlined in this section.  Actual seasonal population
within the study area in 1970 may have been closer to
100,000.

Seasonal population includes those people who occupy
seasonal or year-round dwelling units on an occasional
basis.  The seasonal component of total population
within the Lakes Region is known to be of considerable
significance.  However, the actual magnitude of the
seasonal population is not known with any accuracy.
Although direct estimates of seasonal population have
not been compiled, indirect estimates, utilizing avail-
able housing counts, are available.  These estimates
have been based on the seasonal housing counts contained
in the 1970 Census of Housing.

Estimates of seasonal population were generated by
NHOCP and LRPC using basically the same approach.
Seasonal housing counts from the Census were multiplied
by an assumed occupancy rate for seasonal housing,
yielding implied seasonal population figures.  The seasonal
occupancy rate, used by both NHOCP and LRPC, was developed
by Paul Hendrick and Associates for the New Hampshire
Office of State Planning.  Estimation of the seasonal
occupancy rate was based on field investigations con-
ducted in 1966 and on data from a 1968 study on the
impact of recreation, vacation and travel upon New
Hampshire.  The average occupancy for vacation homes in
New Hampshire was estimated to be 6.2 persons per unit,
double the occupancy rate for year-round housing.
Family occupants contribued 4.87 persons per unit, while
guests averaged 1.31 persons per unit.  Although the
same occupancy rate was assumed in both estimates,
variations in estimated population figures are apparent
(Table 11-20).  These variances can be attributed to
differences in the application of Census data categories.
                     11-80

-------
                           TABLE  H-20

             SEASONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES, 1970
                  (Source:  NHOCP  and LRPC)
Primary Study Area            NHOCP            LRPC

Belmont                       1,700            1,674
Franklin                      1,900            2,554
Gilford                       3,800            3,968
Laconia                       2,900            2,964
Meredith                      6,300            7,384
Northfield                      500              465
Sanbornton                    1,900            1,742
Tilton                          500              570

     Subtotal                19,500           21,321
Peripheral Study Area

Alton                         7,800            8,265
Centre Harbor                   500              558
Moultonborough                8,500            8,947
Tuftonboro                    3,900            4,185
Wolfeboro                     6,400            6,299

     Subtotal                27,100           28,254

TOTAL                        46,600           49,575
                            11-81

-------
       There are significant problems associated with the
       baseline data with which the NHOCP and LRPC estimates
       of  seasonal population were derived.  The Census tabula-
       tion of seasonal housing units is subject to consider-
       able error.  Given the nature of the enumeration
       process which places primary emphasis upon year-round
       housing, many seasonal dwelling units are omitted from
       the Census housing count.  Resulting underestimates
       tend to be quite significant in areas where seasonal
       housing is extensive.  Recent survey work in Meredith
       by  the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative suggests
       that the 1970 Census of Housing underestimated the
       number of seasonal dwelling units in that town by an
       amount equal to more than 130 percent of the reported
       figure.  Similar data from Wolfeboro, which is serviced
       by  a municipal power company, suggests an underestimate
       equal to more than 70 percent of the reported figure.
       The two towns from which reasonably accurate housing
       counts are available, therefore, show implied seasonal
       population counts 130 percent and 70 percent in excess
       of  reported Census figures, respectively.

       The seasonal occupancy rate which has been assumed in
       estimating seasonal population was derived from sample
       survey data now almost ten years old.  No detailed
       analysis has been conducted within the Lakes Region,
       and the original Hendricks study has not been updated.
       The occupancy rate given above is the only estimate
       now available.  The current accuracy of this figure
       within the Lakes Region is unknown.

                           Summary

     The NHOCP and LRPC estimates both show a seasonal population
in the neighborhood of 50,000.  But, as indicated above, the
actual figure may be significantly higher.  Accurate municipal
estimates  from Meredith and Wolfeboro suggest that the discrepancy
may be as  much as 100 percent.  The likelihood of such a sizable
difference has been confirmed by discussions with a Census
official from the national office and a demographer with the
New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning.  Accordingly,
the actual seasonal population within the study area in 1970 may
have been  closer to 100,000.
                           11-82

-------
     2.  Existing Land Use

     The pattern of development and land use within the Lakes
Region has been influenced since the days of early settlement
by its water resources and topography.  Initial development
was concentrated near the fast flowing waters of the lakes and
mountains.  Franklin, Tilton, Laconia and Meredith are examples
of those early communities that utilized water to provide the
power for industrial growth. To date, the most intensive develop-
ment has occurred on the westerly side of Lake Winnipesaukee
along the corridor that follows State Route 3 and the railroad
track from Franklin and Tilton to Meredith.  Within the study
area, most of the Townships have a governmental center (encom-
passing municipal offices, community and education facilities,
etc.) which historically has acted as a focal point for comm-
nity growth.  Access routes through the region primarily run
north-south, due to the location of lakes and topographic
features which restrict east-west development.

     Table 11-21 inventories the existing land uses for both
the primary and peripheral study areas, and Figure H-12
delineates the major areas of each use.

         Residential development, occupying roughly 31 percent
         of all developed land within the whole study area,
         represents the most extensive land use in both the
         primary and peripheral areas.  The perimeters of the
         major and most minor water bodies are extensively
         developed.  The more industrialized municipalities
         of Laconia, Tilton-Northfield, Franklin, and, to a
         lesser  extent, the older resort centers of Meredith
         and Wolfeboro have the highest densities of residential
         use.  Generally, recent growth has occurred more in
         the non-urban areas as "suburban sprawl."  Housing,
         including a significant amount of back-lot development,
         is extending into the rural areas, and rapidly turning
         communities like Belmont, Gilford and Meredith into
         bedroom towns for the City of Laconia.  Extensive
         second-home development is forming along the Winni-
         pesaukee shoreline, particularly in Moultonborough,
         Tuftonboro, and Wolfeboro (LRPC, 1973) .  While several
         multi-family units, i.e. apartments, townshouses, con-
         dominiums, are located in some of the urban centers,
         the majority of housing is single family in
         character.  Land used for detached homes represents
         roughly 88 percent of all the residential areas.
                           11-83

-------
       TABLE  11-21

EXISTING LAND USE (1973)
       (LRPC, 1973)




H
H
1
00



Township
Be Into nt
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Subtotal

Land
Area
(acres)
18.850
18,000
24,600
13,000
25,500
18,600
30,400
7.400
156,350

Water
Area
(acres)
1,050
1,000
8,050
4,350
9.800
200
1,300
400
26,150

Open and
Un-
developed
(acres)
17,564
14,100
19,885
7,500
21,970
17,600
28,340
6,235
133,204

C
Committed or
Developed or
Urban (acres)
1,286
3,900
4,715
5,500
3,530
990
2,060
1,165
23,146
FK1MAK]
ieve loped 	
as %
of Total
Land Low
7 450
21 400
19 1,000
42 400
14 800
5 150
7 400
16 200
15 3,800

Res-idential
Med. High
150
150 350
100
350 800
300 50
150 20
200
150 25
1,550 1,245

U
Total
600
900
1,100
1,550
1,150
320
600
375
6,595

rban Deve
Commer-
cial 6
Service
100
200
150
1,000
300
20
150
150
2,070

lopment (a
Trans-
por-
tation,
550
650
850
750
900
550
750
450
5,450
	
Leisure
Indus- Insti- fi Recrea-
i-rial tutional tion
6 	 30
100 ISO 1,900
15 	 2.600
200 1,800 200
30 400 750
100
10 50 500
30 150 10
391 2,550 6,090

-------
TABLE 11-21.  Continued.
                                                                    PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA




H
l-i
1
00
O1

Township
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Subtotal
Total
(Primary &
Peripheral
Areas)
Land
Area
(acres)
41,000
7,250
37,100
26,350
31,000
142,700


Water
Area
(acresj^
12,600
1,600
9,800
5,700
6,400
36,100
62,250

Open and
Un-
developed
(acres)
38,345
6,080
35,200
24,345
27,975
131,945
265,149

Committed or
Developed or
Urban
(acres)
2,655
1,170
1,900
3,005
3,025
10,755
33,901

Deve loped
as % of
Total
Land Low
6 250
16 100
5 500
8 300
10 1,200
8 2,350
23 6,150

Urban Development (acres)*
Commer-
Residential cial £
Med. High Total Service
600 	 850 300
50 — 150 50
300 — 800 100
300 — 600 250
300 50 1,550 300
1,550 50 3,950 1,000
3,100 1,295 10,545 3,070

Trans-
por-
tation
700
250
600
450
650
2,650
8,100

Indus- Insti-
trial tutional
5 500
500
100
	 700
75 200
80 2,000
471 4.550

Leisure
& Recrea-
tion
300
220
300
5
250
1,075
7,165


-------
  FIGURE  11-12.  EXISTING LAND-USE
     [Source:  Lakes Region Planning
              Commiss ion]
     Residential

     Lake  Bui 1t-Up Area

     Commercial

     Industrial

     Compact Area

     State Parks-Forest-Recreation

EE!  Wetlands

LJ  Undeveloped Land




                       11-86

-------
Seasonal residential development has become a major
land use activity throughout the study area due to the
year-round recreational attraction of both the lakes
and the mountains.

Commercial and service uses account for one of the
smallest sectors, occupying approximately 9 percent of
the total developed land.  Retail commercial centers
are clustered near the various urbanized population
centers, with the City of Laconia being the trade
center for the entire Lakes Region, and Wolfeboro the
major retail center for Carroll County.  Also, a signi-
ficant amount of commerce has occurred as strip develop-
ment along the major highways.  It is concentrated
primarily along Route 3 from Franklin to Meredith, and
to a lesser extent along Route 104 through Meredith
and Moultonborough.

Industrial development represents the smallest percent
(1.4) of all developed land, but one of the more impor-
tant area land uses.  The major industrial and wholesale
commerce activities for the Lakes Region are concentrated
in the Laconia-Tilton-Franklin axis.  The area's two
industrial parks—the Franklin Industrial Park  (68 acres
off Route 3 in Franklin), and the O'Shea Industrial Park
(170 acres in western Laconia)—are presently under-
developed, accommodating only a small number of esta-
blishments.  Table  11-22 inventories the current industries
by township.  Within the study area, Meredith and Wolfeboro
have smaller industrial sectors which provide relatively
stable year-round employment.

Agricultural development played a major part in the Lakes
Region until the late 1800^s.  Accurate, quantitative
data on the extent of farming in the study area is not
available.  As an indication of the area's overall decline
in agricultural  land, however, the number of acres in
crop, pasture or farmland lihroughout the Lakes Region has
decreased by more than 50 percent in the last 17 years,
and now, is less than five percent of the total regional
area  (Maguire, 1973).  Table  11-23 indicates the general
locations and primary types of farming activities  in the
Belknap County portion of the study area.
                       11-87

-------
                              TABLE 11-22

                   EXISTING INDUSTRIES IN BOTH THE
                  PRIMARY AND PERIPHERAL STUDY AREAS
LOCATION     FIRM NAME

Alton        Timber Lake Manufacturing
               Corporation

Belmont      Arcon Inc.
             White Mountain Vineyard
               & Winery

Franklin     Acme Staple Company, Inc.
             Atlantic Laminates
             Cormier Corporation
             G. W. Griffin Company
             Insulfab Plastics Inc.
             Mahoney's Enterprises, Inc.
             Molded Foam Industries,
               Inc.
             Shea Research Corporation
             Shelter-Kit, Inc.
             Sierra Knits inc.
             Tilton Dress Company
             Tricnit Hosiery, Inc.

             Webster Valve Company

             Wheel-A-Matic Company of
               America, Inc.
             Wide Boards, Inc.
             Winnisquam Machine Shop

Gilford      Belknap Concrete Products
             L&L Engraving Company
             Northern Tooling Inc.
             Win-Door of New.England
               Inc.

Laconia      Aavid Engineering, Inc.
             ART Association Inc.
             Aerofab

             Allen-Rogers Corporation
             Astro Division of NH
               Ball Bearings Inc.
             Barberry Knitting Mills
               Inc.
             Baron Machine Company
PRODUCT
NO. EMPLOYED
Contract stitching             20
Precast concrete                7
Table Wines                     5
Staples & Machines             75
Copper Clad Expoxy Laminates   25
Slippers S body garments       35
Saw Blades                     35
Plastic fabrication           100
Steel Fabrications              2
Molded urethane foams           9

Industrial detergents           3
Pre-cut house kit               3
Knitted fabrics                40
Dresses                       165
Hosiery & Related Fabricated  125
  Items
Temperature S Pressure        400*
  Relief S Reducing Valves
Wheel Alignment S Balancing     8
  Equipment
Prefabicated house shells      10
Job machine shop                5

Well tiles
Mechanical engraving            2
Precision prototypes            6
Aluminum & glass products       5
Semiconductor Heat Sinks       20
Commercial Heat Treating        3
Metal Fabricating, Picnic       4
  Table Legs
Wood Turning                  260
Ball Bearings

Sweaters                       50

Machine Work                   65
                                   11-88

-------
TABLE 11-22.   Continued
  LOCATION     FIRM NAME

               Belknap Industries, Inc.
               Benmar Apparel
               Browning Laboratories, Inc.
               Carpenter & Paterson, Inc.
               Caswell & Son
               Central NH Dye Inc.
               Citizen Publishing Company
               Coca-Cola Bottling Company
                 of Laconia, Inc.
               Cormier Hosiery Mills, Inc.
               Cove-Craft, Inc.

               Crane Manufacturing Company

               Eastman Foundry & Machine
                 Inc.
               Electro-Circuits, Inc.
               Frank-Lin Brush Company
               Garden Hose Spray Company

               Gilbert, Del R & Son Block
                 Company, Inc.
               Guyer, Frank W. Foundries,
                 Inc.
               Hebert Manufacturing Com-
                 pany, Inc.
               Laconia Malleable Iron
                 Company, Inc.
               Laconia Manufacturing
                 Corporation
               Laconia Needle Manufac-
                 turing Company, Inc.
               Laconia Shoe Company,  Inc.
               Lakewood Chemical Company
               Lerman Press, Inc.

               Lewis & Saunders, Inc.

               Northeast Metal Stampings
                 Company
               Patriot Printers, Inc.
               Saymore Trophy Company,
                 Inc.
               Scott & Williams, Inc.
               Sericraft,  Inc.
               Tangent Tool Die Company
               Tyler Advertising,  Inc.
               Vernitron Electrical
                 Components
 PRODUCT
NO. EMPLOYED
 Hosiery  &  Yarn                  70
 Ladies Slacks                   45**
 Two-Way  Radio Telephone         50
 Pipe  Supports &  Hangers        200
 Sheet Metal  Fabrications         9
 Textile  Finishing  & Dyeing      20
 Newspaper  Printing             50+
 Coke  & Nesbitt                  40

 Girls Hosiery                  200
 Crutches,  Canes, Moldings       20
  & Toy  Components
 Knitting Machine & Sheet        12
  Metal Machine
 Job Machine  Shop                17

 Printed Circuit Boards         100
 Twisted Wire Brushes            40
 Garden Hose Attachments &        3
  Cartridges
 Blocks & Septic Tanks           25

 Castings                         3

 Aluminum Casting; Brass         22
  Casting
 Malleable  Iron Castings        125

 Contract Stitching on           45
  Knitwear
 Latch Knitting Machine         235
  Needles
 Shoes                          377
 Textile Soap and Chemicals       2
 Publishers & Commercial         15**
  Printing
 Metal Tube Bending, Coiling,    65
  Brazing
 Metal Stampings                  4

 Commercial Printing              9
 Trophys & Awards                 8

 Circular Knitting Machines     750
 Screen Printing                  1
Tools and Dies                  12
Lithographers-Offset Printers   15
Electrical Components          190
                                     11-89

-------
 TABLE II-22.  Continued
 LOCATION     FIRM NAME

              Visual Paper Corporation
              Wilcom Products

              Winconia Corporation
              Wrought Iron Modes  Inc.

 Meredith     Amatex Corporation
              Annalee Mobiiitee Dolls
                Inc.
              Doherty Machine Company
              Meredith News Inc.

              Persons Concrete Inc.
              Prescott Lumber Company
                Inc.

 Sanbornton   Diamond Microwave Cor-
                poration
              Persons Concrete Inc.
              Tilton Electronics
                Corporation
              Tram Corporation
 Tilton
Batchelders  Industrial
  Tool Company
Brown, Arthur S. Manu-
  facturing  Company
Herrmann, Pepi Crystal,
  Inc.
Howell Printing & Dupli-
  cating
Johns-Manville Products
  Corporation
Pike Industries Inc.
Tilton Machine & Tool
  Company
Tilton Sand  & Gravel  Inc.
                              PRODUCT

                              Paper  Boxes
                              Electronic Test  Instru-
                                mentation
                              Dolls' Clothes
                              Metal  Railings

                              Asbestos Textiles
                              Dolls  for Resale & Display

                              Job Machine Shop
                              Weekly Newspaper & Job
                                Printing
                              Concrete
                              Building Components
Citizen  Band Transceivers

Concrete
Magnetic Electronic
  Components
Electronic Communications
  Equipment

Dies, Fixtures, Patterns

Woven Endless Belts

Lead Crystal-Cutting

Job Printing

Asbestos Papers & Boards

Bituminous Concrete
Screw Machine Products
                          NO. EMPLOYED

                                8
                               55

                               35
                                2

                              135
                               75

                                1
                               14
 Wolfeboro
Sand & Gravel

Boat and Marine Repairs

Hand Cast Pewterware
Goodhue Hawkins Navy Yard
  Inc.
Hampshire Pewter Company
  Ink.
Hewd Manufacturing Company   Women's Outerwear
Kingswood Press, The
Smith River Company
                                           Job Printing
                                           Excelsior and Excelsior
                                             Chick Pads
                              130
                                                            20

                                                            60
                                                            78

                                                            20
  3

150

  1

  3

 65

450
 12

 20

  8

  3

 10
  3
 12
 Source:   New Hampshire Office of Industrial Development, Division of Economic
          Development,  1975.

 *Located in the Franklin Industrial Park.
**Located in the 0-Shea Industrial Park.
                                    11-90

-------
                            Table 11-23

FARMING ACTIVITIES IN THE BELKNAP COUNTY PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA
         (Source:  Belknap County Conservation District and
                  Executive Board, 1973)

        Center Harbor - no significant

        Meredith - fruit production around the Pemigewasset
        Lake; grapes and vegetable production at the head
        of Meredith Bay.

        Sanbornton - cattle, grapes, blueberries along the
        southern sector from Lake Winnisguam to the western
        township line.

        Laconia - cattle and vegetable production near central
        Paugus Bay.

        Tilton - cattle production west of 1-93.

        Belmont - grape production east of Lake Winnisquam;
        chicken and fruit production in central and eastern
        Belmont.

        Gilford - cattle raised in central Gilford and west
        near Lake Winnipesaukee? chickens raised in central
        Gilford; grape production west, near Belmont/Gilford
        town line,

        Alton - grape production east near Lake Winnipesaukee
        and Route 28, and near the headwaters of the Merry-
        meeting River.
            Institutional use, including major establishments
            such as colleges, hospitals, summer camps, and
            county homes, accounts for approximately 13.4 percent
            of the developed land within the whole study area.
            This is the fourth largest land use in the primary
            area—encompassing 11 percent of the developed  land or
            2,550 acres, and the third largest land use in  the
            peripheral area—encompassing 18.6 percent of the
            developed land or 2,000 acres.
                               11-91

-------
In addition to summer recreation camps other primary
institutional uses include the  following:

   Laconia - Belknap County Home  (25  acres);
   Lakes Regional General Hospital; Laconia
   State School  (1,800 acres).

   Franklin - Franklin Regional Hospital.

   Northfield -  Spaulding Youth Center  (425 acres).

   Center Harbor - Belknap College  (300 acres).
   New England Forestry Foundation  (177 acres).

   Wolfeboro - Huggins Memorial Hospital.

Transpor tat ion encompassing highway,  air and rail
facilities, accounts for the  second largest land use
category  (24 percent of the developed land) within the
entire study area.  Since most  of the rail facilities
have been discontinued, the major transportation
system is the regional highway  network.  The area's
economic position is greatly  dependent upon the extent
of this network, as the highways connect town centers,
provide market routes, aid in development of industry,
and provide access to recreational areas.

Interstate 93, the major highway in the Lakes Region,
traverses the study area from Northfield, through
Tilton and Sanbornton, and out  to New Hampton, Ashland,
and Holderness,  and then links  with other highway
networks.  Also, U. S. Route  3, another principal
highway, runs northerly through Franklin, Laconia,
Meredith and Ashland.  Other  highways serving major
communities and  points of attraction in the study
area are New Hampshire Route  25 — connectinq
Meredith, Mou1tonborough and  a  portion of Sandwich to
Route 16 on the  east; New Hampshire Route 28 —
through Alton and Wolfeboro;  New Hampshire Route 104 —
from Meredith through New Hampton, Bristol and to U. S.
Route 4 at Danbury to the west; and New Hampshire Route
140 — from Alton through Gilmanton and Belmont to
U. S, 3 in Tilton.

Air transportation includes facilities in both the
primary and peripheral areas.   The Laconia Municipal
Airport, with 9,000 feet of runway, is owned by the
Laconia Airport  Authority, and  located northeast of
the City of Laconia on New Hampshire Route 11 in the
Town of Gilford.  This facility offers year-round
commuter, private, industrial,  and commercial service>
In addition, three private airports are found in the
study area which include:  Lakes Region Airport, a
1,500-foot sod runway at Wolfeboro; Melvin Village
Airport, a 2,300-foot sod runway at Melvin Village;
and Pike Airport, a 2,300-foot, hard-surfaced runway
at Tilton (Lakes Region Planning Commission, 1973).


                   11-92

-------
Leisure and recreation uses occupy approximately 26
percent of the developed land (6,090 acres) in the
primary area; 10 percent (1,075 acres) in the peri-
pheral area, and 21.1 percent (7,165 acres) in the
entire study area.  This is the second largest land
use for the primary area and the third largest f°r
the study area.  This category includes lands
in public, semi-public and private ownership pri-
marily devoted to general recreation or specialized
recreation-like beaches, golf course, ski areas or
campgrounds.  The number of year-round facilities,
as opposed to strictly summer activities, has increased
substantially throughout the area in the past decade.
The area's recreational facilities are inventoried in
Table  11-24 and located in Figure 11-13.

Federally Owned Lands.  The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers owns approximately 3,897 acres along the
Pemigewasset River floodplain from the Franklin Falls
Flood Control Dam.  Within the study area, these hold-
ings extend northward from the dam and include land
both within Franklin and Sanbornton  (Figure 11-13) .
The New Hampshire Division of Resource Development
leases 3,700 acres of this for recreational uses,
including hiking, picnicing, hunting and fishing.


State Owned Lands,  State owned lands include state
park and forest lands.  State forest lands are managed
by the Division of Resources Development, with the
primary purpose of land improvement through good forest
management practices.  Related uses include wildlife
management, scenic areas protection, and recreation.
State park lands are managed under the Division of
Parks of the Department of Resources and Economic
Development,  The primary purpose of the State Park
system is to preserve areas of natural, historic and
scientific interest and to provide facilities for
outdoor recreation.  See Table  11-24 and Figure 11-13
for location of state parks and forests.

County Lands.  Belknap Mountain Recreation Area,
located in Gilford and owned and supervised by the
County of Belknap is the most extensive outdoor
recreational area in the Lakes Planning Region.  The
area encompasses approximately 1,300 acres, with
facilities for both winter  (i.e., Mt, Gunstock, a
major ski resort) and summer  (swimming, hiking, fish-
ing, camping, etc.) recreation.
                  11-93

-------
                                                       TABLE 11-24


                                RECREATIONAL FACILITIES:  PUBLIC,  SEMI-PUBLIC, PRIVATE
                         (Source:   LRPC,  1973  and New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Service, 1975)
H
I
10
         ****
    Map #   Location
      1     Franklin

      2

      3
                                                   Primary Study Area
       7

       8

       9
             Tilton
Facility

Pemigewasset River flood

Daniel Webster Birthplace

Dr. Logace Beach-Webster
Lake

Griffin Beach-Webster
Lake

Henry J. Proulx Community
Center

Odell Park

Junior  & Senior High
School

Mojalaki Country Club

Daniel1 Park

Great-Gains  Area

Pine Meadow  Golf Club

Winnisquam Beach
Campground

Wadleigh Marine

Clay's  Marina
Ownership
Federal
State
City
City
City
City
—
Private
City
City
Private



Type of Facility
Forestry, natural area, flood control
Historical park, forestry
Swimming, Picnicking
Swimming, Picnicking, Boat Ramp
Indoor Recreation
Playground, Swimming Pool
Ball Field, Playground
Golf Club (9 Holes)
Ball Park, Tennis
Ski Area, Recreation Area
Golf Club
Camping , swimming
Marina
Marina
Acreage
3,897*
150
3
2
10

10
22
4
700
—
8
2
2

-------
       TABLE 11-24.  Continued
 I
10
Ul
       Map #

         1

         2

         3

         1

         2

         3
          2

          3

          4

          5

          6

          7
Location
Northfield
Belinont
                Sanbornton
Facility

Ayres State Forest

Highlands Ski Area

Sandogardy Pond

Public Schools

Pout Pond

Lakeview Golf Club

Additional marina and
camping facilities
scattered within the
township

Pemigewasset River
flood plain

Hermit Lake



Town Beach

Hunkins Pond

Den Brae Golf Course

Hermit Lake
Ownership

State

Private

Town

Town

Town

Private
                                          Federal


                                          Town



                                          Town

                                          Town

                                          Private

                                          Town
Type of Facility

Forestry

Ski area

Swimming, picnicking

Playground, ball field

Swimming, picnicking

Golf club
             Forestry, natural area, flood control


             Swimming, boat launch site

             Playground

             Swimming

             Boat launch site

             Golf course

             Picnicking
Acreage

     8**
     3+

    15
                                                                                                                      21+
                                                 1

                                                55



                                                45

-------
        TABLE  H-24.  Continued
        Map #   Location

          1     Laconia
H
!
£>
 2

 3


 4

 5

 6

 7

 8


 9

10

11

12

13

14
                     Facility

                     Laconia State School
                     a.   Hamel Tract
                     b.   Houston Tract
                     c.   Opechee Bay
                     d.   Paugus Bay
                     e.   Prescott
                     f.   Swain
                            Ownership

                            State
                            State
                            State
                            State
                            State
                            State
                            State
Lake Winnipesaukee (Weirs)  Town

Endicott Beach - Lake       Town
Winnipesaukee

Paugus Bay                  Town

Lake Opechee - Bond Park    Town

Leavitt Park                Town

Laconia Country Club        Private'

Lake Opechee - Opechee      Town
Park

Lake Winnisquam             Town

Bartlett Beach              Town

Memorial Park               Town

Wyatt Park                  Town

Tardiff Park                Town

Aquedahtan Par 3            Private
Type of Facility

School

Forestry

Forestry, picnicking
Forestry
Forestry

Dock, Beach

Swimming, playground


Boat ramp

Swimming, picnicking,  play field

Playground, Tennis, ball field

Golf club

Swimming, picnicking,  playgrour, boat ramp


Boat ramp

Swimming, playground

Playground, playfield

Playground

Playground

Golf course
Acreage

  1800 total
    44***
   165***
    4Q***
   263***
   120***
   106***

   2.5
  30.3

   6.6

    75

    20
                                                                                                                      3.7

                                                                                                                     17.9

                                                                                                                      1.2

                                                                                                                      2.0
                              Additional campground & marina facilities scattered within  the  township.
                                                                                                             20 +

-------
        TABLE  11-24.  Continued
H
H
I
Map ft   Location

  1     Gilford


  2

  3

  4

  5

  6


  7

  8
          1

          1


          2

          3

          4
        Meredith
Facility

Belknap Mountains, State
•Forest

Ellacoya State Park

Salt Marsh Pond Tract

Gunstock Ski Area

Lake Winnipesaukee

Town Dock - Lake
Winnipesaukee

Mt. Rowe, Inc.

Village Field

Pleasant View Country
Club

Additional camping, marina,

Chemung State Forest

Lake Winnipesaukee
(Leavitt Park)

Public Schools

Prescott Park

Lake Winnipesaukee
(Meredith Bay)
Ownership    Type of Facility

State        Forestry, recreation


State        Recreation, beach

State        Forestry, recreation, swimming

County       Skiing

Town         Swimming, picnicking

Town         Boat ramp


Private      Ski area

Town         Playground, tennis, ball field

Private      Golf club


boating facilities along shores & throughout town.

State

Town         Swimming, picnicking
                                                  Town

                                                  Town

                                                  Town
             Playground

             Playground, ball field, tennis

             Boat Ramp
                                                                                                                   Acreage

                                                                                                                      545


                                                                                                                      107

                                                                                                                       80

                                                                                                                     1300
227


 73±

376

 15
 15
                              Clough Park
                                                  Town
                                         Picnic Area

-------
       TABLE  11-24.  Continued
I
vo
00
       Map #   Location


         6




         7


       8 & 9




        10


        11


        12
       Map #


         1




         2


         3


         4



         5


         6
Location


Center

Harbor
              Facility                    Ownership


              Lake Winnipesaukee          Town

              (Hesky Park-Meredith Bay)


              Lake Waukewan


              Lake Winnipesaukee          Town

              (Meredith Neck)


              Meredith Center             Town


              Wicwas Lake                 Town


              Oak Hill Golf Course        Private
                                         Type of Facility


                                         Picnicking




                                         Swimming,  boat ramp


                                         Boat ramp




                                         Playground


                                         Golf club


                                         Golf club
                                                                                                                   Acreage
                             Additional camping and marina facilities scattered within township
                                                                                                                      34+
Facility


Squam Lake




Lake Winnipesaukee          Town


Lake Winnipesaukee          Town


Town Forest  (Chamberlin

Reynolds Memorial Forest)


Waukewan Golf Club          Private


Lake Winona                 Town
Per iph e ra1 Study Area


    Ownership    Type of Facility


    Town         Boat ramp
                                                                                                                  Acreage
                                                       Town docks


                                                       Boat ramps,  swimming,  picnicking
                                                       Golf club


                                                       Boat launch site
                                                                75
                              Additional  camping areas in the township.
                                                                                                       2+

-------
         TABLE  11-24.  Continued
H
to
vo
Map #   Location

  1

  2

3 & 4

  5

  6

  7

  8


  9


 10
                       Facility

        Moultonboro    Squam  Lake

                       Lees Pond

                       Lake Winnipesaukee

                       Lake Winnipesaukee

                       Kanasatka Lake

                       Bald Peak Colony Club

                       Lake Winnipesaukee
                       (Long  Island)

                       Lake Winnipesaukee
                       (Long  Island)

                       Kona Mansion Inn

                       Red Hill Lookout Towner

                       Winnipesaukee Fish & Game
                       Department

                       Additional camping marina

  1     Tuftonboro     Lake Winnipesaukee

2 fi 3                  Lake Winnipesaukee

  4                    Copps  Pond

5 5 g                  Lake Winnipesaukee
Type of Facility

Boat launch site

Boat ramp

Boat launch site

Swimming, picnicking

Boat ramp site

Golf club

Swimming, boat ramp, picnicking


Boat ramp


Golf course
  Ownership

  Town

  Town

  Town

  Town

  Town

  Private

  Town


  Town


  Private

  State

  State


facilities scattered throughout township and lakefronts.

  Town         Swimming

  Town         Boat ramp

  State        Boat launch site

  State        Swimming
                                                                                                                    Acreage
                                                                                                                       250
                                                                                                                       58+

-------
 TABLE  11-24.  Continued
Map #   Location








M
H
H1
O
0







7
8
1 Wolfeboro
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Facility

Mirror Lake

Mirror Lake

Governor Wentworth Farm

Wenworth State Park

Ski  Slope

Wolfeboro  Falls  Park

Lake Winnipesaukee

Wolfeboro Bay Area

 Crescent Lake

 Youth Center, Town  Piers

 Gate and Town Park

 Lake Winnipesaukee
                        Clark Park  and Town Garden  Town

                        Kingswood Golf Club         Private

                        Lake Winnipesaukee,         Town
                        Carry Beach

                        Brewster Beach              Town

                        Rust Park                  Town

                        Additional camping,  swimming  and  marina
Ownership    Type of Facility

Town         Swimming

Town         Boat launch site

State        Historic, recreation

State        Historic, recreation

Town         Downhill skiing

Town

Town         Boat ramp

Town         Town dock, boat ramp

Town         Boat ramp

Town         Indoor recreation

Town         Rest area, walks, beaches

Town         Dock



              Golf  club

              Swimming


              Swimming



             facilities.
                                                                                                            Acreage
                                                                                                                96

                                                                                                                17
                                                                                          60
                                                                                          33+

-------
TABLE 11-24.  Continued
Map #   Location      Facility

  1     Alton         Alton Bay State Forest

  2                   Mt. Major

  3                   Lake Winnipesaukee

  4                   Lake Winnipesaukee

  5                   Sunset Lake

  6                   Lake Winnipesaukee, Bay
                      Beach

  7                   Lake Winnipesaukee

  8                   Public schools

  9                   West Alton

 10                   Halfmoon Lake
Ownership    Type of Facility
State

State

Town

Town

State

Town


Town

Town

Town

Town
Forestry



Swimming

Dock

Swimming, Boat ramp

Swimming


Boat ramp

Playground

Picnic area

Swimming, picnicking
Acreage

   215

    60
                      Additional camping and marina facilities on lake shores and throughout township.
                                                             50+
  *Includes flood plain land within Sanbornton.
 **Extends into Cantebury - 42 acres.
***A11 part of Laconia State School holdings.

-------
                                                                                                                            FIGURE  11-13- EXISTING RECREA-
                                                                                                                                           TIONAL FACILITI;
    Fran

Flood Conl
                                                                                                                             See Table 11-25 for Identification
                                                                                                                              of numbered  facilities.
                                                                                                                                               11-102

-------
Municipal Recreational Lands.  Recreational areas
managed by the municipalities are generally small,
with the majority offering swimming beaches, parks,
playgrounds, picnic areas and other types of specialized
uses.  Most facilities are located within the urbanized
areas of the communities.

Within the study area, numerous campgrounds, organized
youth camps and marina facilities are open to the
public.

Open Space,  Open Space, including cultivated, wooded,
pasture, swamp and undeveloped land, represents the
largest percentage of land area within the study area.
In 1973, this category accounted for 85 percent
(133,204 acres) of the primary area, 92 percent
(131,945 acres) of the peripheral area, and 89 percent
(265,149 acres) of the entire study area.  In each
township, the majority of development is concentrated
both along the shoreline of the various lakes and rivers
and in a small number of communities within the
interior  (Figure II*-12);»  More recently, there has been
an increase in the amount of "back-^lot" development,
particularly in the peripheral area.  This development
is primarily residential, and occurs back from shore-
line areas and beyond the older, established communi-
ties.  However, a large amount of undeveloped open
space still remains in each township.

Within the primary area,  as indicated in Table 11-24,
Laconia has the  smallest percentage of  open space
 (58  percent)f  most of which is located  in the north-
eastern and northwestern sections of the township.
Northfield (95 percent iopen),  Sanbornton (93  percent
open),  and Belmont (93 jpercent open)  have the largest
percentages of underdeveloped land*  In Northfield
the  majority of  the present development is clustered
along  the Winnipesaukee River in and around the  town
center,  leaving  most of the remaining area open,   A
similar situation exists in Sanbornton,  where most of
the  development  is concentrated in a narrow strip
along  the shorelines of Lake Winnisguam and Hermit
Lake and in the  four small  communities  of Winnisquam,
Sanbornton,  Gaza and North  Sanbornton.   In Belmont,
there  are only two areas of concentrated development:
 (1) '' Belmont Village,  an older community on the  Tioga
River,  and (2) the Lake1 Winnisquam and  silver Lake
shorelines,  a more recent type of strip residential
development.   This leaves most of Belmontrs interior
undeveloped,
                   11-103

-------
Franklin, Gilford, Meredith, and Tilton all have a
smaller percentage of open  land.  Franklin contains
79 percent, Gilford  71 percent, Tilton 84 percent
and Meredith  86 percent.  In Franklin, the majority
of development is concentrated in the large urban
center at the confluence of the Winnipesaukee and
Pemigewasset  Rivers, and around portions of Webster
Lake and the  major highways.  This leaves most of
the interior  and segments of the Merrimack River
undeveloped.

In Gilford, the Lake Winnipesaukee shoreline and the
islands are the most extensively developed areas
(Community Planning  Services, ABR, 1970).  Beyond
the Gilford Center,  Gunstock recreation area, and
Laconia Airport, the remainder of the township is
essentially open; however,  a large portion of this
is mountainous.

Meredith is extensively developed in Meredith Village
area at the head of  Meredith Bay.  Urban development
has occurred  around  parts of Lake Waukewan, Meredith
Bay, Meredith Neck,  Pine Island and Bear Island,
leaving most  of the  interior and a limited amount of
shoreline undeveloped.

In the peripheral area, Center Harbor has the smallest
percentage of open space (84 percent).  With develop-
ment concentration in and around the town center on
Lake Winnipesaukee and along Route 3, most of the
remaining area is open space.

The other four townships in the peripheral area have
from 90 to 95 percent of their land in open space.
As in the primary study area, most development is
located at or near the shorelines — leaving the
interior relatively  undeveloped.  In Alton, most of
the available and accessible waterfront property along
Alton Bay and Lake Winnipesaukee has extremely high
density development  which accommodates most of its
growth and leaves the remainder of the township essen-
tially undeveloped (Hans Klunder Associates, 1965).

Both Moultonborough  and Tuftonboro have extensive
shorelines on Lake Winnipesaukee, including numerous
inlets, coves and islands.  In Moultonborough, the
highest concentration of development is in the Bay
District, at  the Center Harbor town line, and along
sections of the Lake Winnipesaukee and Moultonborough
Bay shorelines.  This pattern of use leaves not only
most of the interior, but also, partions of the shore-
line undeveloped.  Similarly, in Tuftonboro, growth
                  11-104

-------
         is concentrated along portions of the Lake Winni-
         pesaukee shoreline and in the small communities of
         Melvin Village, Mirror Lake, Tuftonboro Center, and
         Tuftonboro Corner.

         In Wolfeboro township, development is concentrated in
         the population center of Wolfeboro and along sections
         of shoreline on Lakes Winnipesaukee and Wentworth.
         Again, most of the interior and a few sections of the
         shorelines are open.

                          Summary

     The majority of land  (89 percent in 1973), within the entire
study area is presently undeveloped.  However, a significant,
though undetermined, percentage of the open space is either
mountainous or swampy.  Existing development is concentrated; (1)
along the shoreline of Lake Winnipesaukee, Lake Winnisquam,
Paugus Bay and the various other inland bodies of water; (2)
within the older, off-shore population centers; (3) along the
main highways such as 1-93, and Routes 11, 104; and (4) within
the rapidly growing "back-lot" areas.  It's character is pre-
dominantly residential.  The relative percentages of land use
indicate a general difference between the primary and peripheral
areas.  While the primary use of land throughout the study area
is residential, a larger percentage of the peripheral area is
devoted to this use than in the primary area.  Further, the
primary area's acreage in leisure and recreational use is al-
most equivalent to the amount used for residential purposes,
while in the peripheral area, it is less than one-third of
that used for homes.  In both parts of the study area, a signi-
ficant proportion (almost 25 percent) is devoted to trans-
portation facilities.
                            11-105

-------
3.  Economic Base

    Historic Perspective on the Region's Changing Economy.
    The character of the study area's economic base is
    constantly changing in response to market conditons.
    A brief review of this evolutionary process indicates
    that the economy has undergone significant change in
    three distinct periods.  The first period in the region's
    economic history occurred between 1750-1800.  Agricul-
    ture was the primary economic activity of the early
    settlers.  The natural constraints of the area's steep
    topography, numerous water bodies, soils, and limited
    accessibility encouraged the settlement pattern
    to be small in size and scattered along the high fertile
    ridges and hilltops.  The advent of the industrial
    revolution in the early to mid-18OOs represents the sec-
    ond major period in its economic history.  The abundance
    of water as a source of power and a transportation cor-
    ridor to market centers encouraged a shift in the loca-
    tion of the region's employment base to the waterways.
    The necessity of living in close proximity to major
    employment centers caused a redistribution of popula-
    tion as well as related retail trade and community
    services from upland villages to the industrial centers.
    The construction of the Boston, Concord and Montreal
    Railroad in 1848 served to reinforce these changes in
    the region's economic structure.  Examples of existing
    urban centers within the study area, which grew and
    prospered as a result of the industrial development of
    this period, include Laconia, Franklin, Tilton,
    Meredith and Wolfeboro.

    The availability and convenience of public and pri-
    vate services as well as increased mobility, afforded
    by the private automobile, revived the importance of
    rural village life in the period 1900 to the present.
    Public attention has been focused on the scenic assets
    and recreational potentials within the study area, and
    the era of recreational tourism and development has
    become an important segment in the region's economy.
    In addition to expanding retail, commercial and related
    services to satisfy the demands of tourism, the impor-
    tance of all non-manufacturing activities is playing
    an increasingly greater role in the economy.  The
    extent and stability of the area''s growing diversified
    economic base will be examined in the following section.
                      11-106

-------
                                Table  JCI-25
       (Source:
       INDUSTRIAL COVERED EMPLOYMENT
           FOURTH QUARTER, 1973
New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 1973)
                                Number of    Number of
Industry                          Firms      Employees

Manufacturing                      135         7,112

  Durable Goods                     88         4,326
    Lumber/Wood Products            25           704
    Furniture/Fixtures               6           150
    Stone/Clay Products              5           238
    Primary Metal Products           6           473
    Fabricated Metal Products       10           756
    Machinery                       18         1,193
    Electrical Products             10           635
    Miscellaneous & Other            8           177
      Durable Goods

  Nondurable Goods
    Food/Kindred Products
    Textile Mill Products
    Apparel
    Paper, Printing & Allied
      Products
    Rubber, Plastics, Leather        5         1,391
      & Other Nondurables

Non-Manufacturing                1,538         9,591

  Construction/Mining              343         1,767
  Transportation, Communica-        61           510
    tions, Utilities
  Trade                            560         3,801
  Financial, Insurance, Real       114           614
    Estate
  Services and Other               460         2,899
47
9
10
6
17
2,786
128
731
307
229
                                          Median  Number of
                                          Employees  Per Firm

                                                53

                                                49
                                                28
                                                25
                                                48
                                                79
                                                76
                                                66
                                                64
                                                22
                                                 60
                                                 14
                                                 73
                                                 51
                                                 13

                                                278
                                                  5
                                                  8

                                                  7
                                                  5
    TOTAL
                 1,673
16,703
10
                                  11-107

-------
(Source:
                 TABLE  11-26

         INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION
    OF COVERED EMPLOYMENT  (1960-1970)
New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)
Average

Job Center Industry
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Machinery, Metals,
Miscellaneous Products
Other Durable 1
H LACONIA Nondurable Goods
H Textile Products
jL Leather Footwear, Apparel, Other
o
00
Non-Manufacturing
Construction (including mining)
Transportation, Communications,
Utilities
Trade
Financial, Insurance, Real Estate
Services , Other
TOTAL
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Metal Products
Stone, Clay, Wood Products, Other
FRANKLIN Nondurable Goods
Textile, Apparel Products
Plastics, Food Products, Other
Fourth
1960
51
32

26
6
19
8
11


207
51
11

91
15
39
258
26
12
5
7
14
9
5
Quarter
1970
43
32

20
12
16
5
11


274
55
18

133
17
51
322
15
8
N.A.
N.A.
7
3
4
Percent
Change
( 5.9)
N.A.

(23.1)
100.0
(15.8)
(37.5)
N.A.


32.4
7.8
63.6

46.2
13.3
30.8
24.8
(42.3)
(33.3)
N.A.
N.A.
(50.0)
(66.7)
(20.0)
Employment
1960
3873
2988

2651
337
885
476
409


2018
413
134

931
149
391
5891
1515
619
371
248
895
711
184
1970
3128
2213

1692
521
915
292
623


3311
505
255

1580
185
786
6439
1209
597
N.A.
N.A.
6.2
486
126
Percent
Change
(19.2)
(25.9)

(36.2)
54.6
3.4
(38. '7)
52.3


64.1
22.3
90.3

69.7
24.2
101.0
9.3
(20.2)
( 3.6)
N.A.
N.A.
(31.6)
(31.6)
(31.5)

-------
xacxe j-j-  «•"•
Average
Fourth
Job Center Industry 1960
FRANKLIN Non-Manufacturing
(continued) Construction (including mining)
Transportation, Communications,
Utilities
Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Services , Other
TOTAL
Manufacturing
Durable Goods (more than 90%) 2 N
H
H Nondurable Goods N
(-•
o MEREDITH Non-Manufacturing
Construction (including mining)
Trade
Financial, Insurance, Real Estate
Services , Other
TOTAL
Manufacturing
Durable Goods (principally metal products)
TILTON Nondurable Goods (Textile, Leather, Other)
Non-Manufacturing
Construction (including mining)
Trade
Services, Other
53
6
4

30
6
7

79
6
.A.
.A.
45
14
16
4
11
51
14
8
6
29
11
7
11
—
Quarter
1970
56
6
5

32
4
9

71
4
N.A.
N.A.
70
14
28
11
17
74
12
7
5
34
9
18
7
__
Percent
Change
5.7
N.C.
25.0

6.7
(33.3)
28.6
(10.1)
(33.3)
N.A.
N.A.
55.6
N.C.
75.0
N.A.
54.5
45.1
(14.3)
(12.5)
(16.7)
17.2
(18.2)
157.1
(36.4)
Employment
1960
475
32
56

258
52
77

1990
189
N.A.
N.A.
369
100
102
32
152
558
837
263
574
188
69
35
84

1970
562
31
84

333
49
65

1771
273
N.A.
N.A.
706
136
345
65
160
979
916
408
508
234
74
112
48

Percent
Change
18.3
( 3.1)
50.0

29.1
( 5.8)
(15.9)
(11.0)
44.4
N.A.
N.A.
91.3
36.0
238.2
N.A.
5.3
75.4
9.4
55.1
(11.5)
24.5
7.2
220.0
(42.9)
                                      TOTAL
43
46
                                                                                   7.0
                               1025   1150
                                                                                                                 12.1

-------
Table II-26.  (Continued)
Average
x
-lob Center Industry
Manufacturing
Durable Goods3 (Principally lumber,
Wood Products, Furniture)
Nondurable Goods3 (Apparel and Other
Small Industries)
WOLFEBORO Non-Manufacturing
Construction (including mining)
Transportation, Communications,
Trade
Financial, Insurance, Real Estate^
H Services , Other
H
H TOTAL
o
Fourth
1960
13
8

5

63
17
4
23
N.A.
19

76

Quarter
1970
9
N.A.

N.A.

73
13
4
34
7
15

82

Percent
Change
(30.8)
N.A.

N.A.

15.9
(23.5)
N.C.
47.8
N.A.
(21.1)

7.9

Employment
1960
337
232

105

515
105
34
200
N.A.
176

852

1970
220
N.A.

N.A.

667
88
78
311
56
134

887

Percent
Change
(34.7)
N.A.

N.A.

29.5
(16.2)
129.4
55.5
N.A.
(23.9)

4.1

 1960 Reports Lumber and Wood Products in this Group; 1970 includes this in Other Durables.


"1960-1970 Reported over 90 percent Durable Goods, Asbestos, Lumber Products.


 1960 - 3rd and 4th Quarters only.

1
 No reporting for this category.

-------
A Sector Analysis of the Region's Economy.  To assess
the current status of the region's economic base and
its growth trends, a number of economic indicators
have been selected.  Choice of indicators was substan-
tially affected by the overall availability of economic
data at the local, regional and state levels and the
constraints imposed by the study area's geographic
limits.  The region's economic base is divided into
four sectors:  (1) industry; (2)  commercial and retail;
(3) recreation; and (4) agriculture.

    Industry Activity.  Based on an analysis of the
    State of New Hampshire Department of Employment
    Security's covered employment statistics for the
    4th Quarter-1973,  the region's industrial economy
    appears to be substantially diversified.  Of the
    16,703 persons employed in industry, 42.5 percent
    (7,112 persons) had jobs with manufacturing firms
    and the remaining 57.5 percent (9,591 persons)
    were employed by non-manufacturing businesses.   As
    illustrated in Table 11-25, manufacturing employ-
    ment is primarily concentrated in the following
    types of industry -- machinery, lumber and wood
    products, electrical products, textiles, and rubber,
    plastics, leather and other nondurables.  There are
    a total of 135 manufacturing firms employing 7,112
    persons.  The median number of employees per firm
    is 53.  Rubber, plastics,  leather and other non-
    durables industries are the most labor-intensive
    with a median number of 278 employees in each of
    the five companies.  Food  and paper product
    industries have the least  number of employees per
    firm - 13 to 14.

    The geographic distribution of the area's indus-
    trial employment is found  primarily within the
    Laconia, Tilton, and Franklin axis.  In 1930,
    these communities  accounted for 9,360 jobs.
    Slightly smaller employment centers within the
    study area include the Towns  of Meredith (979
    jobs)  and Wolfeboro (887 jobs).  Table 11-26 pro-
    vides a comparative evaluation of the changing
    conditions of industrial activity between 1960  and
    1970 for each of these urbanized areas.
                   11-111

-------
The following summary provides  a brief descrip-
tion of the general  industrial  character of each
of the employment centers,,  its  relative position
in the region's economy,  and  specific changes  in
its industrial base  between 1960^-1970:

    Laconia - The City  of Laconia  continues to
    be the region's  major industrial and employ-
    ment center.  Between 1960-1970 the City
    gained a total of 64  new  firms (24.8 percent),
    and 548 persons  (9.3  percent)  were added to
    the employment base.  While losses occurred in
    the number of manufacturing firms and  employees,
    substantial gains were  made in non-manufacturing
    activities - a 32,4 percent increase in number
    of firms and 64.1 percent in employment.

    Franklin - While the  City of Franklin  remains
    the region's second largest industrial center,
    it lost 10 percent  of its industrial firms and
    11 percent of its industrial employment in the
    decade between 1960-1970.  The number  of manu-
    facturing firms  decreased from 26 to 15  (-42.3
    percent) and the number of  employees by 306
     (-20.2 percent). These losses were off-set
    substantially by increases  in  non-manufacturing
    activities.

    Meredith, Tilton and  Wolfeboro - Following the
    nation's demographic  trends in the 1960s,  these
    smaller communities in  the study area  expanded
    their  industrial base both in  terms of number
    of firms and employees.  Similar to the indus-
    trial  changes which occurred in Laconia and
    Franklin, the manufacturing segment of the
    economy was most severely affected,  While the
    number of firms  was reduced, employment levels
    varied with  increases in  Meredith  (44,4 percent)
    and Tilton  (9.4  percent)  and a drop in Wolfeboro
     (-34,7 percent). The manufacturing base of the
    Town of Tilton  is approaching  the City of
    Franklin's both  in  terms  of the number of  firms
    and employees.   Non-manufacturing industries
    experienced  growth  in all the  towns, but the
    specific types of  firms varied considerably
    between them.
                 11-112

-------
The strength of the region's diversified economic
base is indicated by the number of firms and  jobs
in the non-rmanufacturing sector.  A total of  1,538
firms employ 9,591 persons.  The median number of
employees per firm is only six.  Approximately 70
percent of the non^manufacturing employment is con-
centrated in trade and service-related businesses.

Commercial Activity.  In conjunction with the study
area's employment and subsequent population settle-
ment patterns, commercial centers have been estab-
lished to serve the needs of permanent residents
as well as seasonal tourists.  The intensity of
commercial activity fluctuates with seasonal levels
of demand.  The relative concentration of existing
commercial centers and their estimated service
areas are reflected in Table 11-27.

