FINAL
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
-------
PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION
AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
Boston, Massachusetts
Prepared by:
EcolSciences, inc.
133 Park Street NE
Vienna, Virginia 22180
April 1976
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BY
ECOLSCIENCES, INC.
VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22180
'PROVED BY:
EGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
DATE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS x
INTRODUCTION
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
A. Background I_l
1. Location and Identification of Study and 1-1
Service Areas
2. Existing and Proposed Wastewater Treat- 1-4
ment Facilities
3. On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems 1-10
4. Raw Waste Discharges 1-16
B. Description of the Applicant's Proposed 1-17
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
1. General 1-17
2. Sewage Flows 1-18
3. Interceptors 1-20
4. Treatment Plants 1-27
5. Effluent Disposal ' 1-28
6. Sludge Handling 1-30
7. Costs 1-31
C. Purpose of the Proposed Project: Goals and
Objectives
II. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Natural Environment II-l
1. Climate II-l
2. Air Quality II-3
3. Geology II-5
4. Topography 11-10
5. Soils 11-10
6. Hydrology 11-19
7. Biology 11-44
8. Aesthetics 11-56
9. Historic and Archaeologic Resources 11-57
10. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11-64
-------
B. Social and Economic Environment
1. Population Characteristics 11-75
2. Population Projections and Distribution 11-82
3. Existing Land Use 11-98
4. Economic Base 11-121
5. Community Services 11-133
6. Other Governmental Projects 11-143
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 Plans III-7
and Growth Management Controls
1. Status of the Regional Development Plan III-7
2. Regional Land Use Goals and Objectives III-7
3. Adopted Municipal Comprehensive Plans: III-8
Future Growth Concepts
4. Existing Regulatory Controls for Managing 111-10
Future Growth
5. Interrelationship Between Existing Zoning 111-12
Regulations and the Availability of Public
Services (Water and Sewer)
C. Federal Environmental Controls 111-18
1. Clean Air Act 111-18
2. Federal Water'Pollution Control Act 111-18
Amendment of 1972
3. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 111-20
4. National Flopdvjnsurance Program 111-20
5. The National Historic Preservation Act of 111-22
1966
6. The Archaeological and Historic Preservation 111-22
Act of 1974
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED
• PROJECT
A. Summary of Project Impacts IV-1
B. Effects on the Natural, Social and Economic IV-11
Environments
1. Surface Water Quality IV-11
2. Ground Water IV-21
3. Water Supply IV-21
4. Air Quality IV-23
11
-------
5. Biology IV-26
6. Aesthetics IV-35
7. Recreation IV-36
8. Historic and Archaeologic Resources IV-38
9. Natural Resources IV-38
10. Public Health IV-39
11. Social and Economic IV-41
12. Land Use IV-44
C. Adverse Impacts Which Can Not Be Avoided IV-49
D. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Use of IV-52
Man's Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
E. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments IV-53
of Resources Which Would be Involved in
the Proposed Project Should It be Implemented
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
B. Component Alternatives V-8
1. Interceptor Routing Alternatives V-8
2. Treatment System Alternatives V-14
3. Treatment Site Alternatives V-16
4. Effluent Disposal Alternatives V-17
5. Sewage Capacity Alternatives V-18
6. Sludge Handling and Disposal V-21
Alternatives
VI. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VI-1
REFERENCES
R-l
GLOSSARY x_l
APPENDIX A (Applicant's Proposed Sludge Disposal) A-l
APPENDIX B (Water Quality Standards) B-l
APPENDIX C (Growth, Eutrophication and Lake C-l
Quality)
APPENDIX D (Summary of Biological and Physical Data D-l
on Lakes and Ponds)
APPENDIX E (Fish Species) E_!
APPENDIX F (Algal Species) F_!
