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
------- |