The largest concentrations of commercial businesses
are found in the City of Laconia and the City of
Franklin.  Correspondingly, their respective ser-
vice areas are of the region scale, serving shoppers
within a 25-mile radius.  The next level of concen-
tration is community-oriented, serving shoppers
within a 10-mile radius.  Community size shopping
centers include Belmont, Gilford, Meredith, Tilton
and Wolfeboro.  The seasonal influx of tourists
during the summer months results in an increased
level of commercial activity approaching regional
scale for the communities of Meredith, Gilford and
Wolfeboro.  Their relative rural location and prox-
imity to Lake Winnipesaukee are major influencing
factors.  The remaining communities within the
study area serve basically local needs.

Recreational Tourism.  The study area's location in
the heart of New Hampshire's Lake Region has made
it a major center for recreational tourism, not
only to State residents, but also to visitors from
nearby states as well as those from other parts
of the country.  The natural setting of forested
hills, mountains and numerous lakes, rivers and
ponds provide the essential ingredients for attract-
ing thousands of seasonal visitors.  Key attractors
include Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire's larg-
est water body (44,586 acres), Squam Lake (6,764
acres), Winnisquam (4,264 acres), and the Belknap
Mountain Recreation Area (1,300 acres), which is
located on Mt, Gunstock and equipped for both
summer and winter recreational activities.
               11-113

-------
                           TABLE 11-27
            CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMERCIAL CENTERS
Municipality

Primary Study Area

  Belmont
  Franklin
  Gilford
  Laconia
  Meredith
  Northfield
  Sanbornton
  Tilton

 Peripheral  Study  Area

  Alton
  Moultonborough
  Tuftonboro
  Wolfeboro
  Center  Harbor
   Level of
Concentration1
Service
      M
      H
      M
      H
      M
      N
      N
      M
       L
       L
       N
       M
       L
     B
     A
     B (A
     A
     B (B
     C
     C
     B
     C  (B
     N
     C
     B  (A
     C
Summer)

Summer)
Summer)


Summer)
   ""classification of commercial concentrations are divided into the
    following categories:  H-high; M-moderate; L-low; and N-negligible


   Estimated service area of commercial centers are Designated as:
    A-within 25-mile radius; B-within 10-mile radius; and C-less
    than 10-mile radius.
   Source:  Complied from data contained  in LRPC's draft report
            entitled Economic Profile, May 1975.
                                11-114

-------
             Table :U>24 in the Existing  Land Use sectiQn of
             this report provides a complete inventory of all
             recreational facilities within the study area by
             municipality.

             The economic importance as well as potential
             impacts of recreational tourism within the study
             area have not been fully  determined because of
             insufficient funds and staff at both state and
             local levels.  However, several indicators have
             been selected and analyzed which provide some
             insights into its financial  impact.  Table II-28
             provides a summary and comparative evaluation of
             the New Hampshire and Belknap County's share of
             the State's 1970 visitor  population by category.

                         Table 11-28
                 VISITOR POPULATION IN 1970
           (Source:  Hendricks  &  Associates, 1971)
Category

Year Round Population
Guests at Year Round
  Homes
Second Home Population
Lodging Place Population
Boyd & Girls Camp
  Population
Camp Ground Population

  TOTAL VISITOR
   POPULATION
 Number of Visitors
 State   Belknap Co.
737,681
235,295


287,000
 68,633
 27,646


 46,705


665,279
32,367
10,670


34,300
 9,939
 2,568


 6,350


63,827
  County
Percentage

    4.4
    4.5
   77,
   14,
    9.6
   13.6
    9,6
                                                      Belknap County
                                                     Population Ratio
                                                    Visitor/Year-Round
 33,0

106.0
 30.7
  7.9

 19.3
197.2
             Approximately 10 percent of the State's  visitor
             population  in 1970 was attracted to Belknap County.
             These  63,827  visitors represent 197 persons for
             every  100 year-round residents or almost a doubling
             of the County's population.  Although only a small
             portion of  Carroll County is contained in the
             peripheral  study area, it is important to note that
             its ratio of  visitor to year-round population was
             4.66 to 1.0.   These two counties ranked  respec-
             tively first  and second in visitor population for
             the State of  New Hampshire.  The magnitude of the
             financial impact of recreational tourism on the
             local  economies of Belknap County can be seen from
             Table  11-29•   Data on sales receipts serve as one
             reliable economic indicator, but should  not be
             interpreted as a measurement of the full economic
             impact of recreational tourism on the County.
                            11-115

-------
                         TABLE  11-29


               BELKNAP COUNTY SALES RECEIPTS - 1967
               CSource: Hendricks & Associates, 1971}
                              Total 1967             Per Capita
                           Sales or Receipts      Sales or Receipts
Dollar Demand Indicators          ($1,000)	     state       County

Total Retail Store  Sales         $66,438           $1,708      $2,170
  Food Store Sales                15,307              442         499
  Gasoline Sales                 3,351              114         109
  Eating & Drinking Place         3,459               98         112
    Sales


Hotel, Motel and Camp             4,406               71         144
  Receipts

Amusement, Recreation               778               37          25
  Receipts

          TOTAL               $93,739           $2,470      $3,059
              Table 11-29 presents  a  summary of the indices  for
              total and per capita  sales or receipts for both  the
              State and Belknap County.   The county's per capita
              sales receipts exceeded the State's per capita
              figures in all indices  except gasoline sales.  More
              importantly, the County's  total per capita receipts
              were $589 higher than the  State figure.  The New
              Hampshire 1970 Inventory of New Hampshire and  Lodging
              Places indicated that within this particular sector
              of  the recreation, vacation and travel economy
              Belknap County's per  capita taxable sales were
              approximately 175 percent  higher than the State's
              figure ($359 vs. $205) . Also, a comparative rank-
              ing of all counties in  New Hampshire revealed
              Belknap County to be  first and Carroll County  was
              second in eating and  lodging place taxable sales
              for 1970.

              In  conclusion, the role of recreational tourism
              within the framework  of the County's economy is
              significant.  This part of New Hampshire ranks
              among the State's top recreation, vacation and
              travel areas.  In response to the region's attrac-
              tiveness, seasonal and  second home construction
              has boomed within the past ten years.  The 1970
                            11-116

-------
Class  I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Others
             estimate of the subsequent non-resident  population
             in Belknap County ranged from  27,500  (LRPC)  to
             34,400  CHendrick & Associates).  Residential land
             development and other related  recreationally-
             oriented uses provide as much  as 75 percent  of the
             revenues in some small communities.  However,  the
             demands of municipal services  by these uses  pose
             potential economic problems.   The availability and
             capacity of existing services  to be expanded and/or
             extended is severely limited by financial con-
             straints of local governments.

             Agriculture.  The best estimates of the  extent of
             agriculture and its importance in the overall
             economy of the study area are  contained  in the 1969
             Census of Agriculture.  Because the data is  collected
             and analyzed on the basis of counties, Belknap
             County was selected as most representative of  the
             study area.

             There are 155 farms in Belknap County which
             comprise a total of 32,593 acres.  The average  size
             farm contains approximately 210 acres.   The  County's
             agricultural production consists mainly  of dairy
             products, poultry products, horticultural crops and
             vegetable crops.  While most of these products  are
             consumed locally, a significant portion  of the
             area's milk production is transported, processed
             and marketed in central New Hampshire.   Table  11-30
             provides economic data of product value  by farm as
             an indicator of the relative economic importance
             of agricultural operations to the region's economy.

                         TABLE 11-30

                  FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS1
             (Source:  Census of Agriculture, 1969)
Farm Classifications

-  Sales of $40,000 and over
-  Sales of $20,000 to $39,000
-  Sales of $10,000 to $19,999
-  Sales of $ 5,000 to $ 9,999
-  Sales of $ 2,500 to $ 4,999
-  Sales less than $2,500

                     TOTAL
Number of
  Farms

    9
   14
   15
   16
   25
   76
Percent

  5.8
  9.0
  9.8
 10.3
 16.1
 49.0
                                              155
               100.0
 Based on the value of product sales.
                            11-117

-------
    As Table 11-30  indicates, approximately 76 percent
    of, the farms in Belknap County have crop productions
    valued at less than $9,999.  To supplement agricul-
    tural incomes, approximately 100 farms reported
    that they did off-farm work for a number of days in
    the year.  Thus, it can be generally concluded that
    agriculture does not play a significant role in the
    area's present economy.

Internal Dependencies and External Linkages.  In order
to gain an understanding of the degree of self-suffi-
ciency and interdependencies among the study area's
local economies and their linkages to other parts of
the region, and to areas outside the region, a review
and analysis of journey-to-work commuting patterns was
made.  Table 11-31 presents a summary of the origin and
destination of resident work trips by municipality for
1970.  In addition, a percent distribution of the work
trips by primary and peripheral study area is shown.

Approximately 69 percent of the employees residing within
the defined primary study area work in Belknap County
and 27 percent commuted to nearby Merrimack County.  There
were no journey-to-work trips reported to areas outside
the region.  Correspondingly, the majority  (64 percent)
of the resident workers in the peripheral area traveled
to jobs within Carroll County.  Nineteen percent left
their home county to work in Belknap County.  Only
eight percent were employed outside the region.

Based upon this journey-to-work data, it is evident
that the  labor force is dependent upon the region's
economic  base for jobs as opposed to areas outside the
region.   The ability of the region's local economies to
provide employment for its residents demonstrates a high
level of  self-sufficiency.  Equally important, it
should be noted that strong economic ties exist between
the towns in the  region, irrespective of county boundaries

The interrelationships between place of residence and
job locations would appear to be a function of the level
of accessibility  and travel distance.  For  example, a
large number of workers commuted from Moultonborough to
Belknap County's  job centers, whereas the number of
employees from Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro substantially
decreases.   The location of  these communities to the
north and east of Lake winnipesaukee is a considerable
distance  from the region's principal employment centers
 (Franklin, Laconia and Tilton) and these centers are not
readily accessible by the existing highway  network.
                   11-118

-------
                                                        Table 11-31
      Origin of Trip

      Primary Study  Area
                         Census
                        Employed
                                           JOURNEY-TO-WORK COMMUTING PATTERNS
                                                  (Source:  1970 Census)
                                                                    TRIP DESTINATION
                                                           County
                                                                                          Elsewhere
Belknap   Carroll   Grafton   Merrimack   In N.H.    Outside N.H.    Not Reported
H
H
I
I-1
M
V£>
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton

  Subtotal
  Precent Reported
1,188
3,028
1,328
5,443
1,226
866
438
957
13,457

95
405
1,073
4,654
894
411
220
576
8,233
68.7
—
—
—
—
20
—
25
—
45
.4
—
51
7
35
82
—
26
28
229
2.3
115
2,227
70
172
5
334
71
284
3,278
26.8
34
45
45
30
10
28
24
14
230
1.8
                                                                        88
                                                                       300
                                                                       133
                                                                       552
                                                                       215
                                                                        93
                                                                        12
                                                                     	55_

                                                                     1,442
     Peripheral  Study Area
       Center  Harbor
       Alton
       Moultonborough
       Tuftonboro
       Wolfeboro

          Subtotal
          Percent Reported
          TOTAL
          PERCENT REPORTED
236
576
390
275
1,206
2,683
16,140
175
248
118
27
19
587
25.3
8,820
61.3
9
38
177
212
948
1,384
59.9
1,429
9.8
19
—
—
—
19
.8
248
1.7
10
55
13
6
7
91
3.9
3,369
23.3
153
—
23
88
264
9.8
494
3.3
—
—
—
8
8
.3
8
.6
                                                                                                           23
                                                                                                           82
                                                                                                           82
                                                                                                             7
                                                                                                           136

                                                                                                           330
                                                                                                                1,772

-------
While the internal dependencies  and external  linkages
of the region's day-to-day  economic activities  have
been the focus of this  section of  the economic  base
study, the importance of  external- to-external economic
ties should not be minimized.  As  was pointed out
previously in the analysis  of recreational  tourism,
the impact of visitors  from outside the  region  is  signi-
ficant.  Furthermore, the state  of the United States
economy in general has  a  direct  effect on the region's
economic well-being.

Community Services^

Sewage .  Presently,  five  municipal wastewater treatment
plants are located in the study  area (Laconia,  Meredith,
Center Harbor, Moultonboro  and Wolfeboro) .  The type of
treatment, level of  efficiency and sewered  areas of each
facility are described  in Section  i.A.2 of this report
The communities of Franklin and  Tilton (partially
served) have gravity collection  systems, but  discharge
untreated sewage into receiving  streams.  The remaining
towns within the study  area are  dependent upon  private
on-site sewage disposal systems,  (septic tanks) .

Water .  Most of the  study area's population is  served
by public water supply  systems.  Because numerous  com-
panies furnish public water, the source of  supply  varies
according to municipality.  In general, the sources of
public water include wells, Paugus Bay, Lake  Winnipesaukee,
Meredith reservoir,  and several  ponds.  Three municipali-
ties lack any form of public water service  — Center
Harbor, Moultonborough  and  Sanbornton.  These communi-
ties are dependent upon private  well systems  or other
alternate sources.   Section n.A.6  of this report dis-
cusses the status of water  supply  sources,  user demands,
treatment, etc., for the  study area.
Electricity.  Electrical power is supplied to the study
area by three major electric companies:   (1) Public Service
Company of New Hampshire;  (2) New Hampshire Electric
Cooperative, Inc.; and  (3) Municipal Electric Departments.
Wolfeboro is the only community whose electricity is
provided by the municipality, however, the electrical
power is purchased from the Public Service Company.

Electricity is distributed throughout the primary and
peripheral study areas from several existing 33 KV trans-
mission lines which traverse the region.  In order to
assure uninterrupted service, the electric power compan-
ies are tied into NEPP  (New England Power Pool) , a
network of generating stations that interconnect and
                   II-12Q

-------
share their electrical resources throughout the north-
eastern part of the United States.  Thus, the source
of electric power is diffused, but it should be noted
that the existing Eastman Fall hydro generating station
in Franklin is a contributor to the area's power supply.

Gas.  Natural gas is provided to selected portions of
the primary study based upon proximity to the Gas Service,
Inc. transmission line which starts in Concord and ter-
minates in Laconia.  The existing service area for
natural gas includes the communities of Gilford,
Laconia, Tilton, Northfield, Sanbornton and Franklin.
The remaining areas not served by natural gas are ser-
viced with tank gas (liquefied petroleum gas and bulk
gas).  Presently, a "freeze" exists on hook-ups to new
residential customers where Gas Service, Inc. does not
have distribution lines in the ground.  Similarly,
natural gas service has been restricted to commerical/
industrial establishments (process users).  A maximum
quantity of 10,000 cubic feet per day is being allocated
to new process users and 5,00.0 cubic feet per day to
existing process customers who desire to expand their
current allocation.  These limitations do not apply to
users of tank gas, however,  sales to new customers are
not being promoted.

Schools.  Eight school districts encompass all public
schools within the study area.  Table 11-32 summarizes
1974-75 student enrollments and capacity of existing
facilities for each municipality.

Based on public school expenditures in 1973-74, the
estimated cost of educating a student within the study
area ranged between $803-$860.  Student costs varied
depending upon educational level: elementary ($813.17),
junior high ($802.96)  and senior high ($859.58).
Because the Town of Belmont contains no educational
facilities and its students are educated in adjacent
Shaker Region School District,the above costs reflect
this adjustment.

Police.  Local police protection exists in all communi-
ties throughout the study area, except in Tuftonboro.
The level of police service varies by town and season
of the year.  Table II-33 provides a summary of the
number of full and part-time officers as well as
financial budgets by municipality.
                   11-121

-------
                                                       TABLE  11-32

                              EXISTING  PUBLIC  SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY OP FACILITIES
                                          (Source:   Supervisory School Unions,  1975)
                                                 ENROLLMENT  (1974-75)
                                                                                         CAPACITY
H
M
I
to
       District

       Alton
       Belmont
       Gilford
       Laconia
       Franklin
       Gov.Wentworth
Inter-Lakes
  Coop.
Winnisquam
Towns

Alton
Belmont1
Gilford
Laconia
Franklin
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Center Harbor "}
Meredith      j
Northfield
Tilton
Sanbornton
                                     J
                                 Elementary
                                    331
                                    592
                                            554
                                            500
Junior
 High
Senior
 High
                                                         432
                                                         827
 191
                                                  563
 325
               452
Elementary
                             225
                             650
   600
                                                                                     625
Junior
  High
Senior
  High
                                                 750
                                   850
  500
                                                                                            600
                                                         600
                         Grades 5 and 6 are utilizing four  rooms or a capacity of 100 spaces in the
                         Belmont High School.   It should be noted that the high school enrollment
                         figures include both  students from Canterburry and Belmont.

-------
                         TABLE 11-33

                   EXISTING POLICE SERVICE
Municipality

Primary Study Area

  Belmont
  Franklin
  Gilford
  Laconia
  Meredith
  Northfield
  Sanbornton
  Tilton

     SUBTOTAL

Peripheral Study Area

  Alton
  Moultonborough
  Tuftonboro
  Wolfeboro
  Center Harbor

     SUBTOTAL

     TOTAL
   NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
Full-Time       Part-Time
    7
   15
   12
   32
    8
    4
    2
    9

   89
    4
    2

    9
  	3

   18

  107
10
12
 7
25
 6
 4
 3
 3

70
14

 3
 8
25

95
Source:  LRPC draft report entitled Economic Profile, 1975.
                            11-123

-------
        Fire.  The  level  of  fire  protection varies signifi-
        cantly between municipality as well as by geographic
        area within each  respective community.  The Insurance
        Services Office of New Hampshire has rated the level
        of  fire protection for each municipality within the
        study area  and the rating classifications are shown in
        Table 11-34.  The rate classifications of A through D
        are designated for areas  with fire departments and fire
        hydrants  (public  water supply).  The higher rating
        indicates a greater  fire  fighting capability, recogniz-
        ing differences in manpower, equipment, water pressure,
        etc.  Classification E represents areas with a fire
        department  but no fire hydrants.  Because municipalities
        have both protected  and unprotected areas two ratings
        are shown in the  table.  The number 3 or 5 appearing
        immediately after the rate classification indicates the
        distance from the nearest fire station.

                        TABLE 11-34

        FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE AND INSURANCE RATING
 (Source:   Insurance Services Office of New Hampshire, 1975)

                     NUMBER OF PERSONNEL
                                                          Rate
Primary Study Area    Full-Time  Volunteer   Total   Classifications

  Belmont                  2          20        22          CE-3
  Franklin                -          40        40          CE-3
  Gilford                  5          25        30           E-5
  Laconia                 36          40        76          BE-5
  Meredith             ..  -          45        45          CE-5
  Northfield              1          40        41          DE-5
  Sanbornton              -          36        36           E-5
  Tilton                  1          40        41          DE-5
Peripheral Study Area

  Alton                   -         25        25          DE-5
  Center Harbor           -         20        20           E-5
  Moultonborough          -         28        28           E-5
  Tuftonboro              5         43        48           E-3
  Wolfeboro               -         29        29          CE-3


         As Table 11-34 indicates, all the municipalities in the
         study area have a fire department but some areas are
         relatively unprotected (areas designated as class E)
         due to their remote location.  In general, fire depart-
         ment manpower is comprised largely of volunteer fire
                           11-124

-------
fighters.  However, six communities have full-time
professional personnel.  To assist and coordinate
the local fire departments in their efforts to pro-
vide improved service, the Lakes Region Mutual Fire
Aid Association established a dispatch center in
1971.  The dispatch center operates a 24-hour
emergency dispatch service to Belknap County and
member town in adjacent counties.

Solid Waste Disposal.  In January, 1974, the consult-
ing firm of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. prepared a report
entitled Solid Waste Disposal Plan for the Lakes
Region Planning Commission.  This study inventoried
and evaluated all existing solid waste disposal facili-
ties in the study area except for the communities of
Franklin, Laconia and Northfield.  The status of the
solid waste disposal facilities for these communities
has been investigated and supplements the findings of
Metcalf & Eddy report.  Table 11-36 summarizes the
physical size, extent of current utilization, future
life expectancy, and general suitability of existing
disposal sites.

As Table 11-35 indicates  several communities in the
study area have solid waste disposal facilities which
are nearing their capacity to physically accommodate
future waste loads.  In addition, many of the existing
disposal sites in current use are considered to be
either marginally acceptable or unacceptable for con-
tinued use.  Some of the most common problems associated
with the environmental suitability of existing sites
include:   (1)  poor soil conditions; (2) high water
tables and proximity to bodies of water and water
courses; and  (3) incompatibility with surrounding land
uses.  Operational problems such as lack of personnel
to direct disposal, improper disposal techniques and
lack of suitable shelter for workers.

For purposes of estimating the life expectancy of
existing solid waste disposal sites, based on the
demands of the region's current population and for
projecting future requirements from additional growth
which is anticipated, Metcalf & Eddy developed a
series of per capita refuse generation rates for the
municipalities.  These refuse generation rates are summa-
rized in Table 11-36 and represent current estimated
waste quantities.  Future projected per capita rates
are expected to increase two percent per year.
                   11-125

-------
                              TABLE II- 35
               EXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Site Area Available Area for Estimated Life
Municipality (Acres) Future Disposal Expectancy
Alton
Blemont
Center Harbor
Gilford
Meredith
Moultonborough
Sanbornton
Tilton
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Laconia/Gilford/
Franklin/
North fie Id/
Tilton
2.3
20.0-30.0
11.5
Unknown
Unknown
6.0
Unknown
3.0
70.0
40.0
1.3
18.0-28.0
9.5
Unknown
Unknown
5.0
— — — Closed —
Unknown
Minimal
30.0-35.0
38.0+
1 yr+
11 yrs
1 yr+
1 yr+_
15 yrs+
15 yrs+
Unknown
1 yr
8-12 yrs
15-20 yrs
Environmental
Suitability
Marginal
Unacceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
Unknown
Acceptable
Marginal
Marginal
Marginal
Acceptable
Source:  Solid Waste Disposal Plan prepared by Metcalf & Eddy and personal
        communications with Messrs. DeNormandie  (Laconia) and McSweeny
         (Franklin).
                                  11-126

-------
                           TABLE 11-36

         CURRENT PER CAPITA REFUSE GENERATION RATES
                                    Quantity of Solid Waste
Primary Study Area                   (Ibs/day/per capita)

  Belmont                                    3.50
  Franklin
  Gilford                                    6.00
  Laconia
  Meredith                                   7.00
  Northfield
  S anbornton                                 3.25
  Tilton                                     6.75
Peripheral Study Area

  Alton                                      3.75
  Center Harbor                              5.75
  Tuftonboro                                 3.75
  Wolfeboro                                  7.25
           Because the State of New Hampshire adopted legislation
           which prohibits open burning as a technique of waste
           disposal after July 1,  1975, many of the communities
           in the study area must  discontinue such practices.
           Individual municipalities are initiating appropriate
           actions to deal with these problems.  For example/
           the towns of Gilford and Northfield-Tilton have aban-
           doned use of their former disposal site and have
           joined with the City of Laconia and Franklin respec-
           tively to handle solid  waste problems; the City of
           Meredith is investigating the future use of incinera-
           tion; and the City of Laconia is evaluating the feasi-
           bility of relocating its solid waste operations to  a
           new 120 acre site for environmental reasons.  Based
           on the above actions, it is clearly evident that
           Metcalf & Eddy's recommended plan of "intermunicipal
           action" is being adopted and/or studied by the towns
           in the study area to determine the feasibility of this
           approach in meeting local needs.
                              11-127

-------
     Medical.  Three hospitals provide medical services
     to the municipalities within the study area - Franklin
     Regional Hospital in Franklin, Lakes Region General
     Hospital in Laconia and Huggins Hospital in Wolfeboro.
     These medical facilities offer the surrounding com-
     munities a full range of services including surgical,
     pediatric, intensive (critical) care, emergency, etc.
     A total of 322 beds exist; their occupancy rate fluc-
     tuates with increased demands of the seasonal popu-
     lation, but averages between 50-76 percent throughout
     the year.  The emergency rooms of Franklin Regional
     and Lakes Region General are open 24-hours a day
     (staff on call) and Huggins Hospital's emergency
     room is open until 6 p.m. in the winter and 11 p.m.
     in the summer.  Minor medical problems are generally
     handled in the offices of private physicians or
     clinics scattered throughout the area.

     The availability and range of medical services in
     the study area appears to be quite good.  The number
     of physicians per 1,000 population is 1:806 in the
     primary study area and 1:623 in the peripheral study
     area.  These figures compare very favorable to the
     1974 New Hampshire statewide average of 1:842.

     5.  Other Government Projects Planned for the Area

     Listed in Table 11-37 are projects either underway
or planned within the study area by several Federal, State
and Local agencies.  Of paramount importance to the pro-
posed waste treatment project is the action initiated by
the Public Utilities Commission to place certain sections
of the Boston and Maine Railroad under State control.  The
purpose of this action is to supply service to a paper
mill in Lincoln, a service that the bankrupt B&M is in-
capable of supplying.  If the state gains control of
the railroad, utilization of the right-of-way for the
proposed interceptor lines will be greatly facilitated.
                     TABLE 11-37

   OTHER MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS  IN STUDY AREA

 1.  Federal Projects:

     a.  Corps of Engineers Flood Control Study
          (see also State Projects - Dredge and
         Fill Operations).

     b.  Urban Mass Transit Administration fund-
         ing of a mass transit  study  for the
         Lakes Region.


                       11-128

-------
2.  State Projects;

    a.  Initiation of action by Public Utilities
        Commission to take over a section of the
        Boston and Maine Railroad by eminent
        domain.

    b.  Dredge and Fill Operations - Sponsoring
        a COE Study (see a. above) of methods
        for stabilizing Silver Lake.  Study in-
        cludes canal to bypass Laconia and possi-
        bly a dam on Silver Lake.

    c.  Dredge and Fill Operations - Making plans
        to begin reconstruction of dam at
        Winnisquam Lake.

    d.  Public Utilities Commission - 115KV power
        line from Deerfield to Laconia, scheduled
        for next 2-3 years.

    e.  Relocation of Routes 3 and 11 between
        Franklin and Laconia.

3.  Local Projects;   None
                      11-129

-------
                   SECTION III
STATUS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

The following section of the environmental impact
statement contains a discussion of projected de-
velopment in the Winnipesaukee River basin.  The
discussion includes a description of the planning
agencies having jurisdiction in the study area and
their projections of future development.  Popula-
tion projections for the area are analyzed.  The
proposed land use plan is also assessed.  Informa-
tion developed in this discussion will be incorpor-
ated into the analysis of the proposed project's
environmental impact (Section IV)  and into the
analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed
project (Section V).

-------
III.    STATUS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

  A.    Planning Agencies and Activities

       To date, land use planning for both the primary and peri-
  pheral study areas has been conducted individually, on a
  township basis.  As indicated in Table III-1, two of the eight
  communities in the primary area and two of the five townships
  in the peripheral area have no comprehensive plans.  The Lakes
  Region Planning Commission  (LRPC) is in the process of formu-
  lating both a detailed regional development plan and a 208
  Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan - both of which will
  encompass the study area.  Figure III-l depicts the inter-
  relationship of the Winnipesaukee River Watershed, the 208
  Planning Area, the Lakes Region Planning Area, and the study
  area.

       1.  State Planning

       The Office of Comprehensive Planning  (OCP) State of New
  Hampshire, is responsible for statewide planning and management.
  Its duties are grouped into three categories:  1) policy
  and program development; 2) land use and water resources
  planning; and 3) housing planning.  This department is in the
  process of compiling detailed land use and natural resources
  data suitable for establishing future regional and State land
  use plans.  An integral part of this work is the preparation,
  planned for FY 1976, of a statewide land use sketch plan.  As
  part of this program, the department will review and analyze
  existing local and regional land use plans and construct an
  "existing status" composite land use plan.  Also, the depart-
  ment will collect and analyze State level data to create a
  land capability map  (Minnoch, 1975).  All of this work will be
  conducted in close cooperation with State regional planning
  agencies.  The sketch plan, a qualitative type study, will
  then be used as a basis for developing the final statewide land
  use plan.  This final plan will quantify the State's land needs
  and be used to fulfill the  "land use element" requirement
  necessary for program funding under the HUD 701 program.  To
  comply with the HUD  701 program, both the regional land use
  plans and the State's final plan must be completed by August
  1977  (Neville, 1975).

       Presently, the OCP is  just an advisory department.  Because
  there is no State legislation giving the final land use plan a
  legal basis, it will be used as a guide for the subsequent
  quantification and timing of land use needs and the establish-
  ment of policies for land use planning and implementation
  (Minnoch, 1975) .
                               III-l

-------
                            1	I  Wi nnipesaukee  River Watershed


                          — — — Proposed 208 Planning Area


                            —— Planning Jurisdiction of  Lakes Region
                                Planning Commission


                                Townships within the Study Area
FIGURE III-UURISDICTION OF ThTE  LAKES REGION
             PLANNING  COMMISSION  SHOWING THE
             WlNNIPESAUKEE RIVER  WATERSHED, THE
             208 PLANNING AREA, AND THE STUDY  .
             AREA
                      III-2

-------
     2.   Regional Planning

     In  December 1968, the Governor of New Hampshire issued
an Executive Order establishing and delineating seventeen
planning regions within the State.  In the same year, the LRPC
was formed by communities around Lakes Winnipesaukee and
Winnisquam to develop a Regional Land Use Pland and to
support  local planning efforts.  Late in 1972, the Lakes Region
was expanded to encompass the present thirty-two municipalities
(Figure  III-l).  All of the townships within both the primary
and peripheral study areas are within the jurisdiction of the
LRPC, but Franklin does not contribute funds to the Commission
nor take advantage of its services.

     The primary functions of the LRPC are:

     To  provide continuing advice and assistance to aid
     member communities in programming and controlling
     development.

     To  provide direct technical and professional assistance
     to  communities.

     To  review and assist in the preparation or amendment
     of  zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations or single
     purpose ordinances.

     The LRPC also coordinates its work with other governmental
agencies.   Coordination with Federal agencies is accomplished
primarily through the Director of Regional Planning in the State
Office of Comprehensive Planning.

     The LRPC is involved in preparing plans and studies for a
wide range of activities, including socioeconomics, health
care, housing, land capability, land use, population pro-
jections,  solid waste and sewage disposal.  The major programs
directly related to land use planning are as follows:

         Regional Land Use Plan.  A series of alternative
         land use plans are being prepared for the entire
         Lakes Region.  The plans will be presented to the
         membership for discussion, as the first step towards
         adoption of a final plan.  The finalized plan and
         implementation program are projected for adoption by
         1975-76.

         Transportation Plan.  The LRPC has received a grant
         from the Urban Mass Transit Administration to under-
         take mass transit planning.  Work is projected to be
         well underway during 1975-76.

         Recreation Report - Assessment of Existing and
         Needed Facilities Programs and Personnel.The LRPC has
         been working with the New Hampshire Department of
                             III-3

-------
         Resources  and  Economic  Development  in updating the
         State  Comprehensive  Outdoor  Recreation Plan.
         Analysis of  the  data includes  an  assessment of existing
         and needed facilities,  programs and personnel  --
         both on a  town and regional  basis.   The study  is
         to provide a focal point for planning to meet  local
         and regional recreation needs.

         In its function  of providing local  planning assis-
         tance, the LRPC  has  performed  a wide variety of tasks,
         including:  reviewing and updating  codes and ordi-
         nances, updating and redrafting town maps,  i.e., land
         use, zoning, soils,  land capability, and base  maps,
         and assisting with preparation of grant applications
         for Federal  assistance.

     3.  Areawide  Planning

     The Environmental Protection Agency,  under Section 208 of
the Federal Water  Pollution Control Act Amendments of  1972,
delineated an Areawide Waste  Treatment  Management Planning Area
within the boundaries of  the  Lakes Region  (Figure III-l).
The LRPC was designated the agency responsible for 208  planning.
The 208 area centers  on the Winnipesaukee  River watershed, and
includes Lake Winnipesaukee,  Winnisquam Lake, and the  Winnipe-
saukee River down to its  confluence with  the Pemigewasset
River at Franklin.   All townships of both  the primary  and
peripheral study areas are within the 208  Area.

     The primary objective of the 208 study is to develop an
effective  program  for waste treatment and water quality
management in  the Lakes Region.  Development of a detailed
master plan  for the Lakes Region, which is being conducted
simultaneously by LRPC as one of its regional planning  functions,
will be  an integral part of the 208 planning process.   Com-
pletion  of the 208 Plan is projected for December, 1977.

     4.  Local Planning

     The New Hampshire governmental  structure provides  a
great deal of  local autonomy to the  towns and cities.    To  a
great extent,  the  local units of government  are responsible
for the  formulation and implementation of plans both for
orderly  growth and development  of the  community as well as the
provision  of basic public  facilities and  sewers.  The  status
of the most  recently proposed comprehensive  plans for  towns
and cities within  the  study  area  is  summarized below in
Table  III-l.  At present,  Moultonborough, Tuftonboro,  Tilton,
and Northfield are the only  jurisdictions without a master
plan.
                             III-4

-------
                        TABLE III-l

      STATUS OF THE MOST RECENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OF
            TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN THE PRIMARY
                AND PERIPHERAL STUDY AREAS
Municipality

Primary Study Area:
  Belmont
  Franklin
  Gilford
  Laconia*
  Meredith
  Northfield
  Sanbornton
  Tilton

Peripheral Study Area:
  Alton
  Center Harbor
  Moultonborough
  Tuftonboro
  Wolfeboro
Planning Consultant
Date Completed**
Hans Klunder Associates          1970
Hans Klunder Associates          1967
Community Planning Services      1970
Robert S. Kitchel, Jr. & Assoc.  1963
Hans Klunder Associates          1969

Metcalf & Eddy                   1962-63
Hans Klunder Associates          1965
Community Planning Services      1971
Edward & Kelcey, Inc.            1969
 *LRPC, in conjunction with Allen Associates  (of Rist-Frost
  Associates) is presently updating this plan.  Projected
  completion date is December, 1976.
**None of these plans has been formally adopted, nor is it
  likely that any ever will be until state level legislation
  is enacted that will require adoption.

     In New Hampshire, planning processes are different in
towns and cities.   For the study area, all the towns (exclud-
ing the cities of Laconia and Franklin) have a town meeting
form of government by which the residents gather once a year
to establish public policy, budgets, etc., for the coming
year.  People at the town meeting have the power to establish
a planning board,  zoning ordinances and other regulatory
measures.  A five or seyen member board, elected or appointed
every three years, carries out the policies established at the
town meeting.  The planning board has the following responsibilities,

     Make studies, reports, maps, recommendations relat-
     ing to community planning and development;
                            III-5

-------
         Assume all functions previously performed by the
         zoning commission;

         Make recommendations to selectmen on zoning
         changes; and

         Prepare a master plan for the town.

If authorized by the municipality, the planning board may also
have the power both to adopt subdivision regulations and to
control subdivision development through approval of plats.

     For cities, the form of government varies, as each
municipality has a city charter which is adopted by the voters
and then the State legislature.

     Both Laconia and Franklin have a city manager-council
type of government.  The planning board consists of nine
members and five alternates (alternates not yet chosen in
Laconia) whose powers are granted by State law.  The planning
board is authorized to prepare and update comprehensive plan
for the city, and deal with all aspects of subdivision develop-
ment, i.e., ordinances, plat approvals, etc.  Zoning is
controlled by the City Council, but only upon recommendation
from the planning board.  For several years, the Laconia
planning board has not engaged in actual planning activities,
but has concentrated on investigating development site plans,
and approving subdivision plats (Hance, 1975  and McSweeny,
1975).
                            III-6

-------
B.   Description of Existing Comprehensive Plans and Growth
     Management Controls

     1.  Regional and Municipal Development Plans
         and Related Future Growth Guidelines

     The Lakes Region Planning Commission  (LRPC) is currently
involved in the process of formulating a regional development
plan for the study area.  In working towards the achievement
of this planning objective, LRPC's staff has undertaken a number
of baseline studies on such topics as population growth and
demographic characteristics, existing land uses, economic
profile and the status of municipal development controls.  In
addition, LRPC is preparing an inventory and physical mapping
of the region's natural resources, evaluating land suitability,
and drafting a series of conceptual development plans on
possible alternative futures for the region.  Supplemental
consultant services are being employed to perform specialized
planning tasks, including transportation planning, economic
base analysis, etc.  As a result of these planning efforts, it
is anticipated that a regional development plan and implemen-
tation program will be prepared and adopted by LRPC in 1975-76.

     One of the first important steps in the process of formu-
lating and adopting a regional development plan has been accom-
plished—reaching a consensus on common goals and objectives.
The participating municipal representatives of LRPC accepted a
series of goal statements and objectives as set forth in the
report entitled Future Land Use Goals and Objectives.  They
serve as a regional framework of planning guidelines and a
priority system by which current and future planning projects
and decisions can be measured.

         Adopted Regional Land Use Goals and Objectives.   The
         following statement of goals and objectives represent
         the region's only formalized planning tool to date
         which describes the desired future conditions towards
         which planning actions are to be directed.  Simply
         stated, goals are defined as a desired future condition.
         An objective represents a further refinement of a
         goal in terms which relate them to the form and
         quality of future regional development and towards
         which specific actions can be directed.  The following
         summarizes LRPC's overall goal and objectives as well
         as a listing of specific goal statements on important
         topics of planning concern.

                        Overall Goal

     To provide for the needs of present and future regional
residents while at the same time recognizing that resulting
                            III-7

-------
development must occur within the qualitative limits necessary
to maintaining the superior natural environment.

                     Overall Objectives

     Provision of a diversified and modern economic base which
will provide employment for a population of varied characteris-
tics and employment skills.

     To assure maximum opportunity for the full development of
each resident through the provision of maximum educational and
job training opportunities, social and health services and the
maximum possible level of cultural opportunities.

     To improve the quality level of our natural environment
through the development of a clearer understanding of ecological
interrelationships of the natural environment and the impact
of man's development on such relationships.

                       Specific Goals

     Human Resources — to encourage balance with varied
family compositions, backgrounds, incomes and interest.

     Environment — to work toward the maintenance of a con-
stantly improving natural environment and the development of a
complementary man-made environment.

     Economy — to encourage the provision of a high level
and range of well-organized functionally adequate public and
private services and activities to meet existing and future
demonstrated regional needs.

         Adopted Municipal Comprehensive Plans.  Within the
         defined study area eight communities have adopted
         comprehensive plans to guide their present and future
         physical growth process.  However, four municipalities
         do not have a comprehensive plan to assist them in
         making land use and related planning decisions,
         including the towns of Northfield, Tilton, Moulton-
         borough and Tuftonboro.  The first plan was published
         in 1962 by Alton, followed by Laconia in 1963.  The
         most recent plan to be prepared by a local municipality
         was in 1971 for Center Harbor.

         Recognizing the need to reevaluate and periodically
         update these comprehensive plans to reflect changes
         which have occurred with the passage of time, Laconia
         and Alton have requested the planning assistance of
         LRPC to begin preparation of a second generation of
         comprehensive plans for their communities.

         An analysis of the comprehensive master plans and
         the accompanying text material indicate several basic
                            III-8

-------
    underlying growth concepts relating to the proposed
    spatial distribution and concentration (density) of
    the region's planned future land uses.  These growth
    concepts are summarized as follows:

     Growth Concepts:  Proposed Distribution
      and Concentration of Future Land Uses.

Residential -- high density residential uses  (3+
dwellings per area) are proposed in the existing built-
up areas of Franklin, Laconia, Meredith, Center Harbor
and Alton.  In addition to these already established
urban areas, three new centers of concentrated residen-
tial development are proposed to be established in the
vicinity of Wickwas Lake, the western half of Gilford
and the East Alton area along Route 28.

Medium density residential uses are generally divided
into two types --  seasonal  (lake shore), and permanent.
Densities range between 1-2 dwellings per acre.  With
the exception of the area along the west side of Alton
Bay, Lake Winnipesaukee1s shoreline is proposed mainly
for medium density residences.  Similar uses  are recom-
mended around other bodies of water throughout the  study
area as well as large land areas between Paugus Bay and
Lake Winnisquam and the Meredith Neck  area, and areas
located to the east and west of Alton  Bay.

Low density residential and agriculture uses  are recom-
mended for much of the remainder of the study area  where
public facilities  are not contemplated in the near
future or where environmental constraints prohibit
intensive  forms of land development

Commercial  — proposed commercial  areas comprise
basically  two categories:   1) commercial business dis-
tricts and  resort-highway oriented establishments which
 include motels, tourist  shops,  restaurants, etc.  The
municipal  comprehensive plans recommend commercial  busi-
ness districts  in  Franklin, Laconia, Meredith and Alton-
Alton  Bay Areas.   The proposed  concentration  of  future
commercial  land uses in  areas  such as  West  Belmont,
 intersection  of 1-93 and  Route  127 in  Sanbornton, and
parallel  to Route  3  in  Laconia  and Route  11 in Gilford
 is of  the resort-highway  oriented  type.

 Industrial  ~  in order  to  provide  expanded  employment
opportunities and  broaden the  tax  base of the l°cal
municipalities  numerous  industrial parks  are  planned.   In
 general,  they have been strategically located on the
basis  of  the  availability of  public  services  (water and
 sewer)  and highway accessibility.   Given these locational
                         III-9

-------
     requirements, the proposed industrial centers are planned
     on the outskirts of the built-up areas of Franklin,
     Laconia, Meredith, Alton and in the vicinity of the Laconia
     Airport.

     Conservation, Open Space and Recreation — the future
     use of selected land areas for these purposes are dis-
     tinctly identified    the municipal comprehensive plans
     of Belmo'nt, Gilford, Alton and Meredith.  The provision
     for these uses is basically twofold: a) provide for
     active and passive recreational opportunities (public
     access) to existing and proposed public parks, beaches
     and stream valleys; and b) preserve and protect environ-
     mentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, flood plains
     and adjacent steep slope areas.

     2.  Existing Regulatory Controls for Managing Growth

     Presently, a variety of growth control techniques are
being employed by the different municipalities in the study
area to regulate the use of privately owned land in the public
interest.  The specific types of legal controls utilized by
each municipality are shown in Table III-2.

     There are four basic types of land use controls in use by
the municipalities, i.e. comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance and building code.  The extent to which
these development controls are being used, varies by munici-
pality.  Only four of the total 13 communities within the
study area are utilizing all of these regulatory controls,
i.e. Alton, Gilford, Laconia and Wolfeboro.  As Table III-2
shows, the most frequently used control device is the sub-
division ordinance, followed by zoning and the comprehensive
plan.

     The basic distinctions and interrelationships between
these control mechanisms is important to understand.  The
subdivision ordinance regulates the division of raw land into
building lots.The zoning ordinance and map governs the type
of land development (character of use)which can be built on
a parcel of land as well as establishing minimum standards of
density, lot coverage, bulk of structures, open space, etc.
The zoning map is an official document reflecting a scheme
of districting and prepared in accord with the recommendations
of the comprehensive plan.  Thus, the latter is a prerequisite
of the former.  The comprehensive plan is general in nature
and sets forth the use and intensity of development which
should take place on a tract of land.  AS Chapin (1968) concludes
in his book, Urban Land Use Planning, "no zoning ordinanace and
its accompanying districting scheme are likely to be compre-
hensive in scope and sound in content unless based on a pre-
viously prepared land use plan" (comprehensive plan).
                            111-10

-------
                           TABLE III-2

             TYPES OF EXISTING LAND USE CONTROLS
              AND EXTENT OF USE BY MUNICIPALITY
                       (Source:  LRPC,  1975)
MUNICIPALITY
REGULATORY CONTROLS IN USE
                    Comprehensive    Zoning   Subdivision  Building
Primary Study Area       Plan      Ordinance   Ordinance     Code
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
X
X
X
X
X
no
X
no
no
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
no
X
X
no
no
no
no
Peripheral Study Area

Alton                     x
Center Harbor             x
Moultonborough            no
Tuftonboro                no
Wolfeboro                 x
           TOTALS
         x
         x
         no
         x
         X
         11
X
X
X
X
X
13
X
no
no
no
x
                                III-ll

-------
      In conclusion,  the existing regulatory controls which have
 been adopted by the  municipalities in the study area over the
 last 10-15 years represent a patchwork of devices which have
 been instituted to meet particular problems and needs of each
 respective community.   The dissimilarities between comprehensive
 plans and ordinances attest to the fragmented governmental
 situation which prevailed at the time of their adaption.  The
 mechanism for intergovernmental collaboration did not exist
 until 1968 when the  Lakes Region Planning Commission was estab-
 lished.  The fact that  many towns have not yet adopted a com-
 prehensive set of development controls which are specifically
 tailored to achieve  stated community  goals and comprehensive
 plan recommendations reflects the area's general climate of
 reluctance to place  greater restrictions on the individual's
 property rights by expanding and modernizing old planning tech-
 niques with new planning  tools.

      3•  Interrelationship Between Existing Zoning Regulations
          and the Proposed Project     "  ~	

      In order to assess the potential  growth inducement  effects
 of  the proposed project on  the region's  future  land uses, a
 baseline investigation and  analysis of official municipal
 zoning maps was conducted  (Figure  III-2).  An examination of the
 zoning regulations was made because they establish the "use
 by  right"  of what  an individual can or cannot do with his pri-
 3h^hPrPertY;  *** *ddition' the intensity of land development
 which  is regulated by zoning, is tied directly to the availa-
 bility of  public services  (water and sewer).  For example, most
 of  the zoning ordinances  for the municipalities within the
 primary study area reduce substantially the minimum lot size
 (area)  when  one or both public sewer and water is available to
 a building  site.  Table III-3 identifies the variations in
 minimum lot  size required by each municipality's zoninq ordi-
 nance within the proposed sewer service area /depending on
whether on-site or off-site water and sewage dis^saHysterns
 are utilized.  Given  these standards,  it il possible to
 estimate the potential growth inducement effect resulting from
£^rX°Kd Pr0?ect'  The increment of growth dire^ly attri-
buted to the project  can be measured on the basis of the chancre

    ™      ^ ^                        1S
                           111-12

-------
FIGURE III-2. COMPOSITE ZONING
                MAP, 1973.
   [Source:  Lakes Region Planning
            Commiss ion]
        Resi dential-Agricultural

        Low Density Residential

        Medium Density  Residential

        High Density Residential

        Lake Shore Residential

        Historic Preservation

        Comme re i a 1

        Commercial-Resort

        Commercial-Industrial

        Industrial

        Areas Mot Included  in Zoning
                   111-13

-------
                                  TABLE 111-3

                 ZONING RESTRICTIONS ON MINIMUM LOT SIZE
                    AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP  TO  ON-SITE
                  AND OFF-SITE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES
                                        MINIMUM LOT SIZE  (Square Feet or Acres)
Municipality

Meredith



Laconia
Sanbornton
Tilton
Gilford
Franklin


Zoning Districts
Forestry and Rural (F&R)
Residential (R)
Commercial (C)
Residential- Rural (RR)
Residential-Single
Family (RS)
Residential-General (RG)
Residential-Apartment (RA)
Commercial Resort (CR)
Commercial (C)
Industrial Park (IP)
Industrial (I)
General Agriculture (GA)
Commercial (C)
Recreational (R)
General Residence (GR)
Single Residence (S)
General Residence (R)
Agriculture 
-------
     Table III-3 Continued.
     Municipality     Zoning  Districts
                            On-Site
                             Sewer
                            & Water
Off-Site
  Sewer
Or Water
Off-Site
  Sewer
 & Water
      Northfield
Zoning Data
                                                  Not Available.
Notes:
        Minimum lot restrictions are listed for only the  zoning districts within
        the proposed sewer service area.

        Where lot area requirements were  not specifically stated in terms of feet
        or acreage, conservative figures  were assumed.

        Principal permitted land uses were assumed in each zoning  district  for
        purposes of establishing minimum lot areas.
                                          111-15

-------
     Potential Development Permitted by Zoning Regulations.   An
     estimate of the potential order of development resulting
     from the differences in minimum lot area requirements with
     or without the project will provide a quantitative figure
     of what is legally permissible by local governmental
     ordinances.  The procedure utilized in deriving potential
     development yields and resulting population figures out-
     side of existing urban areas with public services is based
     upon the following methodology:

     First, the proposed project's sewer service area was
     delineated as well as existing sewered areas for the urban
     communities of Franklin, Tilton, Laconia and Meredith.

     Second, each municipality's land area located within
     the proposed sewer service area, but outside existing sew-
     ered areas was estimated by zoning classification;

     Third, potential development yields by zoning classifica-
     tions were calculated on the basis of minimum lot area
     restrictions.  Yield figures were divided into three
     possible ranges which recognized the variation in minimum
     lot area on the basis of the lack or availability of public
     sewer and/or water;

     Fourth, the resulting potential development yield figures
     were reduced by 50 percent to reflect an assumed average
     range of land suitability to accommodate future land devel-
     opment ; and

     Fifth, the conversion of the number of potential residential
     dwellings  (households) was calculated on the basis of each
     municipality's occupancy rates as published in the 1970
     Census and New Hampshire State Planning Report t3 entitled,
     Population of New Hampshire.

     Table III-4 summarizes the potential development yields and
resulting population with or without the proposed project.  With-
out the construction of the interceptor sewer, existing zoning
will permit approximately 8,998 residential dwellings to be
developed on lots with on-site sewer and water.  The availability
of public  sewer will permit this figure to increase to 11,864
dwelling units or an increment or 2,366 units (32 percent).   If
                             111-16

-------
               TABLE III-4

       POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT YIELDS
AND POPULATION PERMITTED BY EXISTING ZONING
    RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT YIELDS
Land Use
Municipality
Meredith
Residential
Commercial
Laconia
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Gilford
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Belmont
Residential
Sanbornton
Residential
Commercial
Tilton
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Northfield
Franklin
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
TOTALS
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
(1)
On- Site
Sewer
& Water

916
308
787
521
2,170
121
38
1,696
811
256
1,365
241
198

1,253
97
8,998
1,544
236
(2) (3)
Off-Site Off-Site POTENTIAL POPULATION
Sewer Sewer
or Water & Water (1) (2)

1,179
571
2,286
746
2,950
121
38
1,696
811
256
1,365
241
198

1,577
97
11,864
2,030
236

3,575 2,684 3,454
1,143
5,028 2,290 6,652
2,240
232
3,400 7,030 9,560
121
38
1,696 5,682 5,692
811 2,652 2,652
256
3,642 4,150 4,150
481
396
(Zoning Data Not Available)
2,225 3,897 4,905
97
115
20,377 28,384 37,054
4,338
781
(3)

10,475
14,631
11,020
5,682
2,652
11,072

6,920
62,451

...
                       111-17

-------
public water becomes available in the future, the combined
presence of public water and sewer will permit development
to reach a total of 20,377 dwellings or 11,379 dwellings more
than what is permitted currently with on-site facilities.  This
is equivalent to approximately a 126 percent increase.  Corre-
spondingly, the potential growth in population varies from
28,384 persons without the project to 37,054 persons with the
project or a maximum of 62,451 persons if development occurs
on the basis of the availability of public sewer and water.
The same potential effect is true with commercial and indus-
trial property in the sewered area.  However, the more restric-
tive industrial requirements minimize the
in development yields for properties with on-site services and
those with just public sewer and water.
                              111-18

-------
C.   Population Projections and Distributions

     Significant population growth, both  in year-round and sea-
sonal population, has been projected  for  the study area.  Pro-
jections of year-round population  in  2000 range between 75,000
and 85,000, representing 25-year increases of 50 to 70
percent.  Seasonal population projections are subject to greater
uncertainty, and range from 70,000 to 190,000, reflecting
25-year increases of 40 to 280 percent.  Alternative popu-
lation projections for the study area are evaluated in this
section, and a composite population projection for the study
area is made.