APPENDIX G (Common Trees and Shrubs) G-l
in
-------
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX M
(Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles)
(Birds)
(Preliminary Assessment of Winnipe-
saukee River Basin Archaeological
Resources)
(Air Quality)
(Summary of Public Hearing Transcript)
(Written Comments on Draft EIS)
I'.i.jo
II-1
1-1
J-l
K-l
L-l
M-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
I~3 Gilford Septic Tank System Facilities 1-13
1-4 Estimated Septic System Failures 1-13
J-5 Generalized Land Suitability for Septic 1-14
Tanks 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 1-21
1-8 Estimated Sewage Flows—year 1985 1-21
1-9 Estimated Sewage Flows—year 1995 1-22
1-10 Estimated Sewage Flows—year 2020 1-22
1-11 Effluent Limitations for the Laconia Treat- 1-27
ment Plant
1-12 Effluent Limitations for the Franklin Treat- 1-28
ment Plant
x-13 Cost Escalation Since December 1971 1-31
!-14 Estimated Costs of Proposed Project 1-32
Section II
11-1 Mean Monthly Precipitation and Temperature II-2
at Lakeport, New Hampshire 1941-1970
11-2 Air Quality Data: Maximum Measured Air II-4
Quality Concentrations
IJ-3 Characteristics of the Major Soil Associ- 11-15
ations in Belknap County
II-4 Characteristics of the Major Soil Associ- 11-17
ations in Merrimack Count
H-5 Flow Characteristics of Streams in the Vici- 11-23
nity of Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire
H-6 Major Flood Observed Within the Merrimack 11-25
River Basin
11-7 Peak Discharges for Expected Flood Frequencies 11-25
11-8 Water Quality Classifications of Stream 11-27
Segments in the Study Area
11-9 Water Quality of Major Rivers in Study Area 11-28
11-10 Lake Winnipesaukee Sampling Data 11-33
-------
Nuir&er Title ,Mt o
11-11 Nutrient Loadings to Lake Winnipesaukee 11-34
11-12 Median Stream Flow and Phosphorus Loading 11-37
to Lake Winnisquam
11-13 Public Water Supplies-January, 1974 JT 40
II-14 Historic and Archaeologic Sites 11-59
II-15 Wetland Areas Identified in the Primary n-68
and Peripheral Study Area
H-16 Year-round Population - Primary and TT 76
Peripheral Study Area
H-17 Sex, Race and Age Statistics 11-77
II-18 Population Densities & Occupancy Rates 11-18
11 19 Seasonal Population Estimates, 1970 Tr nn
H-20 NHOCP Year-round Population Projections TT~S^
H-21 ANCO Population Projections jjlg4
11 22 National Economic Development Population TT-RK
Projections ij- Ub
H-23 Maximum Desirable Population Densities n-87
H-24 Environmental Quality Maximum Desirable n-89
Population Levels
11-25 Environmental Quality Alternative n-90
Population Projections
11-26 Seasonal Population Projections, LRPC n-91
11-27 Population Projections, C.E. Maguire, Inc. TT.Q?
11-28 Comparison of Available Population Projections 11-93
11-29 Composite Projection of Total Population 11-96
11-30 Projected Service Populations 11-97
11-31 Existing Land Use 11-99
H-32 Existing Industries in the Primary and 11-103
Peripheral Study Area
H-33 Farming Activities in the Belknap County 11-106
Portion of the Study Area
11-34 Recreational Facilities 11-109
11-35 Industrial Covered Employment Fourth Quarter, 11-123
11-36 Industrial Distrib ition of Covered Employment 11-124
(1960-1970)
*l~ll Characteristics of Existing Commercial Centers 11-129
11-38 Visitor Population in 1970 11-130
11-39 Belknap County Sales, Receipts - 1967 11-131
11-40 Farms by Economic Class 11-132
11-41 Journey-To-Work Commuting Patterns 11-134
II-42 Existing Public School Enrollment and 11-137
Capacity of Facilities
11-43 Existing Police Service 11-138
11-44 Fire Protection Service and Insurance Rating 11-139
11-45 Existing Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 11-141
11-46 Current Per Capita Refuse Generation Rates 11-142
11 47 Major Governmental Projects in Study Area 11-143
VI
-------
Number Title
Section III
III-l Status of Comprehensive Plans III-5
III-2 Existing Land Use Controls and Extent III-ll
of Use by Municipality
III-3 Zoning Regulations on Minimum Lot Size 111-14
and Their Relationship to On-Site and
Off-Site Water and Sewer Service
III-4 Potential Development Yields and Popu- . 111-17
lation Permitted by Existing Zoning
Section IV
IV-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Resulting IV-4
from the Proposed Regional Sewerage in
Project in the Winnipesaukee River Basin
IV-2 A Comparison of the Average Nutrient Exports IV-17
from the Lake Winnipesaukee Drainage Basin
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 Comparison of the Maximum Ambient Concen- IV-25
trations with National and State Air
Quality Standards
IV-5 Proposed Criteria for Maximum Continuous IV-29
Chlorine Concentration to Protect
Freshwater Aquatic Life IV-29
IV-6 Residual Chlorine Immediately Below the
Franklin Treatment Plant Outfall
IV-7 Primary Impacts from Vegetation Removal in IV-31
Sewer Corridors
IV-8 Effects of Reduced Minimum Lot Areas on IV-45
Potential Development Yields and Popu-
lation
Section V
V-l Cost of Alternative Maguire Plans V-2
V-2 Possible Sludge Disposal Alternatives V-22
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
Section I
1-1 Major Drainage Divisions of the State 1-2