         Available Projections

         OBERS Projections are available  for those counties
         in the Merrimack Water Resources subarea that are out-
         side of a Standard Metropolitan  Statistical Area
          (SMSA).  This includes both  Belknap and Merrimack
         Counties, for which the population is projected to be
         138,600 in 1985 and 159,200  in 2000.  Further dis-
         aggregation  is not available.  The two-county area
         includes many jurisdictions  which are outside the
         study  area,  and excludes  a number of jurisdictions
         which  are part of the study  area.

         New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning (NHOPC)
         has released preliminary  projections of state population
         by  age and sex by five-year  intervals to the year 2000.
         Prejections  were based upon  a cohort-survival method.
         This demographic projection  model utilized a disaggre-
         gative approach of analyzing future population groups
          (5-year age  intervals).   Regional and municipal year-
         round  population projections have also been prepared,
         subject to a process of regional and local review and
         comment  (Table 111-5}.  Figures  from the 1970 Census and
         1974 NHOCP population estimates  have been included with
         this and subsequent population projections for purposes
         of  comparison.

         The NHOCP regional projections were generated using the
         same cohort-survival method  used for the statewide pro-
         jections.  The municipal  projections were disaggregated
         from the regional control totals on the basis of access-
         ibility indices calculated for each jurisdiction.  The
         three  components of accessibility were potential capacity
         for future development, proximity to urban centers, and
         amount of development competition with other jurisdictions.

         Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc.  (ANCO) Projections of
         year-round population were developed for the New Hampshire
         Department of Resources and  Economic Development as
         part of a public water supply study published in 1969.
         Projection of state population was based upon trend
         analysis of  past population  growth.  County  projections
                             111-19

-------
                                TABLE 111-5

                        POPULATION PROJECTIONS
                     (LRPC, NHOCP, and 1970 Census)
Primary Study Area

   Belmont
   Franklin
   Gilford
   Laconia
   Meredith
   Northfield
   Sanbornton
   Tilton

Subtotal
                      1970
                    (Census)
 2,493
 7,292
 3,219
14,888
 2,904
 2,193
 1,022
 2,579

36,590
Peripheral Study Area

   Alton              1,647
   Center Harbor        540
   Moultonboro        1,310
   Tuftonboro           910
   Wolfeboro          3,036

Subtotal              7,443

TOTAL                44,033
             1974
         (NHOCP, ADJ.)
 3,100
 7,663
 4,430
16,206
 3,727
 2,437
 1,334
 2,999

41,896
             2,011
               666
             1,641
             1,256
             3,152

             8,726

            50,622
              1985
                                                           2000
                   NHOCP
FIGURES  TO
BE RELEASED
                                  111-20

-------
        were similarly derived.  Municipal disaggregation for
        Belknap,  Carroll, Grafton and Merriraack Counties
        was accomplished on the basis of simple extrapolation
        of past growth trends, modified by subjective analysis
        where necessary.

        The ANCO population projections were compiled without
        the benefit of 1970 Census data, but instead relied
        heavily upon 1950 and 1960 Census data, together with
        1966 population estimates.

        ANCO population projections for municipalities within
        the study area are presented in Table III-6.
                        TABLE III-6

                ANCO POPULATION PROJECTIONS
                (ANCO, NHOCP and 1970 CENSUS)
                  1970 Census,
                Not included in
                ANCO Data Base

Primary Study Area

  Belmont             2,493
  Franklin            7,292
  Gilford             3,219
  Laconia            14,888
  Meredith            2,904
  Northfield          2,193
  Sanbornton          1,022
  Tilton              2,579

  Subtotal           36,590

Peripheral Study Area

  Alton               1,647
  Center Harbor         540
  Moultonboro         1,310
  Tuftonboro            910
  Wolfeboro           3,036

  Subtotal            7,443

  TOTAL
                                 1974 NHOCP, ADJ.
                                 Not included in
                                 ANCO Data Base
                                       3,100
                                       7,663
                                       4,430
                                      16,206
                                       3,727
                                       2,437
                                       1,334
                                       2,999

                                      41,896
                                       2,011
                                         666
                                       1,641
                                       1,256
                                       3,152
                                       8,726
     ANCO
 1985     2000
 4,500
 8,200
 6,400
15,000
 3,950
 3,250
 1,450
 2,500
 2,450
 2,450
 1,550
 1,450
 3,900
 6,700
10,000
10,000
15,000
 5,300
 5,500
 2,000
 2,800
45,250   57,300
 3,600
 3,900
 2,600
 2,500
 6,000
11,800   18,600
                     44,033           50,622      57,050   75,900

Note;  1985 figures based on interpopulation between 1980 and 1990
                            111-21

-------
The ANCO projections may be  somewhat high in light of
current conditions.  The suggested  long-term (lot  years)
growth rate is comparable to what might  be realized
if the recent short-term  (3-5 years)  growth rate for the
study area was sustained for another 26  years.

This is perhaps an unrealistic  long-term expectation.
The dampening effect of declining economic conditions
and fuel shortages upon population  growth begins to
appear only in the most recent  data.  Many of the
economic and energy constraints imposed  upon recent
development are likely to be long-term in nature.   If
current restraints are sustained on an extended  basis,
the magnitude of future development can  be expected
to be substantially affected, particularly in an area
where future development is closely related to the
continued viability of the recreational  sector.

The NHOCP is preparing a statewide  Guide Plan with
funding assistance from the Water Resources Council.
The Guide Plan includes projections  of both year-round
and seasonal population by municipality.   Two alter-
native projections are presented, pursuant to Water
Resources Council guidelines.   The  National  Economic
Development (NED) projections,  which assume  maximum
economic development, provide an upper bound on  future
population levels.  The Environmental Quality (EQ)
projections, which assume primary emphasis  upon  preser-
vation of environmental quality, provide  a  lower bound.

The National Economic Development (NED)  population
projections used the ANCO projections for year-round
population.  Projections of seasonal population  were
based upon the amount of buildable  land  around inland
water bodies.   The amount of land occupied by seasonal
development in 1970 was subtracted  from  the  preceding
figure, and it was assumed that 75 percent of the
remaining area would be developed by 2020.   The  average
density of ensuing seasonal development was  assumed to
be one dwelling unit per acre.  An occupancy rate of
6.2 people per seasonal dwelling unit was  assumed
also, and this resulted in an average population den-
sity of 4,000 people per square mile.  Seasonal  and
year-round population projections for jurisdictions
within the study area are outlined  in Table  III-7.

The Environmental Quality (EQ)  projections of year-
round population are indirectly related  to  the ANCO
projections.   Guide Plan maximum desirable population
capacities have been derived for each jurisdiction,
based upon distribution of land area into  four develop-
ment capability classes.   The four capability classes
                   111-22

-------
                                              TABLE  III-7

                       NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POPULATION PROJECTIONS
                                        (Source:  NHOCP, 1975)











H
H
H
to
u>










Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton

Subtotal


Year
Round
2,500
7,300
3,200
14,900
2,900
2,200
1,000
2,600

36,600

1970

Seasonal
1,700
1,900
3,800
1,900
6,300
500
1,900
500

19,500



Total
4,200
9,200
7,000
17,800
9,200
2,700
2,900
3,100

56,100


Year
Round
4,500
8,200
6,400
15,000
3,950
3,250
1,450
2,500

45,250

1985

Seasonal
4,900
3,800
5,550
10,600
18,900
1,100
7,800
1,850

54,500



Total
9,400
12,000
11,950
25,600
22,850
4,350
9,250
4,350

99,750


Year
Round
6,700
10,000
10,000
15,000
5,300
5,500
2,000
2,800

57,300

2000

Seasonal
8,200
5,600
8,300
18,300
31,500
1,700
13,700
1,400

88,700



Total
14,900
15,600
18,300
33,300
36,800
7,200
15,700
4,200

146,000

Peripheral Study Area
Alton
Centre Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Subtotal
TOTAL
Note: All figures
1,600
500
1,300
900
3 , OOP
7,300
43,900
rounded to
7,800
500
8,500
3,900
6,400
27,100
46,600
the nearest
9,400
1,000
9,800
4,800
9 , 400
34,400
90,500
hundred .
2,450
2,450
1,550
1,450
3,900
11,800
57,050
Year-round
14,500
2,500
21,900
10,100
14,950
63,950
118,450
figures
16,950
4,950
23,450
11,550
18,850
75,750
175,500
figures for
3,600
3,900
2,600
2,500
6,000
18,600
75,900
21,200
4,500
35,400
16,300
23,500
100,900
189,600
1985, seasonal fiqur
24,800
8,400
38,000
18,800
29,500
119,500
265,500
es for 19
2000 based on interpolation between 1970 and 1990 and between 1990 and 2020.

-------
             were identified on the basis of natural development
             constraints imposed by slope, soil associations,
             ground water and surface water.  Maximum desirable
             densities for the four capability areas are given in
             Table III-8.
                            TABLE III-8

               MAXIMUM DESIRABLE POPULATION DENSITIES
           DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITY AREAS,  NHOCP GUIDE PLAN
                       (Source:   NHOCP, 1975)

Capability Class

Area I   - Natural Areas:              No residential population
Area II  - Limited Development:         1 du/8  ac = 250 people/sq mi
Area III - Moderate Development:       1 du/2  ac = 1000 people/sq mi
Area IV  - Intense Urban Development:   1 du/1/2 ac = 5000 people/sq mi

Notes:  du = dwelling unit
        ac = acre
        assumed occupancy rate = 3.1 people/du
             Within each municipality, total land area in each
             capability class has been tabulated.  Maximum desirable
             population capacities were generated by multiplying
             the areas in each capability class by the corresponding
             average density figures given above (Table III-9).

             The Environmental Quality maximum desirable popula-
             tion levels are exceeded by the NED population pro-
             jections for the year 2000 in Belmont, Gilford, Laconia,
             Meredith, and Center Harbor.   Current population in
             Laconia already exceeds the EQ maximum desirable popu-
             lation.  Given the assumptions upon which the EQ
             holding capacities were based, population growth
             beyond these levels should result in some deterioration
             in environmental quality.  The nature and signifi-
             cance of such deterioriation would be dependent upon
             the magnitude, distribution,  and composition of excess
             development.

             Also, the ANCO population projections included cal-
             culations of maximum desirable population capacities.
             These calculations were based upon development suitabi-
             lity considerations, apparently more from the stand-
             point of construction technology than environmental
                                 111-24

-------
                        TABLE III-9

               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MAXIMUM
                 DESIRABLE POPULATION LEVELS
                   (Source:  NHOCP, 1975)
Primary Study Area

   Belmont
   Franklin
   Gilford
   Laconia
   Meredith
   Northfield
   Sanbornton
   Tilton

Subtotal
Equivalent Year-round Population

            10,100
            17,900
            11,600
            13,200
            15,400
            16,200
            20,200
            21.700
           126,300
Peripheral Study Area

   Alton
   Center Harbor
   Moultonborough
   Tuftonboro
   Wolfeboro

Subtotal

TOTAL
            21,700
             2,500
            37,800
            37,600
            22.600

           122,200

           248,500
Note:   Calculations based upon number of dwelling units.
       Assumed year-round occupancy rate is 3.1 people per
       du.   Assumed occupancy rate for seasonal housing is
       6.2  people per du.  Seasonal population must be
       divided by two in order to derive equivalent year-
       round population.
                           111-25

-------
quality.  The resulting holding capacities were
generally more than twice the magnitude of the Guide
Plan maximum desirable population levels.

The EQ year-round population projections  (Table III-9)
were developed using both the ANCO and Guide Plan
maximum desirable population levels.  The ratio of
ANCO projected population growth between 1970 and 2020
against ANCO maximum desirable population was multi-
plied by the Guide Plan maximum desirable population
in order to generate EQ projected population growth
between 1970 and 2020.  The same proportion of expected
growth to assumed holding capacity was thereby
maintained between the ANCO and EQ year-round popu-
lation projections.

The EQ seasonal population projections were derived
by reference to the development capability of land
surrounding inland water bodies.  All such land was
classified as either Area I, Natural Areas, or Area
II, Limited Development.  Under the Environmental
Quality Alternative, Area I should support no resi-
dential development, while Area II should support an
average density of no more than one dwelling unit per
eight acres, equal to a seasonal population density
of 500 people per square mile.  For purposes of pro-
jecting seasonal population, an Area II average
density capability of one seasonal dwelling unit per
five acres was assumed.  This adjustment was based on
the assumption that recreational development devotes
proportionately less land to supporting non-residential
uses.  Given an assumed seasonal occupancy rate of
6.2 people per unit, the resulting average density
would be 800 people per square mile.  The EQ seasonal
population projections, like the NED seasonal pro-
jections, assumed that 75 percent of land available
for recreational development would be developed by
2020, but that such development would proceed at a
much lower average density.  EQ projections for both
year-round and seasonal population are presented in
Table 111-10.

The range between the NED and EQ population projections
is considerable.  The Environmental Quality alternative
generates a total study area population of 135,600 in
2000'", with a year-round population of 63,800 and a
seasonal population of 71,800.  The National Economic
Development alternative yields a total study area popu-
lation of 265,500 in 2000, almost double the level
indicated by the Environmental Quality Alternative.
The NED year-round population would be 75,900, and the
seasonal population would be 189,600.  Both projections
involve some rather arbitrary assumptions.  However/
                    111-26

-------
                                                     TABLE  111-10

                            ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ALTERNATIVE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
                                                (Source:  NHOCP, 1975)










H
H
to
-J








Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Subtotal
Peripheral Study Area
Alton
Centre Harbor
Moultonbo rough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Subtotal
TOTAL
Year
Round
2,500
7,300
3,200
14,900
2,900
2,200
1,000
2,600
36,600

1,600
500
1,300
900
3,000
7,300
43,900
±y i
-------
         the NED and EQ projections are useful in illustrating
         the range in potential population growth associated
         with two contrasting development strategies.

         The Lakes Region Planning Commission (LRPC)  population
         projections were apparently derived by adjustment of
         the ANCO municipal population projections.   Adjust-
         ments presumably were based upon recent growth trends
         and indications of development potential within each
         local jurisdiction.   The LRPC projections of  year-
         round population are presented in Table III-ll.

         The LRPC population projections essentially update
         the ANCO projections.  Recent LRPC revisions  apparently
         fail to give consideration to the impact of current
         and projected economic conditions upon future develop-
         ment in the Lakes Region.  The sustained high level
         of growth suggested above may be unreasonable in light
         of current and expected future economic and energy
         limitations.

         C. E. Maguire, Inc.  prepared projections for  both
         permanent and seasonal population in the primary and
         peripheral study areas.  These figures were utilized in
         preparation of the Water Quality Management Plan for
         the Lakes Region.  The Maguire year-round growth pro-
         jections were derived by adjustment of the ANCO
         projections, supplemented by county and municipal sewer
         reports.  The adjustment process was subject  to local
         review.  The projections of seasonal population were
         derived by adjustment of unpublished State estimates.
         Maguire population projections are given in Table III-
         12.

                          Summary

     Alternative population projections for the study area are
summarized in Table 111-13.  Approximately two-thirds of the
Region's projected growth in year-round population is  expected
to be absorbed by the primary study area.  However,  growth rates
are expected to be significantly higher in the peripheral study
area, because of its sparse,  existing year-round resident popu-
lation.  Seasonal population is currently concentrated most
heavily in the peripheral study area.  Projected growth in
seasonal population, although uncertain in magnitude,  is expected
to be distributed rather evenly between the primary and peri-
pheral study areas.

             Evaluation of Available Projections

     Among the six population projections reviewed in this
section, only three encompass projections for both year-round and
                            111-28

-------
                                TABLE  I11-11

                       POPULATION PROJECTIONS
                  (Source:  LRPC, NHOCP and 1970 Census)
Primary Study Area

   Belmont
   Franklin
   Gilford
   Laconia
   Meredith
   Northfield
   Sanbornton
   Tilton
                      1970
                     (Census)
 2,493
 7,292
 3,219
14,888
 2,904
 2,193
 1,022
 2,579
Subtotal             36,590

Peripheral Study Area

   Alton              1,647
   Center Harbor        540
   Moultonboro        1,310
   Tuftonboro           910
   Wolfeboro          3,036

Subtotal              7.443

TOTAL                44,033
             1974
         (NHOCP, ADJ.)
 3,100
 7,663
 4,430
16,206
 3,727
 2,437
 1,334
 2,999
              1985
              LRPC
 2000
 LRPC
            41,896
             2,011
               666
             1,641
             1,256
             3,152

             8,726

            50,622
4,650
8,500
6,250
16,500
5,250
3,450
1,900
3,550
6,700
10,000
9,000
18,000
7,500
5,100
3,000
4,300
             50,050
              2,475
              1,350
              2,500
              1,675
              4,300

             12,300

             62,350
63,600
 3,600
 2,500
 4,000
 3,000
 6,500

19,600

83,200
Note:   1985 figures based on interpolation between 1980 and 1990,
                                 111-29

-------
                                                TABLE  111-12

                                 POPULATION PROJECTIONS,  C.E. MAGUIRE,  INC.
                               1970         1974
                             (Census)  (NHOCP,  ADJ.)
                                                                       MAGUIRE
H
H
H
I
Primary Study Area

   Belmont
   Franklin
   Gilford
   Laconia
   Meredith
   Northfield
   Sanbornton
   Tilton

Subtotal

Peripheral Study Area

   Alton
   Center Harbor
   Moultonboro
   Tuftonboro
   Wolfeboro

Subtotal

TOTAL
2,493
7,292
3,219
14,888
2,904
2,193
1,022
2,579
36,590
1,647
540
1,310
910
3,036
7,443
44,033
3,100
7,663
4,430
16,206
3,727
2,437
1,334
2,999
41,896
2,011
666
1,641
1,256
3,152
8,726
50,622
1985
Year- Round Total
4,700
9,000
7,000
17,400
4,200
2,900
1,500
2,800
49,500
2,000
1,400
2,000
1,300
4,000
10,700
60,200
6,200
10,100
15,000
25,800
12,000
4,000
3,200
4,600
80,900
7,700
2,900
8,400
5,500
12,500
37,000
117,900
2000
Year-Round Total
6,800
11,000
10,100
20,000
5,600
3,700
2,000
3,100
62,300
3,700
2,100
3,100
1,700
5,000
15,600
77,900
9,000
12,600
21,000
30,400
15,000
5,300
4,000
5,100
102,400
11,600
4,500
11,900
7,700
15,400
51,100
153,500

-------
                                                            TABLE III-13

                                       COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
M
H
I
UJ
NHOCP
   Primary Study Area
   Peripheral Study Area
   Total

ANCO
   Primary Study Area
   Peripheral Study Area
   Total

Guide Plan NED
   Primary Study Area
   Peripheral Study Area
   Total

Guide Plan EQ
   Primary Study Area
   Peripheral Study Area
   Total

LRPC
   Primary Study Area
   Peripheral Study Area
   Total
                                               1970
                                    Year-round Seasonal Total


                                    36,590
                                    7,443
                                    44,033
                                                                     1985
                                                          Year-round Seasonal Total
                                                             2000
                                                  Year-round Seasonal Total
36,590
7,443
44,033
36,600
7,300
43,900
36,600
7,300
43,900
36,590
7,443

19,500
27,100
46,600
19,500
27,100
46,600
21,321
28,254

56,100
34,400
90,500
56,100
34,400
90,500
57,911
35,697
45,250
11,800
57,050
45,250
11,800
57,050
42,150
11,950
54,100
50,050
12,300

54,500
63,950
118,450
25,100
34,150
59,250


99,750
75,750
175,500
67,250
46,100
113,350

57,300
18,600
75,900
57,300
18,600
75,900
47,600
16,200
63,800
63,600
19,600

88,700
100,900
189,600
30,700
41,100
71,800


146,000
119,500
265,500
78,300
57,300
135,600

                                    44,033
49,575
93,608
62,350
83,200
        Maguire
           Primary Study Area       36,590
           Peripheral Study Area     7,443
           Total                    44,033
                                                          49,500     31,400    80,900    62,300
                                                          10,700     26,300    37,000    15,600
                                                          60,200     57,700   117,900    77,900
                                                           40,100
                                                           35,500
                                                          102,400
                                                           51,100
                                                           75,600   153,500

-------
seasonal population  (Table 111-13) .  These are the Guide  Plan
National Economic Development, the Guide Plan Environmental
Quality, and the Maguire projections.

     The Guide Plan EQ projections are unrealistically conserva-
tive.  The current study area population already exceeds  the EQ
projected population of approximately 136,000 in 2000, if we
assume that the seasonal population currently is greater  than
85,000.  Estimates indicate that the current seasonal population
within the study area actually may be in excess of 100,000.  The
Guide Plan EQ projections, therefore, are not realistic indi-
cators of expected population growth.

     The Guide Plan NED and Maguire projections of year-round
population are closely related.  The Maguire year-round popu-
lation projections were generated by adjustment of the same
ANCO figures used in the Guide Plan NED projections.  The Maguire
adjustments include local input and review, and serve to  update
the earlier ANCO projections.  The Maguire year-round population
projections are considered to be the most acceptable among the
three alternatives.

     The Guide Plan NED and Maguire projections of seasonal
population diverge significantly.  As previously suggested,
actual seasonal population within the study area may already
exceed 100,000.  Yet the Maguire projection for seasonal popu-
lation in 2000 totals only about 76,000.   The Guide Plan NED
seasonal population projection shows approximately 190,000
seasonal residents within the study area by 2000.  Although this
figure may be somewhat high, the likelihood that current seasonal
population is already in excess of 100,000 leads to the con-
clusion that the NED seasonal population projections are the
most realistic of the two.

     The Maguire year-round population projections  and the
Guide Plan NED seasonal population projections  are  considered
most appropriate for purposes of this report.   The  resulting
composite population projection is presented in Table 111-14.
                            111-32

-------
                              TABLE III-14
                   COMPOSITE POPULATION PROJECTION
                            1985
                                   2000
Primary Study Area

Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton

  Subtotal
Year
Round
Seasonal   Total
Year
Round
Seasonal   Total
4,700
9,000
7,000
17,400
4,200
2,900
1,500
2.800
4,900
3,800
5,550
10,600
18,900
1,100
7,800
1,850
9,600
12,800
12,550
28,000
23,100
4,000
9,300
4,650
6,800
11,000
10,100
20,000
5,600
3,700
2,000
3,100
8,200
5,600
8,300
18,300
31,500
1,700
13,700
1,400
15,000
16,600
18,400
38,300
37,100
5,400
15,700
4,500
49,500   54,500   104,000   62,300    88,700   151,000
 Peripheral Study Area

 Alton
 Centre Harbor
 Moultonboro
 Tuftonboro
 Wolfeboro

   Subtotal

 TOTAL
2,000
1,400
2,000
1,300
4.000
14,500
2,500
21,900
10,100
14,950
16,500
3,900
23,900
11,400
18,950
3,700
2,100
3,100
1,700
5,000
21,200
4,500
35,400
16,300
23,500
24,900
6,600
38,500
18,000
28,500
 10,700   63,950    74,650   15,600  100,900   116,500
 60,200   118,450   178,650   77,900  189,600   267,500
 Sources:  Year-round projections from Maguire.
          (Guide Plan NED).
                         Seasonal projections from NHOCP
                               Summary

       Recent  trends  in year-round population growth are expected to
  continue through 1985, with  the peripheral study  area absorbing
  a relatively greater  share of  total growth thereafter.  Seasonal
  population growth is  expected  to be distributed equally between
  the primary  study area and the peripheral study area.  Mounton-
  borough, Meredith,  Wolfeboro,  and Alton should continue to
  attract the  major share of seasonal development.
                                 111-33

-------
 D-   Federal  Environmental Controls

     Although the  local municipalities  have  the  strongest control
 of  their environments through  their regulation of  land use,  the
 Federal government has the power  to enforce  certain  environ-
 mental regulations.  EPA may exercise indirect control over  land
 use through the Clean Air Act  Amendments of  1970 (PL 91-604)
 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act  Amendments of 1972
 (PL 92-500).

     1.  Clean Air Act

     Under the provisions of the  Clean  Air Act of  1970 (PL 91-
 604), each state was required  to  submit a plan for the implemen-
 tation of the Act.  On November 9, 1972, all  State Implementation
 Plans  (SIP's) were disapproved because  they  failed to  pro-
 vide for the  prevention of significant  deterioriation  of
 existing air  quality.  Following  publication  in  the  Federal
 Register of proposed rules and regulations and after a series
 of  public hearings, EPA in December, 1974 promulgated  rules  and
 regulations designed to prevent serious deterioriation of  air
 quality.  Recognizing that growth is inevitable  and  that  it
 might be accompanied by increased emissions,  the rules specified
 the amounts by which particulate  and sulfur dioxide  concentra-
 tions would be allowed to increase over ambient  concentrations.
     Additionally, EPA administers  1) transportation control
plans  (TCP's) designed to assist in the attainment and main-
tenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon
monoxide and photochemical oxidants; 2) new source performance
standards to insure that new stationary pollution sources do
not exceed specified emission levels; and 3) Air Quality Main-
tenance Areas  (AQMA) to prevent violations of any National
Ambient Air Quality Standards within the next 10 years.

     2.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

     Titles II and IV of PL 92-500 have the most bearing upon
EPA's authority in controlling land use to protect water quality.

     Title II directs EPA to require and to assist in the
development and implementation of waste treatment management
plans and practices that provide for the application of the
best practicable waste treatment technology before any discharge
is made into receiving waters.  Title II gives the EPA Adminis-
trator the authority to make grants to any state, municipality
or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the construction of
publicly-owned treatment works which must also be consistent
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .
                            111-34

-------
     EPA's Final Regulations for the Preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Statements,  (50 CFR Part 6), promulgated on April
14, 1975,  require EPA to consider whether proposed treatment
works or plans for waste management will induce significant
changes or increases in the rate of change in industrial, com-
mercial, agricultural or residential land use concentrations or
distributions.  "Factors that should be considered in deter-
mining if these changes are significant include but are not
limited to:  the vacant land subject to increased development
pressure as a result of the treatment works; the increases in
population which may be induced; the faster rate of change of
population; changes in population density; the potential for
overloading sewage treatment works; the extent to which land-
owners may benefit from the areas subject to increased develop-
ment; the nature of land use regulations in the affected area
and their potential effects on development; and deleterious
changes in the availability or demand for energy."  Also, the
final regulations require  that EPA consider whether the project
"may directly or through induced development have a significant
adverse effect upon local  ambient air quality, local ambient
noise levels, surface or groundwater quantity or quality, fish,
wildlife and their natural habitats."

     Title IV of PL 92-500, created the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES) to replace the permit pro-
gram authorized by the 1899 Refuse Act.  Title IV also trans-
ferred responsibility for  the permit program from the Corps of
Engineers to EPA.  Under the new system, EPA is required to
establish national effluent limitations and performance standards
for sources of water pollution, including sewage treatment
plants.  Publicly-owned sewage treatment plants must provide a
minimum of secondary treatment by July 1, 1977, and best practi-
cable technology by July 1, 1983.  NPDES makes it illegal for
point sources, including sewage treatment plants, to discharge
any pollutant into the Nation's waters without a permit.

     To insure lasting abatement of pollution from municipal
waste treatment works, special conditions related to planning
for growth (defined as increases in waste load generation) may
be included in permits issued to municipal facilities in high-
pollution and high-growth  areas.  The primary objective of these
conditions is to link two  usually autonomous  "decision streams":
1) sewage and treatment decisions under the powers and authorities
of special purpose sanitary districts, and 2) land use and
zoning decisions under the powers and authorities of general
purpose local governments.  The inclusion of special conditions
in a permit also sets the  stage for possible  imposition of
sewer connection bans, under the powers of PL 92-500, Section
402(h), as the principal enforcement mechanism against munici-
pal permit violators.
                             111-35

-------
     3.  Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974

     This Act amends the Public Health Service Act by adding
provisions to insure the safety of public water systems and pro-
tect underground sources of drinking water.  The Act places
primary responsibility for enforcement and supervision of public
water supply systems and sources of drinking water upon the states
States are to demonstrate their competence in enforcing standards
at least as stringent as the National Primary Drinking Water
standards.  States must adopt procedures for monitoring and
inspection of water supply systems and plans for the provision
of safe drinking water should an emergency arise.

     Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations proposed by EPA
in March 1975, pursuent to the Act, specify maximum levels of
drinking water contaminants and monitoring requirements for
public water supply systems.  Final interim regulations have not
been yet promulgated by EPA.  Since research into the health
effects of drinking water contaminants is still incomplete, EPA
will revise the interim standards as new information becomes
available.

     The interim regulations become law for every public water
supply system in December 1976.  If a State fails to assume
authority, EPA may seek mandatory compliance through the courts.
In addition, systems are required to give public notice of non-
compliance to each of their users and the news media.  Funds
have been appropriated for grants to State programs for research
and for technical assistance.
     4.  National Flood  Insurance Program

     Under  the Federal Insurance Program,  insurance  is made
 available to  individuals at affordable rates by the  Department
 of  Housing  and Urban Development  (HUD).  However/  state and
 local  governments are required to adopt certain minimum land
 use measures  to reduce or avoid future flood damage  within
 their  flood-prone areas.  In December 1973, Congress passed
 the Flood Disaster Protection Act, greatly expanding the  limits
 of  flood insurance coverage and imposing two  (2) new require-
 ments  on property owners and communities:

     First, after March  2, 1974, property  owners in  communi-
     ties where flood insurance is being sold must purchase
     flood  insurance to be eligible  for any new or additional
     federal  or federally-related financial assistance for any
     buildings located in areas identified by HUD  as having
     special  flood hazards, and
                             111-36

-------
     Second,  all identified flood-prone communities must
     enter the program by July 1, 1975, or within 1 year from
     the date HUD notifies them that they are flood prone,
     whichever is later.

     Furthermore, if the property owner fails to purchase the
required insurance or the community fails to meet the deadline
for entering the program, federal and federally-related finan-
cial assistance for building in the flood plain will not be
available to any property owner within that community which
failed to comply with the Act.  The Act and regulations include
all forms of federal loans and grants including EPA's waste-
water treatment facilities above ground level in the flood
plain.  Communities entering the National Flood Insurance do so
in two phases:

     After notification that it is flood prone, a community
     becomes eligible for the Emergency Program by application
     to the Federal Insurance Administrator and adoption of
     preliminary land-use measures pursuant to FIA regulations.
     The emergency program is an interim program to provide a
     first layer of insurance at federally subsidized rates
     while the flood hazard areas are mapped.

     When final determinations of flood elevations have been
     made by the Federal Insurance Administrator, a Flood
     Insurance Rate Map  (FIRM) is published for determining
     actuarial rates.  When the FIRM is published the community
     is converted to the Regular Program, under which addi-
     tional insurance is available at actuarial rates.  Under
     the regular program, flood insurance at first layer limits
     continues to be available at subsidized rates on structures
     existing in the community on or before  December  31,  1974
     or prior to the effective date of  the initial  FIRM,  which-
     ever is  later.   New construction,  located within identi-
     fied areas of special flood hazards subsequent to this
     date,  must be charged actuarial rates.   An additional
     requirement for admission to the regular program includes
     the adoption of building codes,  subdivision regulations,
     health codes and other required land use ordinances  within
     one year of the Emergency Program  application  date.

     The following municipalities in the study area have
entered into  the National Flood Insurance Program and are ful-
filling the requirements of the program's two phases:

     Alton
     Franklin
     Laconia
     Meredith
     Tilton
                              HI-37

-------
     5.  The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

     The Public Law 89-665 established the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation to advise the President and the Congress
on matters pertaining to historic preservation.  The Act also
charges the states with the responsibility of carrying out
surveys of historic sites within their boundaries to determine
their suitability for protection in the National Register of
Historic Places.  The Advisory Council's strength and the
National Registers defense is Section 106 of the Act which
requires the head of any Federal agency, assisting or licensing
any action in a state, to account for the effect of any project
upon any district, site, building, structure, or object that is
included in the National Register.  A project shall be considered
to have an effect upon a National Register property when any
condition of the project creates a change in the quality of the
historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural character
of the property.  Adverse effects occur under conditions which
include, but are not limited to:

     Destruction or alteration of all or part of the property.

     Isolation  from or alteration of its surrounding environ-
     ment .

     Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements
     that are out of character with the property and its
     setting.

     6.  The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

     Public Law 93-291, The Archaeological and Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1974, provides for the preservation of historical
and archaeological data which might be otherwise lost or
destroyed as a  result of "any alteration of the terrain caused
as a result of  any Federal construction project or federally
licensed activity or program".  When a Federal agency finds, or
is notified that its activities in connection with a construc-
tion project or financial assistance may cause irreparable
loss of historical or archaeological data,  the Secretary of the
interior is to be notified so that a survey of the effected
site and the recovery, protection and preservation of such
data may take place.  The law establishes the responsibility
of Federal agencies for preservation of historical and
archaeological  resources.
                             111-38

-------
                       SECTION IV
             ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE
              APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT
The following section of the environmental impact statement
contains a description of the impact of the applicant's
proposed project upon the current and future environment of
the Winnipesaukee River Basin.  The analysis includes a dis-
cussion of unavoidable adverse impacts, short-term use of the
environment vs. long-term productivity, and irreversible and
irretrievable resource commitments.  This analysis incorporates
the information developed in the preceding sections of the
statement.  Information developed in this discussion will be
incorporated into the analysis of feasible alternatives to
the proposed project  (Section V).

-------
IV.   ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT
     The regional sewage treatment facilities proposed for the
primary study area of the Winnipesaukee River Basin will produce
both beneficial and adverse impacts upon the environment.  Al-
though the results of the project are intended to be strictly
desirable, some of the adverse impacts associated with the project
cannot be avoided.  Many of the adverse impacts can be minimized
or mitigated through careful planning and enforcement of regula-
tions designed to protect environmental quality.  Some of the
adverse impacts can be minimized through consideration of alter-
natives to the proposed action.  Also, the analysis and possible
adoption alternatives to segments of the proposed project or the
entire proposed project will result in the implementation of
regional sewage treatment facilities which will produce the great-
est benefit with the fewest adverse consequences.

     Beneficial impacts of the proposed project will include
elimination of raw discharges to surface waters and relief of
septic tanks and malfunctioning wastewater treatment facilities.
Both surface water and ground water quality will be improved.
The recreational potential of streams and lakes in the study
area will be increased by the improvement of water quality.

     Adverse impacts resulting from the proposed project include
destruction of aesthetic and vegetation resources at the treat-
ment plant site and along pipeline corridors, and impacts antici-
pated from future secondary development in the basin.  Many ad-
verse impacts resulting from secondary development can be minimized
through strict local control of development.

     The environmental impacts associated with the proposed
project have been assessed and are described in detail in this
section of the report.  The assessment of impacts is based on
the assumption that all residences and commercial and industrial
establishments within the service area will be required to con-
nect to the system as soon as possible.  If this requirement is
not met, the anticipated beneficial impacts will be greatly re-
duced and the adverse impacts may be significantly intensified.

     Table IV-1 presents a summary of both adverse and benefi-
cial impacts associated with implementation of the proposed
project.  The first column lists the environmental parameter
which will be impacted.  The second column lists the anticipated
environmental impacts associated either directly or  indirectly
with the proposed project.  The nature and duration  of these
impacts have been designated as either primary or  secondary
                               IV-1

-------
and long-term or short-terra.  In addition, the degree of impact
has also been projected.  The individual impacts are described
in detail in text following the table.

     Primary impacts result directly from the construction and/
or operation of the proposed sewage treatment facilities.  Pri-
mary impacts may be either beneficial  (such as improved water
quality) or adverse (such as loss of vegetational resources at
the plant site).  They may also be either short-term or long-
term.  Short-term primary impacts occur during construction of
the proposed project.  Long-term primary impacts occur through-
out the life of the project.  An example of a long-term primary
adverse impact would be the degradation of air quality that
would occur if  incineration is chosen as the method of sludge
disposal.

      Secondary  impacts  result  from activities and development
which occur after  the project  has been  completed.   The pro-
vision of  additional sewage  treatment  capacity will allow
future growth  and  higher  density development to  take place
in the study area.  Development and  its associated  activities
will produce both  adverse and  beneficial  environmental impacts
which are  designated as secondary impacts resulting from the
proposed project.   These  include increased urban runoff/ more
boating, expansion of the regional economic base and enhance-
ment of property values.

      Secondary impacts  may also be either short-term or long-
term.  Short-term  secondary  impacts  result from  disruption of
the environment which occurs during  the construction of second-
ary development.   Long-term  secondary  impacts are actions such
as increased urban runoff which will occur indefinitely once
development has been constructed.

      The degree of impact has  been also determined  for each
impacting  action.   Degree of impact  ranges from  minimal to
significant.   The  degree  of  impact identified on Table IV-1
does not assume a  reduction  of impact  that would occur if
the mitigating measures identified on  Table IV-1 were imple-
mented.  Designation of degree of impact  is based upon exten-
sive analyses  of environmental, socioeconomic and engineering
considerations. In some  cases, the  degree of impact cannot be
accurately projected.   For issues such as effluent  chlorination
and sludge incineration,  definitive  information  concerning effects
of these impacting actions is  generally not available.   In these
                              IV-2

-------
cases the degree of impact is listed as potential.  Minimal
impacts have the least effect upon the environment.  Impacts
of the greatest magnitude are termed "significant" while
intermediate impacts are termed "moderate."

     Mitigating measures which would reduce the degree of adverse
impacts are also identified on Table IV-1.  These measures in-
clude planning activities and construction techniques which will
reduce the severity of both primary and secondary adverse impacts,
Many of these mitigating measures are normally practiced.  Other
mitigating measures may require the development of new programs
and planning activities to alleviate adverse impacts.

     Impacts of the project upon the environment of the Winni-
pesaukee River basin are discussed in the following order:

     Natural Environment

          Surface Water Quality
          Ground Water Quality
          Water Supply
          Air Quality
          Biology
          Aesthetics
          Recreation
          Archaeological and Historic Sites
          Natural Resources

     Social Environment

          Public Health
          Social and Economic Factors
          Land Use
                             IV-3

-------
                                                                            TABLE  IV-1

                         SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED REGIONAL SEWERAGE IN THE WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN
   PARAMETER
    IMPACTED

   Surface Hater
      Quality
          IMPACTING ACTION

Relief of septic tank sewage disposal
Systems and raw sewage discharges.

Export of controllable nutrients
away from Lake Winnipesaukee and
Lake Winnisquam.

Continued BOD loading to Lake Winnis-
quam from Laconia STP through Phase
II.
TYPE OF IMPACT

  Primary,
  Long-term

  Primary,
  Long-term
                                                                 Primary,
                                                                 Short-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT   DEGREE OF IMPACT

Beneficial    Significant
                                                                                   Beneficial    Minimal to Moderate
                                                                                   Adverse       Minimal
                                                               MITIGATING MEASURES *
None required.
                                                                                                                         None required.
                                                          Employ  activated carbon process
                                                          at  Laconia.
                        BOD loading to the Winnipesaukee
                        River below Silver Lake for 3-6
                        months of Phase II.
                                         Primary,
                                         Short-term
                                                           Adverse       Minimal
                                                          Continue  discharging to Lake
                                                          Winnisquam for this period.
 I
•C*
Nitrogenous oxygen demand from the
proposed unnitrified effluents.

Raw sewage discharges from failure
of pumping stations
                        Increased erosion and sedimentation
  Primary,
  Long-term

  Primary,
  Long-term
                                         Primary,
                                         Short-term
                                                                                   Adverse       Minimal
                                                                                   Adverse       Minimal
                                                                                   Adverse
                                                                                                 Minimal
                                      Install AWT (nitrification) at
                                      Franklin STP.

                                      Follow NHKSPCC regulations for
                                      pumping station .construction, opera-
                                      tion and maintenance.  This includes
                                      backup pumps and auxiliary power
                                      supplies.

                                     •Adoption and enforcement of erosion
                                      and sedimentation controls.
   *  NOTE:   Asterisk denotes mitigating measures NHWSPCC will require as part of construction contracts.

-------
TABLE iv-l.  Continued.
PARAMETER
IMPACTED IMPACTING ACTION
Surface water Increased urban runoff
Quality
Increased loading rates of nutrients
from non-point sources.
Ground Hater Improved ground water quality from
elimination of septic tank effluent.
Reduction of ground water recharge
H
1
Ul Ground water contamination from
increased urban runoff
Water Supply Improved ground water quality from
the elimination of septic tank
effluent.
Contamination of potential surface
water supplies from discharge of
chlorinated sewage effluent in the
Winnipesaukee River.
Increased demand for water.
TYPE OF IMPACT
Secondary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT DEGREE OF IMPACT
Adverse Significant
Adverse Minimal-Lake Winni-
pesaukee
Unknown-Lake Winnisquam
Beneficial Moderate to signifi-
cant
Adverse Minimal to Moderate
Adverse Moderate to signifi-
cant
Beneficial Moderate to signifi-
cant
Adverse Unknown
Adverse Moderate to signifi-
cant
MITIGATING MEASURES
Stormwater management. Retain
vegetation strips along inter-
mittent and permanent stream.
Adoption and implementation of growth
management controls.
None required.
Strict control of development on
stratified deposits providing rapid
recharge. Minimize areas of iiper-
vious surfaces such as parking lots,
sidewalks, etc.
Stormwater management.
No:.< required.
Dechlorinate, or use other dis-
infectants .
Undertake a water supply program for
the Lake Winnipesaukee basin; adopt
                                                                                                                     water conservation measures to reduce
                                                                                                                     per capita consumption.

-------
   TABLE IV-1.  Continued.
   PARAMETER
    IMPACTED

   Air Quality
   Biology
H
<
 I
          IMPACTING ACTION

Degradation of air quality from
sludge incinerator at Franklin
STP.

Increased air pollutant loading from
industrial -and automotive sources
attributed to secondary growth.
Improvement of aquatic habitats
through elimination of septic tank
effluent, waste treatment and raw
sewage discharges.

Aquatic habitat destruction due to
construction and operational effects
of the project:

  -  Construction disturbances to
     salmonid spawning areas

  -  Temporary effluent discharge
     to Winnipesaukee River for
     3 to 6 months from Laconia STP
TYPEOF IMPACT

  Primary,
  Long-term
                                                                 Secondary,
                                                                 Long-term
  Primary,
  Long-term
                    ASSESSMENT
                    OF IMPACT   DEGREE OF IMPACT
  Primary,
  Short-term

  Primary,
  Short-term
                                                                                   Adverse
                                                                                   Adverse
                    Beneficial
Potential-Minimal
  to Moderate
                                                                                                 Potential-Minimal
                                  Minimal to Moderate
                    Adverse
                                                                                   Adverse
Potential-Minimal to
  Moderate

Minimal
     MITIGATING MEASURES

Proper location, design and operation
of incinerator to meet EPA source
emission standards.

Enforcement of Federal and State
emission standards; coordinated
land use and transportation planning
by local and regional planning agencies.

None required.
Adoption and enforcement of erosion
and sedimentation controls , proper
ti~i-;gof construction  activity.
Cor,i -r.ue discharging to Lake Winnis-
quara for this period.
                          -  Increased effluent loading to       Primary,
                             the Merrimack River                 Long-term
                                                                                   Adverse
                                                                         Minimal
                                                                                                 Proper operation and maintenance of
                                                                                                 Franklin STP , require AWT.

-------
TABLE IV-1.  Continued.
PARAMETER
IMPACTED

Biology
                                   IMPACTING ACTION

                         Destruction of vegetation:

                           -  Loss of wildlife habitat



                              Reduced stormwater detention
                          Increased siltation of surface
                          waters
                                                                TYPE  OF  IMPACT
                                                              Primary,
                                                              Short-term
                                         Primary  and
                                         Secondary,
                                         Short-term
                                         Lonq-terra

                                         Primary,
                                         Short-term
                                                                                   ASSESSMENT
                                                                                   OF IMPACT   DEGREE OF IMPACT
                                                                                Adverse       Minimal
                                                                                Adverse       Minimal to Moderate
                                                                                Adverse       Minimal
                                                                                                     MITIGATING MEASURES
                       *Reduce width of construction corridors
                        and route sewers along public right-
                        of-way as much as possible.

                       •Prompt reestablishment of disturbed
                        areas, and adoption and enforcement
                        of stonnwater management control.
                                                                                                                         Prompt reestablishment of veaetative
                                                                                                                         cover.
H
<
 I
Aesthetics
   (Noise)
   (Visual)
Construction of the interceptor          Primary and
sewers, construction and operation       Secondary,
of the Franklin STP                      Short-term
                                         Long-term

Improvement of water quality and         Primary,
elimination of raw discharges, mal-      Long-term
functioning septic tanks and eventual
reduction of algae blooms.

Destruction of vegetation at site of     Primary,
Franklin STP

Destruction of vegetation and visual     Primary,
screening along the interceptor          Short-term
routes                                   Long-term

Destruction of vegetation and altera-    Secondary,
tion of landscape  from  increased de-     Short-term
velopment                                Long-term
                                                                                    Adverse
                                                                                Beneficial
Minimal to Signifi-
  cant
Adoption and enforcement of noise
control ordinance ,  *supervision of
contractor  to  prevent undue  noise.
Moderate to Signifi-    None required.
  cant
                                                                                Adverse       Minimal
                                                                                Adverse       Minimal
                                                                                Adverse       Moderate
                                                                                                                      Selective siting of STP
                                                                                                                     *Reestablishment of vegetative cover.
                                                                                                                         Preservation of open space through
                                                                                                                         growth management controls.

-------
    TABLE IV-1.  Continued.
 I
00
PARAMETER
IMPACTED
Recreation






Archaeological
and Historic
Sites
Natural Resources




Public Health







IMPACTING ACTION
Improvement of surface water quality

Temporary disruption to recreational
areas and facilities
Loss of open space and increased
demand for recreational facilities

Encroachment upon historic and
'archaeological sites

Construction and operation of the
Franklin and Laconia sewage treat-
ment plants
Construction of secondary development

Elimination of .septic tank and in-
adequate municipal sewerage effluent
discharges
Increased secondary development
impacts on water resources
Discharge of chlorinated effluent
to the Winnipesaukee River and

TYPE OF IMPACT
Primary,
Long-term
Primary,
Short-term
Secondary,
Long-term

Primary,
Short-term

Primary,
Long-term

Secondary,
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term

Secondary,
Long-term
Primary,
Short-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT
Beneficial

Adverse

Adverse


Potential-
Adverse

Adverse


Adverse

Beneficial


Potential-
Adverse
Adverse
r

DEGREE OF IMPACT
Minimal to Moderate

Minimal to Signifi-
cant (local areas)
Moderate


Unknown


Minimal


Minimal to Moderate

Significant


Minimal to Signifi-
cant
Minimal to potentially
significant

MITIGATING MEASURES
None required.

Adoption and enforcement of noise
and air quality ordinances.
Preservation of critical open space
and environmentally sensitive areas.
Expansion of public shoreline areas.
Strict compliance with the National
Preservation Act and the Archaeological
and Historic Preservation Act.
Efficient use of natural resources
committed to primary and secondary
development.


None required.


Stormwater management.

Monitorinq and control of effluent
chlorine residual.
                         Merrimack River

-------
  TABLE IV-1.  Continued.
  PARAMETER
  IMPACTED

  Social and
   Economic
          IMPACTING ACTION

Consistency with local and regional
social and economic objectives

Temporary disruption of social-
economic activities in construction
areas
I
VO
  Existing and
    Future Land
    Use
                       Increased regional  employment and
                       related economic activities
Local share of capital costs as well
as annual operation and maintenance
expenditures

Construction of Franklin STP
                       Construction of interceptor sewer
                       and pump station
TYPE OF IMPACT
  Primary
                                                               Primary,
                                                               Short-term
  Primary,
  Short-term

  Secondary,
  Long-term

  Primary,
  Long-term
                                         Primary,
                                         Short-term

                                         Primary,
                                         Short-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT   DEGREE OF IMPACT

Beneficial    Significant
                    Adverse
                                  Moderate
                                                          Beneficial    Significant
                                                                                 Beneficial    Significant
                                                                                 Beneficial/   Minimal to Moderate
                                                                                 Adverse
                   Adverse       Minimal
                   Adverse       Minimal to Moderate
                                                               MITIGATING MEASURES
None required.
                                      Limit operating hours of heavy
                                        equipment.
                                      Minimize impact to private prop-
                                        erties by  careful siting of the
                                        interceptors  routing.
                                      Provide  natural screening in areas
                                        where  pump  stations may be highly
                                        visible from  adjacent  properties.
                                      Provide  restoration measures such
                                        as  reseeding  of  lawns,  replacement
                                        of  shrubbery,  fences,  or financial
                                        compensation  to  residents whose
                                        property is directly impacted.

                                      None  required.
                                                                                                None required.
                                     Careful siting of facilities and
                                     access road.

                                     Minimize width of construction.

-------
TABLE IV-1.  Continued.
PARAMETER
IMPACTED IMPACTING ACTION TYPE OF IMPACT
Existing and Encourage upgrading of existing
Future Land land uses and enhancement of property
Use values.
Increased land utilization by re-
moving 'the development constraint
of poor soils.
Increase in allowable development
densities.
Reinforcement of the region's existing
growth pattern.
Increased cost, speculation and
change of land ownership
Consistency with local and regional
planning goals and objectives
i
Effects on peripheral study area.
Secondary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Primary,
Secondary .
Lona-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT DEGREE OF IMPACT
Beneficial Moderate to Signifi-
cant
Beneficial Minimal to Signifi-
cant
Beneficial Moderate to Signifi-
cant
Beneficial Moderate to Signifi-
cant
Adverse Moderate
Beneficial Significant
None None
MITIGATING MEASURES
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
Coordinated regional growth
management program.
None required.
None recuired.

-------
A.   Natural Environment

     1.   Surface Water

     The proposed project will have several impacts upon surface
water quality in the lakes and streams of the study area.  The
principle pruposes of the project are to improve the water
quality in the study area and to insure the future attractions
of the local water resources for recreation and water supply.
Specific impacts of the proposed project on surface water are
discussed below.

     Relief of septic tank sewage disposal systems and raw dis-
     charges in the proposed sewer service area will reduce the
     levels of coliform bacteria present in the streams tributary
     to the lakes, in the bays of the lakes, and most particularly,
     in the Tioga, Winnipesaukee, and Merrimack Rivers below
     Belmont, Northfield, Tilton, and Franklin.  Control of the
     sources of bacterial contamination will:   (1) reduce the
     probability of water-borne disease among those lake shore
     residents using the lakes as a water supply and  (2) improve
     the condition of the lower Winnipesaukee River and the
     Merrimack River so that they may become suitable for primary
     contact uses such as swimming and fishing.  These impacts
     are long-term and beneficial.

     Export of controllable nutrients away from the major lakes
     in the study area will reduce eutrophication rates of the
     lakes to varying degrees.  In the case of Lake Winnipesaukee,
     the proposed action will eliminate the point discharge at
     Meredith, which EPA  (1974) estimates to contribute 10.6% of
     the current phosphorus load and 1.5% of the nitrogen load to
     the Lake.  In addition, it will prevent additional construc-
     tion of septic tanks in that portion of the primary study
     area which drains into Lake Winnipesaukee, and will elimin-
     ate future point-source discharges from the area.  These
     are long-terra beneficial impacts.  The proposed interceptor
     system is  in part sized for, but does not include all the
     remaining communities around the Lake.

     In the case of Lake Winnisquam the proposed action will
     eliminate  the discharge now entering from the Laconia treat-
     ment plant.  Significant improvement in the effluent,  (based
     on advanced wastewater treatment)  from this facility has
     recently occurred.  Diversion of the effluent will result
     in further improvement in the loading rate in Lake Winnis-
     quam.  This is a long-term beneficial impact.  The proposed
     action, in and of itself, is not sufficient to insure the
     water quality of either Lake Winnipesaukee or Lake
     Winnisquam  (Appendix B).
                             IV-11

-------
 Continued BOD loading  to Lake Winnisquam  from the Laconia
 STP through Phase  II.   Since dilution of  the  wastewater in
 the Lake is high and the ability of the Lake  to assimilate
 the BOD load is also high,  the impact of  this BOD load is
 estimated to be minimal.   Prior to the recent upgrading of
 the wastewater facility,  suspended solids may have settled
 to the depths of the Lake to contribute to the dissolved
 oxygen deficits experienced annually in the lower basin of
 Lake Winnisquam.   The  present treatment provided at Laconia
 removes most of the suspended solids that might have exerted
 BOD.  Dissolved organic materials generally remain in the
 effluent, and do not settle into the hypolimnion to contri-
 bute significantly to  the dissolved oxygen deficits.  Export
 around the Lake of all BOD from the sewage treatment plant
 in Phase II is not expected by itself to  stop the yearly
 dissolved oxygen deficits.

 BOD loading to the Winnipesaukeg River below  Silver Lake
 from the Laconia STP during 3-6 months of Phase II will have a
 minor impact upon  the  dissolved oxygen regime in the River.
 Using the most conservative assumptions*, the maximum dis-
 solved oxygen deficit  below the Laconia outfall would be
 approximately 0.9  mg/1.   The maximum deficit  occurs at the
 outfall because the high  reoxygenation coefficient adds
 oxygen faster than it  can be removed by the BOD reaction.

 *Assumptions employed  in  calculating the dissolved oxygen
 deficit below the  Laconia outfall include:
Stream Temperature




Stream Flow =

Sewage Flow =



BOD5 of river =

BOD5 of sewage =




Deoxygenation rate at 25°C
  K (25) =

Reoxygenation rate at 25°C
  K2(25) =



Dissolved Oxygen of stream

Dissolved Oxygen of sewage
25°C  (maximum for Winnipesaukee
River reported for 1973-74 was
25.5°C)

200 cfs = 129.3 mgd

4.75 mgd (design flow for Laconia
STP)

1 mg/1


150 mg/1 (maximum weekly BOD if
carbon absorbtion is not used at
Laconia)
0.25/day



1.16/day (estimated using O'Connor-
Dobbins method)

8.4 mg/l (saturation at 25°C)

0 mg/i
                         IV-12

-------
BOD loading to  the Merrimack River  below the Franklin
sewage treatment  plant at design  capacity will have a minor
impact upon the dissolved oxygen  regime in the Merrimack
River.  Using the most conservative assumptions*, the maxi-
mum dissolved oxygen deficit would  occur immediately below
the outfall, would be approximately  0.2mg/l.

*Assumptionsemployed in calculating the dissolved oxygen
deficit below the Franklin outfall  include:
Stream Temperature =




Stream Plow =

Sewage Flow =

BOD of River =


Deoxygenation rate at 25°C,
  K1(25)  =

Reoxygenation rate at 25°C,
  K2(25)  =

Dissolved Oxygen of stream =

Dissolved Oxygen of sewage =
25°C  (maximum reported for Merrimack
River below Franklin for 1973-74
was 24.5°C)

589 cfs - 380.7 mgd

11.5 mgd (1995 projected flow)

45 mg/i (maximum weekly BOD accord-
ing to effluent limitation)

0.25/day



1.15/day (McGuire, 1972)

6.9 mg/i (saturation at 25°= 8.4 mg/1

0 mg/i (worst case)
 This deficit represents about  five  percent of the saturation
 dissolved  oxygen concentration at 25°C.

 Nitrogenous  biochemical oxygen demand (NBOD)  from the pro-
 posed unnitrified effluents will have a  slight additional
 impact upon  the oxygen regime.  The NBOD of secondary
 effluent is  estimated by EPA's Process Design Manual for
 Nitrogen Control as 92 mg/1.

 Assuming a first order decay reaction for NBOD, the dis-
 solved oxygen deficit can be calculated  by the same model
 used in the  previous section for BOD.  However, the decay
 coefficient  is smaller than for BOD,  meaning that NBOD
 depletes oxygen at a slower rate.   Using this model, the
 greatest deficit still occurred at  the outfall where waste
 with no oxygen mixes with the  river.   As a further check,
 the NBOD and BOD were added together  and considered as all
 BOD.  Even in this case, the critical point was still at
 the outfall.   As is the case with the Winnipesaukee River,
 at relatively low pollutional  loads,  the high reoxygenation
 coefficient  is sufficient to supply oxygen to the river
 faster than  it can be depleted, with the result that the
 classical  dissolved oxygen "sag" does not appear.
                        IV-13

-------
     The net effect of NBOD will therefore be to slow the rate
     of the River's recovery from the additional 0.2 rag/1
     dissolved oxygen deficit at the outfall.  Oxygen levels
     will still remain above 75 percent of the saturation value.

     Raw sewage discharges to lakes or streams in the study area
     will occur if mechanical pumping stations and their back-up
     systems fail to operate.  All pumping stations are required
     by New Hampshire regulations  (NHWSPCC,  1975)  to be equip-
     ped with standby mechanical and electrical systems, and
     alarm systems.  Emergency procedure manuals and repair
     equipment are also required.  Since the potential for raw
     sewage overflow should be very small if the regulations
     are complied with, the overall impacts of pump station
     failures should be minor.

     Increased erosion and sedimentation in lakes and streams
     will result from both primary and secondary construction
     activities.  Adverse impacts resulting from increased sedi-
     mentation are potentially greater from secondary develop-
     ment than from primary construction.  Much larger land
     areas will be affected by future residential and commercial
     growth than by the actual construction of interceptor
     sewers, collectors and the sewage treatment plant.  Neither
     the State of New Hampshire nor the townships in the study
     area have soil erosion control ordinances which would mini-
     mize the degree and impacts of erosion and sedimentation.
     The only applicable legislation, New Hampshire's Revised
     Statutes Annotated, Chapter 149:8-9, is referred to as the
     "dredge and fill law."  The scope of the law is limited to
     activities "in or on the border of the surface waters of
     the state" and, therefore, does not encompass the develop-
     ment of land areas where most future construction in the
     study area will take place.  The law may require permits
     to be issued for interceptors paralleling lake shores and
     streams depending upon how the NHWSPCC interprets "on the
     border of."  The law would seem to require applications
     for and the issuance of dredge and fill permits for inter-
     ceptor stream crossings.  NHWSPCC is not funded to admin-
     ister the dredge and fill law.  Therefore, it must rely
     upon the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department for com-
     plaint investigations.

     Sedimentation and erosion are directly affected by land
     use.  A study of the environmental effects of development
     by the Real Estate Research Corporation  (RERC, 1974) pro-
     vided the following data concerning sediment derived from
     different land uses:
        Land Use

Wooded Areas
Agricultural Areas
Vacant Land and Open Spaces
Developed, Urban Areas
Construction Areas
Sediment (tons/mi2/year)
  100
  300
  200
  700
2,300
                             IV-14

-------
    This data  indicates  that urbanization will significantly
    increase erosion.  The  amount of sedimentation that will
    result  from  erosion,  i.e.,  the delivery rate,  is dependent
    upon the nature of the  water transport channel, distances
    to  affected  water bodies,  and measures taken to reduce
    sediment transport.   The steep stream gradients in the
    study area will facilitate sediment transport.  Due to the
    strategic  location of sewer interceptors along the major
    waterways, development  will occur in close proximity to the
    streams and  lakes  (Figure 1-6).  This, too, will contri-
    bute to high sediment delivery rates.  Lastly, due to the
    lack of comprehensive soil erosion ordinances, it may be
    expected that few measures will be taken to minimize sedi-
    ment transport.

    The significant effects of sedimentation will  differ between
    lakes and  streams.   In the lakes, sedimentation will pri-
    marily  affect the near-shore areas.  Rapid sediment deposi-
    tion eliminates wildlife habitats, silts beaches and trans-
    ports nutrients, especially phosphorus which absorbs onto
     fine soil  particles.   Sediments play an indirect role in
    the eutrophication  process by absorbing and desorbing
    nutrients  even in aerobic conditions and may,  therefore,
    act to  retain nutrients in the bays, coves and other near-
     shore areas  of the  lakes.

     Sedimentation in streams increases their turbidity and dis-
    rupts their  aquatic  biota by destroying benthic habitats.
    Deposition of sediments in stream channels can obstruct
     flow, increase the  probability of flooding and alter the
     channel configuration.

    Erosion and  sedimentation resulting from the project will
     have both  primary  and secondary, adverse impacts.

     Increased  urban runoff will enter streams and lakes in the
     study area from areas developed in response to the proposed
     project.   Urban runoff contains high concentrations of
     heavy metals, petroleum extracts, pesticides,  organic
    wastes, suspended  solids and nutrients.  Weibel  (Weibel,
     1969) reported the  following partial composition of urban
     runoff  from  a residential - light commercial area:
                             Average                   Total Load
  Constituent          Concentration (mg/l)             (Ibs/mi /yr
Suspended Solids               226
COD                            HI                         ,
BOD                             17                       27'000
Inorganic Nitrogen             1-°
Total Phosphorus              0.36
                              IV-15

-------
In addition, runoff from developed areas  transports  litter
forming drift solids  (refuse).  Such materials disfigure
lakes and streams making them unattractive  for recreational
uses if deposits are of such  magnitude as to be visually
noticeable.

Increased loading rates of nutrient elements from non-point
sources will accompany future development in the proposed
sewer service area.  EcolSciences, inc. concurs with both
EPA and NHWSPCC studies which indicate that the major  factor
effecting lake quality in the area is phosphorus addition.
Because of the significance of the potential impact  of phos-
phorus loading, it is discussed in detail in Appendix B.
The general conclusions for phosphorus and nitrogen  from
non-point sources are presented in this section.

In order to predict the impact of development on the loading
rates of nutrient elements, a set of gross assumptions must
be made.  Techniques to predict pollution loading from non-
point sources are currently the subject of intensive study
but are still comparatively unsophisticated compared to
modeling of other types of pollution.  Therefore, the results
of the following analysis should be interpreted carefully
and with the purpose only of  understanding the magnitude of
changes in non-point pollution loading due to development.

Approximately 46.7 square miles of the study area will be
accessable to development on  sewers at the end of the pro-
posed project.  For purposes  of this analysis the sewered
area has been divided into three segments according  to drain-
age basins:  11.3 square miles drain to Lake Winnipesaukee,
22.7 square miles drain to the lower lakes area between
Weirs and the outlet of Silver Lake and 12.7 square miles
drain directly to the Winnipesaukee, Pemigewasset and
Merrimac River system below Silver Lake.

Local data on areal non-point pollution loading is limited
in the EPA (1974a)  report on  nutrient loading to Lake
Winnipesaukee.  This report provides areal loading rates
for phosphorus and nitrogen.   Phosphorus export rates from
undeveloped tributaries not regulated by impoundments range
from 45 to 70 pounds of phosphorus per square mile per
year (Ibs-P/mi /yr).  For the same watersheds the nitrogen
export rates ranged from 1,024 to 2,728 pounds of nitrogen
per square mile per year (lbs-N/mi2/yr).  Average export
rates for the parameters on these undeveloped watersheds
will be considered to represent the background rates for
the entire sewer service area.  These rates are 57 Ibs.
P/mi /yr and L880 Ibs. N/mi2/yr.   They are quite similar
to average rates given by EPA (1974b) or Uttormark Chapin
and Green (1974)  which are summarized in Table IV-2.
                        IV-16

-------
                           TABLE IV-2
                A COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE NUTRIENT
                EXPORTS FROM THE LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE
           DRAINAGE AND AVAILABLE DATA FOR FOREST WATERSHEDS
                               (Ibs/mi'yyear)
                 Total Phosphorus Export   Total Nitrogen Export
                  High    Low   Average   High    Low   Average  References

Lake Winnipesaukee    70     45      57      2,728   1,024   1,880   EPA (1974a)
   drainage


Northcentral and                   48                    2,466   EPA (1974b)
   Northeastern
   U. S. "forest"


"Forest"           457     29     114      2,856    571   1,428   Uttormark
                                                             et.al.
                                                             (1974)

      An index to the  changes in non-point pollutant export due
      to development is provided by data published by the Real
      Estate  Research  Corporation  (RERC, 1974).   The community
      development pattern used in the data that  would be most
      similar to current zoning in the study  area is called "low
      density sprawl,"  and is the lowest density development con-
      sidered in the RERC report.  The low density sprawl commun-
      ity would have 1.66 houses per gross acre  (includes all land
      in the  community).  This compares to an average 1.13 houses
      per gross acre in the proposed sewer area  at full develop-
      ment given existing zoning for lots  with sewer and water
      and a 50 percent utilization of total land area (Section
      III.B.3).

      From the RERC report,  the areal export  rates of six pollu-
      tants of importance from the  "low density  sprawl" community
      are available.  Based upon these figures,  estimates of non-
      point total nitrogen and phosphorus  export rates were
      estimated for (1)  current conditions, (2)  the estimated
      1995 population,  and (3) "full" development given existing
      zoning  (Table IV-3)

      In addition,  maximum permissible phosphorus loading rates
      which would prevent eutrophic conditions in Lakes Winnisquam
      and Lake Winnipesaukee were calculated  for comparison-
      In the  case of the Lake Winnipesaukee basin, a
      maximum permissible population increase was calculated on  the
      basis of the  phosphorus data  (Appendix  B presents a detailed
      discussion of this data).
                                IV-17

-------
                                                           TABLE IV-3

                         EXPORT RATES FOR POLLUTANTS FROM NON-POINT SOURCES FROM PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE AREAS
I
(-"
oo
      Sewer  Service
      Watershed
                     Area
      Lake Winnipesaukee    11.3

        Based upon a population of:


      Lower Lakes           22.7

        Based upon a population of:
Winnipesaukee-        12.7
Pemigewasset-
Merrimack Rivers
below Silver
Lake

  Based upon a population of:
                                                         Estimated Present  Estimated  1995
                                                          Nutrient Export   Nutrient Export
                                                              Rates              Rates
        Ib/year
     N         P
                                                  20,624
                916
                                                        3,200
                                                  39,662     2,615

                                                       15,625
   21,826
1,622
              Ib/year
           N         P_

         19,373     1,464

               9,650


         37,660     3,492

              26,000
21,258
1,870
                    Estimated "Full
                     Development"
                    Nutrient  Export
                         Rates
                    (Zoning Basis)
                         Ib/year
                      N         P_

                    17,804     1,508

                         17,748


                    36,989     3,786

                         29,480
19,358
2,704
                                                             10,575
                            13,500
                                  23,304 ***
      * Based on the following
        Nutrient Export Rates:

        N = 1,880 Ib/mi2/yr

        P =    57 Ib/mi2/yr

        derived from data in
       (EPA, 1974).
                                      **
                                    Based on Pollutant Export Rates
                                    at Full Development  (5.5 persons/
                                    gross acre):
                                    N = 1,200
                                    P =   355
Ib/mi2/yr
Ib/mi2/yr
                       Zoning  information for North-
                       field is  not available.  Pro-
                       jected  population for Franklin
                       based upon zoning is less than
                       the 1995  population projected by
                       Maguire.   Therefore, Maguire's
                       2020 populations were used for
                       the sewer service areas in these
                       towns.
                                          derived  from  data  in  (RERC,  1974)

-------
A review of the analysis set forth in Table  iv-3  indicates
that, while the phosphorus export rate increases  as antici-
pated, the nitrogen export rate decreases as the  sewered
area is developed.  This conclusion is the result of slightly
above average nitrogen export rates in the Winnipesaukee
watershed (1,880 Ibs/mi /yr. vs. an average of 1,656 lbs/mi2/
yr., range 742-2912, reported elsewhere  (Uttormark, et al,
1974), and relatively low urban nitrogen export rates pre-
dicted by RERC (1,200 Ibs/mi2/yr. vs. 1,313 and 2,284 Ibs/
mi /yr. reported elsewhere, Uttormark, et al, 1974).  On the
basis of available information no large changes in non-point
source nitrogen export rates are predicted to accompany
urbanization.

Several recent studies in this region have indicated the
importance of phosphorus in considerations of water quality.
Table IV-3 indicates that urbanization within the sewered
areas will increase non-point phosphorus loads to the lakes.
The following analysis of the magnitude of this effect is
based on methodology explained in Appendix B.

Lake Winnipesaukee is only slightly affected by the proposed
action.  The current total phosphorus load to the Lake is
49,210 Ibs P/yr, 22,060 Ibs of which will be eliminated by
removal of point-source discharges as is now required.
Elimination of the Meredith discharge by the proposed action
will account for 5,210 Ibs of this.  In order to exceed the
oligotrophic and eutrophic loading rates increases  (after
subtraction of current point sources) of 28,554 and 84,257
Ibs P/yr respectively would be necessary.  Even full develop-
ment permitted by existing zoning contribute only a fraction
of this amount (Table IV-3 .  The primary service area, how-
ever, includes only approximately 4% of the Lake Winnipesaukee
drainage basin.  The future water quality of the Lake is not
controlled by the effects of this action, but by conditions
in the rest of the basin.  The critical issue of population
in the Lake Winnipesaukee basin is discussed in Appendix B.

Conditions in Lake Winnisquam are much less hopeful (Appendix
B).   A phosphorus budget for the Lake has been developed by
NHWSPCC (1975) .  They estimated that even total phosphorus
removal at the Laconia and State School STP's will not enable
the Lake to return to oligotrophic conditions.  EcolSciences
calculations indicate that this conclusion may be slightly
pessimistic.  This is due basically to data insufficiences
for Lake Winnisquam.  By EcolSciences' calculations (See
Dillon, 1975), the total phosphorus load possible prior to
exceeding the oligotrophic level is 30,820 Ibs/yr.  Assuming
removal of the Laconia and State School discharges, a base
input of at least 22,000 Ibs/yr currently enters the Lake.
"Pull" development in the service area would add another
1,000 Ibs/yr.  New Hampshire data (NHWSPCC, 1975) indicates
                        IV-19

-------
     a permissible loading rate which is approximately half that
     calculated by EcolSciences.   The conservative estimate, to
     insure the highest possible lake quality,  is that Lake
     Winnisquam's drainage basin is at its development limit
     now,  and further population growth in the  basin should
     be predicated on a more extensive analysis than is presented
     here.   It is recommended that such an evaluation be under-
     taken by the State.

                          Other Lakes

     There is insufficient data available to conduct similar
analyses for the remaining lakes in the study area.  As a gen-
eral rule, however, small shallow lakes have less assimilative
capacity.   Extensive development around many of the lakes in the
study area may be expected to cause them to eutrophy.  Since
several of the other lakes are quite large, such as Lake Waukewan,
or Lake Squam, their status should be evaluated and included in
areawide planning efforts.  These analyses are  beyond the scope
of this report, but are necessary to adequately protect the
natural resources of the area.
                             IV-20

-------
     2.  Ground Water

     The proposed project will have an impact upon the quantity
and the quality of ground water in the study area.  Primary impacts
of the project will include reduction of the volume of septic
tank effluent which recharges shallow aquifers and subsequent
improvement in ground water quality.  Secondary impacts will in-
clude reduction of water available for ground water recharge and
increased contamination of ground water by urban runoff.

     Improved ground water quality will result from the
     removal of a  large portion of  septic  tank effluents  which
     currently recharge the groundwater.   Although ground water
     flow is generally very limited due to the density  of the
     till layer which covers most of  the study area and the im-
     pervious nature of the bedrock,  localized areas  are  directly
     recharged by  septic  tank effluent.  Degradation  of ground-
     water quality, where  shallow depth to ground water to rapid
     percolation of septic effluents  through highly permeable
     stratified sand and  gravel deposits takes place,  will be
     reduced or eliminated as a result of  the proposed project.
     Improved ground water quality will result in improved
     surface water quality where ground water feeds into  stream
     flow.

     Reduction of ground water recharge may result as a
     secondary impact of  the proposed project.  Precipitation
     falling on the surface is a major source of recharge to the
     ground water.  Further development will increase the area
     of impervious surfaces and increase the rate of  surface
     runoff.  Impervious  surfaces will block recharge and will
     direct runoff rapidly into the streams draining  the  area.
     Rapidly flowing runoff cannot effectively recharge the
     ground water.

     Ground water contamination may result from increased
     urban runoff from secondary development.  Constituents of
     urban runoff include an almost endless array of both natural
     and man-made materials such as dust and dirt, herbicides,
     pesticides, traffic residuals, animal droppings, and vege-
     tative debris. Precipitation and subsequent deposit of these
     materials in the ground water will occur when recharge takes
     place.   This adverse impact will be minimal except in areas
     where urban runoff flows over stratified sand and gravel
     deposits which supply rapid recharge to underlying ground water.

     3.  Water Supply

     The proposed projects, primary impact will be a reduction of
sewage effluent and raw discharges into the lakes and streams within
the study area.  This will enhance water quality and should facili-
tate the continued use of surface waters for water supply.  Second-
ary impacts resulting from the project include increased population
demand for water,  lower ground water tables, and increased surface
water contamination from the discharge of chlorinated effluent.
                              IV-21

-------
Improved ground water quality will result fr9m the eli-
mination of septic tank effluent discharges in areas where
shallow wells are used as water supplies.  The danger of
contamination of individual supplies relying on ground water
sources by water borne diseases and other contaminants will
be reduced.

Contamination of potential surface water supplies may
result from discharges of sewage effluent to tne vtfinnipesaukee
River as an interim measure and then finally to the Merrimack
River.  The consequences of chlorination and the presence of
viruses in sewage effluent has resulted in a controversy over
the advisability of discharging effluent to surface waters
which will be used for water supply.  EPA has recently pro-
posed to delete the fecal coliform bacteria limitations from
the definition of secondary treatment (USEPA, 1975) to safe-
guard against the adverse effects which could result from the
excessive use of disinfectants and in particular, chlorine.
Solution of this controversy is beyond the scope of this docu-
ment.  However, the streams in the study area currently receive
raw sewage discharges which will be eliminated and the project
should result in a net improvement in water quality.

Increased demand for water will result from secondary
development in the study area.  The location and density of
future development will determine the area for public water
supply.  In general, densities greater than one dwelling
unit per acre will require public water supply.  A number of
small utilities with limited capacity and distribution faci-
lities currently supply water to portions of the study area.
Water distribution systems will have to be expanded and water
treatment facilities may have to be constructed and/or up-
graded to meet future standards for public drinking water
supplies.

It is projected that surface waters will be developed to
meet future demands for water in the area (Anderson and
Nichols, 1972).  The influx of seasonal summer residents and
the increase in per capita consumption associated with summer
use will result in a large seasonal fluctuation in water
demand.  Large demands during the summer coincide with heaviest
recreation demands and generally, the lowest water resource
period of the year.

An analysis of the potential requirement for storage
facilities to meet seasonal demands should be made.  Future
Federal and State drinking water standards will determine the
level of treatment required.
                          IV-2 2

-------
     4.   Air Quality

     There may be both primary and secondary impacts upon air
quality  resulting from the proposed action.  The primary impact
would be a consequence of the  incineration facility proposed,
but later dropped,  for  the Franklin treatment plant.  The secon-
dary impacts may  occur  due to  induced growth in the study area
and the  parallel  increased pollutant loading.

     The EPA has required that all state implementation plans
contain  sufficient policies and procedures for the prevention
of "significant deterioration" of existing air quality.  Sub-
sequently, regulations have been established which define allow-
able increases in pollutant concentration in areai, which do not
now violate the standards.  The study area has been placed in
Class II, defined as "areas where moderate change is desirable
but where stringent air quality constraints are nevertheless
desired".  Table IV-4 defines the allowable incremental increases
in pollutant concentrations over existing baseline air quality.
The primary and the secondary impacts must not exceed these
standards.

          Degradation of Air Quality From Sludge Incineration —
     The proposed sludge incinerator must meet pollutant emissions
     criteria designed to prevent the ambient standards from
     being violated.  Also it is subject to the review criteria
     under the significant deterioration regulation described
     above, which limit the incremental increase in air quality
     due to a source or growth generated as a result of this
     source.  For the purpose of calculating the air quality
     impacts of the incinerator it was assumed that all source
     emission criteria would be met.   The specific design
     parameters of the sludge incinerator have not been deter-
     mined.  However, it is anticipated that a multiple hearth
     incinerator with the following stack parameters will be
     proposed:

             Stack height            25 meters
             Diameter                0.5 meters
             Stack gas velocity      0.5 meters/sec.
             Stack gas termperature  120° F.
             Volume flow             23.5 m3/sec.
             Source strength         0.055 gm/sec. TSP  (total
                                       suspended particulates)
                                     0.034 gm/sec. SC>2  (sulfur
                                       dioxide)

     This type of incinerator has a potential smoke and odor
     problem if improperly operated.   It is assumed that the final
     design for the system will incorporate measures to eliminate
                             IV-2 3

-------
or mitigate the potential for such conditions to occur.
The trace metal content of the sludge cannot be estimated
at this time; emissions and resultant concentrations of
these materials will be estimated as such data becomes
available.

     Secondary Impact of Induced Growth on Air Quality —
The growth analysis presented in Section III-B indicates
that the project as proposed will not induce growth above
the projected or planned growth for the area.  Development
ceilings which are legally permissible by current zoning
regulations were estimated, both with and without the
proposed project.  The difference between the no-build
pollutant concentrations (without the project) and the
concentrations predicted with the maximum projected
population (with the proposed project) will represent the
"worst possible impact" of the proposed action on regional
air quality.

     General Analysis Approach — The detailed methodology
of the air quality impact analysis of the proposed project
is presented in Appendix J.  The general analysis approach
is outlined here:

     •  Determine existing air quality — compare ambient
        air quality and maximum air quality to National
        Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and other
        criteria defined in federal and state legislation.

     •  Estimate existing pollutant emissions for both
        point sources and area sources from inventories
        obtained from EPA Region I.

     •  Calculate the projected pollutant emissions for
        years of concern, with and without the project
        using the techniques described in the EPA
        Guidelines for AQMP Development - Volume I AQMP
        Designation.

     •  Calculate projected air quality for years of
        concern, with (including induced growth) and
        without the project.  The short-term TSP and SC>2
        concentrations from the proposed sludge incinerator
        are estimated using the PTMAX model developed by
        EPA.   The annual average TSP and SO2 concentrations
        are projected using the Climatological Dispersion
        Model as recommended by EPA.

     •  Compare the projected incremental concentrations
        with the allowable incremental increase in concen-
        trations for Class II Region.
                        IV-2 4

-------
     Results — The results of the above analysis are
presented in Table IV-4.  The maximum incremental concen-
trations of TSP and 862 at any point in the study area
are included in Table IV-4.  These concentrations are
less than the allowable deterioration increment for Class II
Region, indicating that all air quality criteria will be
met, with and without the project.  The project causes
a maximum increase of 0.15 pg/m3 and 0.09 ug/m3 in
particulate and sulfur dioxide concentrations respectively.
The maximum increase in TSP and SC/2 concentrations during
the 15 years between 1985 and 2000 is 0.25 yg/m3 and
0.60 ,yg/m3 respectively.  However, in no case the allow-
able deterioration increment is exceeded and hence the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not violated.
                        IV-2 5

-------
                                                 TABLE IV-4

                           PROJECTED  AND ALLOWABLE INCREMENT IN AIR QUALITY
Pollutant

Particulates (yg/m3)
- annual geometric mean
- 2 4 -hour maximum*
Sulfur Oxides (ug/m3)
- annual arithmetic mean
- 24 -hour maximum*
- 3 -hour maximum*
Maximum Incremental
Year 1985
Without - With
Project Project
0.5 0.53
4.9
1.0 1.01
3.0
10.1
. Concentrations Class II Region**
Year 2000
Without With
Project Project
0.73 0.78
4.9
1.58 1.61
3.0
10.1

Allowable
Deterioration
Increment
10
30
15
100
700
•H
<

ro
      * Due  to  the  sludge  incinerator  only

      ** Equivalent to  the "allowable  incremental  increase".   If  the maximum incremental  concentra-
        tions  are  less than  the Allowable Deterioration  Increment, then  the National  Ambient Air
        Quality  Standards are  not  related.

-------
     5.   Biology

     The proposed project will have several primary impacts upon
the biological communities of the study area.  The principal
beneficial impact will be the improvement of surface water qua-
lity in  the Winnipesaukee River basin.  Primary adverse impacts
will include the destruction of vegetation at the treatment plant
site and along sewer corridors, increased erosion and sedimenta-
tion in  the various lakes and streams adjacent to construction
activities and temporary increased effluent loading of the
Winnipesaukee River below Silver Lake and long-term increased
effluent loading to the Merrimack River below Franklin.  Second-
ary impacts are adverse and include water quality degradation
and habitat destruction resulting from increased area development.

     Improvement of aquatic habitats will result from the
     removal of septic tank effluent and the discharge from waste
     treatment facilities in Lake Winnipesaukee and Lake Winnisquam.
     This improvement will reduce the build-up of high-BOD sedi-
     ments in Lake Winnisquam and possibly result in the depletion
     of  blue-green algae growth common during the summer months.
     The change in water conditions of Lake Winnipesaukee will be
     improved but only to a minimal degree because of projects
     limited sewer service area in relationship to the Lake's
     total drainage basin.  The project impacts on these water
     bodies are discussed in further detail as follows:

         Lake Winnisquam.  Extensive research indicates that
         sewage effluents discharged into the Lake are the major
         agent in its eutrophication.  This problem is now being
         corrected by phosphorus precipitation.  While phosphorus
         removal will result in improvement, diversion of the
         effluent from the Lake will guarantee that plant overloads
         or malfunctions will not affect the Lake.  Research exper-
         ience in other areas, (Edmondson, 1969) has indicated the
         beneficial effects of sewage diversion.  In Lake Washington,
         diversion resulted in rapid improvement in water quality
         because of the Lake's short retention time and low back-
         ground nutrient levels in the source streams.  In the
         case of Lake Winnisquam, calculations by the New Hampshire
         Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (1975)
         indicate that even total diversion may not bring the
         lake nutrient loading level below critical rates.  Diver-
         sion does appreciable lower nitrogen and phosphorus  load-
         ing, ,.but depending on the mixing and flushing characteris-
         tics of the Lake, which are poorly defined, algal popula-
         tions may change slowly or not at all.  This may be a
         pessimistic estimate, but data to evaluate the question
         are not available.  Diversion will remove high-BOD sludge
         now entering the basin.   This will prevent the continu-
         ing build-up of high-BOD sediments and will allow the
         Lake to begin, to assimilate the accumulated deposits.
         The length of time for full recovery cannot be estimated
                              IV-2 7

-------
    with the available information.   If the optimistic
    estimates of retention time for  the Lake are correct,
    then diversion will allow the Lake to re-establish
    an oligotrophic condition.  This would imply_a cessa-
    tion of summer oxygen depletion  in the hypolimnion of
    the lower basin and a shift away from blooms of blue-
    green algae, to a more diverse oligotrophic assemblage.
    At worst, diversion will at least prevent the further
    deterioration of the lake habitat.

    Lake Winnipesaukee.  The proposed plan for the
    primary study area includes an interceptor to collect
    wastewater from Meredith.  This  is one of the three
    sewer systems now discharging to the Lake.  The remain-
    ing municipal area discharges from Wolfeboro,  Alton,
    Center Harbor, Moultonborough, Gilford and Tuftonboro
    are not to be collected by the interceptor system.
    Therefore, the immediate impact  of this project on
    Lake Winnipesaukee is minimal.  It will prevent increased
    loading from septic tanks or sewer discharges in the
    area serviced.  All of the towns on the Lake are under
    mandate to eliminate all new discharges to the Lake.
    When this is done, approximately 50 percent of the
    current phosphorus load will be  removed from the Lake.
    This should insure the continued high overall quality
    of Lake Winnipesaukee and eliminate most of the local-
    ized algal bloom conditions now  occurring.  A more
    detailed discussion of the euthrophication problem in
    the study area is presented in Appendix B.

Aquatic Habitat Destruction.  In several areas the pro-
posed interceptor easement impinges  on, or crosses, rivers
or bays.  In these areas, there will be localized aquatic
disturbances during construction. These will consist of
increased turbulence, temporary restriction of flow, and
disturbance of the bottom materials.  In the case of the
Winnisquam outfall system, the design engineers (S.E.A.
Consultants, Inc., 1975), have indicated that the flow in
all watercourse affected by construction will be suitably
maintained, and, if temporarily affected, will be restored
to the original condition.  It is expected that similar
criteria will apply to the other interceptor lines.  In
addition, utilization of the best technology for erosion
control can minimize siltation problems.  These effects
will be short-term, and their impacts mitigated by
appropriate construction safeguards.

Since the salmonid fish of the area  spawn in the fall
(as early as October) and the eggs over-winter to hatch in
the spring  (young free swimming by May), construction should
not occur during this period in areas where extensive spawn-
ing grounds may occur.  Most other species of fish common in
                          IV-2 8

-------
the area spawn in spring or early summer, and environmental
disruption in sensitive areas during this time period
should be minimized.

    Winnipesaukee River.  As a temporary measure, the
    Winnisquam outfall system will carry treated sewage
    from the Laconia plant to a discharge point on the
    Winnipesaukee River below Silver Lake.  This interim
    situation will exist for 3 to 6 months.  An estimation
    of the oxygen demand caused by this discharge, using
    the Streeter-Phelps Equation, indicates some lowering
    of oxygen levels will occur, violating the no degrada-
    tion concept.  There is no indication that dissolved
    oxygen values low enough to affect fish populations will
    occur.  The effluent to be discharged will be chlorinated.
    It is expected that there will be 0.5 mg/1 of total re-
    sidual chlorine in the discharge with a maximum of 1.0
    mg/1.  Using this information, and knowing the proposed
    sewage flow rates and river discharges, it is possible
    to determine chlorine levels in the river immediately
    below the outfall.  Our calculations are conservative
    in that no consideration is given to possible chlorine
    demand in the river.  Indications are that such a
    demand does exist and would rapidly remove the chlor-
    ine, but no measurements of chlorine demand are avail-
    able.  In 1980, the average chlorine level in the river
    at the outfall will be 0.02 mg/1, with a worst possible
    concentration of 0.1 mg/1.  As can be seen in Table iv-5,
    these levels can be expected to effect both invertebrate
    stream organisms and sensitive fish  (Salmonids).  Early
    life stages of Salmonids would be especially vulnerable.
    It is not anticipated that this effect would extend
    much below the outfall and certainly not below Tilton
    where a high chlorine demand exists due to raw waste
    discharges.

    Merrimack River.  The Franklin treatment plant,
    which will ultimately receive most of the basin's sew-
    age, will be located about two miles downstream from
    Franklin.  It will discharge into the Merrimack River.
    The maximum estimated discharge from this plant in 1995
    (11.5 mgd) will utilize only 10 percent of the river's
    assimilative capacity and will lower dissolved oxygen
    values from 6.9 to 6.7 mg/1.  Since only secondary
    treatment will be involved, nutrient additions to the
    River will occur.  This probably will promote aquatic
    plant growth.  Since this region of the river is a
    valuable resource in terms of wildlife, fisheries, and
    aesthetics, consideration should be given to phosphorus
    removal in the future if conditions warrant.  In addi-
    tion, the effluent will be chlorinated.  The results of
    calculating the residual chlorine in the river at the
    outfall are shown in Table IV-6.
                          IV-29

-------
                        TABLE IV-5

          PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS
              CHLORINE CONCENTRATION TO PROTECT
                   FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE


Residual Chlorine
  Concentration       Degree of Protection        Author

     .002 mg/1        Should protect most         Brungs, 1973
                      aquatic organisms

     .01 mg/1         Would not protect some      Brungs, 1973
                      important fish-food
                      organisms.  Could be
                      partially lethal to
                      sensitive fish species

     .02 mg/1         Would protect warmwater     Basch & Truchan,
                      fish                        1973

     .25 mg/1         Fish species diversity      Tsai, 1973
                      index reduced to zero
                      by this concentration
                      in Maryland, Virginia
                      and Pennsylvania streams
                      below sewage treatment
                      plants

     .37 mg/1         No fish found in streams    Tsai, 1973
                      with this concentration
                      or higher
                        TABLE IV-6

            RESIDUAL CHLORINE IMMEDIATELY BELOW
           THE FRANKLIN TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL

                         Average          Worst Possible
                                    mg/1

         1985             0.002               0.05
         1995             0.003               0.07
     Comparing these values with Table IV-5 indicates that the
     discharge should normally have only a limited effect on
     aquatic life. At low river flows problems could occur.
     Again, this estimate is conservative in that no chlorine
     demand was assumed for the river.
                               IV-30

-------
Destruction of vegetation will be both a primary and
a secondary consequence of the proposed project.
Removal of vegetation during construction at the treat-
ment plant and pump stations and during installation of
sewers constitutes a negative primary impact to terres-
trial biota.  The degree of impact depends upon the
quality of the vegetation as a timber resource or its
ability to perform other functions.  The amount of
valuable timber resources within construction corri-
dors, at the treatment plant, and at the pump station
sites is insignificant when compared with the total
forest resources in the region.  However, the vegeta-
tion to be removed presently provides desirable benefits
which then will be lost.  These benefits include aesthe-
tic values, visual screening, erosion control, wind-
breaks, and wildlife habitat.

Table iv-7 estimates the degree of impact resulting
from loss of benefits associated with existing vegeta-
tion.  The vegetational pattern changes along these
corridors and the length of corridors varies.  These
factors are considered in developing the arbitrary
assignment of the degree-of-impact to each function.
Where the pipeline corridor is coextensive with the
railroad embankment, a minimal impact may be antici-
pated from loss of timber resources and aesthetic
values, because the plants present in this situation
are of a weedy type.  However, these weeds may screen
an undesirable view of the railroad tracks from nearby
residential development.  Loss of erosion control may
accrue and may be detrimental where the corridor align-
ment is near surface water or wetlands, thereby consti-
tuting a moderate short term impact.  A moderate impact
to wildlife is expected since railroad flora not only
is an excellent food source but also provides necessary
nesting sites and cover.  This impact will be of short-
term duration because these species quickly are
reestablished.

Primary impacts attributed to the project's construc-
tion are described as follows:

     Along the Meredith Interceptor moderate, short-
     term impacts to wildlife may occur due to edge
     vegetation removal between the tracks and adjacent
     woodland.  Because of the proximity of the con-
     struction corridor to Lake Winnipesaukee, some
     sedimentation may occur.  Visual screening of the
     B&M tracks from shore residents may be lost.
     These impacts are expected to be of short duration
     because the vegetation to be removed will reestab-
     lish itself;
                      IV-31

-------
<
10
CORRIDOR

Meredith

Gilford

West Paugus

Winnisquam Outfall

Sanbornton

Laconia Connection

Belmont

Tilton-Northfield

Franklin
                                                Table IV-7

                        PRIMARY IMPACTS FROM VEGETATION REMOVAL IN  SEWER
                                                                                 CORRIDORS
Timber
Resource
Long
Term
INS
MIN
MIN
MIN
MIN
NA
INS
NA
MIN
Short
Term
INS
MIN
MIN
MIN
MIN
NA
INS
NA
MOD
Visual
Screening
Long
Term
INS
INS
INS
INS
INS
NA
INS
NA
INS
Short
Term
, MOD
MIN
MIN
MIN
MIN
NA
INS
NA
INS
Aesthetic
Long
Term
INS
MIN
MIN
MIN
MIN
NA
INS
NA
INS
Short
Term
MIN
SIG
MOD
MIN
MIN
NA
INS
NA
INS
Erosion
Control
Long
Term
INS
INS
INS
MIN
MIN
NA
INS
NA
MIN
Short
Term
MOD
MIN
MOD
SIG
SIG
NA
MIN
NA
MOD
Wildlife
Habitat
Long
Term
INS
INS
MIN
MIN
MIN
NA
MIN
NA
MIN
Short
Term
MOD
MIN
SIG
MOD
MOD
NA
MIN
NA
MOD
     Key;

     INS
     MIN
     MOD
     SIG
     NA
                       Insignificant
                       Minimum
                       Moderate
                       Significant
                       Information Not Available

-------
Along the Gilford Interceptor.  A significant
impact to aesthetics may result from pipeline
installation near homes.  Some large trees will
be removed from shoreline communities;

The West Paugus Interceptor is to be routed along
the forested western shore of the bay and will
result in some loss of control.  Because of the
long pipe a reduction of substantial amounts of
edge vegetation is expected;

Along the Winnisquam Outfall a significant short-
term impact to the wetlands may be expected from
siltation during pipeline construction.  Wildlife
habitat, which is plentiful along this corridor,
will be lost.  These impacts are short-term but
will continue until vegetative cover is reestablished;

Along theSanbornton Interceptor, the location of
the corridor adjacent to wetlands makes these areas
susceptable to siltation resulting from erosion dur-
ing construction;

Along the Franklin Interceptor mature forests on
steep slopes will be impacted by construction.
Some sedimentation to the Merrimack River can be
expected during construction.  Wildlife food plants
are plentiful within the construction corridor and
will be cleared.  These impacts will be of short-
term duration; and

At the proposed Franklin STP site, the nature and
degree of the impacts to plants and animals from
construction activities will depend on the final
location of the structures.  Little impact to biota
will be incurred if cleared areas are used.  If an
upland site is chosen, forest will be removed and
slopes will be vulnerable to erosion until vegeta-
tive cover is reestablished.  Excellent wildlife
•habitat is present at the base of the slopes and in
other sections of the tract.  Clearing these areas
for construction will result in a small reduction
in the size of mammal and bird populations in the
region.  This type of habitat is abundant along the
Merrimack River, and it is unlikely that any popula-
tions in the region are restricted to this site or
would be eliminated as a result of clearing for the
treatment plant.

Construction of a service road to the treatment
plant may result in some environmental cost.   Re-
moval of some mature forest on the slopes between
Kelley Road and the plant site will be available
if Kelley Road  is used  as an access to the plant.
A road built along the  Merrimack  River from the  san-
itary landfill  to the plant could utilize the  same
corridor as the Franklin Interceptor  so  that  little
additional impact from  road construction will  occur.

                  IV-3 3

-------
Anticipated secondary impacts resulting from the opera-
tion of the proposed waste water treatment facilities
are described as follows:

      Within the potentially serviceable area from Meredith
      to Franklin, much of the land along the lake shores
      and rivers already has been urbanized.  Although the
      woodland remaining is generally less mature than
      forests beyond the service area, it is capable of
      supporting a more varied animal community.  Clear-
      ing woodland for construction of more residential
      and commercial development will result in loss of
      wildlife habitat, loss of flood protection within
      the watershed, increased erosion and sedimentation
      and loss of the aesthetic quality that the expanses
      of green forest now provide.  The degree of impact
      will depend upon the pattern of future development
      and the effectiveness of land use controls and ero-
      sion control ordinances.

      In the Belmont service area, the wetland communities
      have already been impacted by construction of Routes
      3 and 140 and residential development south of Silver
      Lake.  Further residential development facilitated
      by the proposed project may encroach on that surface
      and groundwater resource.  Treatment of wastes
      from the Village of Belmont will provide a positive
      benefit to the Tioga River and marshland, improving
      the quality of this surface and groundwater resource.

      Construction of the Belmont interceptor involves four
      stream crossings.  Three crossings are small and can
      be constructed with minimal disruption to the Tioga
      River, but some  temporary siltation is to be antici-
      pated.  The larger stream crossing of the Tioga River
      at the extreme western end of the alignment will in-
      volve carrying the sewer across this 50 to 60 foot width
      on pilings or suspending the interceptor under the
      bridge.  The previous rerouting of the Tioga River to
      accommodate the reconstruction of Route 140 created
      a berm which now separates the two sections of the
      stream.  Construction of the sewer in this berm may
      cause sedimentation impacts to adjacent water.  Fill
      will be required to increase the width of the ele-
      vated part of the right-of-way of Route 140 to
      accommodate the sewer and will intrude on wetland
      areas down slope.  Two cuts of approximately  15 feet
                        IV-3 4

-------
will be required to maintain the gravity  flow
of sewage toward the western end of  the inter-
ceptor.

If a pump station  is required,  it will be built
on state-owned  land which  is partially wooded.
This small  50'  x 50' site  is adjacent to, but
not within, a shrub swamp.  Little disruption
is expected to  occur from  construction of this
pump station.   No  additional access  road will
be required to  serve the pump  station site,  since
access can  be gained from  a segment  of the old
Route 140.

The potentially serviceable area of Gilford differs
from others in the study area in that it includes
extensive areas of mature forest.  Part of the ser-
vice area extends into the Belknap Mountains.
Impacts associated with development in this segment
of the service area could include loss of flood pro-
tection for the sub-watershed is under study by the
Soil Conservation Service.  Further development of
the ski resort would result in some clearing of
commercially valuable timber resources.

If the historic pattern of residential development
along the shoreline of Lake Winnipesaukee continues,
little impact to woodlands will be experienced.
However, much of the shoreline has been developed
and future development on slopes south of the Lake
may result  in more clearing to expose a view of the
Lake.

The wetlands north of Laconia Airport may be encroached
upon unless land use controls are effective to prevent
it.
                  IV-34.a

-------
        The Peripheral  Study Area.  Center Harbor, Moultonborogh
        and Tuftonboro, which have  large areas of  land  under  cul-
        tivation, have  a  concomitant  abundance of  edge  vegetation
        at the  interface  of fields  and woodlots  and  along  fence-
        rows.   This  provides a  rich wildlife  habitat for small
        mammals and  birds.  Development of open  space in this
        sector  will  impact wildlife resources.

              In Wolfeboro only  a  change in development  pattern
              would seriously impact the community.   Extensive
              clearing and small lot development  would contrast
              with the existing  large  lot shoreline community,
              thereby, causing an  aesthetic loss  due  to  forest
              removal.

              While Alton  has well developed  forests, these are
              not concentrated in  the  proposed service area.
              Development  in this  community will  reduce  younger
              forests, which, while  of less commercial value,  are
              of benefit to wildlife and useful  for surface water
              detention.

     6.   Aesthetics.

     The proposed project will have  both beneficial and  adverse
effects upon the aesthetic quality of  the  study area.  If  the  pro-
posed project is implemented,  the  most significant adverse  impact
will result from the  vegetation  destruction along the pipeline
corridors and at the  treatment  plant site.  Beneficial impacts
include the improvement  of stream  and  lake water  quality and the
elimination of malfunctioning  septic tanks.

     Noise.  During construction,  noise generated by construction
     and transportation  equipment  will create adverse conditions.
     However, significant noise  levels will be restricted to the
     treatment plant  site, the  sewer line  routes, and highways
     along the construction corridors.

     The principal sources of  noise  at the Franklin site will be
     as follows:

         •    Lift station      -    a high-pitched whining noise

         •    Air blowers       -    similar to the lift station,
                                    though probably at a lower
                                    frequency.

         •    Weirs and other   -    sound of running  or falling
              water devices         water

         •    Motor vehicles    -    deep roar of diesel engine

         •    Alarms/ loud-     -    sharp distinctive sounds
              speakers,  etc.        meant to attract  attention.
                                IV-3 5

-------
    The topography of the Franklin site is a bowl that may
    tend to reflect and amplify sound.  Thus, it can be ex-
    pected that the plant noises will be noticeable on the
    flood plain and on the surrounding hillsides.  On the
    plateau beyond the bowl, however, plant noises will pro-
    bably not be noticeable under normal meteorological
    indications.  The exception to this is truck noise, which
    will be particularly loud if trucks exit the site up the
    steep hills; on the other hand an exit route along the
    river would send the trucks through downtown Franklin.

    All conclusions regarding plant noise are tentative be-
    cause the exact design and location of the treatment units
    has not been determined and the truck route has not been
    selected.

    Certain construction practices, if allowed, could aggrevate
    construction noise problems.  An example would be construc-
    tion during the evening hours in residential neighborhoods.
    The contract documents should include prohibitions against
    such abuses.

    Noises generated by secondary development activities will
    probably be equivalent to those associated with primary
    construction, but they will occur over a more extensive
    area.  In some instances, these noises may create a nuisance
    to  local residents.

    Visual Amenities.  The major primary adverse impacts to the
    aesthetic quality of the study area will result from dis-
    truction of vegetation at the STP site and along the pipe-
    line corridors.  These impacts have been discussed in detail
    in  Section  IV.A.5.  Most of these impacts are anticipated to
    be  short-term.

    The primary beneficial impacts to the aesthetic quality of
    the study area will result from the improvement of water
    quality.  Algae blooms, raw waste discharges, etc. presently
    degrade the aesthetic appeal of many of the areas lakes,
    streams and wetlands.  Eliminating these unsightly aspects
    will be a slow but beneficial process.

    Secondary development within the  study area may encroach
    upon aesthetically valuable areas.  In addition, refuse
    from this development will collect in local streams and
    along local roads.  The general aesthetic quality of the
    area, will be degraded slowly by  creeping urbanization.
    7.  Recreation

    The proposed project will have both beneficial and adverse
impacts upon the recreational facilities of the Study Area.
The principal beneficial impacts will result from improved
water quality.  Adverse impacts will result from disruption
of tourist traffic, encroachment upon available open space
by secondary development, and increased demand for facilities
which in many cases presently are inadequate, or approaching
inadequacy.                 IV-36

-------
Improvement of surface water quality will increase the
long-term recreational potential cf the study
area.  Because the economy of the basin is heavily de
pendent upon tourism and recreation, this impact will be
?icantly beneficial.  Due to the location of the P^PPf e
the greatest benefit will accrue to water bodies in the
study area.

For years the recreational use of Lake Winnisquam has been
impaired.  Algae blooms and excessive fertilization of
the Lake have periodically rendered the water offensive,
unsightly, unaesthetic and undesirable for swimming, and
have reduced the once-extensive salmonid sport fishery.  Re-
moving the Laconia STP discharge, i.e.,  the main source of
nutrient to Lake Winnisquam, constitutes the start of a
primary, long-term beneficial impact to water quality and
recreation.  Several years will be needed for the Lake
recover from its present condition, but eventually, contact
recreation should be more desirable and fishing more
prosperous.  Beaches, such as Bartlett Beach, which have
been closed by health officials have the potential for safe
use once water quality has reached acceptable levels.

The  same benefits should accrue to Lake Winnipesaukee, with
the  completion and utilization of the Meredith and Gilford
interceptors and the concomitant abandonment of the Meredith STP
and numerous lake shore septic tanks.   Because Lake Winnipesaukee
has  not reached the degraded state of Lake Winnisquam, rec-
reation has not yet been significantly affected; however,
the  potential does exist.  Long-term benefits to recrea-
tion on Lake Winnipesaukee will be realized by preventing
further water quality degradation, thereby, protecting its
recreational use.

Completion of the Tilton-Northfield and Belmont interceptors
will eliminate industrial, municipal, and private waste
discharges to the Winnipesaukee  and Tioga Rivers.  Contact
recreation and fishing, which have been adversely affected,
especially along the Tioga River, should also improve with the
elimination of these discharges.  Concurrently, the wetlands
associated with the Tioga River could realize their potential
for  limited recreation, i.e., fishing, nature studies, etc.