of New Hampshire Showing Location
of the Winnipesaukee Study Area
1-2 Delination of the Primary and Peripheral 1-3
Study Areas, Showing Existing and
Proposed 2020 Eewer Service Areas
1-3 Jurisdiction of the Lakes Region Plan- 1-5
ning Commission Showing the Winnipe-
saukee River Watershed, the 208
Planning Area, and the Study Area
1-4 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 1-6
and Raw Waste Discharges
1-5 Laconia Sewage Treatment Plant Flow i-g
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 1-29
Franklin
Section II
II-l Bedrock Geology II-7
H-2 Surface Geology II-9
II-3 Slopes 11-11
II-4 Soil Associations 11-12
II-5 Lake Winnipesaukee Monthly Discharge 11-20
Statistics
H-6 Lake and Stream Sampling Stations 11-29
II-7 Existing Water Quality 11-30
II-8 Areas with Shallow Depth to the Water 11-39
Table
H-9 Historic and Archaeologic Sites 11-62
11-10 Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11-65
11-11 Relationship Between and Proposed Franklin 11-71
STP Site and the 100-year Flood Plain
of the Merrimack River
11-12 Existing Land Use 11-101
11-13 Existing Recreational Facilities 11-117
V3.ll
-------
Number Title Page
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, 1973 111-13
Section V
V-l Available Unit Processes for Sludge V-16
Treatment and Disposal
IX
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
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 by sanitary landfill. 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.
tnreefold; (1) provide an immediate and long-term means of prop-
perly handling the Winnipesaukee River Basin wastewater needs
for its present and future population (2020); (2) improve the
Basin's surface and ground water guality, particularly as they
relate to Lake Winnipesaukee, Lake Winnisquam, the Winnipesaukee
Merrimack and Tioga Rivers; (3) protect the public's health
and general welfare through the prevention of water quality
related problems.
x
-------
In addition, the project ir> intended to provide the means
for communities in the Winnipes-.aukee 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 pol]utant 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. Lacon.a, Meredith, Center Harbor,
Moultonborough and Wolfeboro ace presently the only communities
within the Basin that provide oome 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, Pemmigewasset 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
ground water 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 operational reliability, and efficient use of scarce
resources. In addition, a regional sewage system offers the
best protection of the Basin's water resources.
C. Design Sewage Capacity
The applicant's design service population is believed
to be underestimated, based upon revised population projections
provided by the Lakes Region Planning Commission (LRPC).
XI
-------
The Primary Area's served population was estimated to be 59 700
by Maguire while the LRPC's recently prepared estimate is 7i,500
in 1995 or a net difference of 11,800 persons, the 2020 pro-
Dections were comparatively close (95,400 by LRPC and 90,250 bv
Maguire) and do not represent a need to revise the applicant's
?»2S°2a1' However' the 1995 population estimate prepared by
LRPC does suggest that the applicant's design flows should be
?ri»Jm!««.UPWard-in terinS °* treatment capacity. If additional
treatment capacity is required, the modular design of the treat-
ment facility provides the flexibility to meet increased
wastewater needs.
D- Environmental Benefits and Costs
The anticipated beneficial effects of the proposed
project include:
(1) Eliminates many of the Basin's existing mal-
functioning septic systems and will potentially reduce future
proliferation of septic systems in areas immediately adjacent
to major bodies of water;
(2) Discontinues raw sewage discharges at Franklin
Tilton, Northfield, and Belmont;
(3) Provides 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) Offers 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
the project 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.
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 techniques.
Long-term adverse impacts are related to secondary
impacts on land use, socioeconornic 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
XII
-------
Numerous alternatives have been evaluated based on environmental
and economic considerations. Alternatives encompassing both com-
ponent (separate segments of the system) and system options includ-
ing "no action" were studied.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT:
The Draft EIS was filed with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) on January 7, 1976. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) - Region I advertised and held a public hearing at
the auditorium, Gilford Middle High School, Gilford, New Hampshire,
on Tuesday, January 27, 1976, on the Draft EIS. In addition to
the minimum required comment period of 45 days, the public hearing
record was held open until February 21, 1976. A total of 12
organizations and/or citizens made formal comments at this hearing.