Te'mporary disruption to recreational areas and facilities.
Construction will both disrupt beach areas adjacent to the
pipeline routes and interfere with traffic leading to certain
facilities.  The areas of greatest impact are anticipated
along the Gilford, Meredith, and West Pangus interceptors and
along the Winnisquam Outfall.  Since the Gilford and Meredith
interceptors will follow closely to the shoreline for most of
the  route, they will interfere with traffic leading to some
dock and marina facilities, i.e., Gilford and Fay's Marinas
in Gilford and Meredith's docks and picnic areas, etc.
                          IV-37

-------
     Loss  of  open space and increased demand for recreational
     facilities  will  result from secondary development in the
     study area.   As  near-shore and back-lot development
     increases,  the rolling,  wooded inland areas, suitable for
     public recreation will be removed.   Public beaches and
     lake  access points throughout the primary study area, and
     particularly in  Meredith and Laconia, are limited and
     inadequate  for present demands and will have to be aug-
     mented to serve  the anticipated increase in both year-
     round and seasonal populations.  As growth continues, the
     demand for  recreation-related facilities such as public
     parking  lots, and marinas also will increase, placing a
     further  burden on inadequate facilities.

     8.   Archaeological and Historic Resources

     Primary  construction activities associated with the pro-
posed project may encroach upon archaeological and historic
sites in the  study area.  Of the five National Historic Reaister
sites in the  study area, Table 11-14 identifies two sites which
may be impacted  by the project.

     Weirs Aquadoctan Archeologic Site.  The proposed West Paugus
     interceptor appears to pass very close to or through the
     Weirs Aquadoctan site.  The bounderies of the site are not
     well defined.  The exact location of the interceptor in
     relation to this National Register Site should be determined
     so that procedures for compliance with the National Historic
     Preservation Act can be initiated if necessary.

     Sulphite Railroad Bridge.  The proposed Franklin interceptor
     will be constructed in the vicinity of the Sulphite Rail-
     road Bridge which crosses the Winnipesaukee  River in Franklin
     Detailed sewer routings were not available for this section
     of the interceptor.  It will not, however, be routed along
     the bridge.  A determination of the potential disruption of
     the area during construction may be necessary for compliance
     with the National Historic Preservation Act.

     Based on the available information, no other sites appear to
     be adversely impacted by the proposed project.
                               IV-3 8

-------
    9.  Natural Resources

    Construction and operation of the proposed sewerage system
will require the commitment of substantial quantities of natural
resources.  During construction, the most significant commit-
ments of resources will consist of concrete and cast iron pipe
along sewer routes, and concrete, brick, wood, and steel at the
treatment plant and pumping stations.  Operation of the collec-
tion and treatment system will require commitments of electri-
city for operating equipment, fuel oil for temperature mainten-
ance, treatment chemicals, and chlorine for effluent disinfection.

    Secondary demands for natural resources will be much greater
than the primary demands.  Building materials, fuels, and elec-
tricity will be the principal resources required by secondary
development.
                             IV-3 9

-------
B.  Social and Economic Environment

    1.  Public Health

    One of the primary goals of the proposed project is the
improvement of public health for current and future residents
and tourists in the Winnipesaukee River basin.  The discharge
of raw and inadequately treated wastes from industries and both
municipal and private sewerage systems contributes to the area's
potential health hazards.  The tremendous influx of summer
visitors increases this potential threat.  Within the primary
study area, work proposed for completion by 1980 will provide
the means for eliminating a portion of the basin's current
problems.  However, elimination of potential health hazards to
residents along Lake Winnipesaukee eastern shore cannot be
expected until individual municipal sewerage systems are con-
structed, or until this area is brought into the regional system.

    Elimination of septic tanks and inadequate municipal
    sewage treatment and/or disposal facilities will protect
    citizens of the area from contracting enteric diseases
    through direct contact with surface waters contaminated by
    sewage effluent or through drinking contaminated ground or
    surface water.  The probability of spreading enteric
    diseases, either through- ground or surface water contami-
    nation, has been increased due to the reliance upon septic
    tanks by a rapidly growing basin population.  The problem
    is compounded by the fact that numerous septic tanks are
    located at or near the lake shores, often in poorly suited
    soils, and that many homes and several communities withdraw
    water directly from the lakes for domestic use.  Because
    the area relies so heavily upon tourism, any potential
    threat to public health represents a danger to the region's
    economic stability.  By eliminating the pollution sources,
    the proposed project will result in the upgrading of surface
    water quality and the concomitant primary, long-term,
    beneficial impact of improving public health and strength-
    ening the region's economic viability.

    Although improvement of public health is anticipated
    as a general benefit to the whole area, there are specific
    locations expected to gain substantially from the project.

        Belmont. Presently, Belmont has one of the worst
        pollution problems in the area.  Due to lack of public
        sewerage, the contamination of the Tioga River and its
        tributaries  from domestic wastes in the village area
        has reached critical proportions.  In some places
        septic tank effluents formed stagnant, foul-smelling
        pools.  Construction and use of the Belmont inter-
        ceptor will eliminate this health hazard and may per-
        mit safe recreational use of the Tioga River  (Fenton
        G. Keyes Associates, 1970).
                             IV-40

-------
A second problem area in Belmont exists along the
heavily developed, unsewered shores of Lake Winnis-
quam and Silver Lake as well as scattered develop-
ment adjacent to Route 140.  The numerous single-
family residences and mobile homes have their own
sewerage and, in most cases, water supply.  Because
these developments are located near bodies of water,
there is a danger of seepage from the septic tank
systems into the lakes which serve as Belmont's
water supply or the Tioga River which offers sport
and recreational opportunities (Fenton G. Keyes
Associates, 1970).  The Winnisquam outfall which
eliminates the need for septic tanks along Winnisquam
and Silver Lakes as well as the Tioga River and help
insure the safe public use of both ground and surface
water supplies.  However, it should be noted that
existing development east of the intersection of
South Poad and Route 140, namely Pinewood Gardens
(150 mobile home projects), will not be readily
served by the proposed alignment of the Belmont
interceptor.  The location of this project's leech
field could represent a potential source of pollu-
tion to the Tioga River.

Laconia.  Selected areas of Laconia have been severely
affected by past sewage discharges from the Laconia
sewage treatment plant.  Bartlett Beach, located on
Lake Winnisquam near the Laconia STP discharge,  has
been closed by health officials for the last few years
due to high bacterial counts which make the water
unfit for contact.  The project's elimination of this
discharge into Lake Winnisquam will slowly upgrade the
water quality and eventually benefit both public and
health recreational usage of the Lake.

Completion of the West Paugus Interceptor will insure
further the protection of the health of Laconia residents.
Presently, the City withdraws its municipal water supply
from Paugus Bay, opposite a point on the southwestern
shore, which has poor soils and septic tank problems.
Although the City maintains a good water treatment sys-
tem, without record of creating health problems, the
potential for contamination does exist.  This potential
will increase as non-sewered development along the Bay
increases.  With construction of the interceptor, and
removal of the septic tanks, the potential threat to
public health should be effectively eliminated.

Tilton-Northfield.  With completion of the Tilton-
Northfield interceptor, residents along the Winnipesaukee
River and within the Tilton-Northfield complex will
benefit from the proposed project.  Both communities
discharge raw domestic and industrial wastes to the
River, which contributes to high bacterial counts along
this waterway.  Although there are no records of public
health problems, the potential exists as the River flows
through urbanized areas.
                 IV-41

-------
   increased seconaary  development.   The proposed project may
   have a long-term,  negative,  secondary impact upon public
   health.  Should  sewering of  the area induce a significant
   amount of development,  the threat to public health through
   contamination  of water  resources  by oils,  sewage, etc. from
   boats and marina.  However,  the growth inducement effects of
   the project  are  considered to be  minimal.

   The temporary  discharge of chlorinated effluent to the
   Winnipesaukee  River  (Laconia STP)  and the  permanent dis-
   charge to the  Merrimack River (Franklin STP)  may create a
   potential public health hazard.A recent  study has indi-
   cated that chlorination of polluted water  for purposes of
   disinfection may produce small quantities  of carcinogenic
   compounds  (Bellar, Lichtenberg, and Kroner, 1974) .  Although
   all of the effects of chlorination upon public health have
   not been completely  assessed, any discharge of chlorinated
   wastes must  be recognized as a potential public health
   hazard.  Until the Laconia STP is abandoned,  raw water with-
   drawals  from the Winnipesaukee River downstream of the interim
   discharge point will receive increased loads of organohalides
   generated during effluent disinfection. Raw water with-
   drawals  from the Merrimack River  downstream of the proposed
   Franklin STP discharge will  be impacted in a similar manner
   but  for  a longer period of time.

    2.   Social and Economic

   The  proposed project will generally exert  a beneficial effect
upon  the  study area.  The project would be supportive of local
and regional social and  economic objectives.  Significant short-
term  and  long-term primary and secondary benefits will outweigh
moderate  short-term primary and  long-term secondary adverse
impacts.

   Consistency  with local and regional social and economic
   objectives.  Economic viability within the Lakes Region is
   heavily  dependent  upon the recreational sector, which in
    turn  is  directly influenced  by the water quality of the
   major lakes.  Maintenance of superior water quality would
    encourage continued  recreational  development within the
    Lakes Region.

    Industrial development will  be facilitated by provision of
   public  sewer service.  Availability of public sewer services
   reduces  the  cost of  industrial development by providing more
   economical  sewage  disposal.   Availability  of public sewer
    service  as an  incentive for  industrial location becomes
   particularly significant in  areas which lie within lake
   drainage basins of New Hampshire.  The policy of the State
    is  to remove all point discharge into lakes.  The cost of
   complying with this  policy in the absence  of public sewer
    service  can  be sufficient to influence the choice of an
   alternative  location.

   Problems associated  with the lack of public sewer services
   have  been implicated as a major contributor to industrial
   location difficulties in at  least one municipality within
   the  study area.   Evidence has been obtained which indicates
                              IV-4 2

-------
that industrial development in Belmont has been discouraged
due to the absence of public sewer services.

The proposed project, therefore, is expected to encourage
continued recreational development and to facilitate indus-
trial development within the study area.  Basic consistency
between the project and areawide social and economic objectives
is evident.

Temporary disruption of social and economic activities will
accompany construction of the interceptor sewers.  Year-
round dwelling units along Lake Winnipesaukee in the area
west of Governor's Island will be adversely affected by
construction work of the Gilford interceptor.  Disruption
and possible dislocation may be serious enough to warrant
compensation.  Some residential disruption will also be
caused by construction along the shores of Lake Winnis-
quam for the Sanbornton interceptor.  Similar problems
of a more extensive nature may be caused by construction
of the Tilton interceptor, which proceeds along the main
thoroughfare.  Construction of the Franklin interceptor
would involve disruption of downtown activities as work
proceeds along city streets.

Project construction will not require destruction of any
dwelling units or relocation of households.  However, some
residents in areas where construction would be most disruptive
may seek temporary accomodations elsewhere.  Also,  occupancy
of vacation accoraodations maybe affected temporarily until
construction is completed in selected areas.

Temporary loss of business may result from the project's
construction in the commercial areas of Franklin, Tilton
and Northfield.  In addition to direct income loss, these
costs in turn exert a negative multiplier effort upon the
local economy.

Increased regional employment and related economic activities
will occur as a direct result of the project's construction.
As estimated $66 million in capital costs would be spent
over a period of ten years.  This represents a major con-
struction effort, and employment would be drawn both from
within and outside the Lakes Region.  If construction
employment tends to reduce short-term underemployment and
excess capacity in the regional economy, then the proposed
project would generate rather significant short-term pri-
mary benefits.

In addition, long-term primary benefits will be generated
by employment of personnel to operate the proposed Franklin
and peripheral area sewage treatment plants.  The Franklin
plant would employ a total of 23 people.  Individual
treatment plants in Center Harbor, Moultonboro, and Wolfe-
boro would employ a total of about 20 people altogether.
Employment would be lost, however, when the Laconia treatment
                         IV-43

-------
    plant is phased out.  The Laconia plant currently employs
    8 people.  Therefore, the net increase in long-term
    employment would be approximately 35 people.

    The tremendous inflow of federal and state funds necessary
    to finance the proposed project will have secondary bene-
    fits or major significance to the Lakes Region.  Money
    originating outside the study area which is spent within
    the area will cause a multiplier effect upon the regional
    economy.  Circulation of this money within the local econ-
    omy can generate secondary benefits of major significance
    to many different sectors of the local economy.  The rela-
    tive magnitude of the multiplier effect will be directly
    dependent upon the extent to which money is recirculated
    within rather than outside the Lakes Region.  Significant
    short-term secondary benefits may be realized from capital
    expenditures for the proposed project.  If these benefits
    are consolidated to strengthen the region's economic base,
    then corresponding long-term secondary benefits will be
    realized.

    Long-term primary costs accompanying the proposed project
    will basically consist of annual operation and maintenance
    expenditures.  State funding assistance is expected to
    subsidize these expenses, with user fees presumably
    covering the balance.  The long-term primary costs for the
    study area will be moderately significant.

    Development induced by the proposed project within the
    service area represents a long-term secondary effect of
    potential significance.  Availability of public sewer
    services within the proposed service area would substan-
    tially increase the development capacity permitted under
    existing zoning.  Allowance of smaller minimum lot sizes
    could significantly reduce land development costs, in
    addition to increasing development yields.  As a result,
    the region's housing inventory may be expanded and the
    subsequent lower cost of housing making it possible for
    a larger percentage of the region's population to enjoy
    home ownership.  However, accompanying increased resi-
    dential development may be higher costs for the provision
    of additional public servies to serve the region's expanding
    population, i.e., water, power, schools, fire and police
    protection, and transportation faciliteis.

    3.  Land Use:   Existing and Future

    The primary impacts to existing land uses are anticipated
to occur mainly along the interceptor sewer routings and pump
stations rather than at the Franklin treatment plant site.
The secondary impacts will be largely associated with future
growth inducement effects from increased public sewage treat-
ment capacity.
                             IV-4 4

-------
The construction of the Franklin STP is not expected to
generate "any significant short-term adverse environmental
impacts because of its relative isolated location and lim-
ited visibility to existing land uses.  However, the sever-
ity of its long-term impacts must be questioned.  Until a
decision is made as to the principal routing of vehicular
traffic (trucks) to and from the treatment plant site, the
extent and nature of probably impacts cannot be assessed.
Use of Kelly Road will create disruptions which will impact
the character and aesthetic qualities enjoyed by residents
living adjacent to this roadway.  Also, increased traffic
volumes will present potential hazards to the safety and
well-being of the area's residents.  An alternative route
along the Pemigewasset River would appear much less dis-
ruptive and possibly, a more accessible approach to the
treatment plant site because of less severe grades for
truck traffic.

Construction of the interceptor sewer and pump stations.
A number of short-term adverse impacts are expected to
occur.  The most significant adverse impacts are related
to planned construction in established residential areas.
Based on available plans and profiles of proposed inter-
ceptor routings  (Winnisquam, West Paugus, and Gilford), no
occupied structures are expected to be displaced or des-
troyed.  However, the proximity of the interceptor sewer
and the proposed depth of excavation in the vicinity of
a few residences in the Pendleton Beach area may pose a
serious problem.  Some non-occupied structures such as
garages, storage sheds, fences, etc. may be removed.
Creation of nuisances such as increased noise levels,
emission of particulates, disruption of traffic circulation,
loss of existing vegetation, and temporary interruption
of public services  (utilities) will cause a general de-
gradation in the quality of life.  Specific residential
neighborhoods where these problems will be most severe
include:  Pendleton Beach Road, Summit Road and Dock Road.
While the interceptor sewer routings have been located to
maximuze use of existing streets and highways, private pro-
perties in the  above areas will be impacted.

Encourage upgrading ofexisting landuses and enhancement
of property values.  The value of both land and existing
improvements may be expected to appreciate with the elimi-
nation of potential sewage problems.  The enhancement of
property values will stimulate existing land uses to be
upgraded and improved in quality.  The net result will be
higher sales prices to reflect stronger market demands.
Existing marginal land uses will be replaced as in-filling
occurs throughout the sewer service area.
 Increased  land utilization by removing  the  development
 constraint which poor  soils have played in  the  region's
 past  and present growth.Areas rendered unbuildable
                         IV-4 5

-------
    by the slow permeability of  their  soils  and thus,  unsuit-
    able for on-site sewage disposal may be  developed  when
    sanitary wastes are collected  and  treated off-site.   The
    increment of potential new growth,  which these marginal
    soils may generate, cannot be  precisely  determined because
    of the wide range of  soil suitability for septic disposal
    systems which exists  within  the major soil groupings
     (Tables II-3 and II-4).  In  addition,  the degree State
    and local regulations governing the installation and  inspec-
    tion of septic tanks  and leach fields are or may be
    enforced in the future, cannot be  accurately assessed.
    If State and local  sanitary  regulations  and inspection
    programs become more  restrictive,  the importance of the
    interceptor sewer as  an essential  ingredient for urban
    growth will increase. Correspondingly,  the effectiveness
    of sewers as an instrument to  structure  and phase  the region's
    future growth pattern will be  greatly enhanced.

    Increase in allowable development  densities.  The  provision
    of public sewer service into areas not presently served,
    will permit minimum lot area requirements of most  resi-
    dential, commercial and industrial zoning within the  pro-
     ject's sewer service  area to be  substantially reduced (Table
     IV-8).  The potential impact of  this change on the maximum
    allowable development ceilings is  summarized in Table IV-8.
    These  figures pertain only to  those areas proposed to be
     sewered by the  interceptor sewer  and those areas located
    outside existing  sewered  areas.
                         TABLE IV-8

             EFFECT OF REDUCED MINIMUM LOT AREAS
       ON POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT YIELDS AND POPULATION
Land Use     	

Residential   8,998

Commercial    1,544

Industrial      236
RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT YIELDS
       (STRUCTURES)
  (1)      (2)       (3)
On-Site  Off-Site  Off-Site
 Sewer    Sewer     Sewer
& Water  Or Water  & Water
RANGE OF POPULATION
      (PERSONS)
 (1)      (2)    	(3)_
11,864
2,032
236
20,377
4,338
781
                             28,384  37,054  62,451
     The potential growth inducement effect of the project by
     itself can be assessed from Tabel IV-8 by determining the
     difference between the figures of columns 1 and 2.  If
     public water is extended throughout the proposed sewer
                             IV-4 6

-------
service area, the amount of allowable development would be
the difference between columns 1 and 3.  However, it is
important to note that the figures set forth in Table IV-8
represent only an estimate of the development ceilings
which are legally permissible by current zoning regulations.
Subsequent changes to existing zoning patterns will alter
these development estimates.

The actual market demand for new growth is expected to
be influenced by the availability of public sewer service.
However, it is only one of numerous factors that will play
a major role in the locational decisions of industry commerce
and residents.  The influence of the region's natural resources,
aesthetic beauty, labor force characteristics, tax structure
and policies, level of accessibility, etc., is far greater
in creating future growth demands than the provision of
public sewer service.

Reinforcement of the region's existing growth pattern.  It
is expected that the region's current pattern of urban
development will not be significantly altered from its pre-
sent linear or corridor form.  In fact, the proposed project
will reinforce the existing development pattern because of
the location of the proposed interceptor sewer and the con-
straining influences of topography and highway accessibility.
Expanded sewer capacity will enable the established built-up
areas  (nodes of activity)  of Franklin, Northfield, Tilton,
Laconia and Meredith to be more intensively developed,
provided there are sufficient market demands for increased
urban development in these areas.

The construction of the West Paugus interceptor opens the
potential for Laconia's physical growth to be extended and
more intensively developed as a new major development center.
Similarly, the expanded capacity of Laconia's treament plant
and Winnisquam outfall will enable urban densities to spread
into the relatively underdeveloped areas along Route 11
leading to the Laconia Airport and the southeast corner of
Laconia (Durkee Branch area).

Development pressures may be anticipated to be substantially
increased in selected area outside existing sewered areas
where either marginal soils have previously reduced the
development potential of certain tracts of land or where
other market conditions are sufficiently present to create
new and/or continued growth demands.  Critical factors
affecting market demands include scenic vistas, proximity
to waterfront and/or recreational facilities, highway
accessibility, and site aesthetics.  Selected areas where
induced growth is expected to be primarily attracted
include:
                          IV-4 7

-------
          •  Laconia  - West side of Paugus Bay
                      - Area along Route 11
                      - Durkee Branch area

          •  Gilford  - Area along Route 11B and Route 11
                      - Areas in the general vicinity of
                        the Belknap Mountains

          •  Meredith - Area between Route 3 and Meredith
                        Bay

The presence of public sewer in these areas will permit the
minimum lot area requirements to be reduced, thus increasing
development with densities two or three times the number
allowable with on-site water and sewer systems.  As a
result of higher residential yields/ population densities
per acre or per square mile will be increased.  Similar
effects may be experienced in the already sewered areas of
Franklin, NOrthfield, Tilton, Laconia, and Meredith.
Increased sewer capacity for these communities will enable
future in-filling of vacant undeveloped parcels of land
and/or redevelopment of existing marginal land uses.

Consistent with the projected demand for the new residential
development in selected portions of the primary study area,
it is expected that changes to existing zoning classifications
will be requested to reflect future market demands.  The
previously identified key market areas for seasonal and
permanent residences are zoned currently for low density
large lot residential development or commercial uses.

As development pressures mount and adverse problems resulting
from urban development are increasingly experienced by
the municipalities, the importance of comprehensive plan-
ning as a means of more effectively controlling the land
conversion process will be recognized more in the future
than at present.  Accordingly, if current but unadopted
municipal comprehensive plans are utilized as guides in
making future zoning decisions, substantial changes to
the existing zoning patterns may be expected.  Presently,
there are numerous inconsistencies between the comprehensive
plans and existing zoning classification.

Cost, Speculation and Change of Land Ownership.  The potential
of increasing development yields several fold because of
reduced lot area requirements and possible changes in
existing zoning classifications is anticipated from the
prbposed project.  Consequently, where connections to the
interceptor sewer can be made within the financial break-
point of the increased development yield versus increased
on-site and off-site lot development costs, land values
in these areas may escalate three or four times current
values depending upon location, tract size and environmental
constraint factors.  In anticipation of the potential financial
                         IV-4 8

-------
profits to be made from the presence of public sewer in
selected areas, investors may purchase tracts of land two
to five years in advance of the interceptor's construction.
In addition to changes in land ownership patterns, the effect
of land speculation could possibly result in land consoli-
dation and facilitate future development to occur at a
large scale  (planned unit developments) and in a more
coordinated manner.

Compatability Planning to Existing Comprehensive Plans
and/or Regional Planning Goals and Objectives.  In the
absence of an adopted comprehensive development plan for the
Lakes Region and recognizing the "unofficial" status of
most of the municipal comprehensive plans, the merits of
conducting a comparative evaluation of the proposed action
to future plan recommendations is highly questionable.  The
use of unadopted comprehensive plans as a yard stick for
measuring the consistency and level of achievement of local
goals and objectives by the proposed project, would be a
meaningless exercise.  These documents bear little resem-
blence to existing zoning patterns, except in Franklin
and Laconia, and are not the primary planning tools utilized
by local planning boards in making land use decisions.
Zoning and subdivision controls are the principal planning
tools in guiding future growth.

The proposed project is consistent with the Lakes Region
Planning Commision's set of land use goals and objectives
(Section III.B.).  The project will relieve existing
failing septic systems (needs of existing residents)  and
will partially improve the region's environment quality
for the use and enjoyment of future generations.  The main-
tenance of a superior quality of natural environment is
recognized as key to the region's economy base both in
terms of its diversity as well as future growth potential.

The construction of the interceptor sewer is a viable means
to accomplish in part the above stated objectives.  However,
it should be noted that other actions must be instituted
to fully accomplish the Region's goals and objectives
and the proposed construction of the interceptor system
represents only on set of actions.

Effects on Peripheral Study Area.  Because there are no immedi-
ate plans to extend the proposed interceptor sewers around Lake
Winnipesaukee but only to reserve capacity for possible future
use, the project's land use impacts will be confined to com-
munities in the primary study area.  If interceptors are ex-
tended into the peripheral study area at some future date, their
secondary impacts will be largely determined by each community's
growth management policies and controls.  The absence of public
sewer service has not been a significant constraint to land
development activities to date.
                         IV-4 9

-------
C.   Adverse Impacts Cannot be Avoided

     The proposed plan for construction of sewage treatment
facilities and interceptors in the Lake Winnipesaukee basin will
result in some adverse environmental impacts.  Most of these im-
pacts cannot be avoided but can be reduced in severity through
the implementation of appropriate environmental protection measures
However, some of the adverse impacts cannot be reduced without in-
curring significant expense.  In the following discussion, both
primary and secondary unavoidable adverse impacts are assessed.
Primary impacts are those resulting from the construction and
operation of the project.  Secondary impacts are those associa-
ted with increased development in the study area which will bring
about changes in the natural and socioeconomic environments.

                   Primary Adverse Impacts

     Construction.  The construction of treatment facilities
     and pumping stations will require the commitment of land.
     Once construction is completed, the sites on which these
     facilities are located will not be available for other
     uses.  During construction, the fauna and the flora of
     the sites will be destroyed or displaced.  Removal of
     vegetation from the construction sites will increase
     erosion and sediment transport resulting in the potential
     for degradation of water quality.  The aesthetic qualities
     associated with the vegetation and natural setting of the
     construction sites will be lost.

     Construction of both treatment facilities and inter-
     ceptor sewers will result in disruption of the natural
     and man-made environments.  Excavation for sewers will
     cause soil erosion, siltation of streams, safety hazards,
     inconveniences and loss or damage to private and public
     property.  Although there are no State or local erosion
     and sedimentation control ordinances, control measures
     will be written into construction specifications so that
     erosion and sedimentation will be minimized.

     Non-occupied dwellings will be displayed as a direct
     result of construction activities.  Disruption of traffic
     will interfere with travel to and from recreational areas
     and businesses.  Access to the beaches will be limited
     at a numbe'r of places by interceptor construction.  The
     adverse impacts which directly affect recreational activi-
     ties will have an adverse effect upon socioeconomics, due
     to the loss of personal incomes and taxable revenues.

     Operation and Maintenance.   Unavoidable adverse impacts
     associated with the operation and maintenance of the com-
     pleted facilities include increased noise levels, potential
     increased levels of particulate emissions, discharge of
                                IV-50

-------
chlorinated effluent to the Winnipesaukee River and the
economic burden of operation and maintenance costs.  With
efficient operation, most adverse environmental impacts
resulting from the operation of the proposed facilities
can be minimized.

Continuous operation noise will be generated at the sewage
treatment plant.  The highest noise levels will occur in
the buildings.  Somewhat lower noise levels will occur
near the boundary of the treatment plant and in the vici-
nity of the treatment units located outside.  Pumping
stations will generate little sound except during power
failures when gasoline-powered emergency generators will
be operated.

If incinerators are used for sludge reduction, increased
particulates will be emitted at the treatment plant site.
Particulate emissions will be minimized through the
utilization of scrubbers and other anti-pollution equipment
to meet EPA standards.  The dispersion of particulates will
be controlled using stack height and the location of the
incineration facilities to meet EPA standards for allowable
degradation of ambient air quality in Class II areas.

Chlorination of the plant effluent will not reduce signifi-
cantly the suitability of the Winnipesaukee River as a fish
habitat probably as a future water supply.  At the point of
effluent discharge, chlorine concentrations may be suffi-
ciently high to adversely affect fish populations in the
immediate vicinity of the diffuser.  However, diffusion
and the chlorine demand of the river will reduce chlorine
concentrations below harmful levels a short distance away
from the point of discharge.  EPA is currently studying
the advisability of discharging chlorinated effluent to
surface waters which are potential water supplies.  If the
conclusion of this controversial issue indicates that
chlorinated effluent should not be discharged to potential
water supplies, the plant effluent or water supplies drawing
from the Winnipesaukee River may have to be dechlorinated.

The costs of the operation and maintenance of the treatment
facilities and sewer system will impose an economic burden
on the residents of the area.  These costs will be borne
through a combination of user charges and taxes.  The costs
to individual users will not pose a significant economic
burden and in many cases will be comparable to the cost of
maintaining an on-site disposal system.

             Secondary Adverse Impacts

The proposed project will induce growth and allow greater
development density in areas where sewer service is provided.
                         IV-51

-------
The mitigation of adverse impacts associated with develop-
ment requires planning and the implementation of land use
controls.  Increased development creates the potential
for significant adverse impacts upon both the natural
and man-made environments.

Removal of vegetation for construction of secondary
development will result in increased erosion and sedi-
mentation and potential increased flooding from the loss
of the water retention capability of vegetation.  Urban
runoff will increase pollutant loads to streams and lakes.
Increased coliform loadings to potential water supplies
and further degradation of Lake Winnipesaukee may result.

Adverse impacts to socioeconomics may occur if changes in
community character do not reflect the desires of local
communities.  Open space will be lost to residential
development.  Additional growth will increase pressures
on public recreational facilities and community facilities
which are presently inadequate.

Planning facilities for recreation and community facili-
ties are inadequate and will have to be expanded to
accommodate projected growth.
                          IV-5 2

-------
D.   Relationship Between Local' Shgrt-Term Use of Man's
     Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-
     Term Productivity

     The proposed project will reduce current environmental
degradation of the Lakes Region water quality and will provide
the means for the enhancement of the Region's long-term growth
and productivity.  The costs of the project, short-term environ-
mental disruption and long-term commitment of some resources,
are justified by its beneficial impacts.

     The capacity of the sewage treatment plant and its
supporting facilities has been designed to accommodate pro-
jected growth in the service area.  It is consistent with the
Lakes Region Planning Commission goals and objectives.  Com-
pletion of the project will enable local officials to guide
the Region's future growth and development in accord with
local and regional land use policies.  Without the proposed
project, much of the Region's future growth will have to depend
on private wells and septic tanks for their water supply and
sewage disposal.  Use of these systems have posed a potential
health hazard to their individual users as well as the general
public from degradation of the water quality in the lakes.
Since much of the Region's soils are marginally suitable for
receiving septic tank discharges, dependence on this sewage
treatment method given State and local regulations will not
permit the Region to achieve its economic potential.

     The economic viability of the Lakes Region is a direct
function of environmental quality.  Long-term productivity will
be enhanced by the proposed project to the extent that future
growth strengthens the regional economy without compromising
the natural resources upon which the Region is ultimately de-
pendent.
                               IV-5 3

-------
E.   Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
     Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Project Should
     it be Implemented                 ~          ~~~

     The following discussion summarizes the adverse effects
that the proposed project will have on the beneficial use of
the environment by permanently committing land, construction
materials, and biological, human, economic and aesthetic re-
sources.  These resource commitments have been separated into
primary and secondary commitments,

                Primary Resource Commitment:s

     Land necessary for the treatment plant and pumping station
     sites cannot be used for other purposes during the life of
     the treatment system.  Clearing of vegetation, followed
     by construction of buildings and paving will constitute
     a loss of natural resources at construction sites.

     Labor will be irreversibly committed to the construction
     and operation of the system.

     Materials and natural resources required will include
     rock, concrete, steel, glass, wood, clay and asbestos
     compounds for the construction of the system's components.
     Seeds and plants will be required for landscaping dis-
     turbed areas.

     Operation of the system will require chlorine for effluent
     disinfection, polyelectrolyte, sand for filters, fuel oil
     for heat and air conditioning, and fossil fuels to generate
     the electricity required by the system.

     Aesthetics of the plant site will be irreversibly
     altered.  The serenity of local environments may be affected
     by potential noises and odors associated with the operation
     of the treatment plant and pumping stations.

               Secondary Resource Commitments

     Secondary irreversible and irretrievable resource commit-
ments are generated by new developments responding to new
sewers or increased treatment capacity.

     Land will be committed to future new development within the
     project's sewer service area.  Additional wetlands in the
     Belmont service area may be lost to residential development.
     Forested areas which are cleared  for development consti-
     tute a loss of natural open space and in some cases, a loss
     of timber resources.

     Materials and natural resources will also be committed to
     land development in the service area.  Because secondary
                              IV-54

-------
development will be significantly more extensive than the
proposed project, the commitment of resources will also be
significantly greater.

Surface water flows may be altered with more frequent
flooding and longer periods of low flow.  These flow
variations will result from increased areas of impervious
surface and reduced stream recharge from ground water.
However, the relief of malfunctioning septic tanks will
improve water quality for the long-term use and enjoyment
by residents and tourists.  The beneficial impacts resulting
from improved water quality will offset the adverse impacts
resulting from increased flow variations and urban runoff.

Recreational and Open Space areas will be irretrievably lost
as development continues throughout the Winnipesaukee Basin.
                        IV-5 5

-------
F.   Project Controversy and Public Participation

     During the preparation of the draft EIS, a number of citi-
zens and government agencies were invited to comment on the
proposed project.  Of the parties contacted, only three have
responded.   Formal objections, questions, and supporting com-
ments of the respondents are briefly summarized in this Section.
Copies of the correspondence are included in Appendix G-

     A letter from Donald P. Foudriat, Jr., Past President of
     the Lakes Region Clean Waters Association (September 4,
     1975), reiterates the need for sewerage in the Lakes
     Region and emphasizes the necessity to preserve the area's
     natural beauty "at all costs", while not losing sight
     of the "relatively small financial means by which most
     communities manage their affairs." Also, Mr. Foudriat
     stresses that a regional sewerage system will have to
     serve eight different communities, each of which has
     significantly different planning objectives for growth
     and development.

     A letter from Ms. Suzanne S. Roberts, representative to
     the W.R.B. Advisory Board (August 18, 1975), stresses
     the economic, public and water quality problems in Belmont
     due to the lack of adequate sewerage facilities and the
     proliferation of malfunctioning septic tanks.  Ms. Roberts
     emphasizes the extreme need for not further delaying the
     construction of the proposed sewerage system.

     A letter from Mr. Joseph April, P.E., Town Engineer for
     Gilford (August 26, 1975), emphasizes that water quality
     in Lake Winnipesaukee must be maintained at Class A,  in
     order to permit full usage and enjoyment of the resource
     by both tourists and residents.  Mr. April stresses that
     basin sewerage must commence as soon as possible "to halt
     any deterioration and reverse any present adverse con-
     ditions. "

     On May 23, 1975,  the project staff members from EcolSciences,
inc. attended the monthly meeting of the Lakes Region Clean
Waters Association in order to solicit comments on the proposed
project.  Many concerns were expressed about controlling and
improving the quality of the environment in the Lakes Region.
Questions and comments included:

     How can the non-point pollutant sources be eliminated?

     What will be the impact to the area from back-lot develop-
     ment?   Presently most of the lake-shore property is owned
     and there is a I:rush" on developable back-lot acreage.

     Lake-front usage by back-lot developers will continue to
     be an  important issue.  Installing sewerage will give
                              IV-5 6

-------
     impetus to continued, intensified back-lot development,
     while the availability of public access to lake-shore
     areas declines.

     How can the increasing problem of pollution from boats
     and marinas be handled,  in light of the fact that the
     State has no effective inspection system?

     How will pollutant sources from the eastern side of Lake
     Winnipesaukee be eliminated without encouraging rampant
     development?

     Although many questions  were raised,  there was an unanimous
opinion that some type of wastewater treatment system is needed
immediately in order to stop  further degradation of environmental
quality in the Winnipesaukee  River basin,  and  that the proposed
project has already been delayed far too long.
                            IV-57

-------
                      SECTION V
           IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
                  OF ALTERNATIVES
        TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT
The following section of the environmental impact
statement contains a discussion of alternative
means of achieving the goals described in Section I.
The analysis of feasible alternatives is based upon
the information developed in the preceding sections
of the statement.

-------
V.   IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE APPLICANT'S
     PROPOSED ACTION

     The alternatives to the proposed plan can be grouped in two
classifications:  system alternatives, and component alternatives.
System alternatives deal with the broader aspects of the plan,
such as whether to build one large treatment plant, many small
ones, or even none at all.  Component alternatives examine more
detailed issues, such as whether an interceptor should go over a
hill or around it.

A.   System Alternatives

     1.  Alternate MaguirePlansA,C-G

     The 1972 basin study  (Maguire, 1972) studied seven dif-
ferent system alternatives.  These ranged from constructing a
single basin treatment plant to constructing individual plants
for all communities.  Ultimately, Plan B was chosen from these
alternatives.  Plan B is discussed in Section I.

     Description of Plans A, C through G.  The alternative
     plans are summarized in this section.  More complete
     details can be obtained in the basin study report
      (Maguire, 1972).  Since 1972, however, some changes
     have been made:

     The Laconia plant has been upgraded;

     The Gilford interceptor has been rerouted, for Plans
     A, C, D and E; and

     The Franklin plant will use the activated sludge
     process rather than physical chemical treatment.

     The descriptions of the plans include these changes.

         Plan A:  This would now be essentially the same as
         Plan B, except that all construction would take
         place at once, rather than in phases.  The original
         Plan A did not include upgrading the Laconia plant.

         Plan C:  This plan proposes a phased program of con-
         struction similar to that of Plan B except that
         Franklin will not be included.  The following work
         would be accomplished by year 1985.

         *   The basin sewage treatment  plant will be built
             in Northfield to treat the  sewage  from all of
             the communities in the primary study area ex-
             cept Franklin;
                               V-l

-------
•   Franklin will construct its own treatment
    works and interceptor system to serve
    Franklin alone;

•   Sewage from Meredith will be conveyed to the
    upgraded Laconia plant by 1985;

•   The interceptor from Laconia to a point south
    of Silver Lake will be constructed in the first
    phase to carry the Laconia treatment plant ef-
    fluent to the Winnipesaukee River for discharge;

•   The other interceptors in Gilford, Meredith and
    Laconia will be constructed before 1985; and

•   The interceptor from Tilton and Northfield to
    the interceptor at Silver Lake will be built by
    1985 to join the northern and southern parts of
    the system.

Plan D;  This plan divides the system into two parts,
the north and south, each to be served by a sewage
treatment plant.  The plan calls for:

•   Construction of a sewage treatment plant at
    Franklin to serve Franklin, Tilton and Northfield;

•   Construction of interceptors to convey sewage
    from Tilton and Northfield to Franklin;

•   Construction of a sewage treatment plant at the
    Winnipesaukee River below Silver Lake to serve
    Meredith, Gilford, Laconia, Sanbornton and Belmont;

•   Construction of interceptors to convey the sewage
    from these towns to the treatment works; and

•   Treatment works at Meredith and Laconia will be
    taken out of operation except for preparatory
    treatment units which may remain in use.

Plan E;  This plan considers the use of three sewage
treatment plants to serve the primary study area.  The
work includes:

•   Construction of a sewage treatment plant at Frank-
    lin to serve Franklin only;

•   Construction of a sewage treatment plant at North-
    field to serve Tilton and Northfield;
                     V-2

-------
      •  Construction  of a  basin sewage treatment plant at
         a  location  below Silver Lake to serve Meredith,
         Laconia,  Gilford,  Belmont and Sanbornton; and

      •  Construction  of interceptors to convey sewage
         from these  five communities  to the treatment
         plant site.   Phased construction would be used
         in completing this work.

      Plan  F;   This  plan considers the construction of
      separate new treatment plants for Gilford, Sanborn-
      ton and Franklin.   One plant to be located in North-
      field,  will  serve Tilton and Northfield.  Belmont
      will  be required to build two treatment plants,  one
      at Belmont Village and the other at a point below
      Silver Lake  to serve  the shoreline area of Belmont.
      The existing plants at Laconia and Meredith will be
      upgraded to  provide the equivalent of tertiary treat-
      ment.

      Plan  G;   This  plan is similar to Plan F except for
      the type of  treatment process used:

      • Construction of aerated lagoons at Franklin to
         achieve the equivalent of secondary treatment;

      • Construction of an oxidation ditch at Northfield
         to serve  Tilton and Northfield;

      • Stabilization ponds with winter storage of the
         sewage and  disposal by spray irrigation during
         the summer  months  at Sanbornton;

      • Construction of stabilization ponds with winter
         storage and summer spraying at Belmont Village.
         Also/ the construction of an activated sludge
         treatment plant at a point below Silver Lake;

      • Construction of advanced waste treatment works
         at Gilford  to provide the equivalent of tertiary
         treatment;  and

      • The upgrading of the Meredith treatment works to
         provide secondary  treatment followed by winter
         storage of  the effluent and summer land spraying

Costs of Alternate Plans. The costs of each plan are shown
in Table V-l.  These  costs are based on the original basin
study (Maguire, 1972),  except where design changes necessi-
tated revisions, and  are escalated to April, 1975, prices.
Since the Laconia plant has  already been upgraded, its
capital  cost was included in all alternatives, even though
it is not part of the proposed action.
                         V-3

-------
                                      Table V-l

                          COST OF ALTERNATIVE MAGUIRE PLANS
                             (Source:   Maguire, 1975)

Capital Costs ($1,000)
Plan Treatment Interceptor
A 12,259
< B 15,130
C 24,620
D 24,623
E 26,887
F 40,941
G 49,962
50,851
50,851
45,335
44,436
43,177
22,746
22,746

Total
63,110
65,981
69,955
69,059
70,064
63,687
72,708
Annual
Capital
Cost*
($1,000)
5,957
6,228
6,603
6,518
6,613
6,011
6,863
1985 O&M
Annual
Costs
($1,000)
504
504
1,056
1,013
1,090
1,763
1,198
Total
Annual
Costs
($1,000)
6,461
6,732
7,659
7,531
7,703
7,774
8,061
*Assuming 7% interest rate for  20 years

-------
    Evaluation of  Environmental Impacts.   Plans A through
    E are all fundamentally consistent with protecting
    water quality  in  the  Winnipesaukee River Basin.   When
    completed, all would  have similar, acceptable effects on
    water quality.  Also,  Plans F and G could achieve water
    quality  standards,  but would violate state policy by
    discharging  effluent  into the lakes.

    Plan A would provide  for the earliest completion of
    the entire svstem at  the lowest cost and for all prac-
    tical purposes is identical to the applicant's proposed
    plan discussed in Section  I.   It  should be noted that  Plan
    B was chosen only because  phased  construction was,  at  the
    time, easier to finance.

    Plans C  through G all  have fewer  impacts from interceptor
    construction than the  proposed plan,  but these temporary
    benefits appear outweighed by higher  project costs  and
    the difficulties of operating additional treatment  plants.
    Plans F  and G would violate the State's policy of not
    discharging  into the  lakes.

    Funding  formulas have  changed since Plan B was selected,
    and the  higher cash flow of Plan  A is  not as objection-
    able now.  Early construction may help offset inflation
    and ease unemployment  in the  construction industry.


     2.   Peripheral Area Alternatives

     The basin study (Maguire,  1972) considered the possibility
of encircling Lake Winnipesaukee with interceptors and treating
the sewage in the proposed Franklin plant.  However,  the cost
of this  scheme would be nearly double that of providing land
treatment or AWT facilities for each community in the peripheral
area.

     Subsequent to the basin study, two major developments have
occurred.   First, New Hampshire WSPCC rules now prohibit any
new discharges os sewage into the Lake.  This effectively pre-
cludes AWT at all communities except Center Harbor-Moultonborough,
which  has  an existing plant.  Secondly, both Wolfeboro and Alton
have reported difficulties in finding suitable land treatment
sites.   Indeed,  the Wolfeboro spray irrigation system, nearly
completed,  has a probable  life on the order of only 15 years.
Therefore  the following  alternatives were considered:
                            V-5

-------
Include Interceptors for the Peripheral Areas as Part of
the Proposed Project.   This alternative would include^
immediate inclusion of the peripheral area, at approxi-
mately $51 million additional project costs (based on
Maguire, 1972, escalated to 1975).  No delay would be
involved because the existing designs for the proposed
project already include this capacity.

Plans for selecting the optimal treatment systems for
peripheral area communities are not, however,  well-devel-
oped.  Although the useful life of the Wolfeboro spray
irrigation system is short, there is no economic  reason
to abandon the plant now.  Alton has had problems finding
a suitable land treatment site, but has not yet requested
to join the regional system.  However, given the question-
able site-suitability and the fact that an interceptor
from Wolfeboro will pass through Alton within 15 years,
it would appear hard to justify a local treatment system
for Alton.  Center Harbor, Mountonborough and Tuftonboro,
however, are located where soil conditions may be more
favorable for land treatment.  Despite the problems
experienced at Wolfeboro and Alton, it can not be con-
cluded that land treatment is not feasible for these
communities.

There exists no compelling reason why peripheral interceptors
should be constructed before their cost-effective is demon-
strated for each community.  It is recommended that further
studies of costs and environmental impacts be conducted
for the peripheral area communities.

Do not Include Excess Capacity for the Peripheral Area in
Designing the Proposed Interceptors.  The excess capacity
included in the design flows of the proposed interceptors
can be considered "insurance" against peripheral area
communities joining the system.  Discussion of this alter-
native considers the costs, risks and benefits of such
"insurance"
The exact costs of excess capacity can only be deter-
mined by redesigning the system without this capacity;
such detail may not be necessary for preliminary analysis.
A rough estimate can be made from an analysis of interceptor
costs made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III.  This analysis examined the effect of increased
capacity on overall project costs.  By this methodology,
the cost of the excess capacity for the peripheral area
is estimated to be about $2.3 million, or about 4 percent
of the total costs of the proposed project.

The cost of constructing, at a later date, separate parallel
interceptors to convey sewage from the peripheral area to
                        V-6

-------
     to  the  Franklin plant would be almost prohibitive, perhaps
     $30-40  million.  This cost would be incurred if excess
     capacity is not included and land treatment later proves
     not feasible.   Thus,  investing the extra $2.3 million
     now would be a reasonable risk even if the probability
     of  needing extra capacity were small; data from Wolfe-
     boro and Alton, indicate it is likely to be needed.

     Ideally, the feasibility of land treatment for the peri-
     pheral  area should have been resolved earlier in the
     planning process.  The question now is whether the project
     should  be delayed while further studies resolve the need
     for excess capacity,  i.e., whether land treatment will
     work.  Project construction costs, based on the EPA Treat-
     ment Plant and Sewer Construction Cost Indexes for the
     Boston  area, have risen 13 percent in the past year.  In
     contrast, the GNP deflator increased only about 11 percent.
     Thus, the real project costs are increasing at about 2
     percent per year.  A delay of one year would therefore
     cost 2  percent and there would still be a very good
     chance  all or part of the additional 4 percent "insurance"
     cost would be necessary.  It is concluded that spending
     $2.3 million now for extra capacity is a good investment,
     given the current status of the project and the uncertain-
     ties involving land treatment.

     3.   No  Action  (No Federal Funding)

     Under this alternative, EPA would provide no further
funding for  any part of the project.  Only State and local
funds, amounting to less tahn 25 percent of the project's
costs, would be available.  Furthermore, if EPA money desig-
nated for this project is shifted to other projects in New
Hampshire, mcuh of the State's money will also be diverted.

     Loss of federal funding would necessitate drastic cuts
in the scope of the proposed project.  There may not even be
enough money, for example, to adequately treat the existing
raw sewage discharges at Franklin, Tilton, Northfield and
Belmont.  The Laconia and Meredith plants would continue dis-
charging to  the lakes, in violation of state policy.  There
would be limited or no extention of sewer service into new
areas.

     Without an extensive sewer system, protection of water
quality in the Winnipesaukee River Basin will depend heavily on
the proper functioning of individual disposal systems  (usually
septic tanks and leaching fields).  Inspection and control of
these systems will become increasingly more difficult as their
number increases.  In a region where soil conditions are often
unsuitable or marginal for septic fields, sanitary sewers would
provide more positive protection from waste discharges.
                             V-7

-------
B.    Component Alternatives

     1.   Treatment SystemAlternatives

     Laconia;   Install activated carbon.  The original design
     of  the new Laconia plant included provisions for adding
     powdered  activated carbon to the second clarifier; however,
     this step was eliminated as an economy measure and because
     pilot studies showed activated carbon was less effective
     then expected.   Activated carbon removes dissolved organic
     material  from the wastewater.   Without activated carbon
     additions, the BOD removal capability of the Laconia plant
     is  only about 50 percent, not  the 85 percent established
     by  its effluent limitations.  (It can, however, meet all
     other effluent limitations).

     The benefits of achieving 85 percent BOD removal at
     Laconia are not perfectly clear.   Most of the
     BOD which escapes treatment, i.e.,  that which  activated
     carbon would remove,  is  in the dissolved form.   Thus,
     it  will not contribute to any  sludge deposits  in Lake
     Winnisquam.  After the Laconia outfall is completed,  the
     increased BOD of the effluent  will have only a minor
     effect on the Winnipesaukee River between the  point of
     discharge and Tilton:   50 percent BOD removal  decreases  the
     dissolved oxygen 0.1  mg/1 more than 85 percent removal.
     The costs of activated carbon  additions at Laconia, ex-
     pressed in April 1975 dollars  are $60,000 capital and
     $70,000 annual operation and maintenance.  Activated
     carbon would thus involve a substantial expense and re-
     sult in little improvement in  water quality.

     Franklin;  Physical chemical treatment.  The original
     basin report (Maguire, 1972) recommended physical chemi-
     cal treatment for the Franklin plant.  The proposed pro-
     cess was  very similar to that  of Laconia.  Despite higher
     costs, physical chemical treatment is more suitable for
     industrial wastes than the activated sludge process for
     these reasons:

      •   Physical chemical treatment is not susceptible
         to "upsets" from toxic wastes;

      •   Physical chemical treatment removes phosphates
         and heavy metals, in addition to BOD, thus
         eliminating the need for most industrial pre-
         treatment;  and

      •   If phosphate removal is required in addition to
         secondary treatment, physical chemical treatment
         would be cheaper than adding phosphate removal to
         an activated sludge plant.
                               V-8

-------
However,  since the original proposal of physical
chemical  treatment, the area has lost industries.
Most notable was the loss of J. P. Stevens Company,
with a 2  mgd phosphate-rich waste.  This loss
diminished the attractiveness of physical chemical
treatment.  It is now believed that industrial pre-
treatment would be more cost effective for treating
toxic wastes, heavy metals and excessive phosphates.

An additional consideration is that the economics of
lime treatment in large plants practically demands
sludge incineration with lime recovery.  EcolSciences
does not  consider it desirable to commit to such an
inflexible scheme of sludge treatment.

Spray Irrigation.  In 1995, flow of the Franklin
plant will be 11.54 mgd.  Assuming a typical spray
irrigation rate of two inches per week, and six
months storage of sewage during cold weather, a
spray irrigation site would have to be 3,000 acres
in size.   Given the poor soils conditions in the
study area, the required size could be ten times
as large.

The Basin Study  (Maguire, 1972) examined spray irri-
gation and concluded that "based on the available
subsurface information concerning the use of spray
irrigation in the study area, it is apparent that
the area  is generally unfavorable for this type of
disposal  system."  Only three potentially suitable
sites were found, with a combined area of 264 acres.
As this area is far below even the most optimistic
estimates of land requirements, it is concluded that
spray irrigation is not a feasible alternative for a
large basin treatment plant.
                         V-9

-------
2.  Treatment Site Alternatives

Primary Study Area Treatment PlantSite.  In addition to
the treatment plant site proposed in Plan B of the
Maguire report, three other sites for the regional plant
are considered here.

Alternatives C and D in the Maguire report considered
locating a major sewage treatment plant in the Northfield
area.  A site in this area could serve the entire planning
area, including Franklin, if a force main and pumping
station \vere constructed to lift Franklin's sewage to the
site.  The force main would have to be approximately three
miles long.  The pump station would have to lift Franklin's
sewage approximately 140 feet in elevation to Northfield.
The only advantage of this scheme would be that routing
and construction of the force main through Franklin would
have less impact that routing and constructiong of gravity
sewers called for in Maguire's Plan B.  Sites near North-
field would not offer any environmental advantages in
comparison to the proposed site on the Merrimack River.
Also, discharge of treated effluent from a Northfield site
to the Winnipesaukee River would not be diluted as much as
would discharge from the proposed site to the Merrimack
River.

The engineering report presented in 1965 by Camp, Dresser
and McKee Consulting Engineers for sewerage facilities to
serve Franklin considered two treatment sites (CDM, 1965).
The site, selected by the engineers, is the proposed site
in Maguire's Plan B.  The other site is a tract of land
on the west side of the Merrimack River where the Pemige-
wasset and Winnipesaukee Rivers meet.   The site  contains
approximately 30 acres on a knoll that rises approximately
80 feet above the Merrimack River.   This site provides
two advantages over the proposed site:   1)  approximately
11,000  feet of large diameter interceptor sewer  paralleling
the Merrimack River below Franklin would not have to be
constructed;  and 2)  year-round access  to the site is already
provided by U.S. Route 3.   Use of the  site would necessi-
tate construction of a pumping station on the east bank of
the Merrimack River and force main crossing the  Merrimack
River to the site.   A proposed stream  crossing of
Pemigewasset River,  would not be required since  sewage
collected on the west side of the river would flow by gravity
to the  site.   The topography of the site is considerably
steeper than the proposed site.   There is,  however,  some
                         V-10

-------
question whether the useable site area is sufficiently
large to accommodate future expansion.  This is
particularly true if AWT is later included.  The
visual impacts of locating a sewage treatment plant near
the town of Franklin might be minimized by locating the
treatment units on the southern end of the site.

Peripheral Study Area.  The use of separate treatment
plants for each of the towns in the peripheral study area
is necessitated by cost considerations discussed in Section
V.  Since no discharge to Lake Winnipesaukee will be allow-
ed according to NHWSPCC policy, land application, ground
water injection or reuse will have to be used to dispose
of treated wastewaters.  There are no industrial, com-
mercial or agricultural concerns in the peripheral study
area which could reuse treated wastewater on a year-round
basis.  Groundwater injection and land application are
dependent upon the availability of suitable aquifers and
soil areas.

A  spray irrigation site has been located for disposal of
Wolfeboro's wastewater and will be put into operation
upon completion of the wastewater treatment plant.  Alton
has tried unsuccessfully to locate a suitable land dis-
posal site.  No systematic survey of effluent disposal
sites for the other towns in the peripheral study area
has been reported.

The locations of sewage treatment facilities in the
peripheral study area may be strongly influenced by
the availability of effluent disposal sites.  Selection
of the treatment facilities should not, therefore, be
made until suitable disposal methods and sites have been
found.

3.  Effluent Disposal Alternatives

Laconia Outfall.  The location of the interim discharge
from Laconia's wastewater treatment plant, the Winnipesaukee
River above Route 140, is near a backwater area created by
the rerouting of the river and is upstream from a segment
of the River which is excellent trout habitat.

Organic loading of the backwater area may be avoided
by relocating the interim discharge point  about 3,000
feet downstream below Route 140.  The potential for re-
ducing dissolved oxygen concentrations in  the backwater
will, thereby, be achieved.

This relocation of 3,000 feet will still subject approxi-
mately 4,000 feet of attractive trout stream above Tilton
and Northfield to chlorine residuals which could weaken
or eliminate the trout population and/or food organisms
populations.  Relocation to a site just above the raw
sewage discharges from Tilton and Northfield would prevent
degradation of desirable trout habitat below Silver Lake.

                          V-ll

-------
    Lengthening the Laconia outfall by 3,000 or 7,000  feet
    will not result in any unplanned construction or
    costs.  The outfall extention would be built along the
    same route and to the same specifications as the pro-
    posed Phase II - Tilton interceptor.  Protecting this
    segment of the Winnipesaukee River would, therefore,
    require only phasing changes in construction.

    Another alternative would be to continue discharging
    to Lake Winnisquam until the interceptors are complete
    to the Franklin plant.

    Franklin Outfall.  The location of the Franklin waste-
    water treatment plant discharge point has not yet  been
    proposed.  Assuming that the proposed plant site two
    miles below Franklin on the east side of the river will
    be used, the alternative discharge points are limited
    to the  3,200 feet of the Merrimack River bordering
    the  plant  site.  The steep gradient and the magnitude
    of flow of the Merrimack River at this location will
    result  in  rapid mixing of the waste and stream waters
    regardless of where the outfall is located along this
    stretch.

    Peripheral Study Area.  Disposal of effluents for  the
     separate wastewater treatment plants in the peripheral
    study area was mentioned in the preceding section  in
    conjunction with plant siting.  It is beyond the scope
    of this assessment to review specific plant siting and
    disposal  options in the individual towns.  However, it
     is recommended  that an engineering and environmental  sur-
    vey  of  potential plant and disposal sites for all  pro-
     jected  growth areas in peripheral study area be under-
     taken without delay.  Otherwise, development on desirable
     sites may  preclude the most attractive siting alternatives.

     4.   Sewage Capacity Alternatives

    A number  of  planning  estimates were used  to arrive at the
flow projections  for  the primary study area of 11.5 mgd in 1995
and 17.17 mgd  in  2020.  Several of  these planning  estimates
will be reviewed  here and  the  significant effects  ot  alterna-
tives  to  these estimates will  be presented.

     Low  Growth Alternative.   The population  projections used
     in  sizing facilities  for  the planning area assumed a  rate
     of growth that  does not  reflect  any administrative efforts
     to  restrain  growth.   Sewerage  facilities have been sized
     to  serve  a growing population, not  to  act as  a constraint
     upon population increases.

     Considering  that development  in  the  planning  area will
     create  some  adverse  impacts  in proportion to  the rate and
    magnitude of population  increases,  suppression of growth
     rates may be a  feasible  means  of  mitigating such  impacts.

                              V-12

-------
In order for a "low growth" alternative to yield the
desired reduction of adverse impacts, it should con-
tain both structural and non-structural elements.

The primary structural element in a low growth alter-
native would be a sewage treatment system, including
collection, treatment and disposal facilities, sized
for smaller capacities than presently projected.  It
should be noted that the present projections may already
be lower than actual growth pressures would warrant
(Section III.C.).  Interceptor and collector sewer sizes
can be reduced to limit development in service areas
sensitive to the effects of increased development.
Alternatively, reduction in the capacity of the sewage
treatment plant would limit development for the entire
primary study area.

Non-structural elements of the low growth alternative
must include coordinated planning and administrative
operations to:   (1) determine the maximum acceptable
development for discrete service areas;  and (2)  exert
reasonable control upon the rate of service area de-
velopment by the use of zoning and sewer capacity
allocation programs.  Inequitable performance of these
functions could result in adverse impacts as serious as
those that might result from unconstrained development.
For instance, error in the determination of maximum
acceptable development for service areas may result in
undesired impacts, such as those socioeconomic impacts
related to speculative development.  Such development
in anticipation of future shortages of sewerage capacity,
if not discouraged, could lead to serious disruptions in
the local housing markets.  At worst, rapid initial devel-
opment intended to obtain sewerage capacity while avail-
able, could result in excessive housing production beyond
the market's absorption rate, or may even result in
such rapid growth that sewer capacity will be exceeded.
Adoption of a low growth policy for the primary study
area is not recommended at present for the following
reasons:

    The effectiveness of limiting growth by restricting
    the availability of sewerage service is dependent
    upon the lack of available alternative means of
    sewage treatment and disposal.  The use of small
    sewage treatment plants in most of the study area
    is effectively precluded by New Hampshire's policy
    of "no discharge" to the lakes.  However, the issu-
    ance by the State of permits to install septic
    tank systems offers a method of sewage disposal
    for nearly any lot that meets zoning requirements.
                         V-13

-------
    The effects of limiting public sewerage capacity
    would be:   (a)  increased reliance upon a disposal
    method for which the local soils are not well suited
    and which can be considered only as a temporary-
    sewage disposal method;  (b)  overall lower density
    development with resultant increases in demands for
    transportation facilities, utilities and related
    community services;  and (c)  adverse environmental im-
    pacts that could be  as severe as satisfying all
    development demands  with public sewers including
    contamination of streams and lakes by malfunctioning
    systems,  clearing of additional forest, and en-
    croachment upon environmentally sensitive areas;

    Equitable operation  of the non-structural elements
    of a low growth alternative would require sophis-
    ticated planning and administrative functions
    which are not presently available in either a single
    governmental or quasi-governmental body or in
    closely coordinated  and cooperating bodies; and

    The existing data base is insufficient for quan-
    titatively assessing the need to reduce the adverse
    impacts of the proposed action by limiting growth
    and development.

Institute a Water Conservation Program.  Future flow pro-
jections in the proposed plan assume that per capita
domestic water consumption in the study area will increase
from the present level of 80 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd) to 120 gpcd in 2020.  NHWPSCC wastewater facility
design requirements are  100 gpcd.  The projected 50 per-
cent increase in per capita water consumption has been
assumed on the grounds that recreational dwellings, which
will represent a higher  proportion of the served units as
the sewer system is regionalized, are expected to generate
a higher per capita flow.  While this seems reasonable,
the effects of steadily  increasing per capita flows could
be balanced by instituting a water conservation program.
Elements of such a program could include the following
procedures:

 •  Amend plumbing codes to require installation of
    water-saving fixtures.  Examples are high-head
    water closets, water-saving shower heads and
    dishwashers and clothes-washing machines designed
    to consume less water;

 •  Education of water customers in the monetary and
    indirect costs of over-use of water resources; and
                         V-14

-------
 •  Increase in water and/c5r sewer rates as an incentive
    to conserve water.

The major impacts of instituting a water conservation pro-
gram would be beneficial.  Reduction in the amount of
sewage flow would allow either prolonging the life of inter-
ceptors (assuming they were designed for 120 gpcd) or re-
design of the interceptors to reflect the 100 gpcd figure
required as a minimum by NHWSPCC.  In addition, existing
water resources would be given a longer useful life.  The
water conservation program would not be expected to reduce
organic loading to the Franklin sewage treatment plant,
although some savings in construction costs (or prolonga-
tion of the plants useful life) could result for those unit
processes designed upon hydraulic retention time.

The anticipated savings of this alternative are roughly
estimated to be about $1,600,000 or 3 percent of project
costs.  Given the enormous penalties of undersizing the
interceptors, this seems a reasonable investment.  Also,
any extra capacity would not be wasted, but would merely
extend the useful design like of the interceptors.

 5-   Sludge Handling and^ DjLsjposalAlternatives

 Possible Sludge Handling and Disposal  Techniques.   For
 each of the steps involved  in handling and  disposal of
 sludges from treatment facilities,  several  unit  processes
 area available.  Figure V-l  shows  the  totality of reason-
 ably available unit processes for  each of the  following
 steps:

        Stabilization/Disinfection
        Conditioning/Recycle  Treatment
        Dewatering
        Reduction
        Final Disposal/Utilization

     Stabi1i zat ion include reduction of volatile  solids,
     destruction of pathogens,  and  some conversion of
     material to other forms  such as gases.  Unit pro-
     cesses available include the following:

         Composting is aerobic,  solid phase  digestion,
         using a carbon carrier such as sawdust,  and is
         conducted in two steps.  The first  step  is aera-
         tion/  within a rotating drum or fixed  reactor.
         In this portion, aerobic digestion  increases the
         temperature and destroys some  pathogens.   The
         second phase,  wind-rowing  and  storage, completes
         the destruction of pathogens and some  volatile
         solids.  The advantages of this process  is that
         nutrients are retained if  land disposal  to crops
         is envisioned.   Disadvantages  include  inflexi-
         bility of disposal route and relatively  high
         energy input.

                          V-15

-------
                                                                     FIGURE V-l

                                             AVAILABLE  UNIT  PROCESSES FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TREATMENT
  STEPS  '
                             STABILIZATION
CONDITIONING
DEWATERING
REDUCTION
DISPOSAL
I
M
cn
               I nput
             SIudge
                              Compost ing
                               Aerobic
                              Digestion
                              Anaerobic
                              Digest ion
                               Pasteur-
                               ization
                                 200 °F
  Chemical
Cond i tion i ng
E
utr iat ion
                                                     Heat
                                                  Treat ing
                                                  300-500°F
    Vacuum
  Fi1trat ion
                    Pressure
                   Fi 1tration
                   Centrifuge
                                                                     Drying
                                                                      Beds
1 nc
i nerat ion
                      Wet Air
                     Oxidat ion
                     Flash
                     Drying
Landf i
11
                     Liquid
                      Land
                    Di sposal
                       Dry
                      Land
                     Disposal

-------
   Aerobic digestion  is  similar to composting except
   that  it is  conducted  in the liquid phase using either
   diffused  air,  oxygen  or mechanical aeration.   In
   aerobic digestion,  some pathogen removal and  oxida-
   tion  of volatile  solids is experienced.   Advantages
   include ease  of operation and lack of odors,  while
   disadvantages include high inputs of energy for
   operation and only fair dewaterability of digested
   sludge.

   Anaerobic digestion is liguid phase bacterial diges-
   tion  conducted in the absence of oxygen.  Typically,
   50 percent of the volatile solids in the sludge are
   converted to  methane  in a well-run process.  This
   gas can be recovered  and used for heating and other
   energy needs  of the plant, though its high sulfur
   content often requires scrubbing to prevent corro-
    sion  of machinery.  Methane-forming bacteria  have
   a slow growth rate and are sensitive to operational
   variables such as temperature, pH and oxygen;
    "upsets"  are  not  unusual in a poorly operated
   plant.  Advantages include removal of pathogens,
   reduction of  solids for further processing, and
   the net energy gain from methane production.   Dis-
   advantages include high capital cost and the  need
   for careful process operation.  Poor operation
   can result in process unreliability, odor produc-
   tion  and  explosion hazard,

   Heat  treatment (pasteurization) may be practiced
   to both stabilize and condition sludge.   Stabili-
   zation is accomplished with time-temperature  com-
   binations from 70°C and 30 minutes to 170°C and
    30 seconds (flash pasteurization).  Advantages
    include ease  of operation and retention of sludge
   heat  capacity. The principal disadvantage is in
   maintaining heat  transfer and using exogenous heat
    (energy)  if incineration and heat recovery is not
   accomplished.

Conditioning  and  Recycle  Treatment is the step in which
the total sludge  and  water complex is prepared for de-
watering. This step  is essentially inserted to reduce
costs for dewatering.   Principal methods for condition-
ing include:

   Chemical  conditioning to reduce the bound water and
   to increase filterability is the most common  pro-
   cess  used.  Chemicals used include inorganic  multi-
   valent ions,  such as  ferric iron or aluminum or
   organic polymers,  and may be accompanied by
    "elutriation" (washing) to remove interfering
   soluble substances such as alkalinity.  Large
   amounts of ash, usually recycled from incinerators,
                      V-17

-------
     are  sometimes used to  condition  sludge  for  pressure
     filtration.  Advantages  include  increased solids
     capture and no  solubilization of  solids or  nutrients,
     Disadvantages include  high operating  cost and in-
     creased mass of sludge for disposal.  The ability
     of chemical conditioning and vacuum filtration to
     dewater raw sludge sufficiently to permit autogenous
     incineration has not been proven.

     Low  pressure thermal conditioning is  a  relatively
     new  process involving  heating the sludge mass to 300-
     500°F at 150-400psi.   This heating disinfects and
     solubilizes some of the volatile  solids and may also
     oxidize some of the solids if operated  at higher
     temperatures" and pressures.  The  "Cooking liquor"
     remaining after settling/dewatering is  a rather
     putrescible liquid containing soluble organic
     carbon compounds, amino acids and ammonia.  If
     further dewatering is  practiced, this "liquor"  must
     be stabilized either, bv recycle to main stream
     aeration or to separate treatment.  1'ne  recycle  or
     this liquor results in increasing solids  and
     organic loading throughout the plant.    However,
     if this conditioning is used as a stabilization
     process and is followed by liquid disposal on
     land, the availability of nitrogen as a plant
     nutrient is enhanced.   Process inputs consist of
     pumping energy and thermal energy, which may be
     derived from incinerator heat recovery.   Advan-
     tages include low process inputs of energy  (with
     incineration),  simultaneous disinfection and better
     dewatering properties  than possible with chemical
     conditioning.   Disadvantages include the greater
     strength of the recycle liquor,  resulting in the
     greater capacity requirement of  all other processes,
     and the possibility of adverse changes in plant
     effluent quality from  refractory soluble organics.

Dewatering of conditioned  or unconditioned sludges may
be done be several  methods beyond thickeing.  The pur-
poses for dewatering are to reduce thermal requirements
for^incineration,  or reduce volume for disposal, if
incineration is not used.   Processes available for
dewatering are:

    Vacuum filtration  in which  the solids  are picked
    up by vacuum on a  moving belt, with the  liquid
    fraction passing through and being recycled.  Before
    the filter,  some form  of conditioning  is necessary
    for economical  operation.   For proper  operation,
    the feed solids  should be conditioned  and thickened,
    because  of  feed  solids in part determine solids
    content  of  the  filter  cake.   Advantages  of vacuum
    filtration  include  high solids capture potential
    and high potential  cake solids.   Disadvantages
    include  high cost  of operation and operational
    sensitivity  to  sludge  characteristics.
                     V-18

-------
    Pressure filtration uses a high positive pressure
    to force the liquid through the filter media.  In
    a cyclic operation of about 2 hours, sludge is
    pumped between plates covered with the filter
    media, the liquid seeps through, and the plates
    are separated for solids removal.  Recent improve-
    ments in filter media and the development of auto-
    matic cake removal methods have revived interest
    in pressure filtration.  High cake solids concen-
    trations of 30 to 50 percent are a major advantage
    of pressure filtration.

    Centrifugation using solid bowl, low speed centri-
    fuges is the second major dewatering alternative.
    Properly designed, centrifuges fed heat conditioned
    sludge can have up to 85 percent solids capture
    and 40 percent cake solids without additional
    chemicals.  Disadvantages of centrifuges in-
    clude less ability to capture "fines" and slight-
    ly higher maintenance labor than vacuum filters.
    Advantages include flexibility and simplicity of
    operation, and possibly lower capital costs and
    space requirements as compared to vacuum filters.

    Sand drying beds are a method of dewatering appli-
    cable to smaller plants.  It involves spreading
    the sludge in an 8 to 12 inch layer over a base
    of sand and allowing the drying to be performed
    through evaporation and drainage.  Advantages of
    this procedure include very high simplicity of
    operation and very low energy requirements.  The
    major disadvantages are the large amounts of
    space needed to spread the sludge, the dependence
    upon atmospheric conditions, and the potential for
    odors.

Reduction of total sludge volume is the last unit pro-
cess step preceding transportation and ultimate dis-
posal.  The purpose may be to reduce total area re-
quired for disposal, to reduce transportation energy
requirements, to prepare for reuse on land, and in
some cases to recover thermal energy for in-plant use.
Methods used include:

    Incineration of dewatered sludge in which the
    sludge is successively dried, burned and cooled.
    Inert ashes, equal in mass to non-volatile solids,
    remain for disposal by landfilling or other means.
    Specific type units include multiple hearth,
    fluidized bed and rotary kiln incinerators.
    Because of the heat content of the volatile solids,
    it is possible to develop incinerators which are
    "autogenous", or able to operate without auxiliary
    fuel except for startup.  This autogenous condition
    is achievable with recycled heating of input
    sludge and air.  This recycled heat can also be


                      V-19

-------
    used in other plant processes.  Advantages of in-
    cineration include lack of odors and reduced mass
    of solids for landfilling.  Disadvantages include
    air pollution potential and loss of potential soil
    conditioning resources.

    Wet air oxidation is an extension of the process
    used in heat conditioning of sludge using higher
    pressures and temperatures to oxidize volatile
    solids.  After this process, the waste must be
    settled and cooking liquor must be recycled.   This
    cooking liquor is high in dissolved organic com-
    pounds and nutrients,  and should be treated sepa-
    rately.  Advantages of wet air oxidation are lower
    requirements for input energy because the mois-
    ture is not allowed to vaporize, and applicability
    of the oxidized waste in land application for
    nutrient recovery.  Disadvantages include odor
    potential, strong recycle liquor and reduction
    in effluent quality from refractory organics in
    the recycle liquor.

    Flash drying of sludge is included as a reduction
    process, although the reduction occurs only from
    removal of water and volatile dissolved organic
    compounds.  The process involves mixing air at
    about 1200°F with the wet sludge.  After mixing,
    the dried sludge  (8-10 percent moisture) can be
    either directly reused on land or incinerated to
    recover heat energy.  Advantages include recovery
    and possible sale of sterile fertilizer and absence
    of odors with proper afterburning.  Disadvantages
    include high external energy requirements,  inflexi-
    bility and the need for highly dewatered sludge
    feed.

Disposal of sludge has been restricted in this  case
to land-oriented methods,  since the desirability of
aquatic dumping is questionable.

    Landfilling involves burial of either dewatered,
    stabilized sludge or incinerator ash.  Advantages
    include low energy requirements, low cost,  and ease
    and flexibility of operation.  Disadvantages in-
    clude loss of nutrients,  consumptive use of land
    which limits further use, potential nuisance odors
    and gases, and the possibility of groundwater or
    surface water contamination from leachate.

    Reuse through land spreading of stabilized sludge
    may be done either with liquid sludge or with de-
    watered sludge carried by truck.  Application
    in both modes is limited in terms of rate,  by
    nitrogen content (to prevent loss of nitrates to
    groundwater)  and in terms of total mass by heavy
                     V-20

-------
             metal content and soil cation exchange capacity.
             Advantages of reuse include economic gain of
             nutrients, enhancement of soil condition, wide
             dispersion of problem waste components and break-
             down of refractory organics by soil bacteria.
             Disadvantages include cost, monitoring require-
             ments,  and the need for backup systems in the
             event of inability to conduct land spreading
             operations, or of increase in sludge heavy metals
             to unacceptable levels.

     All of these unit processes are not viable in every appli-
cation.   Based upon past experience and engineering judgement,
the number of feasible alternatives for sludge treatment and
disposal can be reduced to three, following stabilization and
dewatering.  These three alternatives are identified in Table
V-2 along with their relative costs, land-energy requirements
and areas of environmental sensitivity.

     The final selection -of sludge treatment and disposal pro-
cesses is very dependent upon these specific parameters.  It
is not the purpose nor within the scope of this report to
determine sludge handling procedures for the study area, but
rather to identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action
and to assess their environmental advantages and disadvantages.
The New Hampshire Water Pollution Control Commission is con-
ducting  an analysis of particular sludge handling alternatives
which should be complete within 60 days for the inclusion in
the final EIS.

     6.   Alternative Interceptor Routings

     Gilford Interceptor.  The last two miles of this line
     follows the shoreline in Pendleton Beach area.  Construc-
     tion impacts will be substantial, particularly from Riley
     Point to Hoits Point where the sewer would be 15 to 20
     feet deep and would not follow a road.  An alternative
     routing would bypass this area with a force main along
     Route 11A.

     Although the interceptor's construction impact would be
     lessened, this alternative has disadvantages.  The local
     collector system for the shoreline houses would have to
     be more extensive, and the local sewers themselves would
     probably follow the interceptor routing, though they would
     only be about half as deep.  The force main alternative
     would also have over twice the energy requirements of the
     original shoreline routing.

     West Paugus.  The West Paugus interceptor could be routed
     along the east shore of Paugus Bay, paralleling the ex-
     isting interceptor.  The construction problems, however,
     would be formidable, as the line would have to thread its
     way through a maze of utilities in the Laconia streets.
     Traffic disruption would be much more severe than the
                               V-21

-------
                                               TABLE V-2

                                 POSSIBLE SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
                                               LAND
                                 COSTS     REQUIREMENTS
                                                     ENERGY
                                                  REQUIREMENTS
                                               SENSITIVE TO:
i
Isj
to
          Liquid land
           disposal
Incineration, dry
 land disposal
         Incineration,
          landfill
                        low
              high
high
                       high
low
               low
                high
potentially
    low
             potentially
                 low
land availability/
soil types, ground-
water, sludge com-
position

air quality require-
ments, sludge heat
content, land availa-
bility

air quality require-
ments, sludge heat
content

-------
proposed route along the west  shore.  A  separate inter-
ceptor would have to be constructed  to serve the State
School, northwest of Laconia.  The advantages of an east
shore routing would be to avoid any  possible growth induce-
ment effect of sewerage on the west  shore of Paugus Bay.
On the other hand, it will deny sewerage to any growth
which does occur, and is expected to occur.

West Paugus and Winnisquam Outfall System.  Both of these
lines will parallel railroad causeways across several
small coves.  Although the widened causeways will not
block circulation to the coves any more  than at present,
they will, in effect, prevent  the circulation from being
improved in the future.  The alternative is to either
go around the coves or use inverted  siphons to go under
them.  Both approaches would not only be costly, but
would involve greater construction impacts.

Belmont Interceptor.  By following Route 140 from the
Village of Belmont to the Laconia Connection, the con-
struction impacts along the abandoned railroad right-
of-way could be avoided.  However, the grade would be
less favorable, and three pumping stations would be
required, compared to only one for the proposed alignment.
This alignment offers the advantage  of making public
sewerage service more readily available to existing
development in the vicinity of the Pine  Gardens project.
Fill material will be required at several points along
Route 140 in order to widen the road's shoulder to
accommodate the interceptor.  Establishment of a wider
shoulder may have slight to moderate impacts on adjacent
marshland.  In addition, the alternative route would
have higher capital and operating costs.

A second alternative would be  to have the interceptor
continue along the railroad right-of-way all the way
across the Winnipesaukee River.  However, this would
involve potentially significant ecological disturbance
to the lower portion of the Tioga River.  An inverted
siphon would be needed to cross the  Winnipesaukee River;
the proposed route of the Belmont interceptor would
utilize the Route 140 bridge to cross the River.  Thus,
this alternative is at least as costly and has greater
environmental impacts than the proposed  routing.
                         V-23

-------
Tilton-Northfielcl Extention.  Two alternatives exist to
routing the interceptor down Main Street in Tilton.  The
first is to follow a back alley one block north of Main
Street.  Clearances for construction equipment in this
alley would be very small, increasing both time and costs
for construction.

The other alternative would be to continue following the
railroad.  However, there is not enough room to lay the
pipe along the tracks, so construction would require
installing the pipe under the tracks.  This, of course,
means disrupting railroads service.   For legal reasons
concerning ownership of the right-of-way, it is undesirable
for the state to prevent trains from using the tracks.
Should these legal constraints be resolved,  this route
would be an attractive alternative.
                      V-23.a

-------
            REFERENCES
The following section contains citations
to the literature reviewed during the
preparation of this EIS.

-------
                         REFERENCES
Anderson,  Nichols and Company, Inc.  Public Water Supply Phase
      One Report.  New Hampshire Department of Resources and
      Economic Development, 1969.

Belknap County Conservation District & Executive Board, North
      Country RC&D Project.  North Country RC&D Project Plan -
      Belknap County Supplement. 1973.

Bellar, T. A., Lichtenberg, J. J., and Kroner, R. C.   "The Occur-
      rence of Organohalides in Chlorinated Drinking Waters."
      National Environmental Research Center, EPA, Cincinnati,
      1974.

Bickford, G. S.  Centre Harbor Historical Society.  Personal
      Communication, 1975.

Billings, M. P.  The Geology ofNew^Hampshire, Part II-Bedrock
      Geology.  New Hampshire De^arlEm^nt of Re sources  and Economic
      Development, Concord, NH 1974.

Biospheric Consultants International, Inc.  Lake Winnipesaukee
      as a Quantitative Water Resource - Layman|s Summary.
      Lakes Regional Planning Commission, Meredith, NH 1974.

Braun, E. L.  Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America.
      Hafner, New York, 1950.  596 p.

Brooks, John Langdon.  Eutrophication and Changes in the
      Composition of the  Zooplankton, p. 236-255.  IN:G.A.
      Rohlich  (Chairman) .  Eutrophi'c'ation:  causes, consequences,
      correctives.  Nat.  Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C., 1969.

Camp, Dresser,and McKee Consulting Engineers.  "City of Franklin,
      New Hampshire - Report on Sewerage and  Sewage Treatment
      Boston, Mass., 1965.

Carpenter, R. G. and Siegler, H. R.  A List of New Hampshire
      Mammals and Their Distribution.  New Hampshire Fish and
      Game Department, Concord, NH, 1974.  13 p.

Combs, M. L.  Secretary,  Sanbornton Historical Society.  Personal
      Communication, 1975.

Community Planning Services ABR.  Town of Gilford Planning
      Study Report.  1970.

Community Planning Services ABR.  Centre Harbor, New Hampshire
      1971 Comprehensive  Plan.  1971.
                             R-l

-------
Dillon, P. J.  The Phosphorus- Budget of Cameron Lake, Ontario;
      The importance of Flushing Rate to the Degree of Eutrophy
      of Lakes.  Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, 1975, p. 28-39.

Dunst, R. C./ Born, S. M.,  Uttormark, P. D., Smith, S. A.,
      Nichols, S. A., Peterson, J. 0., Knaver, D. R., Searns,
      S. L., Winter, D. R.,  Wirth, T. L.  Survey of Lake
      Rehabilitation Techniques and Experiences.  Dept. of
      Natural Resources.  Madison, Wise. Tech. Bull. No. 75,
      1974. 179 p.

Edmondson, W. T.  Eutrophication in North America, p. 124-149.
      In: G.A. Rolich, Eutrophication:  Causes, Consequences,
      Correctives.  National Academy of Science, Wash., D.C.,
      1969.

Environmental Protection Agency.  "Guideline for Cost Estimates
      of Municipal Wastewater Systems", Washington, D. C., 1973.

Environmental Protection Agency.  "Report on Lake Winnipesaukee,
      Carroll and Belknap Counties, New Hampshire, National
      Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper No. 11, 1974a.  83 p.

Environmental Protection Agency.  "Relationships Between Drainage
      Area Characteristics and Non-point Source Nutrients in
      Streams."  National Eutrophication Survey, Working Paper
      No. 25, 1974b.  53 p.

Environmental Protection Agency.  Region II.  "Cost and Capa-
      city of Intercepting Sewers", Technical Document,
      1975.

Fenton G. Keyes Associates.   Preliminary Engineering Survey and
      Report on Control of Water Pollution for the Town of
      Belmont, New Hampshire.1970.

Fernald, M. L.  Gray's Manual of Botany, 8th ed.  American Book
      Company, Chicago, 111., 1950.  1632 p.

Foudriat, D. P.  A Dye Test  Program for Identification of
      Faulty Septic Systems.  Undated.

Frey, David G., ed.  Limnology in North America.  Univ. of
      Wisconsin Press, Madison, wise., 1963.  734 p.

Goldman, C. R.  The Role of  Minor Nutrients in Limiting the
      Productivity of Aquatic Systems, p. 2l:^W.  IN!   c. E.
      Likens, ed.  Nutrients and Eutrophication:  the Limiting
      Nutrient Controversy.   Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanogr.
      Spec. Symposia., Vol.  I.
                             R-2

-------
Goldthwait, J. W., Goldthwait,  L.,  and Goldthwait,  R  P
      Geology of New Hampshire  Part 1 - Surfir-i^l  r.oAn  '   —
      New Hampshire Department  of  Resources and Economic
      Development, Concord,  NH,  1969.

Goldthwait, R. p.  Surficial Geology of the Wolfeboro-winning-
      saukee Area.  State  of New Hampshire Department of	—
      Resources and Economic Development,  Concord,  NH,  1968.

Guariglia, Mary.  "Wetlands  - A Vital Natural Resource."   1975.

Hance, Peter.  City Planner  for Laconia.   Personal  conversation.
      August, 1975.


Hans Klunder Associates.   A  Comprehensive  Plan for  Alton,  New
      Hampshire.  1965.            '   ~~"*	


Hans Klunder Associates.   A  Comprehensive  Plan for  Franklin  New
      Hampshire.  1967.              "      ~~	


Hans Klunder Associates.   A  Comprehensive  Plan - Meredith, New
      Hampshire.  1969.    ~~~~~                  ~	


Hans Klunder Associates.   Belmont,  A Comprehensive  Plan.   1970.

Hoover, E. E.  Biological  Survey of  the Merrimack Watershed.
      Report to the New Hampshire Fish  and  Game Commission.
      Concord, NH, 1938.

Kitchel, R. S., Jr., Sloan,  J. C.,  Spaulding,  Marion  I. and
      Bryant, Nancy H.  Physical Features and  Natural Resources
      Report, Laconia.  The  Laconia  City Planning Board, LaconTa,
      NH, 1963.

Lakes Region Planning Commission.  Population.  1973a.

Lakes Region Planning Commission.  Existing Land Use.  1973b.

Lakes Region Planning Commission.  Development Regulations. 1973c

Lakes Region Planning Commission.  "Lake Winnipesaukee As a
      Quantitative Water Resource - Laymen's Summary".
      November,  1974.

Lakes Region Planning Commission.  Economic Profile 1975.
            f.                       m  — — n ii 		

Lund,  j.  w.  G.   Phytoplankton, P.  IN:  G.A. Rohlich, Chairman,
      Eutrophication:   causes, consequences, correctives.
      National  Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C., 1969.
      p.  306-330.
                            R-3

-------
Mackenthun, K. M.  The Practice of Water Pollution Biology.
      Fed. Water Poll. Control Admin., Wash., D- C., 1969.
      281 p.

Maguire, C. E. & Associates, Inc.  Basin Study on Water Quality
      Control for the Winnipesaukee River Basin, Providence, RI,
      _____                  _


Maguire, C. E. & Associates, Inc.  Water Quality Management Plan
      for the Lakes Region, Providence, RI, 1973.

Martin, A. C., Zim, H. S. and Nelson, A. G.  American Wildlife
      and Plants.  Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1951.
      500 p.

McSweeny, James.  City Manager for Franklin.  Personal Conversa-
      tion.   August, 1975.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  "Progress Report to New Hampshire Water
      Pollution Control Board Upon Fertilization Survey of
      Lake Winnisquam."  Boston, Mass., 1961.  58 p. plus
      Appendices.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  Sanbornton, New Hampshire - Comprehensive
      Town Plan.  1962-63.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.  "Report to Lakes Region Planning Commis-
      sion on Solid Waste Disposal Plan for the Lakes Region."
      January, 1974.

Minnoch,  James.  Director of State Planning, State of New
      Hampshire  Interdepartment Communication Regarding the
       "Proposed  personnel reassignments in conjunction with
      Fiscal  Year 1976 work program and budget."  May 29, 1975.

Neville,  Dave.   Assistant Planning Director for New Hampshire
      Office  of  Comprehensive Planning.  Personal Communication,
      August  15, 1975.

New England Division-Corp. of Engineers.   "Appendices, Water
      Resources  Investigation Merrimack River Basin."  August,
      1972.

New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.  Annual
      Survey  of  Police Salaries in New Hampshire.  191~5~.

New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning.  Population
      estimates  and projections, 1974, 1975.

New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning.  Division of
      Community  Planning.   "Planning Enabling Legislation in
      New Hampshire."  January, 1975.
                           R-4

-------
New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning.  New Hampshire
      Guide Plan - Merrimack Basin Plan, prepared in cooperation
      with New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic
      Development and the New England River Basins Commission,
      (unpublished, 1974).                                     '

New Hampshire Office of Industrial Development.  Division of
      Economic Development.  "Made in New Hampshire - A
      Directory of Manufacturers and Manufactured Products and
      Mining."  1975.

New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Society.  New
      Hampshire State Historic Preservation Plan.  Concord,
      NH,  1970.~~~

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
      (NHWSPCC).   Merrimack River Basin Water Quality Management
      Plan.  Staff Report No. 61.  New Hampshire Water Supply
      and  Pollution Control Commission, Concord, NH, 1973a.

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
      (NHWSPCC).   Eutrophication in Lake Winnisquam.  Staff
      Report No-  62, 1973b.~

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
      (NHWSPCC) .   Lake_ Winnisquam Eutrophication Control Program
      Study, Phase I;  Pre-operational Studies, Calendar year
      1973. Staff Report No. 63, 1974a.

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
      (NHWSPCC).   Public Water Supplies.  1974b.

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
      (NHWSPCC).   Standards of Design for Sewerage and Waste
      Treatment Systems.  Concord,  NH, 1975a.

New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
      (NHWSPCC).   Lake Winnisquam Monitoring and Surveillance.
      Staff Report No. 70,  1975b.  73 p.

Newell,  A.  E.   Biological Survey of the Lakes  and Ponds in
      Sullivan, Belknap and Strafford Counties.  Survey Report
      No.  8b,  New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept., 1963.

Office of  State Planning.  In cooperation with the Belknap
      County Conservation District.  "Inventory of Natural,
      Scenic,  and Historic  Areas in Belknap County."
      Initiated,  1968a.

Office of  State Planning.  In cooperation with the Carroll
      County Conservation District.  "Inventory of Natural,
      Scenic,  and Historic  Areas in Carroll County."
      Initiated,  1968b.
                            R-5

-------
Office of State Planning.  In cooperation with the Merrimack
      County Conservation District.  "Inventory of Natural,
      Scenic, and Historic Areas in Merrimack County.
      Initiated, 1968.

Oliver, J. A.  A Partial Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles
      of New Hampshire.New Hampshire Fish and Game Department^
      Concord,  NH, 1938.  6 p.

Paerl, H. W., Richards, R. C., Leonard, R. L., and Goldman,
      C. R.   Seasonal Nitrate Cycling as Evidence for Complete
      Vertical Mixing in Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada.  Limnol.
      Oceanogr. 20: 1975, p. 1-8.

Paul Hendricks & Associates.  New Hampshire Office of State
      Planning.  Impact of Recreation, Vacation and Travel on
      Hampshire 1954-1970. 1971.

Price, C. B.  Historic Indian Trails of New Hampshire.  New
      Hampshire Archeological Society, Durham, NH, 1967.

Quinn, A.  Geology of the Winnipesaukee Quadrangle, New Hampshire.
      New Hampshire Division of Economics Development - state
      Planning and Development Commission, Concord, NH, 1965.

Real Estate Research Corporation.  The Costs of Sprawl-
      Detailed Cost Analysis.  Report to CEQ, HUD, and EPA
      April,1974.

Richards, R.  A Checklist of Birds in New Hampshire.  New
      Hampshire Fish and Game Department and Audubon Society
      of New Hampshire, Concord, NH, 1964.  6 p.

Rist-Frost Associates.  A Comprehensive Park and Recreation
      Plan for Laconia, New Hampshire"Allen Organization Park
      and Recreation Planning Department, 1975.

Robert S. Kitchel, Jr. & Associates.  Laconia Comprehensive
      Plan.   Prepared with cooperation of  New Hampshire
      Department of Resources & Economic Development, 1963.

Roberts, Suzanne S.  Letter.  August 18, 1975.

Robinette, G. O.   Plants, People, and Environmental Quality.
      U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
      Washington, D.C., 1972.  194 p.

Rose, Ronald.  Supervisor Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations
      to Daniel Collins, P.E., Assistant Chief Engineer-
      Administrator, State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and
      Pollution Commission.   Interdepartmental communication,
      July 23,  1975.
                            R-6

-------
Sanderson, P.  Meredith  Historical  Society.   Personal com-
      munication,  1975.

Sawyer, C. N.  Fertilization  of  Lakes  by Agricultural  and Urban
      Drainage.  New England  Water  Works Assoc^61;109-127,	
      .L _? 4t / •

SEA, Consultants,  Inc.   "Environmental Assessment, Winnipesaukee
      ?iT?r^in  ?0liUtl°n Abftement  Program, Winnisquam Out-
      fall System.   Prepared for New  Hampshire Water  Supply
      and Pollution Control Commission,  February, 1975.

Seamans, R. G., Jr. and  Newell,  A.  E.,  Jr.  Management of Lake
      Atlantic Salmon  (Salmo  Solar)  in New Hampshire.—New	
      Hampshire Fish and Game Dept.  Survey Report No.  10,
      Ju y I j •  _/ & "D »

Seymour, F. C.  The Flora of  New England.  The Charles E. Tuttle
      Company, Rutland,  Vt.,  1969.   595  p.

State of New Hampshire.  North Country Resource Conservation
      Development  ProjectlExecutive  Board,  1968.120 p.

State of New Hampshire.  Laws  Relating  to the Water Supply and
      Pollution Control  Commission.  Concord, NH, 1972.	

State of New Hampshire Water  Resources Board.  "RSA-Chapter
      485."  1974.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Soil Conservation Service.
      Soil Survey;  Merrimack  County,  New Hampshire.   1965.
      93 p. plus Plates.~	

U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Soil Conservation Service.
      Soil Survey:  Belknap County, New  Hampshire.  1968.
      68 p. plus Plates.

U.S. Department of Commerce,  NOAA.   New England Annual Summary
      Climatological Data.   Vol.  86, No. 13,  Asheville, NC,
      1974.

U.S. Department of the Interior.   The Practice of Pollution
      Biology.   US GPO, Washington,  D-  C., 1969.

U.S. Department of the Interior.   "Fish and Wildlife  Service."
      Threatened Wildlife of the United States, Resource
      Publication 114.   1973.   289 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior.   "Fish and Wildlife  Service."
      Threatened or Endangered Fauna or Flora.  Federal
      Register, Vol. 40,  No.  127, Part V, July 1, 1975.
      Washington,  D. C.  100 p.
                            R-7

-------
 U.S.  Department of the  Interior.   National Park Service.
       Historic  American Engineering Record,  New England , an
       Inventory of Historic  Engineering and Industrial Sites.
       Washington,  D.  C.,  1974.                              ~

 U.S.  Department of the  Interior.   National Park Service.
       "National Register  of  Historic Places,"  Federal Register,
       Tuesday,  February 4, 1975 plus monthly supplements.

 U.S.  Geological Survey.   "Water Resources  Data for  Massachusetts,
       New  Hampshire,  Rhode Island,  and  Vermont"  Part  I-Surface
       Water  Records,  1970-1973.

 University of New  Hampshire.  New  Hampshire  Cooperative Exten-
       sion Service.   Personal correspondence from Roger
       Leighton  - CFM  Supervisor.   August,  1975.

 Uttormark, P. D. ,  Chapin, J. D. , and Green,  K. M.   "Estimating
       Nutrient  Loadings of Lakes from Non-point  Sources."
       Univ.  of  Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Madison,
       Wise., 1974.

 U.S.  Government, Dept. of the Army,  Corps of Engineers.  Water
       Resources  Investigation:  Winnipasaukee  River, Merrimack
       River  Basin,  New Hampshire, Waltham, Mass.   16 p. plus
       photographs  and maps.

 Vollenweider, R. A.   Scientific fundamentals of  the eutrophica-
       tion of lakes and flowing waters, with particular reference
       to nitrogen  and phosphorus as  factors in eutrophication.
       Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development,
       (Environment Directorate).   Paris, France, 1971.

 Vollenweider, R. A.  Input-output model, with  special reference
       to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology.
       Schweizerische Zeitschrift fuer Hydrologie 37(1):  53-84,
       JL _/ / O •

Weibel, S  R   "Urban Drainage as a Factor in Eutrophication,
      pp. 383-403 in G.  A. Rohlich (Chairman).   Eutrophication;
      Causes, Consequences,  Correctives.  National Academy of
      Sciences,  Washington,  D.  C. ,  1969.
                          A.  C.   Phytoplankton populations in
                  dlf£erent tr°Phic levels at Winnipesaukee
      Lake,  New Hampshire,  U.S.A.   Water Resources Research
      Center,  Univ.  of New Hampshire,  Durham.  Project Comple-
      tion Report -  Project No.  A-019-NH,  1973.
                            R-8

-------
GLOSSARY

-------
                          GLOSSARY
Dimictic


Hypoliranion


Metalimnion
Epilimnion



Eutrophic


Oligotrophic


Mesotrophic

Allochthonous

Arithochthonous
Lake with spring and fall turnovers  (temperate
lakes).

The deep layer of a lake lying below  the meta-
limnion and removed from surface  influences.

The layer of water in a lake between  the
epilimnion and hypolimnion in which the tem-
perature exhibits the greatest difference  in
a vertical direction.

The turbulent surface layer of a  lake lying
above the metalimnion which does  not  have  a
permanent thermal stratification.

Waters with a good supply of nutrients and hence
a rich organic production.

Waters with a small supply of nutrients and
hence a small organic production.

Waters with an intermediate nutrient  load.

Originating elsewhere.

Originating within the system.
                              X-l

-------
       APPENDIX  A




WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

-------
                         APPENDIX A
    The January 1, 1970 "Recommended Use Classifications and
Water Quality Standards" reproduced in Table A-l are the basic
stream classifications for New Hampshire.  Because the coliform
standards for Class B and Class C were more stringent than the
same classifications in most other states, the New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission on Octover 31,
1973 adopted new coliform standards which resulted in a modifi-
cation of these two classes (NHWSPCC, 1975 — 305b document).
The coliform standards for the original classifications and for
the modified classification, B* and C*, are presented in Table
A-2.
                              A-l

-------
                                                  Table  A-l
                                          RECOMMENDED USE  CLASSIFICATIONS




                                                        AND




                                               WATER QUALITY  STANDARDS




                                                AS  OF JANUARY  I,  1970
                                  BASED ON CHAPTER
                                                       REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED
                              NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION


Dissolved Oxygen
Col I form Bacteria
per 100 ml
pH
Substances
potential ly toxic
Sludge deposits
01 1 and Grease
Color
Turbidity
SI ick. Odors and
Surface-Floating
Solids
Temperature
Class A
Potentially acceptable
for public water supply
after disinfection. No
discharge of sewage or
other wastes. (Quality
uniformly excellent).
Not less than 75* Sat.
Not more than 50
Natural
None
None
None
Not to exceed 15 units.
Not to exceed 5 units.
None
No artificial rise
Class B
Acceptable for bathing and
recreation, fish habitat
and public water supply
after adequate treatment.
No disposal of sewage or
wastes unless adequately
treated. (High aesthetic
val ue) .
Not less than 75* Sat.
Not more than 2^0 in fresh
water. Not more than 70 MPN
in salt or brackish water.
6.5 - 8.0
Not in toxic concentrations
or combinations.
Not objectionable kinds or
amounts .
None
Not in objectionable
amounts.
Not to exceed 10 units
in trout water. Not to
exceed 25 units in non-
trout water.
None
NHFtGD, NE1WPCC, or
NTAC-DI -- whichever
provides most effective
cont rol . 3
Class C
Acceptable for recreational
boating, fishing, and
industrial water supply
with or without treatment,
depending on individual
requirements. (Third
highest qual i ty) .
Not less than 5 p. p.m.
Not specified
6.0 - 8.5
Not in toxic concentrations
or combinat ions .
Not objectionable kinds or
amounts .
Not objectionable kinds
or amounts.
Not in objectionable
amounts .
Not to exceed 10 units
in trout water. Not to
exceed 25 units in non-
trout water.
Not in objectionable
kinds or amounts.
NHFtGD, NEIWPCC or
NTAC-DI — whichever
provides most effective
con t ro 1 . 3
Class D
Aesthet ical ly
acceptable. Suitable
for certain industrial
purposes, power and
navigation. (Lowest
allowable quality now
less than 1/2 mi le In
entire state).
Not less than 2 p. p.m.
Not specified
Not specified
Not in toxic
concentrations or
combi nations.
Not object ionable
kinds or amounts.
Not of unreasonable
kind, quant i t y or
durat ion.
Not of unreasonable
k i nd , quant i ty or
durat Ion.
Not of unreasonable
kind, quant i ty or
duration.
Not of unreasonable
kind, quantity or
duration.
Shall not exceed
90°F.
Note:    I    The waters  In  each classification shall satisfy all  provisions  of  all  lower  classifications.



        2    For complete details see Chapter I 
-------
                                           TABLE A-2

               COLIFORM  STANDARDS  FOR NEW  HAMPSHIRE  STREAM  CLASSICATIONS
                                       (NHWSPCC, 1975)
Total Coliform Bacteria
  Count Per 100 ml

(1)  No known man
     produced pollution

(2)  Known man produced
     pollution
 £50     £240

(N.A.)   <240
<1,000
(N.A.)
(N.A.)
<1,000
No Limit
(N.A.)
(N.A.)
NosLimit
Fecal Foliform Bacteria
  Count Per 100 ml

(1)  No known man
     produced pollution

(2)  Known man produced
     pollution
  <2
(N.A.)
 (N.A.)   (N.A.)
<200
          (N.A.)
(N.A.)



(N.A.)
No Limit


(N.A.)
 (N.A.)


No Limit

-------
          APPENDIX  B

FUTURE GROWTH, EUTROPHICATION
      AND LAKE QUALITY

-------
     Future Growth,  Eutrophication and Lake Quality.

     In most aquatic systems, during periods of high produc-
tivity, the available supply of a critical nutrient, usually
either nitrogen or phosphorus, is eventually reduced to a
level where it limits further primary production.  Eutrophica-
tion/ by increasing the availability of nutrients, generally
enhances primary production.  The changes brought about by
enrichment are both quantitative and qualitative, and are
apparent in the rest of the ecosystem as it readjusts to the
new situation.

     Available data indicate that certain generalizations are
probably appropriate.  First, the most obvious and direct
effects of eutrophication in any body of water are seen in the
primary producers, particularly the algal flora.  Often algal
populations increase, and the species composition changes.
This is not a universal result, for other factors, such as light,
may retard the growth of the algae.  Blue-green algae, Cyanophyta,
which often appear as nuisance organisms in eutrophic systems,
seem favored by high nutrient and organic matter levels, but
the actual mechanism is not clear  (Lund, 1969).

     The source and type of enrichment is an important factor in
the ecology of the water body.  For example, agricultural runoff
from excessively fertilized farm land can provide both nitrogen
and phosphorus to natural waters, as does domestic sewage, but
the proportions are generally quite different.  In the case of
poorly treated sewage, the nutrient enrichment is often accom-
panied by a sediment/sludge problem  (Mackenthun, 1969).  Even
if organic material is not introduced into the system, large
algal blooms generally will produce a high oxygen demand when
they begin to decay.

     There are two main mechanisms through which eutrophication
can effect trophic levels above the primary producers.  First,
the algae favored by the enrichment may be unsuitable as food
organisms  (this seems to be the case for many blue-green algae)
resulting in changes in subsequent links of the food web.
Secondly, low oxygen values resulting from the decomposition
of excessive organic matter, either allochthonous or auto-
chthonous, may cause the exclusion of low oxygen intolerant
fauna.  Other effects, such as direct poisoning of organisms
by metabolic products from algae, or sensitivity to increased
sediment loads, i.e., burying benthic organisms or clogging
gills of fish and invertebrates appear to be less significant.

     It must be emphasized that all the changes are not direct.
The structure of various levels of food webs will affect other
components.  For example, the presence or absence of plankton-
ivorous fish is often a controlling factor for zooplankton,_
and they in turn control the algal crop by size and/or particle
selective grazing.  Data on freshwater zooplankton indicate  low
levels of enrichment may stimulate zooplankton by increasing
                              B-l

-------
 available  food.  At  higher  levels  floral changes will lead to
 changes  in the  zooplankton.  Many  zooplankters are sensitive
 to  reduced oxygen  levels  {Brooks,  1969).  Similar observations
 can be made for  fish and  benthic fauna.

      Eutrophication,  in and  of  itself,  is not an unnatural
 phenomenon.   In  many areas,  lakes  are naturally eutrophic and
 have always been populated by bloom-forming blue-green algae.
 What is  of concern is cultural  eutrophication, or the premature
 senesce  of lakes caused by man's activities.   This is
 typically  a phenomena of  the developed  countries, and is related
 to  the intensity of  technological  activities  in the watershed.
 Extensive  research has indicated that the primary cause of cul-
 tural eutrophication is enrichment with phosphorus (Vollenweider,
 1971).   There are  lakes in which phosphorus is not the critical
 factor.  In some nitrogen is limiting,  as is  the case in Lake
 Tahoe (Paul,  Richards, Leonard  and Goldman,  1975).  Similarly,
 trace elements may occasionally be limiting,  premarily in
 oligotrophic  systems, although  there is  no biogeochemical reason
 why this must be the case.