Comments on the Draft EIS were requested from over 100 public
agencies, private organizations and individuals and comments were
received from 19 entities. In response to public comments the
Final EIS has been revised. In addition to EPA's revisions
throughout the text to reflect new data, three major changes were
made since the Draft EIS was circulated: (1) sludge from the
Franklin treatment plant will be disposed of by landfill on-site;
(2) the West Paugus interceptor has been redesigned (raised ele-
vation) to avoid blockage of boat traffic in Pickeral Cove; and
(3) an extensive archaeologic survey and literature search has been
initiated to assure the preservation and protection of the region's
archaeologic resources against possible impacts from the proposed
project. On the basis of these actions there are no controversial
issues surrounding the proposed project.
To insure that the public is kept completely informed regarding
the proposed action, and that it participates to the fullest extent
possible in EPA's decision-making process, this Final EIS will be
made available to the Council on Environmental Quality and the
public in April, 1976.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The proposed project will achieve the stated objectives of
Winnipesaukee Basin Plan and is consistent with the goals and objec-
tives of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972
(PL 92-500). The project does not foreclose future regional options
for treatment of wastewater from communities on the eastern side of
Lake Winnipesaukee, i.e., Alton, Wolfeboro, Tuftonboro, Moulton-
borough, and Center Harbor. The over-sizing of the project's inter-
ceptors 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
collection 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.
Xlll
-------
The Final EIS proposes a series of measures, both adminis-
trative and legal, which should be incorporated in t'.ie Basin Plan
in order to ensure attainment of the project's anticipated
benefits and to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. These
measures are summarized as follows:
1. EPA will require that procedures necessary for com-
pliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Act of 1974 be implemented. Accordingly, the construc-
tion grant will be conditioned so that prior to con-
struction all required procedures will be complied with;
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 proposed re-
gional sewage system versus other alternative methods
of wastewater collection and treatment;
3. It is recommended that NHWSPCC initiate with the parti-
cipating communities in the Primary and Pheripheral Areas,
a sewer allocation program which will ensure that suffi-
cient treatment capacity be reserved for these communi-
ties in meeting their projected wastewater needs.
4. The State should obtain the authority to require that
all possible connections be made to the interceptors
as these lines become operational. As the eutrophication
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 maximum extent possible;
5. The State should require as part of its construction grant
contracts that appropriate siltation and erosion control
measures will be employed in all construction impact
areas. In addition, these measures should be strictly
enforced to protect the region's environment quality; and
6. The State should require as part of its construction ease-
ment agreements a public disclosure statement of impend-
ing action for the benefit of visitors and tourists who
may be potential renters of property to be impacted by
construction.
xiv
-------
MAILING LIST - WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN EIS
FEDERAL AGENCIES:
Senator Thomas James Mclntyre
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Senator John Durkin
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Rep. James C. Cleveland
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Rep. Norman E. D1Amours
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 21515
Regional Environmental Officer
U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare
Room 2007B
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Mr. Harold Thompson,
Acting Reg. Admin.
Department of Housing &
Urban Development
JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Mr. Robert E. Kirby, Regional
Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
4 Normanskill Blvd.
Delmar, New York 12054
Mr. Bruce Blanchard
Environmental Project Review
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
National Parks Service
Northeast Regional Director
143 South Third
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Regional Administrator
Bureau of Sports, Fisheries,
& Wildlife
Northeast Region
U.S. Post Office & Courthouse
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
National Parks Service
District Chief
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
United States Geological
Survey
80 Broad Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Washington, D. C.
Regional Director
U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Col. John Mason
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
Dr. William Aron, Director
Office of Ecology and Environmental
Conservation
National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration
6001 Ex. Blvd.
Rockville, Maryland
Hr. Sherman K. Sprague,
State Director
Farmers Home Administration
Box 588
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES (CONT'D.):
Mr. Sidney R. Ga.ller
Deputy Assistant Socrotfiry
for Environmental Affairs
Dept. of Commerce
Washington, D. C. 20230
U. S. Coast Guard, First
District
150 Causeway Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
John D. McDermott
Director of Office of Review
and Compliance
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
1522 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
U.S. Dept. of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn: M. Evans
55 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Direct9r, Office of Public
Affairs _ A-107
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Rebecca Hanmer
Office of Federal Activities-
A-104
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Director, Office of
Congressional Affairs - A-102
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Director, Environmental Projects
Dept. of the Interior
Asst. Secretary for Program
and Policy
Washington, D. C. 20240
MH . Mi i-key K I ii\c:
COlUU'tl i>u Kuv i l tutuiaul a I \HUi I I I \
12'2 J.-U'kfsun I'lrti'n, H , W .