      In  order to completely  correct cultural  eutrophication,  then,
 identification,  quantification  and control of all phosphorus
 sources  is required.  Since  this is generally not possible, it
 is  necessary  to  establish nutrient levels  which will allow the
 lake to  remain in, or return to, the desired  condition.   There
 are two  criteria that may be used  for this purpose,  the  phospho-
 rus concentration  within  the lake, or the phosphorus loading
 rates to the  lake.   Concentration  criteria is the older  of the
 two.  Sawyer  (1947)  suggested that concentrations at spring turn-
 over of  0.010 mg/1 of inorganic phosphorus and 0.300 mg/1 of
 inorganic  nitrogen were critical levels  in the development of
 algal blooms.  Vollenweider  (1971  and others)  is  the primary
 proponent  of  the "loading rate" concept.   This concept is
 currently  receiving  the most attention.   It involves the identi-
 fication of levels of phosphorus addition  to  the  lake ("loading")
 which will not appreciably effect  the trophic  state  of the lake.
 In  early papers  these limits were  determined  by comparing load-
 ing rates  for lakes  known to be eutrophic  with others where no
 problems were known  to exist.   On  this basis,  Vollenweider (1971)
 produced estimates of nutrient  loading rates  which could be
 sustained  by  lakes of various depths.  This approach was demon-
 strated  to be incomplete  by  Dillon (1975) ,  since  no  consideration
 was  given  to  hydraulic retention time.   Vollenweider (1975) also
 recognized this  deficiency and redesigned  his  criteria accord-
 ingly.   Dillon (1975) reviewed the available  literature  and con-
 cluded ,that when a lake is in steady-state equilibrium the
 loading rate  and the total phosphorus concentration  area
 related by the equation:

           (P) = L  (l-R)
                 (z)  P

where      (P) = total phosphorus concentration (g/M3)
                             B-2

-------
                               f\
          L = loading rate gm/M /yr

          R = retention coefficient

          z = mean depth (M)

and       P = flushing rate (year   )

     Using this formulation (or that of Vollenweider, 1975) it
is possible to calculate a loading rate  (L) which will keep
the total phosphorus concentration (P) below that necessary for
eutrophication to occur.  The relationship of phosphorus load-
ing to total phosphorus in a lake is still an area of active
research, and as a result there is no single "correct" method
of calculating permissible loading rates.  In this discussion
we will present a range, based on the calculations of Dillon
(1975) and Vollenweider (1975).  Once an estimation of the cri-
tical loading value is made, the next step is to measure, or
estimate, the inputs to the lake.  Ideally, a comprehensive
research program to evaluate all inputs will be available.  In
practice it is usually necessary to estimate at least some of
the inputs.  This can be done using published reports which
relate water quality in runoff or drainage to land use.  It is
not as accurate as direct estimation.  Published results for
this type of study indicate that considerable variation exists
within any single land use category.   As a result, any calcula-
tions based on theoretical land use,  rather than actual measured
values, introduce uncertainity into the calculations.   In the
case of Lake Winnisquam and Winnipesaukee some published data
are available, and the calculations which follow are a mixture
of actual and estimated nutrient inputs.  Since phosphorus is
normally the critical nutrient in eutrophic lakes, and both
Lake Winnisquam and Lake Winnipesaukee have been shown to be
phosphorus limited (EPA, 1974a; NHWSPC, 1973), only a phosphorus
budget is presented in this report.

     Lake Winnipesaukee

     EPA (1974) conducted an evaluation of the Lake, and found
that it was oligotrophic,  based on current loading rates.  Local
disturbances do occur in enclosed areas near certain point
sources.  The EPA report included data on nutrient levels and
flow for all major tributaries, and either measurements or
estimates of all other nutrient sources  (direct runoff, munici-
pal discharges, septic tank seepage and rainfall).  Since EPA
did not address the future status of the Lake, EcolSciences inc.
has conducted an evaluation of this problem.  The methods and
results of this analysis are summarized below.
                             B-3

-------
     In order to facilitate the analysis, the following
assumptions were made:

     •  All the data presented in the EPA (1974) budget for
        the Lake represent the best available current data,
        and accurately assess the inputs to the Lake;

     •  Input via rainfall and direct runoff to the Lake will
        not change;

     •  Septic tank input to the Lake will not change;

     •  All point sources will be removed from the Lake; and

     •  The Lake is completely homogenous

     EPA  (1974) calculated "permissible" (oligotrophic) and
"dangerous"  (eutrophic) loading rates for the Lake, using the
procedures given by Vollenweider (1975).  EcolSciences inc. has
supplemented their data by similar calculations using the formu-
lation of Dillon  (1975).  The results of this analysis  (Table
11-13) show that the critical loading rate based on the work of
Dillon (1975) is approximately equal to that used by EPA.  In
order to  insure a conservative estimate of the future of the
Lake, the lower values  (Dillon, 1975) were used in the remain-
ing calculations.

                         Table B-l

  "PERMISSIBLE" AND "DANGEROUS" PHOSPHORUS LOADING RATES  (PER
      UNIT AREA OF LAKE SURFACE) FOR LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE
          CALCULATED USING TWO DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES

                      Oligotrophic        2        Eutrophic
                       (Permissible]    g/M/yr     (Dangerous)

Vollenweider, 1974         0.18                       0.36
Dillon, 1975               0.14                       0.28

     EPA  (1974) calculated a current phosphorus loading rate
for the Lake of 0.12 g/M2/yr, which is below the permissible
loading rate of Dillon.  Removal of all current point source dis-
charges,  as is now anticipated, reduces this figure, to  0.07
g/M yr.   This does not  include removal of septic tank seepage
from the  Altdn area, which will be the case when a treatment faci-
lity  is  constructed.   This indicates that, given existing land
use, removal of the point source discharges will assure  the
quality of the Lake.  It must be emphasized that this does not
eliminate the possibility of localized disturbances, since the
assumption of complete  homogeneity in the Lake is an obvious,
but necessary, over-simplification.
                             B-4

-------
     Increased future development will effect the overall
quality of  the Lake.   In order to evaluate the magnitude of
the effect,  further calculations were made.  The current total
phosphorus  load to Lake Winnipesaukee from all sources is
49,210 Ibs.  P/yr.   Of that, 22,060 Ibs. can be eliminated by
removal of  existing point source discharges.  If this is done
there is a  current baseline loading of 27,150 Ibs. P/yr for
the entire  basin.   In order to exceed the oligotrophic rate of
0.14 g /M /yr a total input of 55,703 Ibs. p/yr is needed.
This represents an increase (after point-source removal) of
28,554 Ibs.  P/yr.   One potential source of additional phosphorus
is non-point discharge from urban, industrial or agricultural
development.  Of these, it is unlikely that either agricultural
or industrial development will be significant.  Low density
residential development is projected to occur.  Data presented
by RERC (1974) indicate that in urban areas the average single
family conventional home has a non-point phosphorus discharge
of 0.66 Kg/year (1.455 Ibs/yr).  Using this figure, an increase
of 20,000 homes would provide the necessary phosphorus to
exceed the oligotrophic loading rate-  Using a figure of three
persons per dwelling unit, this corresponds to a basin-wide
population increase of approximately 59,000 persons.  Using a
similar procedure, it would require 58,000 homes or an addi-
tional 174,000 population to exceed the eutrophic loading rate.
If development were allowed to proceed without sewers, the cal-
culations would not accurately reflect the contribution per unit.
If high density development occurs, localized eutrophication
problems might occur in the Lake.  Population estimates avail-
able  to EcolSciences inc. indicate that the population increase
calculated here will not be exceeded by the year 2000.  It
appears, therefore, that the Lake's water quality will not be
impaired by any anticipated future development in the basin,
provided it occurs on sewers or low densities.

      This analysis does not address other problems associated
with  development which may affect lake water quality.  The
most  significant of these appears to be erosion and resultant
runoff to the Lake during construction.  This can be a signifi-
cant  short-term nutrient source and should be controlled.  In
addition, careful siting of development is required to prevent
continuing erosion problems.

      Lake Winnisquam

      A phosphorus budget for Lake Winnisquam has been developed
by the NHWSPCC  (1975).  Using the techniques given  in Vollenweider
 (1975), NHWSPCC calculated-oligotrophic and eutrophic loading
rates of 0.44 and 0.87 g/m /year, respectively.  They then
estimated that even total phosphorus removal at the Laconia  and
State School  STP's would not lower the  loading rate below the
oligotrophic  limit for the Lake.  It was concluded  that  the
calculations may have been biased by use of an incorrect  flushing
                              B-5

-------
rate for the Lake.  In their calculations they used a mean
residence time of 0.7 years, based on total mixing within the
Lake.  The morphology of the Lake argues against this, and their
decision to reduce the residence time appears correct.  Unfor-
tunately, there is no data to indicate how much of a reduction
is appropriate, and their use of 0.25 years is completely
arbitrary.

     If the permissible loading rates are calculated, using
the equation of Dillon  (1975), the oligotrophic rate is 0.80
g/M2/year.  These values are roughly twice those obtained using
Vollenweider's methods.  This reflects the slightly different
approaches used by the two authors.  In this case total P
removal would restore the Lake to an oligotrophic condition,
the  status of Lake Winnisquam is not clear.  If the initial
calculations by the State are correct, the basin is already
over-urbanized  (unless unknown point sources exist).  If the
estimates made by EcolSciences, Inc. are more accurate, some,
but  not much, growth could occur in basin after diversion of
sewage.  Finally, if the 0.7 year residence time for the Lake
is significantly  in error, then some growth could occur before
non-point sources would begin to effect the Lake  (assuming total
removal  of current point sources).

     Because of the limitations of the data, EcolSciences, Inc.
does not feel  that any  estimates of future conditions in the
Lake are appropriate.  We strongly recommend an extensive evalua-
tion of  the existing data leading to an assessment and correction
of data  deficiencies.

     Discussion

     In  any attempt at  this  type of modeling it is essential  to
keep in  mind the  limitations  of the data.  Throughout the calcu-
lations  EcolSciences,  inc.  has used a  "worst cast" methodology,
in order to insure the  quality of the  lakes.  In  the  case of
Lake Winnipesaukee this has  involved the use of the  lowest
calculated  critical loading  rates, and high estimates of non-
point  discharge.  The  figure  of 1.455  Ibs/house/year  used in
this study  is  equivalent to an areal loading rate  (2,000 houses/sq.
mile)  of 2,910  Ibs P/sq.mi./year, which  is higher  than any  other
estimates of urban non-point  phosphorus  discharge  currently  avail-
able to  EcolSciences  (Table B-2).  The current areal  loading
rate from the  tributary streams ranges from 27 to 149  Ibs.
P/sq.mi./year,  figures  v/ell within expected limits  for discharge
from forested  areas EPA (1974), and well below that  postulated
for  urban areas.

     Implicit  in  all of the calculations is the  assumption  that
the  current data  is an accurate assessment of  the true  loading
rate.  In the  case of  both  lakes Winnisquam and Winnipesaukee,
the  data base  is  marginal  for complete assessment of the problem.
                              B-6

-------
                          Table B-2

          A SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA ON PHOSPHORUS
                 EXPORT FROM URBANIZED AREAS
 Total P
(Lbs/mi /yr)

    522

    584
    709
    627
  2,856

    571
Reference

EPA (1974)

EPA (1974)
EPA (1974)
EPA (1974)
Uttormark,
etal.  (1974)
Uttormark,
etal.  (1974)
 Location

Cincinnati

Ann Arbor
Durham
Madison
"high" urban

"low" urban
   Remarks

Storm water
runoff
Theoretical
values
Theoretical
values
Frequently, nutrient loading into lakes occurs over a restricted
period in the spring of the year, and significant inputs may
be missed by monthly sampling programs, typical of the existing
data base.  In a practical sense, this problem is compensated
for by using conservative estimates wherever possible.  The
analysis conducted by EcolSciences,inc. should be considered as
a first estimate of the controls necessary to insure the future
quality of the lakes.  In the sense that our estimates are
designed to be conservative they should represent reasonable
threshold levels.  At the same time, a continuing program of
water quality analysis,  at more frequent intervals than in the
past, is advisable.  We recommend that a comprehensive lake
management program for the significant lakes of the area be
instituted to insure their continued usefulness as a natural
resource.
                             B-7

-------
          APPENDIX C
Summary of Biological and Physical
Data on Major Lakes and Ponds in
the Study Area,

-------
n
          Bear Pond
          Berry Pond
          Cawley  Pond
           Clough  Pond
           Crescent Lake
                                                                           APPENDIX  TABLE C-l

                                          A SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL  DATA  ON MAJOR LAKES AMD PONDS IN THE STUDY AREA
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth
£§«« Town Area (acres) (ft) (ft)
Badger Pond Belmont 12 10 15

Batson Pond Wolfebom 15


Bear Pond Alton 13 8 15


Algae and Rooted
Aquatic Vegetation
Scant submerged
vegetation
-


Submerged vege-
tation present.


Fish Species Present
Hornpout

Hornpout, pickerel,
yellow perch, (warm
water species) .
Hornpout, chain pickerel
yellow perch, large-


Remarks
An old mill pond, drained
dry periodically.
Shallow, swampy pond.


Shallow, warm pond. Stocked
once with brown trout (1948) .




References
Hoover,
Newell,
Hoover ,


Hoover ,
Newell,
1938,
1963.
1938.


1938,
1963.
                            Cen:er Harbor  13
Moultonboro    47
Sanbornton     25
Belmont
                                            11
                                                                mouth  bass  (warm water
                                                                species).

                         18        34        Emergent vege-      Chain  pickerel,  hornpout,
                                             tation common.      yellow perch.
                                       (warm water species)
                                       chain pickerel, hornpout,
                                       yellow perch.

          15        Emergent and sub-   Hornpout, chain pickerel,
                    merged  vegetation   yellow perch.
                    abundant.

14        18        Emergent vegeta-    Hornpout, redfish shiners,
                    tion  scant, sub-    sunfish.
                    merged  vegetation
                    common.
                                                                 Low dissolved oxygen  in
                                                                 deep water makes  it un-
                                                                 suitable for salmonids.
                                                                                                                       Suitable for warm water fish
                                                                                                                       only.
                                                                                                                       Brook  trout reported by
                                                                                                                       Hoover,  1938.   Spring fed
                                                                                                                       pond.
                             Holfeboro     148
                                                      vegeta-  Pickerel, hornpout.        Artificial pond, warm water.
                                             tion  common.       smallmouth bass, yellow
                                                               perch.
                                                                                                                                                     Newell, 1963.
                                                                                                                                                     Hoover,  1938.
                                                                                                                        Hoover,  1938,
                                                                                                                        Newell,  1963.
                                                                                                                        Newell,  1963,
                                                                                                                        Hoover,  1938.
                                                                                                                                                     Hoover,  1938.

-------
         APPENDIX TABLE  C-l.    CONTINUED.
o
 I
NJ
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth
Name Sown Area(acres) (ft) (ft)
Garland Pond Moultonboro 80 — 10
Giles Pond Franklin 43 6 23
Sanbornton
Gillman Pond Alton 32 9 14
Halfmoon Lake Alton 280 -- 29
Hawkins Pond Center Harbor 93 — 27
Hermit Lake Sanbornton 200 — 50
Algae and Rooted
Aquatic Vegetation
Rooted aquatics
scant.
Submergent vege-
tation abundant.
Emergent vegeta-
tion common,
submerged vege-
tation scant.
Emergent vegeta-
tion common,
submerged vege-
tation common.
Emergent vegeta-
tion abundant,
Fish Species Present Remarks,
Pickerel, hornpout. Very shallow warm water.
yellow perch, bass.
Hornpout, chain pickerel. Artificial pond.
yellow perch.
Chain pickerel, yellow
perch, hornpout, brook
trout, (few) largemouth
bass, golden shiner.
White perch, smallmouth Tendency for low D.O.
bass, largemouth bass, marginal for salmonids.
rainbow trout, chain
pickerel, yellow perch,
hornpout, fallfish,
common sucker .
Chain pickerel, yellow Tendency for low D.O.
perch, hornpout.
White -perch, hornpout, Tendency for low D.O. in
largemouth bass, chain deep water.
References
Hoover ,
Eoover,
Hoover,
Newell ,
Newell,
Hoover ,
Newell,
Newell,
Hoover ,
1938.
1938.
1938,
1963
1963.
1938,
1963.
1963,
1938.
         Hills Pond
                           Alton
                                           85
                                                     17
                                                              40
submerged vege-
tation common.

Emergent and
submerged vegeta-
tion common.
pickerel, yellow perch,
sunfish, golden shiner.

Smallmouth bass, hornpout. Marginal for salmonids
rainbow trout, chain       because of low D.O. in
pickerel, yellow perch     deep water.
eels, white perch, suckers,
sunfish, smelt.
                                                                                                                                                    Newell,  1963.

-------
         APPENDIX  TABLE C-l  .    CONTINUED.
n
 I
CO
         Name
                                            Mean    Maximum
                                Surface    Depth     Depth
                    Town       Area(acres)   (ft)      (ft)
         Hunkins Pond      Sanbornton     15
         Xanataska Lake    Moultonboro   371
         Knights Pond      Alton
Lees Pond
         Lily Pond
         Mirror Lake
                                  31
         Knowles Pond      Northfield     59
                  Moultonboro   179
                  Gilford
                                 51
                  Tuftonboro    377
                  Wolfeboro
         Mountain Pond     Sanbornton     22
                                                    16
                                                              22
                                                              12
                                                             404
                                                              53
 Algae and Rooted
Aquatic Vegetation

 Emergent and sub-
 merged vegetation
 common.
                                                                                    Fish Species Present

                                                                                  Brook trout, rainbow trout.
                                                                                                                                Remarks
                                                                                                                      Salmonids have been stocked
                                                                                                                      (around turn of century)
                                                                                                                      without success.
                                                                        Submerged vege-
                                                                        tation common.
 Emergent and
 submergent veye-
 tation scant.

 Emergent vegeta-
 tion abundant.

 Emergent vegeta-
 tion abundant,
 submerged vege-
 tation abundant.
                    Hornpout,  pickerel,  white
                    perch,  yellow perch,
                    smallmouth bass.

                    Warm water fish,  hornpout,
                    pickerel,  yellow  perch,
                    largemouth bass.
                                                                                           Smallmouth bass,  hornpout,  Well oxygenated hypo-
                                                                                           pickerel, yellow  perch.     limnion.  Reservoir - closed
                                                                                                                      to fishing.  Salmonid water.
Pickerel, bass, yellow
perch, hornpout.

Pickerel, yellow perch,
hornpout, largemouth
bass.
                                                                                                                      Marshy,  very low D.O.
                                                                                                                      hypolimnion.
                                                                                                                                   in
                                                                                                                     Marshy,  trout  stocked in
                                                                                                                     1930s  -  did  not  last.
                                                                                                                     Warm water fish.
                                                                                                                     Low D.O. below  20  feet.
                   Pickerel, yellow perch,
                   hornpout, white perch,
                   brook trout, chinook     ~~\
                   salmon, landlocked salmon,/stocked
                   smallmouth bass.         J

 Emergent  and sub-  Chain pickerel, hornpout.  Water supply reservoir -
 merged  vegetation  yellow perch.              salmonid water, none stocked
 common.                                       since it is a reservoir.
                                                           References

                                                          Newell,  1963.



                                                          Hoover,  1938.
                                                                                                                                           Hoover, 1938,
                                                                                                                                           Newell, 1963.
                                                                                                                                           Hoover, 1938,
                                                                                                                                           Newell, 1963.
Hoover,  1938.


Hoover,  1938.




Hoover,  1938.





Honver, 1933.

-------
          APPENDIX TABLE C-l .    CONTINUED.
O
Mean
Surface Depth
Name Town Area (acres) (ft)
Opechee Bay Laconia 427



Otter Por.d Center 12 10
' Harbor

Pemigewasset Meredith 241
Lake New Hampton



Pickerel Pond Laconia 75
Meredith

Pout Pond Belmont 14 38



Randlett Pond Meredith 25



Sound Pond Gilford 19

Maximum
Depth Algae and Rooted
(ft) Aquatic Vegetation
65



20 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
common .
30 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
abundant.


21 Emergent vegeta-
tion abundant,
vegetation common.
70 Emergent vegeta-
tion scant, sub-
merged vegetation
common .
11 Emergent vegeta-
tion scant, sub-
merged vegetation
abundant.
9 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation

Fish Scecies Present Remarks
Smallmouth bass, chain Zero D.O. in bottom 10 ft.
pickerel, fallfish.
yellow perch, lake trout.
salmon.
Chain pickerel, yellow Low D.O. in hypolimnion
perch, hornpout, fallfish.
common sucker.
Smallmouth bass, white Much of lake is under 10
perch, hornpout, chain feet in depth. Severe D.O.
pickerel, yellow perch, deficiency in deep water.
chub suckers, golden
shiner.
Chain pickerel, hornpout , Near zero D.O. below 10 feet.
yellow perch. Extensive weed beds.

Chain pickerel, hornpout, Salmonid water.
yellow perch.


Chain pickerel, yellow Warm water fish.
perch , hornpout .


Hornpout, yellow perch. Brook trout stocking
attempted in 1930s, appar-


Ref erences
Hoover,
Newell,


Newell ,


Hoover ,
Newell,



Hoover ,
Newell ,

N«well,



Hoover ,
Npwell,


Hoover,
Newell,
1933,
1963.


1963.


1938,
1963.



1933,
1963.

1963.



1933,
1963.


1938,
1963.
                                                                        abundant.
                                                                                                                      ently without success.

-------
APPENDIX TABLE C-l.    CONTINUED.
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth Algae and Rooted
Name Town Area (acres) (ft) (ft) Aquatic Vegetation
Rust Pond Wolfeboro 210 — 39 Emergent vegeta-
tion scant, sub-
merged vegetation
common .
Saltmarsh Gilford 31 — 23 Emergent and sub-
Pond merged vegetation
scant.
Sargent Belmont 30 7 10 Emergent and sub-
Reservoir merged vegetation
scant.
Silver Lake Belmont 177 — 11 Emergent vegeta-
Northfield tion scant, sub-
O Tilton merged vegetation
(_fl abundant.

Sondogardy Pond Northfield 41 10 15 Emergent vegeta-
tion common, sub-
merged vegetation
scant.
Spectacle Pond Meredith 31 13 34 Emergent vegeta-
tion common, sub-

Fish Species Present
Pickerel, hornpout, small-
mouth bass.


Brook trout, rainbow trout.


Hornpout .


Chain pickerel, yellow
perch, hornpout, rainbow
trout, brook trout,
smallmouth bass, sunfish,
smelt, suckers.
Chain pickerel, yellow
perch, hornpout, golden
shiner, sunfish.

Hornpout, chain pickerel,
yellow perch, eels, sun-

Remarks
Low D.O. near bottom.



High D.O. , spring-fed
Salmonid water.

Artificial - Mill Reser-
voir. Considerable water
level fluctuation.
Expansion of Winnipesaukee
River. Warm water fish
habitat.


Salmonid water.



Warm water fish habitat.



References
Hoover ,



Hoover,
Newell,

Newell,


Hoover,
Newell,



Hoover,
Newell,


Hoover,
Newell,
1938.



1938,
1963.

1963.


1938,
1963



1938,
1963.


1938,
1963.
                                                               merged  vegetation
                                                               scant.
                                                                                   fish.

-------
        APPENDIX TABLE C-l  .  CONTINUED.
        Name
        Squam Lake
                           Town
                         Mean    Maximum
             Surface    Depth     Depth
            Area(acres)  (ft)     (ft)
Center Harbor  6,765
Holderness
Moultonboro
Sandwich
                         36
                                   98
n
        Sunset Lake       Alton            206     25
        Hakondah Pond     Moultonboro       93
        Waukewan Lake     Meredith         665
                          New Hampton
        Webster Lake
                          Franklin
                                           612
                                                             62
                                                            >28
                                                             68
                                                             40
 Algae and Rooted
Aquatic Vegetation

 Extensive sub-
 merged vegeta-
 tion in areas
 less than 25'
 deep.  Emergent
 vegetation found
 only in shallow
 coves.
                                             Emergent and  sub-
                                             merged vegetation
                                             scant.
  Fish Species Present

Lake trout, smallmouth
bass, whitefish, horned
pout, yellow perch, chain
pickerel, brook trout,
stnelt, eastern common
sucker, fallfish, bridled
shiner, redfin shiner,
golden shiner, common
sunfish, redbreastsd
sunfish, white perch,
northern sculpin, cusk,
salmon.

Hornpout, smallmouth bass,
chain pickerel, yellow
perch, smelt.

Hornpout, yellow perch,
pickerel.
          Remarks            References

New Hampshire's second      Hoover, 1938,
largest Ifcke.  Very pro-    Newell, 1963.
ductive.  Low D.O. in
some areas of hypolimnion.
Extensive stocking history.
                                                                                                                       Low D.O. below 15 feet.
                                             Submerged vegeta-   Hornpout,  landlocked  salmon.  Low  D.O.  in  hypolimnion.
                                             tion scant,         pickerel,  smallmouth  bass,    Salmonid  water.
                                             emergent vegeta-    yellow perch,  lake  trout,
                                             tion scant.         golden shiner.

                                             Emergent vegeta-    Smallmouth bass,  hornpout.    Low  D.O.  in  hypolinnion.
                                             tion scant,  sub-    yellow perch,  golden          Warm water fish  habitat.
                                             merged vegetation   shiners,  smelt,  fallfish.     Brook trout  stocking
                                             common.             white  perch,  chain  pickerel,  attempted in 1930s,  but
                                                                                             was  a failure.
                                                                                                                                                   Newell, 1963.
                                                                                                                                                   Hoover, 1938.
                                                                             Hoover, 1938,
                                                                             Newell, 1963.
                                                                                                                                                   Hoover,  .938,
                                                                                                                                                   Newell, 1963.

-------
        APPENDIX TABLE C-l.    CONTINUED.
O
 I
-J


Wpntworth Pond



Wickwas Lake


Lake
Hinnipesaukee






Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth Algae and Rooted
Town Area (acres) (ft) (ft) Aquatic Vegetation
Wolfeboro 143



Meredith 328


Alton 44,586
Center Harbor
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Moultonboro
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro




25 50 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
scant.

30 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
common .
43 168 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
scant, phyto-
plankton pro-
duction high- local
blooms in bays ,
dominated by blue-
green and green
algae. Diatoms
seasonally im-
portant.
Fish Species Present
Hornpout, pickerel, small -
mcuth bass, whitefish,
yellow perch.

Hornpout, yellow perch,
chain pickerel.

Brook trout, hornpout,
lake trout, landlocked
salmon, pickerel, small-
mouth bass, whitefish,
yellow perch, sunfish,
smelt.






Low D.O. in areas of
hypolimnion. Trout
stocking attempted prior
to 1930 but unsuccessful.
Low D.O. in hypolimnion.
Marginal salmonid water.

Salmonid water, very high
dissolved oxygen. Exten-
sive sport fishery. Ex-
tensive data base on algae
and nutrients. No data
on zoopiankton. Local
problems with eutrophica-
tion in enclosed bays near
population centers, over-
all water quality good.


Rsf sirsncss
Hoover, 1938.



Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963.

Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963,
EPA, 1974,
Yeo & Mathie-
son, 1973.




        Lake
        Wirmisquam
Belmont
Laconia
Meredith
Sanbornton
Tilton
4(264        50       154        Emergent and sub-  Brook trout, lake trout,
                                 mergent vegeta-    landlocked salmon, smelt,
                                 tion scant.  Blue- whitefish, smallmouth bass,
                                 green algae blooms yellow perch, fallfish,
                                 excessive in many  sunfish, hornpout, suckers,
                                 areas of the lake, chain pickerel.
                                 especially southern
                                 arm.
Salmonid water.  Extensive  KHWPCC,  1975
eutrophication problem      KKWPCC,  1974
causing low dissolved       NHWPCC,  1973
oxygen in hypolimnion       Newell,  1963
threatens the fishery.      Hoover,  1938.
Extensive data on algae
and nutrients.

-------
APPENDIX  D




FISH SPECIES

-------
                            TABLE  D-l

                  CHECKLIST OF FISH SPECIES IN
              WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
 Sea Lamprey
   Petromyzon marinus
 American  Eel
   Anquilla rostrata
*Lake Whitefish
   Copegonus elupeafopmis
*Round Whitefish
   Pposopium cylindpaeeum
*Landlocked Salmon
   Salmo salap
 Brown Trout
   Salmo trutta
 Rainbow Trout
   Salmo gaipdeni
 Brook Trout
   Salvelinus fontinalis
*Lake Trout
   Salvelinus namaycush
* Rainbow Smelt
   OsmeTus mopdax
 Chain Pickerel
   Esox nigep
 Golden Shiner
   Notemigonus crysoleuoas
 Common Shiner
   Notropis oornutus
 Blacknooe Dace
   Rhinichthys catratulus
 Longnose  Dace
   Rhinichthys ataraetae
 Fallfish
   Semotilus oorpovdlis
 White Sucker
   Catostomus commerson-i
 Creek Chubsucker
   Epimyzon oblongi4S
 Brown Bullhead
   letalmms nebulosus
 Margined  Mad torn
   Noturus insignia
*Burbot
   Lota lota
 Killifish
   Fundulus diaphanus
 White Perch
   Mopone amerioana
*Preferred habitat  is cold water lakes.
Smallmouth Bass
  Micropterus dolomieui
Largemouth Bass
  Miaropterus salmoides
Pumpkinseed
  Lepomis gibbosus
Redbreast Sunfish
  Lepomis auritus
Yellow Perch
  Peroa flavesoens
Slimy  Sculpin
  Cottus eognatus
                                   D-l

-------
  APPENDIX E




ALGAL SPECIES

-------
                         TABLE  E-l

          A  LIST OF THE  MOST COMMON ALGAL
   SPECIES  IN LAKE WINNISPESAUKEE, NEW HAMPSHIRE
             (After Yeo & Mathieson, 1973)
Division
Cyanophyta
(Blue-green algae)
Chlorophyta
(Green algae)
Chrysophyta
(Diatoms)
Species

Polyaystis  aeruginosa
Polyoystis  inoevta
Coelosphaerium naegelianum
Oscillator-ia angustissima
Coelosphaeriwn pallidum
Gomphosphaeria lacustris
Aphanooapsa elachista
Gomphosphaeria lacustris var.  aompaota
Aphanotheoe nidulans

Gloeocystis vesioulosa
Botryococcus braunii
Actinastrwn hantssehii var.  fluwiatile
Ulothpix variabilis
Diotyosphaeriim pulahellum
Botryococeus protubepans var>.  minor
Cruoigenia  truncata

Chrysosphaerella longispina
Dinobvyon divergens
Phizoohrysis lirmetiea.
Uroglenopsis americana
Dinobryan septulavia var. protuberans
Melosira ambigua
Tabellaria  fenestrata
Asterionel'la formosa
Fragillaria crotonensis
Cyalotella  oomta
Dinobryon bavariawn
                              E-l

-------
                        TABLE  E-2

      A  LIST OF THE  MOST COMMON  ALGAL GENERA
          IN LAKE WINNISQUAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE
          (After New  Hampshire  Water Supply
           and Pollution Control  Commission/
           1973)
Division
Cyanophyta
Chlorophyta
Chrysophyta
Genera

Gloeotrioh'ia
Andbaena
Aphanisomenon
Ulothrix
Coe losphaeTiwn

Pleodorina
Sphaevooystis
Dietyosphaeviiffn
Pandorina
Eudoin-na

As ter"Lone I la
Tabellaria
Mallomonas
Dindbryon
                           E-2

-------
      APPENDIX F




COMMON TREES AND SHRUBS

-------
                             TABLE F-l

   ™  U»««T         COMMON TREES  AND SHRUBS
   OF  MERRIMACK, BELKNAP AND CARROLL COUNTIES, NEW  HAMPSHIRE
 American Yew
   Taxus eanadensis
 Balsam Fir
   Abies balsamea
*Hemlock
   Tsuga eanadensis
 Larch
   Larix larcina
*White Pine
   Pinus strobus
 Red  Pine
   Pinus resinosa
 Juniper
   Juniperus communis
 Red  Cedar
   Juniperus virginiana
 Greenbriar
   Smilax rotundifolia
 Black Willow
   Salix nigra
 White Willow
   Salix alba
 Pussy Willow
   Salix discolor
 Trembling Aspen
   Populus tremuloides
 Large-tooth  Aspen
   Populus grandidentata
 Sweet Gale
   Myriea gale
 Sweet Fern
   Carry tonia perigrina
 Butternut
   Juglans cinerea
 Shagbark Hickory
   Carya ovata
 American Hazelnut
   Corylus amerioana
 Ironwood
   Caypinus aaroliniana
 Hop Hornbeam
   Ostrya  virginiana
 Black  Birch
   Be tula  lenta
*Yellow Birch
   Be tula  lutea
*Gray Birch
   Betula populifolia
*White Birch
   Betula papyrifera
 Alder
   Alnus rugosa
 Alder
   Alnus serrulata
 Beech
   Fagus gvandifolia
 White Oak
   Queraus alba
 Chestnut Oak
   Quercus pvinus
*Red  Oak
   Quercus rubra
 Scarlet Oak
   Quereus oocoinea
*Black Oak
   Quereus velutina
 Scrub Oak
   Quevcus ilicifolia
 Slippery Elm
   Ulnrus Tubra
 American Elm
   Ulmus americana
 White Mulberry
   Morus alba
 Barberry
   Berberis vulgaris
 Moonseed
   Menispermwn eanadensis
 Sassafras
   Sassafras albidum
 Witch Hazel
   Hammamelis virginiana
 Meadow Sweet
   Spiraea latafolia
 Hardhack
   Spirea tomentosa
 Apple
  Pyrus ntalus
 Chokeberry
  Pyrus floribunda
 Mountain Ash
  Sorbus amerioana
                                  F-l

-------
Shadbush
  Amelanchier spp.
Hawthorn
  Crataegus spp.
Shrubby cinquefoil
  Potent-ilia fruiticosa
Rose
  Eos a spp.
Pin  Cherry
  Prunus pensy Ivaniaa
Black Cherry
  Prunus serotina
Choke Cherry
  Primus virginiana
Black Locust
  Robinia pseudo-aaacia
Staghorn Sumac
  Rhus typhina
Smooth  Sumac
  Rhus glabra
Poison  Ivy
  Rhus radicans
Black Alder
  Ilex verticillata
Mountain Maple
  Acer spicatum
 Striped Maple
  Acer  pensylvanicum
*Sugar Maple
  Acer saccharum
 Red Maple
  Acer rubrum
 Silver  Maple
  Acer saccharinum
 Box Elder
  Acer negundo
 Buckthorn
  Rhamnus cathartioa
 Virginia Creeper
  Parthenocissus inserta
 Fox Grape
   Viti-s  Idbrusca
 Wild Grape
   Vitis  riparia
 Basswood
   Tilia  americana
 Black  Gum
  Nyssa  sylvatioa
 Red Osier  Dogwood
  Cornus stolonifera
 Round-leaved Dogwood
  Cornus  rugosa
 Swamp Dogwood
  Cornus  amormm
 Alternate-leaved  Dogwood
  Cornus  alternifolia
 White Alder
  Clethra alnifolia
 Rhodora
  Rhodora oanadense
 Sheep Laurel
  Kalmia  angustifolia
 Huckleberry
  Gaylussaoia baaoata
 Blueberry
  Vaccinium spp.
*White Ash
  Fraxinus americanum
 Black Ash
  Fraxinus nigra
 Buttonbush
  Cephalanthus ocaidentalis
 Fly Honeysuckle
  Lonicera canadensis
 Hobblebush
  Viburnum alnifolium
 Wild Raisin
  Viburnum cassinoides
 Nannyberry
  Viburnum lentago
 Arrow Wood
  Viburnum recognitum
 Maple-leaved Viburnum
  Viburnum acerifolium
 Common  Elder
  SambuGus canadensis
 Red-berried Elder
  Sambueus pubens
                                F-2

-------
          APPENDIX  G




MAMMALS, AMPHIBIANS, AND REPTILES

-------
                         TABLE  G-l


            A PARTIAL CHECK LIST OF THE MAMMALS
       OF BELKNAP,  MERRIMACK AND  CARROLL  COUNTIES
Hairy-tailed Mole
  Parasoalops breweri
Star-nosed Mole
  Condylura oristata
Common Shrew
  Sorex cinereus oinereus
Smoky Shrew
  Sorex fwneus fumeus
White-lipped  Water Shrew
  Sorex palustris albibarbis
Short-tailed  Shrew
   Blarina brevioauda  brevicauda
Little Brown Bat
   Myotis lucifugus
Say's Bat
   Myotis keenii septentrionalis
Silver-haired Bat
   Lasionyotevis noativagans
Pipistrelle
   Pipistrellus subflavus obsourus
Big Brown  Bat
   Eptesious fusaus  fuseus
Red Bat
   Lasiurus borealis borealis
Bear, American Black
   Evasotos amerieanus amerieanus
 Raccoon, Eastern
   Pvooyon  lotor lotor
 Fisher
   Martes pennanti  pennanti
 Bonaparte's Weasel
   Mustela  cicognanii-  o-Lcognan-ii
 New York  Weasel
   Mustela  frenata noveboraaensis
 Northeastern Mink
   Mustela  vis on
 Otter, Northeastern
   Lutra aanadensis oanadensis
 Skunk
   Mephitis  mephitis nigra
 Red Fox
   Vulpes fulva
 Bobcat
   Lynx rufus rufus
 New England Woodchuck
   Marmota  monax preblontm
 Chipmunk,  Northeastern
   lamias striatus  lysteri
Southern Red Squirrel
  Tamiasoirurus hudsonious loquax
Northern Gray  Squirrel
  Sciupus carolinensis  leueotis
Small  Eastern  Flying Squirrel
  Glauoomys  volans volans
Mearn's Flying Squirrel
  Glaucomys  sabrinus macrotis
Beaver, Canadian
  Castor oanadensis oandensis
Muskrat, Common
  Ondatra sibethisa zibethiaa
Northern White-footed Mouse
  Peromyscus leuoopus noveboracensis
Cooper's Lemming Mouse
  Synaptomys cooperi cooperi
Pallid Red-backed Mouse
  Clethrionomys gapperi ochraceous
Field Mouse
  Miarotus pennsylvanicus pennsylvanious
Northern Pine  Mouse
  Pitymys pinetorum pinetorum
House Mouse
  Mus musculus museulus
Meadow Jumping Mouse
  Zapus hudsonious hudsonious
Woodland Jumping Mouse
  Napaeozapus insignis  insignis
Norway Rat
  Rattus norvegious
Porcupine,  Canada
  Erethizon dorsatum dorsatum
Virginia Varying Hare
  Lepus americanus virginianus
New England Cottontail
   Sylvilagus transitionalis
White-tailed  Deer
   Odocoileus virginianus borealis
                                G-l

-------
               TABLE  G-2


  A PARTIAL CHECK LIST OF  THE AMPHIBIANS
OF BELKNAP, MERRIMACK AND  CARROLL COUNTIES
          Red- Spotted  Newt
            Triturus y. vi,r"i.desoens
          Spotted Salamander
            Ambystoma maoulatum
          Red-Backed Salamander
            PTethodon oineveus
          Eastern Purple Salamander
            Gyrinophilus porphyritieus porphyritieus
          Two-Lined Salamander
            Eitfpycea bisli-neata  bi-sli-neata
          Dusky  Salamander
            Desmognathus fuseus fuscus
          American Toad
            Bufo  coneriGanus
          Fowler's Toad
            Bufo  fowleri
          Spring-Peeper
            Hyla  Grueifer
          Common Tree-Toad
            Hyla  versicolor versi-color
          Bullfrog
            Eana  aatesbeiana
          Green  Frog
            Eana  clamitans
          Pickerel Frog
            Rana  palustpis
          Leopard Frog
            Rana  pipiens
          Wood Frog
            Rana  sylvatiea
                      G-2

-------
                 TABLE G-3
   A  PARTIAL CHECK LIST OF THE REPTILES
OF BELKNAP, MERRIMACK AND  CARROLL COUNTIES
           Eastern Ring-Necked Snake
             Diadophis punctatus  edwardsii
           Smooth Green Snake
             Opheodrys vernalis
           Black Racer
             Coluber constrictor1  constrictor
           House Snake, Spotted Adder
             Lampropeltis triangultm triangulum
           Banded Water Snake
             Natrix sipedon sipedon
           De  Kay's Snake
             Storeria dekayi
           Red-Bellied Snake
             Storeria ocsipito-maculata
           Ribbon Snake
             Thamnophis  sauritus  sauritus
           Eastern Garter  Snake
             Thamnophis  sirtalis  sirtalis
           Northern Timber Rattlesnake
             Crotalus horridus horridus
           Musk Turtle
             Sterotherus odoratus
           Snapping Turtle
             Chelydra serpentina
           Spotted Turtle
             Clemmys guttata
           Wood Turtle
             Clemmys insulpta
           Blanding's  Turtle
             Emys blandingii
           Eastern Painted Turtle
             Chrysemys picta picta
                        G-3

-------
APPENDIX  H
  BIRDS

-------
                      TABLE H-l

          BIRDS  OF CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
R
U
c
A
           Rave
           Uncommon
           Common
           Abundant
Common Loon
  Gavia immer
Red Throated Loon
  Gavia stellata
Red-necked Grebe
  Podiceps grisegena
Horned Grebe
  Colynibus auritus
Pied Billed Grebe
  Podilymbus podiceps podiceps
Great Blue Heron
  Ardea herodias
Green Heron
  Butorides virescens
Black Crowned Night Heron
  Nycticorax nycticorax
Least Bittern
  Ixobrychus exilis
American Bittern
  Botaurus  lentiginosus
Canada  Goose
  Branta  oanadensis
Brant
  Branta  berniola
Snow- Goose
  CTzen hyperborea
Blue Goose
  CTzen oaeruleseens
Mallard
  xlnos platyrhynohos
Black  Duck
  4nas rubripes
Pintail
  Anas aouta
Green  Winged  Teal
                           R/S

                           R/M

                           R/M

                           C/M

                           R/S

                           C/S

                           R/S

                           R/S

                           R/S

                           C/S

                           C/M
                           A/M

                           R/M

                           U/M
 Blue Winged Teal
  4nas discors
 American Widgeon
                            R/M

                            U/M

                            U/M
W
S
M
Y
I
Winter1
Summer
Migrant
3 ear-round
Introduced
 Wood Duck
      sponsa
                            c/s
Ring-necked Duck         C/M
  Ay thy a collarls
Canvasback                R/M
  Aythya valisineria
Common Goldeneye         C/W
  Bueephala elangula
Barrow's Goldeneye       R/W
  Bueephala island-tea
Bufflehead                U/M
  Bueephala albeola
Oldsquaw                  R/M
  Clangula hyemalis
White-winged  Scooter     R/M
  Melanitta deglandi
Surf Scooter              R/M
  Melanitta perspioiIlata
Common Scooter            C/M
  OidemLa nigra
Ruddy Duck                R/M
  Oxyura jamaiaensis
Hooded Merganser         R/S
  Lophodytes ououllatus
Common Merganser         A/M
  Mergus merganser
Red-breasted  Merganser   R/M
  Mergus serrator
Goshawk                   R/Y
  4(2
-------
Table  H-l  Continued.
Ruffed  Grouse              C/Y
  Bonasa wnbellus
Bobwhite                    I/Y
  Colvtvus virginianus
Ring Necked Pheasant       I/Y
  Phasianus oolohicus
American  Coot              R/M
  Fulica americana
Semipalmated Plover        R/M
  Charadrius semipalmatus
Killdeer                    R/S
  Charadrius vociferus
American  Golden Plover    R/M
  Plurialis dominica
Black-bellied Plover       R/M
  Squatarola squatarola
American  Woodcock          C/S
  Philohela minor1
Spotted Sandpiper          C/S
  Aotitis macularia
Solitary  Sandpiper         C/M
  Tringa solitaria
Greater Yellowlegs         R/M
  Totanus melanoleuous
Pectoral  Sandpiper         R/M
  Erolia melanotos
White-rumped Sandpiper    R/M
  Erolia fuscieollis
Least  Sandpiper            R/M
  Erolia minutilla
Dunlin                      R/M
  Erolia alpina
Short-billed Dowicher     R/M
  Limnodromus griseus
Semipalmated Sandpiper    R/M
  Eveunetes pusillus
Sanderling                 R/M
  Crocethia alba
Northern Phalarope         R/M
  Lobipes lobatus
Glaucous  Gull              R/W
  Lavus  hyperboreus
Iceland) Gull               R/W
  Larus  glaucoides
Great  Black-backed  Gull   C/W
  LOTUS  marinus
Herring Gull               C/Y
  Larus  avgentatus
Bonaparte's Gull           R/M
  Larus  Philadelphia
Common  Tern
 Sterna hirundo
Black Tern
 Chlidonias niger
Rock Dove
 Colimba. livia
Mourning Dove
 Zenaidura maoroura
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
 Cocoyzus amerioanus
Black-billed Cuckoo
 Cocoyzus erythropthalmus
Barn Owl
 Strix vaira
Screech Owl
 Otis asio
Great Horned Owl
 Siibo virginianus
Snowy Owl
 Nyctea  scandiaaa
Barred  Owl
Whip-poor-will
 Caprimulgus vociferus
Common  Nighthawk
 Chordeiles minor
Chimney Swift
 Chaetura pelagica
Ruby-throated hummingbird
 Archiloahus eolubris
Belted  Kingfisher
 Megaoeryle alayon
Yellow-shafted  Flicker
 Colaptes auratus
Pileated Woodpecker
 Dryocopus pileatus
Yellow-bellied  Sapsucker
 Sphyrapicus varius
Hairy Woodpecker
 Dendrooopos villosus
Downy Woodpecker
 Dendrocopos pubesoens
Black-backed three-toed
  Woodpecker
 Piooides arotious
Eastern Kingbird
 Tyrannus tyrannus
Great  Crested  Flycatcher
 Myiarohus crinitis
R/M

R/M

A/Y

C/S

R/S

C/S

R/S

R/Y

u/Y

R/W

C/Y

U/S

C/M

C/S

U/S

C/S

C/S

U/Y

U/S

C/Y

C/Y

R/W


C/S

U/S
                                H-2

-------
Table II-1   Continued.
Eastern Phoebe                C/S
  Sayornis phoebe
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher    C/S
  Empidonax flaviventris
Traill's Flycatcher          R/S
  Emphidonax traillii
Least  Flycatcher             A/A
  Empidonax minimus
Wood Pewee                    C/S
  Contopus virens
Olive-sided Flycatcher       R/S
  Nuttallornis borealis
Horned Lark                   C/M
  Eremophila alpestris
Tree  Swallow                  A/S
  Iridoprocne bicolor
Bank  Swallow                  C/S
  Riparia riparia
Rough-winged  Swallow         U/S
  Stelgidopteryx ruficollis
Barn  Swallow                  A/S
  Hirundo rustioa
Cliff Swallow                A/S
  Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Purple Martin                R/S
  Progne subis
 Blue Jay                      A/Y
  Cyanocyta oristata
 Coiranon Crow                  A/W
  Corvus braahyrhynchos
 Black-capped Chickadee      C/Y
  Porws atvioapillus
 Boreal Chickadee             R/W
  Porus hudsonieus
 Tufted Titmouse             R/Y
  Parus bicolor
 White-breasted  Nuthatch     C/Y
  Sitta earolin&nsis
 Red-breasted Nuthatch       R/Y
  Sitta eanadensis
 Brown  Creeper                C/Y
   Certhia familiaris
 House Wren                   C/S
   Troglodytes aedon
 Winter Wren                  R/S
   Troglodytes troglodytes
 Long-billed Marsh Wren      C/S
  Telmatodytes  palustris
Shore-billed Marsh  Wren
  Cistothorus platensis
Mockingbird
  Mimus polyglottos
Catbird
  Dimetella carolinensis
Brown  Thrasher
  Toxostoma rufum
Robin
  Turdus migratorius
Wood Thrush
  Hylociohla mustelina
Hermit Thrush
  Eylooiohla guttata
Swainson's Thrush
  Eylooiohla ustulata
Gray-cheeked Thrush
  Hylooiohla minima
Veery
  Eylocichla fuscescens
Bluebird
  Sialia Sialis
Golden-crowned  Kinglet
  Regulus  satrapa
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
  Regulus  calendula
Water  Pipit
  Anthus spinoletta
Bohemian Waxwing
  Bomby cilia garrulus
Cedar Waxwing
  Bomby cilia cedrorwn
Northern Shrike
  Lanius  excubitov
Loggerhead  Shrike
  Lanius  ludovieianus
Starling
  Sturnus  vulgaris
Ye How- throated Vireo
   PtBSO flavifrons
 Solitary Vireo
   yireo solitarius
 Red-eyed Vireo
   yireo olivaceus
 Warbling Vireo
   Vireo gilvus
 Black and  White Warbler
   Mniotilta varia
R/S

R/Y

A/S

C/S

A/S

C/S

C/S

A/M

U.M
U/S

C/Y

U/M

U/M
C/W
 R/M
 R/S

 c/s

 A/S

 U/S

 C/S
                                 H-3

-------
Table H-l   Continued.
Tennessee Warbler             R/S
  Vermivora perigrina
Nashville Warbler             C/S
  Vermivora rufioapilla
Parula  Warbler                R/S
  Parula amerioana
Yellow  Warbler                C/S
  Dendroica peteohia
Magnolia Warbler              C/M
  Dendroioa magnolia
Black-throated Blue Warbler  C/M
  Dendroica oaerulesoens
Myrtle  Warbler                C/M
  Dendroica coronata
Black-throated Green Warbler A/S
  Dendroica virens
Blackburnian Warbler         A/S
  Dendroica fusca
Chestnut-sided Warbler       A/S
  Dendroioa pensylvaniaa
Bay-breasted Warbler         U/M
  Dendroica aastanea
Blackpoll Warbler             C/M
  Dendroica striata
Pine Warbler                  R/S
  Dendroioa pinus
Palm Warbler                  U/M
  Dendroioa palmarum
Ovenbird                      A/S
  Seiurus aurocapillus
Northern Waterthrush         R/S
  Seiurus noveboracensis
Mourning Warbler              R/S
  Oporornis Philadelphia
Yellowthroat                  A/S
  Geothlypis tviohas
Wilson's Warbler              U/M
  Wilsonia pusilla
Canada Warbler                C/S
  Wilsonia oanadensis
American Redstart             A/S
  Setophaga rutioi'lla
House Sparrow                 C/Y
  Passer domestious
Bobolink                      C/S
  Doliohonyx oryzivorus
Eastern Meadowlark           C/S
  Stuxmella magna
Redwinged Blackbird          A/S
  Agelaius phoenioeus
Baltimore Oriole              C/S
  Icterus  galbula
Rusty  Blackbird            C/M
  Euphagus oarolinus
Common Crackle             C/S
  Quisoalus quiseula
Brown-headed Cowbird      C/S
  Molothrus ate?
Scarlet Tanager            C/S
  Piranga olivacea
Cardinal       <   _
  Eichmondena cardinalis
Rose-breasted Grosbeak    C/S
  Pheucticus ludovieianus
Indigo Bunting             C/S
  Passerina ayanea
Evening Grosbeak           C/W
  Herperiphono vespertina
Purple Finch               C/Y
  CVzrpcdatfus purpureus
Pine Grosbeak              C/W
  Pinioola enuoleator
Common Redpoll             C/W
  Aoanthis flammea
Pine Siskin                C/W
  Spinus pinus
American Goldfinch        C/S
  Spinus tristis
Red Crossbill              U/W
  Loxia ourvirostra
White-winged Crossbill    R/W
  Loxia leuooptera
Rufus-sided Townee        C/S
  Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Savannah Sparrow           C/S
  Passeroulus sandwichensis
Grasshopper Sparrow       R/W
  Ammodramus savannarum
Henslow's Sparrow         R/S
  Passerherbulus henslowii
Vesper Sparrow             U/S
  Pooecetes gramineus
State-colored Junco       A/M
  Junso hyemalis
Tree  Sparrow               C/W
  Spizella arborea
Chipping Sparrow          C/S
  Spizella passerina
Field Sparrow              U/M
  Spizella pusilla
White-crowned  Sparrow    C/S
  Zonotriohia leucophyrys
White-throated Sparrow     C/M
  Zonotriahis albioollis
                                 H-4

-------
Table H-l   Continued.

Fox Sparrow                    U/M
  Passerella iliaoa
Lincoln's  Sparrow              C/S
  Melospiza linoolnii
Swamp Sparrow                  C/S
  Melospiza georgiana
Song Sparrow                   A/S
  Melospiza melodia
Snow Bunting                   U/W
  Plectrophenax nivalis
                                   H-5

-------
           APPENDIX I

This section of the draft EIS contains
copies of pertinent correspondence
received during the preparation of this
document.

-------
                                            Box  220B,  R.F.D.  #1
                                            Laconia, N. H.  03246
                                            September  4,  1975
                                            DF/75/372P

Mr. N.  Robert  Arthur
Senior  Project Manager
EcolSciences,  Inc.
133 Park  Street,  N.E.
Vienna, Virginia    22180

Dear Mr.  Arthur:

     In response  to your letter of August 20th requesting
my thoughts on the  environmental impact of the Winnipesaukee
Regional  Sewage Treatment plant.  They are as follows:

     Considerable effort has been expended in generating  the
momentum  to provide a  regional sewage treatment program for
at least  part  of  New Hampshire's Lakes Region.  It is  vitally
important that this momentum not be allowed to decay.

     At the same  time  it is  necessary to recognize that there
are eight different communities to be served  by this regional
sewage  treatment  project and that citizens in these communities
have significantly  different planning objectives for the  growth
and development of  their communities.  Thus it is doubtful that
a model suitable  for one will be transferable to another
community without modification.  It is my hope that the Environ-
mental  Impact  Statement  will identify situations likely to occur
as a result of the  sewage treatment project and define alternative
courses of action so that communities can plan to assure  that
their long term objectives are not thwarted.
     I am sure  that your
the understanding  of  the
its natural beauty, which
visit to the Lakes Region left you with
unique character of this region; both
 should
at all costs, and
                                 be  preserved,
the relatively small financial means by which most  communities
manage their affairs.  These are constraints which  should  receive
foremost consideration in all new institutions  that  are  introduced
to our region.

                                 Very  truly yours,
                                  Donald  P.  Foudriat,  Jr
DPF/rs
                              1-1

-------
                                  Belmont,  New Hampshire
                                  August 18, 1975
Ms. Sue Perlin
EcolSciences, Inc.
13?. Park Street, N.E.
Vienna, Virginia 22100
                Re: Environmental impact, Winnipesaukee River Basin, Belmont.N.H.

Dear Ms. Perlin:

A copy of your letter to the Town of Belmont, N.H. dated July 2, 1975 was
forwarded to me by frank DeNormandie, Chairman of the Winnipesaukee River
Basin Advisory Board, and received July 30.  The original has never been
received at the town office.

Enclosed are the items requested!

     1.  A copy of the 1970 comprehensive plan by Ha ns Klunder Associates.
         There is no update to this plan.

     2.  Copies of: LAND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, Effective July 2, 1970
                    TOWN ORDINANCES 1973, plus those passed 3/9/74 inserted
                    in back of booklet
                    Application for Building Permit
         There are no zoning ordinances.

     3.   Copy of  BELMONT PARK AND PLAYGROUND DEVELOPMENT, RC&D MEASURE PLAN # 254,
          1975.

     4. & 5.  There are no published reports dealing with current and projected
          extensions of public utilities and highways, other than the reports
          of standing committees included in the annual town reports*  Enclosed
          are copies ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOWN FOR FISCAL YEAR for 1973 and
          for 1974.

          The Public Service Company has a plan to run a new high power line
          through  town.

          It has been publicly stated that lack of reservoir capacity precludes
          extension of uiaterlines and limits current service.

Lack of adequate sewage facilities has:  been named as a factor contributing
to  the  closing of  the hosiery mill in Belmont village and curtailing the  use
of  the  facility by other industries; has curtailed the development of Sunray
Shored  on Lake Winnisquam and has deprived the homeowners who bought there  of
the standard of living they had hoped to enjoy.  Currently, there are potential
and/or actual polution problems at Silver Lake, especially concerning Sandy
Beach and the proposed expansion of the Silver Lake Camping Trailer Park, now
                                    1-2

-------
before the Planning Board.  Construction of  the  N.H.  Kennel  Club Dog  Track
on Route 106 within a half mile of the village has  focused attention  on  the
problems of adequate water supply and sewage disposal ,  and  possible  pollution
of the water table.  Construction of the Town Park  (see  plan from  item 3 above)
has been hampered by problems with drainage  pipe and  lack of adequate storm
sewers*

It is easy to recognize the financial burden of  temporary septic systems
and leech fields constructed at the school grounds  in 1960 and again  in  1972
while the community waits for a practical sewage disposal system.  It is more
difficult to total the burden of personal expense and inconvenience involved
with the renewing of personal septic systems where  possible,  and individual
complaints to the Health Officer,  where it  is impossible for residents and
businesses in the village area to comply with health  regu lations.  Lack of
prior planning and lack of space result in the direct contamination of the
Tioga River and its subsidiary streams and run-offs as it flows through the
village.  A similar situation exists in the  densly  populated  areas of U/inni-
squam where Lake Ulinnisquam is effected.

Each day of delay in the progress of the interceptors planned to correct
the Ulinnipesaukee River Basin watershed pollution problem adds to the long-
lasting impairment of the environment.

Also enclosed at your request is a copy of the Fenton Keys,  November  1970
Survey.

If any further information is required, for  prompt  attention, please  address
the inquiry to Board of Selectmen, Town Hall, Belmont, N.H.  03220, attention
of Louis F. Wuelper, or to me.

                                  Sincerely,
                                   Suzanne  S.  Roberts
                                   Representative  to the UI.R.B. Advisory Board
 SSR/s
                                     1-3

-------
                                  GILFORD
                                                                            DIAL 524-4284
                                     enteit oj o\fcu; £Wawif>slii/ie''

  O. JOSEPH APRIL
PERINTENDENT PUBLIC WORKS
OFFICE OF TOWN ENGINEER
    HEALTH OFFICER                                                 , _
                                                       August 26, 1975
           Mr. N. Robert Arthur
           Senior Project Manager
           EcolSciences, Inc.
           Environmental Consulting Services
           Mid-Atlantic Region
           133 Park Street, N.E.
           Vienna, Virginia  22180

           Dear Mr. Arthur,

                The Winnipesaukee River Basin Project is  extremely  important, not only
           to all of the people in the Basin for ecological  and  financial reasons, but
           to all people as an example of how growth  and  clean waters are possible
           together.

                As you are well aware, the Lake Winnipesaukee area  is one of the most
           beautiful resort areas on the East coast.   The people living  in the area
           enjoy boating, fishing or swimming on the  Lake and a  large number of the
           lakeshore or island homes utilize the Lake for their  water supply.  There-
           fore, the quality of the Lake must be Class A  or  better.

                With the continued increase in sewage loading in the Basin, a method
           of collection and proper disposal is essential to keep the Lake from becoming
           a disaster.

                Several small areas of the Lake are beginning to deteriorate and it is
           critical that the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project commence  as soon as
           possible to halt any deterioration and reverse any present adverse conditions.

                The Town of Gilford is presently planning a  sewage  system along the Lake
           which would connect to the interceptor as > soon as possible.   Also, other points
           or areas sources of pollutents are being considered in an attempt to remove
           all possible pollutents from the Lake.

                We want the Lake to stay clean and clear  for all to use.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                        _            --
                                                        0.  Joseph vApril , P.E.
                                                        Town Engineer
                                             1-4

-------
                CITY OF LACONIA, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03246
                                      on,
OFFICE OF:   PLANNING DEPT.
                                                 August 14,  1975


     N.  Robert Arthur, Senior Project Mgr.
     Ecol  Sciences, Inc.
     133 Park Street, N. E,
     Vienna, Virginia            22180

     Dear  Mr. Arthur:

                RE:  Impact Statement for Winnipesaukee River  Basin

     The following list are those projects which I am presently aware the
     City  will be participating with either State or Federal Agencies.

          1.  Construction of Lakeport sewer
          2.  Construction of South End sewer
          3.  Construction and improvements of Oak, Main § Clairmont
          4.  Improvements to Elm Street § Bridge
          5.  Improvements to Church St. § Bridge
          6.  Improvements to Weirs Beach
          7.  Acquisition of the Brooks Property
          8.  Improvements to Wyatt Park
          9.  Improvements to Tardif Park
        10.  Acquisition of Tardif Park land
        11.  Improvements to Gale Avenue Wharves
        12.  Improvements to Opechee and Tardif Park tennis lighting
        13.  Improvements to Sanborn Park
        14.  Construction of Lakeport Square sit park
        15.  Work on Mass Transit Study

     I am  sure that there are more projects than this, Robert, however, I
     would suggest your contacting various state and federal agencies which
     may be participating as this is all that I know of at this time.

     If  I  can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate
     to  contact me.

                                  Very truly yours,
                                  Peter B. Hance
                                  Director of Planning
    PBH:rh
                                  1-5

-------
             APPENDIX J

         AIR QUALITY IMPACT

 OF WASTEWATER DISPOSAL NEEDS PLAN

              FOR THE

     WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN
            Prepared for
         ECOLSCIENCES,  INC.
            Prepared by
 PLANNING ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL

            A Divsion of
ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC.

       Westgate Research Park
       McLean,  Virginia  22101
            October  1975

-------
                                 APPENDIX J

                        AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
This appendix describes the detailed methodology and results of the air

quality impact analysis of the proposed Wastewater Disposal Needs  Plan

for the Winnipesaukee River Basin.   The general analysis  approach  is
as follows:

      1.    Determine existing air  quality — compare ambient air  quality
            and maximum air quality to National Ambient Air Quality
            Standards  (NAAQS)  and other criteria defined  in Federal and
            state legislation  (see  Section II).

      2.    Estimate existing  pollutant emissions.

      3.    Calculate projected pollutant emissions for years of concern
            (1975,  1985,  2000)  with and without the project.

      4.    Calculate projected air quality for years of  concern,  with
            and without the project.

      5.    Compare projected  air quality with and without  the project
            to NAAQS and  other air  quality criteria.

      6.    Determine potential mitigating measures (if necessary)  for
            reducing adverse air quality impacts.
 EMISSIONS


 The existing  and projected emissions of particulates  (TSP)  and  sulfur

 dioxide  (S02) were  estimated without the project and  with  the sludge

 incinerator  (as  proposed), including induced regional growth.   The method-

 ology and results are as follows.


 Sludge Incinerator  Emissions


 The proposed  alternative sludge disposal method for the Franklin Waste-
 water Treatment  Facility is incineration.  The specific design  parameters

 had not been  determined.  However, it is anticipated  that  a multiple
                                     J-l

-------
hearth incinerator  with stack  parameters  as  giver  in Table 1 will be
propsed.   Such an incinerator  will generate  primarily participate and

S0_ emissions.


It is expected that the proposed incinerator design will meet all require-
ments of 40 CFR 60  Subpart 0,  Regulations on New Sludge Incinerators
for TSP and Smoke Emissions.
The TSP and SO  emissions which can be expected if these  emissions stand-
ards are met are calculated as follows:
            Particulate emissions =

            TSP =  {gal. wet sludge)  X
                     (g  dry sludge
                     gal.  wet sludge
                       allowable  emissions
                   X  I       rate
                             # TSP
                         Tons dry sludge
                   =   11.5 mgd X
               1400  Ib.
                 rag
              TSP = 0.055 g/sec.
                  =1.91 T/yr.
   1.3 Ib. TSP
   T dry sludge
            Sulfur Dioxide emissions
            SO, =  (gal. wet sludge)  X / * f* Sludge	  \
              2                       I gal.  wet sludge  /
                      [controlled emissions
                   X  I       rate
                                                  # SO,
                           Tons dry sludge
                   =  11.5 mgd X
               1400  Ib.
                 mg
             SO_ =
0.34 g/sec.
1.18 T/yr.
X
0.8 Ib. SO2
T dry sludge
                                    J-2

-------
                                  TABLE 1
                PARAMETERS OF A TYPICAL SLUDGE INCINERATOR
            Stack Height                  25 meters
            Diameter                      0.5 meters
            Stack Gas Velocity            0.5 m/sec.
            Stack Gas Temperature         120°F.
            Volume Flow                   23.5 m3/sec.
            Source Strength*              0.055 gm/sec. TSP**
                                          0.034 gm/sec. SO **
*  Based on planned capacity of the Franklin Plant of 11.5 mgd in
   1995 and a dry sludge rate of 1400 Ib. per million gallons of sewage.
** Based on Ap-42 Supplement 3 emission factors for SO. and 40 CFR-60
   Subpart 0, Regulations on New Sludge Incinerators for TSP
                                   J-3

-------
 The resultant TSP and SO  emissions are input to the dispersion models
 to estimate maximum concentrations at ground level due to the  incinerator.

 Study Area Regional Emissions

 The existing (1971, 1972)  and projected regional emissions for TSP and
 SO. were calculated using  the techniques described in the EPA Guidelines
 for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis Development - Vol. 1,
 Designation o£ Air Quality Maintenance Areas,  1974.  Baseline area source
 and point source emissions inventories for the study area were obtained
 from EPA Region I and were distributed to the  grid shown in Figure 1
 using township population  data for area sources  and exact locations for
 point sources.   The baseline emissions inventory is summarized in Table 2.

 The TSP and S02 emissions  were projected to 1975,  1985,  and 2000  using
 the methodology given in the Guidelines, as summarized below.

 Projection of 1975 Emissions from  Baseline Inventory — Two methods are
 described by EPA.   The "backup method" is  used in  this analysis.   The
 methodology is  summarized  in the sample projection Table  3  and as  follows:
       1.     Using  emissions  summaries  in Table 2,  group emissions  into
             fuel combustion,  industrial process, solid waste,  and  mis-
             cellaneous sources as  in Table 3.
       2.     Determine 1975 emissions from  sources  other  than power plants.
             •     Determine  allowable  emissions by source category using
                   reduction  factors given  in Table  4.
             •     Adjust allowable emissions by growth  from  1970 to 1975
                   using  EPA projections  in Table 5  and  the growth  factors
                   by  category  in Table 6.
       3.     Power  plants are calculated  separately  using  detailed  source
             data.  No  steam electric power  plants  are  in  the study area.

Projection of Year 1985 and 2000 Emissions  —  Year  1985,  2000  emissions
are projected using the  following formula:
                                   J-4

-------
en
                                                                   FIGURE 1



                                                  GRID  SYSTEM AND LOCATION OP RECEPTORS
              0.48
                                                                                                                	,56,48
                                                y  Receptor Location and Number
                                                                                                                     56,0

-------
              TABLE 2
BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY (1970)
          Grams Per Second
       Area Sources
Point Sources
Township
Fuel
Pollutant Combustion
Solid Waste Transportation
Miscellaneous
Minor
(included as area
Total sources in CDM)
Major
(Greater than
25 tons/year)
Primary Area
Belmont
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Sanbornton
Tilton
Franklin
Korthfield
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SO2
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
.015
.0838
.025
.1407
.063
.3567
.032
.1848
.010
.058
.011
.0623
.056
.2052
.017
.0603
.603
.0025
.004
.0042
.011
.0107
.006
.0056
.002
.0017
.002
.0019
.009
.0063
.003
.0018
.029
.0174
.048
.0291
.123
.0739
.064
.0383
.020
.012
.021
.0129
.094
.0582
.028
.0171
.001
.0
.002
.0
.005
.0
.002
.0
.001
.0
.001
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.048
.1037
.079
.174
.202
.4413
.104
.2287
.033
.0717
.035
.0771
.159
.2697
.048
.0792
.0518
.0029
	
.1060
.382
___
	
.2175
.1115
.0028
.0307
	
___
.0834
.0058
.159
.5048
.0834
. 0058
	
.159
.3848
.1439
.0086
.0806
.0058

-------
     Table 2 (continued)
                                                        Area Sources
Point Sources
C-l
Township
Pollutant
Fuel
Combustion
Solid Waste
Transportation
Miscellaneous
Total
Minor
(included as area
sources in COM)
Major
(Greater than
25 tons/year)
Peripheral Area
Alton
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
SO2
Centre Harbor „
SO2
Moultonboro
TSP
SO2
.033
.188
.008
.0448
.015
.0876
.002
.0093
.016
.0914
.006
.0057
.001
.0005
.002
.001
.0005
.0001
.0025
.0011
.065
.0389
.015
.0214
.029
.0418
.003
.0044
.03
.0436
.002
.0
.002
.0
.005
.0
.001
.0
.005
.0
.106
.2326
.026
.0667
.051
.1304
.0065
.0138
.0535
.1361
	 	
	
.0806
.0345
	
.0345
.0029
	
	
	
	
	

-------
                                                               TABLE 3
                                                        SAMPLE PROJECTION TABLE
                                                   Emission Projection Calculations


           A                           B             C             C-l            D             E             F             G
                                                                Growth                      Growth       Emission        1985
        Source                       1970        Reduction       Factor         1975          Rate         Factor      Emissions
         Class                     Emissions      Factors       (1975/1970)    Emissions  [(1985/1975)-!]  Adjustment    G=D(1+EF)

     Fuel Combustion

       Power plants
       Point sources
        (excluded pp)
       Area sources
       Subtotal

^    Industrial Process
00      Point sources (subtotal)

     Solid Waste Disposal

       Point sources
       Area sources
       Subtotal

     Transportation
       LDV
       HDV
       Subtotal

     Miscellaneous

       Point sources
       Area sources
       Subtotal

     TOTAL

     Source:  U.S. EPA Air Quality Maintenance Plan Guidelines, Vol. I,  Guidelines for Designation of AQMA's

-------
                                          TABLE 4

                                EMISSION REDUCTION FACTORS5

                   (Ratio of 1975 Allowable Emissions to 1970 Emissions)
Source Category
Particulate
  Matter
                                                SO
                x
HC
                                                                       CO
                                                                                NO
Fuel combustion
  Point sources less power
  generation
  Area sources
  Power generation sources

 Industrial processes

 Solid Waste
  Point sources
  Area sources

 Transportation

 Miscellaneous
   Point  sources
   Area  sources
                                       0.44
                                       0.48
                                       0.50

                                       0.43
                                       0.29
                                       0.28

                                       1.0
                                       1.0
                                       1.0
               0.43
               0.57
               0.43

               0.37
               1.0
               0.82

               1.0
                1.0
                1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.47
1.0
0.88
1.0
1.0
1.0

0.10
 .52
0.88
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
 0.48
 1.0
 1.0
 1.0
1.0
1.0
 Calculated by different method — see source
                                                            t
    Denver, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Indianapolis, and Boston.
 Source:  U.S. EPA Air Quality Maintenance Plan Guidelines, Vol. I
                                              J-9

-------
                                                                            TABLE  5


                                                                      OBERS  PROJECTION

 Nou-SMSA pnrlton of Wnlcr Resources Suhnrca OlOi Mcrrlmsck

                                  Table I—Population, Enipluj-nicnl, 1'crsimul Income, and Earnings by Industry, Historical mid Projected, Selected Years, 1950-2010
                                                                                                  J972-K  ODKKS Projulbiu


Per cnTxitn Income (1967 S) 	 	 	 	 	 , ,
Per capiu income rchiivc (U.S.^l.OO) 	 	
Total employment 	 	


Tulul fnrnlnj;*.... 	 	 	 	 	


Forestry and fisheries 	 	 „ 	 M 	 ......
Xfiiiins.... 	 	 	 .„...„...,..... 	 ....„.,..
Mctnl 	 ,. . r
CouJ 	 , 	 .....,.,..„...«,*...-....
Crude petroleum and natural B".-. 	 - 	
Noil metallic, cxcppt fuel* 	 ..„....„,.,...„ 	

Food and kindred products 	 ..„......, 	
Appnrcl and other fabric prod ucli.^. ,„.,..,..„.....„..
J.umhcr product* and furniture 	 ^....._ 	 ........
1'jipcrund ;.l!icdpfiHlui.ls. 	 ,....„,..„. 	 	


Prinuiiy oicialj ,. .M 	 	 •»I*>.«»I»I*M
-------
                                  TABLE 6
                      GROWTH FACTORS  FOR TSP AND SO

                                              Recommended BEA
          Category                         Projection Parameter*
Fuel Combustion (excluding pp)             Total earnings
Industrial processes                       Manufacturing earn7-
Solid waste                                Population
Transportation                             Population
Miscellaneous                              Total earnings
      EPA's recommendation that these parameters be used was  based  upon
      available  information and was not the result of a statistical analysis
      to determine  an  accurate correlation between emissions  from a particu-
      lar category  and an economic or demographic parameter.   Furthermore,
      the user of these projections should be aware that it is not  known
      what relationship exists between an increase in an economic indicator
      and an  increase  in emissions from a particular category.  Another
      complicating  factor is the present energy situation—it is not
      known what effect the current situation will have on long-term
      growth.
                                   J-ll

-------
                        F.  =   C.d+D.E.)

where:

      F     =     1985, 2000 emissions

      i     =     Source category, i.e., combustion, solid waste,  industrial
                  process, transportation, miscellaneous

      C     =     1975 emissions

      D     =     Growth rate from Tables 3 and 4

      E     =     Emission factor adjustment for source category  (.4
                  suggested by EPA for all industrial processes, E=l
                  for all other categories)


The adjustment factor can be used to account for new source performance

standards if known, and new technology.


Table 7 summarizes the results of these emissions projections.


PROJECTED AIR QUALITY
The projected air quality  (TSP and SO.) in the vicinity of the  sludge
incinerator and on the regional scale were estimated using the  following
procedures.
Short-Term TSP and SO  Concentrations for the Proposed Sludge  Incinerator


The maximum 24-hour TSP and maximum 3-hour and 24-hour SO  concentrations,
resulting from the proposed sludge incinerator, are estimated  as  follows:
      1.    The 1-hour maximum concentration is estimated using  the  PTMAX
            model developed by EPA as described below and the  input
            parameters in Table 1.
 U.S. EPA, PTMAX Model User's Guide, Unpublished
                                   J-12

-------
1975
               TABLE 7



EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS (grams/second)





                1995
Township
Primary Area
Beboont
Gilford
Laconic
Meredith
Q Sanbornton
W
Tilton
Franklin
Northfield
Peripheral Area
Alton
Tuftonboro
Nolfeboro
Centre Babor
Moultonboro
Pollutant

TSP
TSP
so2
TSP
so2
TSP
TSP
so2
TSP
SO,
TSP
"l
TSP
so2

TSP
so2
TSP
TSP
SO,
TSP
"a
TSP
SO,
Area
Sources

.0802
.1327
.1084
.4721
.3034
.7318
.1206
.2881
.035
.0882
.2166
.2141
.1632
.4087
.0098
.048

.0903
.2725
.0281
.0788
.1004
.1762
.0102
.0202
.0659
.1495
Point
Sources

—
.0414
.0025
.0789
.2157
.0414
.0025
.0789
.1644
.0714
.0037
.04
.0025

	
—
	
— • -
	
Without
Area
Sources

.1098
.1956
.1606
.7068
.4311
1.0342
.1786
.4306
.0517
.1318
.2827
.3024
.2416
.6066
.0144
.0719

.1884
.4419
.0582
.1426
.1765
.3148
.0228
.0398
.1179
.2586
Project
Point
Sources

	
.0468
.0028
.0891
.2435
.0468
.0028
.0891
.2328
.0807
.0042
.0452
.0028

	
	
	
	
	
With Pro-iect
Area
Sources

.1149
.1989
.1717
.7138
.4555
1.0498
.1902
.438
.055
.1337
.293
.3082
.2552
.6151
.0158
.0731

.1884
.4419
.0582
.1426
.1765
.3148
.0228
.0398
.1179
.2586
Point
Sources

—
.0468
.0028
.0891
.2435
.0468
.0028
.0891
.2328
.0807
.0042
.0452
.0028

	
	
	
	
	
Without
Area
Sources

.1625
.3292
.25
1.2029
.6534
1.6529
.2804
.7261
.0821
.2229
.4009
.48
.3827
1.0187
.0212
.1208

.3098
.7513
.0974
.2375
.2671
.5152
.0366
.0654
.1848
.4336
«ww
Project
Point
Sources

	
.0569
.003.4
.1084
.2962
.0569
.0034
.1084
.2831
.0981
.0051
.0549
.0034

	
	
	
	
	
W
With Pro-iect
Area
Sources

.1753
.3372
.2779
1.2207
.7153
1.6927
.3093
.7443
-0899
.2276
.427
.495
.4174
1.0405
.025
.1240

.3098
.7513
.0974
.2375
.2671
.5152
.0366
.0654
.1848
.4336
Point
Sources

	
.0569
.0034
.1084
.2962
.0569
.0034
.1084
.2831
.0981
.0051
.0549
.0034

	
	
	
	
	

-------
            Program Abstract

            PTMAX produces an analysis of maximum concentration  as  the
            function of wind speed and stability.  A separate  analysis
            is made for each individual stack.  Input to the program
            consists of ambient air temperature and characteristics of
            the source, such as emission rate, physical stack  height,
            and stack gas temperature.  Either the stack gas volume flow
            or both the stack gas velocity and inside diameter at the
            top are also required.  Outputs of the program consist  of
            effective height of emission, maximum ground level concen-
            tration, and distance of maximum concentration for each con-
            dition of stability and wind speed.

            Results are given in Tables 8 and 9.

      2.    The maximum 1-hour average was divided by 4 to approximate
            24-hour concentrations as suggested by EPA Region  I.
Annual Average TSP and SO^ for the Study Area and the Incinerator Location


The Climatological Dispersion Model (COM), developed by EPA, was used

to project annual average TSP and SO .  The COM determines long-term

(seasonal or annual)  quasi-stable pollutant concentrations at any ground

level receptor using average emission rates from point and area sources

and a joint frequency distribution of wind direction, wind speed, and

stability for the same period.


This model uses Briggs1 plume rise formula and an assumed power law in-

crease in wind speed with height that depends on stability;-


Figure 2 defines the concentration formulas for the COM Model.  The

emission rates for the area and point sources for the study area as de-

scribed above, and the frequency distribution of wind data in Table 10
     \
were input to the Model to estimate annual average concentrations of

TSP and S02.  The proposed sludge incinerator was treated as a point

source.   The Model was not calibrated due to inadequate ambient data.
"""U.S.
EPA» Climatological Dispersion Model User's Guide, 1974,
                                  J-14

-------
cr
                                 TABLE 8

         MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION PARTICUIATES (PTMAX OUTPUT)

STABILITY      WING  SPEED    ^X  CGNC     DIST  OF  rU X    PLUME HE
                (V/SEC)       {G/CU  M)         (KMJ              (v.)

    *             °-5       1.91CCE-05       0.141            27,2
    1             —s       l-2625=-05       0.1-7            26.4
     1             1.0       1.0295E-05       0.135            75 i
    1             1-5       73->4l9r-06       0.134            25-7
     1             ?-°       5.3505E—06       0.133            23,5
     1             2o-       4.314LE-06       0.132            250A
     1             3.0       3.61405-06       0.132            75.^

    2             0.5       1.9555E-05       C.I 92            27,2
    2             ~-S       1.2973E-05       0.186            2*."
    2             1-C       1.0591E-05       0.163            26.1
     2             1-5       7<>2564E-06       0«181            25-7
    2             2.C       5.5181 =-06       0.179            25^.5
     2             2.5       4.4515F-06       0.178           25.4
    2             SoO       307303E-06       Ool78           25.^
     2             ".C       2.8174=-OS       0.177           25.3
                    •0       2.2634E-G6       0,177           25,2
    3              2.0       5.6563^-06       O.Z63           25.5
    3              2»5       4.7255E-C5       0.262           25.4
    '-•              3oO       3.95045-06       0.261           25-4
    3              4.G       2.9916E-C6       0.260           25.3
    3              5.C       2.4036E-06       Q0259           2532
    ?-              7.0       1.72535-06       0.259           25.2
    3            10.0       1.2122^-06       0.258           25.1
    3            12oC       Io0116r-06       Oo 258           2531
    3            15.G       .8.10465-07       0.258           25.1

    4              C.5       lo76C2E-C5       OoSlG           ?7a2
    4              0.8       1,17?6E-05       0.492           26.4
    4              1.0       9.59755-06       0.48«L           ?6.1
    4              105       60 591 IE-C6       0,477           25a7
    4              2.0       5.0180E-06       0.473           25.5
    4              2.5       4.0509E—06       0.471           25.4
    4              3oO       303962E-D6       Do 469           23a 4
    4              4.0       2.5666c-06       0.467           25.3
    4              5,0       2.0627E-06       0.466           25.2
    4              7,0       1.4811E-16       0.464           25.2
    4            10,0       1.0408=-06       0.463           25.1
    4            12.0       8.6B69E-07       0,463           ?5»1
    4            15.0       6.9601F-07       0.4&2           ?3.1
    4            20.G       5.2281E-07       0.462           25.1

    5              2.0       2.88^1^-06       a,946           *<»• 8
    5              2.5;       2i3635E-C6       0.929           33-4
    5              3,0       2.0367S-36       0»9l5           ?'3-0
    5              4,0       1.56125-06       O.S96           ^-6
    5              5.3       1.2965F-C6       0.883           &-1

    6               a.C        2.5484E-06       1.642           2':-8
    6               5.5        2.0968E-06       1.614           ?"?-4
    6               r,0        lo7S56t-06       1-593           ?^-2
    6              4.C        J.3827E-06       1.562           2a.8
    6               5.C        1.1319E-06       Io541           <.°°->

                                  J-15

-------
                                TABLE 9

             MAXIMUM GROUND LEVEL SO  CONCENTRATION (PTMAX OUTPUT)

STABILITY      WIMO SPEED     MAX  CQNC    DIST OF  MAX     FLL^E HEIGH}
                (H/SEC)       (G/CU M)        (KM)              (fl)

    1             0»5        lo!807E-05       Ool41           270 2
    1             0.8        7.8047E-G5       0.137           26.4
    1             1.0        6<,3639E-06       0,135           26,1
    1             Io5        4.3532E-06       0^134           25.7
    1             *.0        3.3076E-C6       C.133           25.5
    1             2o5        2o6669E-06       Ool32           25»4
    1             3.Q        2.2341E-Q6       0.132           25.4

    2             Oo5        U20S9E-05       00192           270 2
    2             0.8        8.0195E-06       0.185           26.4
    2             1.0        6.5470E-G6       0.132           26«,1
    2             1.5        4.4858E-06       0,131           25.7
    2             2.0        3.4112E-06       0.179           25.5
    2             2o5        2o7513E-06       Qol78           25.4
    2             3,0        2e3C6GE-06       0.173           25.4
    2             4..0        1.7417E-06       0.177           25.2
    2             5.0        1.3992E-06       G.177           25.2

    3             2oO        3.6206E-06       0.263           25,5
    3             2.5        2.9212E-C6       0.262           25.4
    3             3.0        2o4482£-06       0Q261           25*4
    3             4.0        1.&493E-C6       C.260           25.3
    3             5.0        1.4858E-06       0.259           25.2
    3             7,0        1.0666E-06       0.259           25.2
    3            10.0        7.4935E-07       0.258           25.1
    3            12oQ        6o2536E-C7       00258           25» 1
    3            15oO        5o0101E-07       C.258           25.1
    -*             005        1.0S81E-G5       0.510           27.2
    4             0.8        7.2550E-C6       C.492           26.4
    4             1.0        5«9330E-06       00486           26^1
    4             1.5        4.G745E-G6       C.477           25.7
    4             2.0        3.1020E-06       Co 473           25. f
    4             2»5        2.5042E-06       0,471            25.4
    4             3.0        2.0995E-C6       C.469           25;4
    4             -4.0        1.5866E-06       0046T           25."2
    4             5.0        1.2751E-06       0.466           25.2
    4             7.0        9ol557E-G7       0.464           25.2
    A            10»0        6.4342E-07       0.463            25,1
    4            12.0        5.3701E-G7       0.463            25.1
    4            15oO        4o3026E-07       0.462            25.1
    4            23.3        3.2319E-C7       0,462            25.1

    5             2<,0        lo7829E-06       00946            -*n  a
    5             2.5        1.4734E-Q6       0.929            -A°4
    5             3.0        1.2591E-06       0,915            afl'c
    5             4.0       9.7745E-C7       0.896            ?Q"A
    5             5,0        3.015DE-07       Co 883            ^II

    6             2.0        1.5754E-06       Ic642            29 fl
    6              2.5        1.2962E-C6       L.614            H"!
    6              3&0       1.10335-06       1.593            29 2
    J              4.0       8.5476E-C7       1.562            28 8
    6              5.3       6o9974E-07       10541            2&~*


                                     J-16

-------
                                    TABLE 10

                    WIND  STAR FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION
                           CONCORD,  NEW HAMPSHIRE
  c:
  o
  U •!-
  O -Q
     CO
                  Wind Speed Class
                   2345
                                                            i_
                                                            O)
                                                           jQ
                                                            E
                                                               cr
                                                               CL)
                                                               oo
                                                               £=
                                                               O
                                                               o
                                                               £J£>
                                                               *4	 -I	
                                                               Q •—
                                                               "X3 Q
                                                               c o
                                                           to
  *-*«
                         .000003.000000.000000.
      a  0-0oaoi>o. 030900. o
,     A o
 SE  a o
sss  A a
  5  A n
S31*  4
    A
    A
  V &
 *» A
 N»  A.  0
H**»  A  0
  H  P  0
NNC,  6  0
 "S  3  0
     3  0
  £  a  c
     B
E5£
       0.
. SS H O.
      o .
      O.
 SE s
  3 ft
    a
  *«•»  B
   I*  a
          .oiaiiaa
          .ocGaoa
          . B«JOOOO
          . oooooo
          .OOO 19a
          . 000729
          .ooasoo
          .201^13
          .oooi9o
          .OnOOOO
          . 00019-3
          .Oa05i>3
          .oai5?o
          .oco ?ij'3
          .OOGa^O
          .OOO-.5G
          00 15>10
          C03100
          OOIOJ.Q
          OD2910.
          nol52O
          CQ1103
          005^50
          -:i4i4a»
                oaoaao.oaQooo.oooaoo
                aaooaa.onoono.o.ioooo
               -iJaoao.oaoooo.oaoaiJO
               . oooooo. oaoooo. Qjooaa
                                       .onaono
                                       . oooooo
                                       . oooooo
                                       .aoaooo
                                            -OaaOQ
                                            .03330
                                            .QOQao
                                            .03000
               .O003-»a
               . 30«i3WJ
               .oQOoaa
               .001370
               .ooo3vo
               ,ODOaOO
               . OQ03"O
               »GOl370
               .sal3Tif
               ,ooa»<»a
               , 0003-4
               .COta30
               . 200340
                001710
                £101370
                00*79^
                GOl37d
                30034-0
                001370.
                Q030&«>,
                       QOOOOO
                      . 0000.10
                       aoooOo
                       OOOOOO
                      .aooooo
                       030040
                       OOOOOO
                       000340
                       aoortoo
                       nooooo
                       OOOOOO
                       0000(70
                       001030
                       Ga068O
                       0003*0
                       000&3O
                       na J370
                       001710
                       001370
                       ooi03O
 -  i* c  o...:
                             .COOOrtO
                             .000030
                             .000000
                             .000000
                             .000000
                             .COOO3O
                             .000000
                             ,0aaooo.
                             aooooa
                             ,000900,
                             000300,
                             000030,
                             &t)oono.
                             000000.
                             000000,
                             030000.
                             oooooo,
                             oooooo,
                             oooooo.
                             aaoooa.
                            .oaoooo,
" J3100.03171 0.00 1370.000.300.000000.

  .35o.oaooaa.oo1030.000000.000000.
                               ,DOOOOO
                               . UaatJO.*
                               .Gooo^o
                               . OOOOOrt
                               .ijoor.ni>
                               .OOOOOi»
                               . OOOOOO
                               .000000
                                oooooo
                               . oooooo
                               . 000003-
                               uOD(33D"i)
                               . OOuBOH
                               .cflOiJOO
                                ooaaao
                               . OOOOOO
                               . OOOOOO.
                               .000000
                               .000000,
                               .oooaaa
 .ooaoa
 .ooooo-
 ,00004
 .00003
 .canao
 .ooaoo
 oaooo
 ,cooo3
 ooaoo
 00000
 ooooo
 aaoot)
 ooooo
 ooooa
 00009
 ooooo
 oaoco
 aooao
 ooooo
 ooaoo
 ooaoo
 oaooo
 ooaoo
 00009
 coooo
 00040
 oaooo
   C
   c
 £ c  o
   c
S£ C
   c
 S c.
   C  0
   c  o
   C  O
   C  O
   c  o
   c  o
   C  0
 NO 0
 € O 0
 £ 0 0
   O 0
       0.
                »OQ 13 70.0003*-*,oaoooo. oooooa.ooooa
                                             -20000
         -onciooa_OLiooo*>.aoo3*a. oooooo. ooooo-?
                       , 301033-000000. caooco
                                             . i.J.IUO
                                             .0JOOO
                                             .CuOOO
                                      .oooaw*
        .O3O2ja^JOj370-00137CI,OOO*
-------
Table  10, Continued
in

r«

O

>>
                                                         $_
                                                         at
                                                        JD
                                                               cr
                                                               
                                                              CO
 O
•i-     O
 I %    J_)

 O
 0) >> O
 S- 4->  i--*

5£  ^
£ -g Wind Speed Class
S S 1 2 3 456
N E O.OOOOOO- D01370, 001370-. OOOOOO. OQ .jOOO, OOOflO
NM£ E O.OOOOOO. 0003*0.000000. OOOOOO. 003000. OOOOO
N£ E o.ocoooo.ooloDo. oooooo. oooooo. ooooao. oaooo
gwe E n.oooono. 03o3*3.onooao. aooooo. oooooo. ooooo
e £" O.GOOOOO. 001030.000000.000000. 003000. 00000
E5£ E 0. OOOOrtiT.001710. 001710. OOOOOO. OOOOOO. OOOOO
s£ e c-cooo»a,.oo3oao. 031030. oooooa. oooooo. ooooo
5S£ £ O.OOOOOQ.OU30O. 001710. OOOOOO. 000000. OOOOO
S E 0-OtrOOOO. 003W9. 001 710. OOOUOO. OOOOOi). 0000»
ss« c 7.ooaooo.aoo**o.ooo3»4»-oooooo.ooQooo.c\jooo
sv € o.onoooo.oo?*oo. 0003*0. oooooo. oooooo. ',0000
*S» e 0.000. 001370. 003*>?0. 000000. OOOOOO. 00000
« e O.OOOOOO. 003*20.005*^0. 000009. 000000. OOOOO
*H» E O. OOOOOO-. 003oaO.OOS?20. OOOOOO. 000010. OOOOO
Ntf E O.OOOPOO. OO*110.0(>(t«OO.aOOi>00. 000030. 00009
H>l>* € 0. OOOOOO. H03v2o. 003*20. OOOOOO. OOOOOO. OOOSO
N If 0.012379. 003*2O.OOOO-DO. 000000. 000009.00000
MM£ F o.oio»?o.onio3o.onoooo. oooooo. canooo.oonoo
Me. F 0. 012030. ooo«-»o.onoooo. oooooo. oonooo. ooooo
EN£ F 0.al356O.00103O.OOOOOO.ai>O»O4. 000000.00300
E F o.ooao'»7. 001030.000000.000000.000000. ooooo
E5c F n. ol ll 70. ono^ao. oooooo. oooooo. oooooo. ooooo
5c F 0.011b?0. 002350.000000.000000'. OOOOOO. OOOOO
SSE F 0. 016*40. 005*90. OOOOOO. OOOOOO. 000000. OOOOO
S F 0.0??"<»0. 007190. OOOOOO. OOOOOO. 000000. OOOOO
ssv F o,on»>OTo.oo3f)flo.i50onfto.r.ooocro. oooooo. oonoo
5« F 0.005010. 001370. 000000. 00000>>. 000300. 00(100
wsx F n.ouoso.oo**so. oooooo. aooooo.onoooo. ooooo
W F O.OIMPO. Onf>35o. OOOOOO. HOODOO* 000900. OQOOO
w»n* F Ovoivb<>o. 007190. noonoo.oonooo.ooooon.ooivoo
M»« F o.o?o'soo.oo6»50.nooooo. ooooon. onnoon. ooooo
NN>» F o»oi367o^oo5*po. oooooo. o-ooooo.oaao.iOiooooo
-M -O JD H
ra c: fo o
•M -i— -»-> S-
c/> s co u_
1*7*5 lei/ro 1/012
1*7*5 Zcl7iro 17012
1«.7*S 3E177O 17012
1*7*S -»c!770 17012
1*7*5 5E1770 17012
1*7*5 6E1770 17012
1*745 7E1773 17012
1*7*5 8EI773 17012.
1*7*5 9E1770 1705?
l*7*510£177i> 17012
1*7*511E1770 17012
1*7V512E1773 17012
1*7*513£1770 17012
I*7*5i*cl770 17012
1*7*51 5E1 770 17012
1*7*514£1770 17012
1*7*5 1F1770 17012
1*>*5 2^1770 17012
147*5 3F1770 17012
1*7*5 *F1770 17012
1*T*5 S?1770 17012
1*7*5, 6F1770 170J2
1*7'.S 7F1770 17012
1*T*5 <
-------
                                   FIGURE  2
                        COM CONCENTRATION FORMULAS

    The averagejoncentration ^  due to area sources at a particular receptor is given
fey       ..   r  r it           L    /                           .,
                                                       '•-u*.Pm)   dp        (1)

    where                 k = index identifying wind  direction sector
                      n. z;U^,Pm>
           CU = •=—  222          _^	
             *   ^n=l *=1  m=l                Pn                           V>
    where               kn = wind sector appropriate to the n"1 point source
                         3n = emission rate of the n"1 point source
                          pn = distance from the receptor to the n  point source
    If the receptor is presumed to be at ground level, that is, z = 0,  then the functional
form of S (p.2; U,,P ) win be
               * m
       < 0.8 Land
       >  0.8 L.  New terms in Equations 3 and 4 are defined as follows:
                      a (p) = vertical dispersion function, i.e.. the standard deviation
                       z       of the pollution concentration in the vertical plane
                           h = effective stack height of source distribution, i.e. .the
                               average height of axea source emissions in the k"* wind
                               direction sector at radial distance g £rora  the receptor
                           L - the afternoon mixing height
                         T,~ assumed half life of pollutant, hours
    The possibility of pollutant removal by physical or chemical processes is included in
the program by the decay expression ejqj  (-0 . 692p /U^T , ) .
    The total concentration for the averaging period is the  sum of concentrations of the
point and area sources for that averaging period.

                                      J-19

-------
The receptor points for calculation of concentrations are shown  in  Figure 1.
The points were selected to be representative of the sludge  incinerator
impact area and maximum growth impact areas.

A sample Model output is given in Table 11.  The table lists the annual
average concentration of each receptor point selected.  The total con-
centration at each point is the sum of the point source and area source
contribution.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT
Tables 12 through 15 present the ground level TSP and SO- concentrations
with and without the project in the projection years 1985 and 2000.
The concentrations presented do not include the background concentrations.
                                   J-20

-------
            TABLE 11

SAMPLE OUTPUT OP COM Pl-TSP, P2 -
COORDINATES
6.30 4080
6.70 6oOO
7o40 6.20
6oOO Oo40
6o80 6o50


Q
10
H






7»
7o

12o
20o

90

18o
41o
10
50

CO
20

30

60 '
30
7,20
9o50
6o90
9020
9o50
1 tioSO
22090
23»10
32»90
ICoOO
P 1
Ool30t: 00
Oo217t 00
0»22fJE 00
Oo221c. 00
Oo 23nf 00
0»274t
Oo47bE.
0.209E
G o 4 1 b t.
Oo218f
Oo644t
Oo631E.-
Oo290E
Oo321t
00439t
00
00
OU
00
00
00
01
00
00
OU
CDHI VcRSIuN 73302, PUN
{M1CROGRAMS PEk CUBlu
AREA POINT
P 2 PI P 2
00838E 00 0.512E-01 Oo201E-01 Oo
0.942E 00 O.L33E 00 Oo568E-OL 0.
009C9E 00 Oo211E 00 0«922E-01 Oo
Oo94Ut 00 J006lt-0i Oe293E-01 0«
Oo954E 00 Ool77E 00 0.714E-01 0»
Oo947f-
Oo801E
Oo853E
Oo568E
0 o ^ 3 2 E
Co IbOE
Uol72c
OP 781E
Oo839E
Ool07E
00
00
OU
00
00
01
00
00
00
01
0«237E 00
0.180E 00
0.486E-01
OollSE 00
00296E-01
0»137E 00
00205E-01
0«300E-Oi
0.783E-01
Oo9p7E-Ok
0.533E-01
0.293E-01
Ool56E-'01
Oo222E 00
Oo 1 4t)E-01
0»109E 00
Ooll3t-01
0»123E-01
Oo 124E-01
Oob07E-02
Oo
00
Oa
Oo
Oo
00
Oo
0.
00
Oo
19851
METcrJ
P
231E 0
350E 0
436E 0
307i: 0
411C 0
511E 0
655E 0
258E 0
529£ 0
248 E 0
781E 0
104E 0
320E 0
399F 0
449 L 0
                                       TOTAL
                                      1        P 2
                                      0  OoBbbE 00
                                     00  0.998E 00
                                     00  OolOOE 01
                                        0.9701: 00
                                     00  0.1036 01
                                     00  OolOOE 01
                                     00  0.831E 00
                                     00  Oo869E OU
                                     00  Oo790E 00
                                     00  Oo447E 00
                                     00  0.161E 01
                                        0.183E 00
                                     00  0.793E 00
                                     00  Oo8i>l£ 00
                                     00  0.107E 01
00
Oo

Oo
0.
Oo
0.
231E
350E

307E
411E
511E
655E
00529E
0.
Oo
0.
Oo
Oo
78 IE
104E
320E
399 E
449E
 CALIBRATED
> 1       P 2
 00 Oo853E 00
 00 0.998*1" 00
 00 0,1006 Jl
 00 Go 97Of 00
 00 0.103E 01
 00 0«100E 01
 00 0.831E 00
 00 0.8691: 00
 00 0.790E OQ
 00 0.447E 00
 00 0.16 IE 01
 00 0.183C 00
 00 0.793F 00
 00 0.851'(f JO
 CO 0,107E 01

-------
                             TABLE 12
        CDM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTOR POINTS
               PROJECTION YEAR 1985 WITHOUT PROJECT

                          Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Area Sources
Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TSP
0.106
0.128
0.133
0.130
0.138
0.162
0.281
0.123
0.268
0.136
0.391
0.050
0.171
0.187
0.267
so2
0.487
0.547
0.529
0.547
0.555
0.552
0.471
0.496
0.341
0.254
0.907
0.102
0.463
0.488
0.628
Point Sources
TSP
0.028
0.048
0.069
0.046
0.068
0.150
0.139
0.030
0.092
0.023
0.113
0.016
0.024
0.064
0.007
so2
0.008
0.009
0.011
0.008
0.010
0.015
0.018
0.007
0.182
0.011
0.089
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.004
Total
Area and Point
TSP
0.134
0.177
0.202
0.176
0.206
0.311
0.420
0.154
0.360
0.159
0.504
0.066
0.195
0.251
0.275
so2
0.495
0.557
0.540
0.555
0.566
0.567
0.490
0.503
0.523
0.266
0.996
0.110
0.473
0.489
0.632
*See Figure 1 for location of receptors
                              J-22

-------
                             TABLE  13
        CDM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTOR POINTS
                 PROJECTION YEAR 1985 WITH PROJECT

                           Micrograms Per  Cubic Meter
Total

Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Area
TSP
0.111
0.135
0.139
0.137
0.145
0.170
0.294
0.129
0.278
0.140
0.360
0.052
0.179
0.196
0.267
Sources
so2
0.492
0.553
0.534
0.552
0.561
0.558
0.478
0.501
0.347
0.258
0.919
0.103
0.471
0.495
0.629
Point
TSP
0.045
0.122
0.196
0.076
0.162
0.205
0.150
0.042
0.094
0.024
0.113
0.017
0.024
0.064
0.007
Sources
so2
0.018
0.054
0.089
0.027
0.069
0.049
0.025
0.014
0.183
0.012
0.089
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.004
Area and
TSP
0.157
0.257
0.336
0.213
0.308
0.375
0.445
0.171
0.373
0.165
0.525
0.069
0.206
0.260
0.275
Point
so2
0.510
0.608
0.624
0.508
0.630
0.608
0.503
0.515
0.531
0.270
0.101
0.113
0.481
0.506
0.633
See Figure 1 for location of receptors
                               J-23

-------
                              TABLE 14
         CDM GROUND  LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS  AT RECEPTOR POINTS
                 PROJECTION YEAR  2000 WITHOUT PROJECT

                           Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Total

Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Area
TSP
0.165
0.200
0.206
0.203
0.215
0.252
0.439
0.192
0.387
0.203
0.590
0.076
0.265
0.294
0.436
Sources
so2
0.826
0.927
0.895
0.926
0.940
0.932
0.784
0.840
0.552
0.422
1.470
0.168
0.761
0.821
1.070
Point
TSP
0.034
0.059
0.084
0.055
0.082
0.182
0.169
0.037
0.113
0.029
0.137
0.019
0.029
0.078
0.009
Sources
so2
0.009
0.011
0.014
0.010
0.013
0.019
0.022
0.008
0.221
0.014
0.109
0.010
0.012
0.012
0.004
Area and
TSP
0.200
0.259
0.291
0.259
0.298
0.434
0.609
0.230
0.500
0.232
0.727
0.095
0.295
0.373
0.445
Point
so2
0.836
0.939
0.909
0.937
0.953
0.951
0.806
0.849
0.773
0.437
1.580
0.179
0.774
0.833
1.070
See Figure 1 for location of receptors
                              J-24

-------
                                  TABLE  15
           COM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTOR POINTS
                     PROJECTION YEAR 2000 WITH  PROJECT

                               Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Total

Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Area
TSP
0.180
0.217
0.225
0.221
0.234
0.274
0.475
0.209
0.415
0.218
0.644
0.083
0.290
0.321
0.439
Sources
so2
0.838
0.942
0.909
0.940
0.954
0.947
0.801
0.853
0.568
0.432
1.500
0.172
0.781
0.839
1.070
Point
TSP
0.051
0.133
0.211
0.086
0.177
0.237
0.180
0.048
0.115
0.029
0.137
0.020
0.030
0.078
0.009
Sources
so2
0.020
0.058
0.092
0.029
0.071
0.053
0.029
0.015
0.222
0.014
0.109
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.050
Area and
TSP
0.231
0.350
0.436
0.307
0.411
0.511
0.655
0.258
0.529
0.248
0.781
0.104
0.320
0.399
0.499
Point
so2
0.858
0.998
1.000
0.970
1.030
1.000
0.831
0.869
0.790
0.447
1.610
0.183
0.793
0.851
1.070
   See Figure 1 for location of receptors
                                    J-25
5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975--602-192-90

-------