Washington, D. C. ,!UOOO
STATE AGENCIES:
Commissioner, Department of
Resources & Economic Development
856 State House Annex
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. George E. McAvoy
Director of Comprehensive
Planning
State House Annex
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. Donald B. Price
Federal Funds Liaison Office
Coordinator of Federal Funds
State House
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. Donald Stever, Jr.
Asst. Attorney General
State House
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. Malcolm Taylor
New Hampshire Natural
Resources Council
5 South State Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. Forrest Bumford, Director
Air Pollution Control Agency
N. H. Dept. of Health and Welfare
61 South Spring Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Dept. of Fish and Game
Division of Inland and Marine
Fisheries
34 Bridge Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. Thomas Sweeney, Solid Waste
Disposal
Division of Public Health
Dept. of Health and Welfare
Food and Chemistry Services
61 South Spring Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
-------
STATE AGENCIES(CONT'D.):
Mr. John Richards, Associate
Sanitary Engineer
N.H. Water Supply & Pollution
Prescott Park
105 Loudon Road
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Lowell M. Weise, M.D., M.P.
Director of Public Health
Dept. of. Health and Welfare
Division of Public Health
161 South Spring Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. William A. Healy, Ex. Dir.
N.H. Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission
105 Loudon Road
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Water Resources
20 Lock Street
Nashua, New Hampshire 03103
Attn: Ms. S. Taylor
Ms. Linda Wilson
N. H. Historical Commission
856 State House Annex
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
REGIONAL AGENCIES:
Mr. David G. Scott, Ex. Dir.
Lakes Region Planning Comm.
Box 302, Humiston Bldg.
Meredith, New Hampshire 03253
LOCAL AGENCIES:
Mayor Paul A. Lemire
City Hall
Franklin, New Hampshire
Mr. James McSweeney
City Manager
City Hall
Franklin, New Hampshire
Mayor Edwin J. Chertok
City Hall
Laconia, New Hampshire
Kenneth Boehner
City Manager
City Hall
Laconia, New Hampshire
Mr. Peter Hance
Planning Director
City of Laconia
Laconia, New Hampshire
Mr. Frank R. DeNormandie
Director of Public Works
City Hall
Laconia, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Belmont, New Hampshire 03220
Ms. Suzanne J. Roberts
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Belmont, New Hampshire 03220
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Tuftonboro, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Moultonborough, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Wolfeboro, New Hampshire
Mr. Guy Knapp
Town Manager
Town Hall
Wolfeboro, New Hampshire
Bay District Commissioners
Center Harbor, New Hampshire
-------
LOCAL AGENCIES (CONT'D.):
Mr. 0. Joseph April, P.E.
Town Engineer
Office of Town Engineer
Gilford, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Gilford, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Tilton, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Northfield, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Alton, New Hampshire
Mr. Richard Keller
Town Engineer
Town Hall
Alton, New Hampshire
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Meredith, New Hampshire
Mr. Louis F. Wuelper
Board of Selectmen
Town Hall
Belmont, New Hampshire 03220
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS:
R. J. Hill, President
Land Use Foundation of
New Hampshire
7 South State Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. Lawrence Kelly, Dir.
Citizens for a Cleaner
Environment
814 Elm Street
Manchester, New Hampshire 03101
E.H.B. Bartelink, Chap. Chnin.
Appalachian Mt:n. Club
New Hampshire L'li.ipt
-------
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS (CONT'D.):
Mr. N. Robert Arthur
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc.
6715 Kenilworth Avenue
Riverdale, Maryland 20840
Mr. Greg McGregory
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Mountain Boad
Concord, New Hampshire
Mr. Howard Sargent
Box 425
Georges Mills, New Hampshire 03751
Mr. James Walker, President
Lakes Region Clean Water Assoc.
Court Street
Winnisquam Mailing Office
Laconia, New Hampshire
Mr. Richard Burshell
Gilford Yacht Sales
Gilford, New Hampshire
Mr. Eugene Winter
54 Trull Lane
Lowell, Massachusetts 01852
WEMJ-AM 1490 kc
O'Shea Industrial Park
P. 0. Box 715
ATTN: Ben Walters
Laconia, New Hampshire 03246
WLNH-AM 1350 kc
WLNH-FM 98.3 me
Parade Road
ATTN: Brad Woodward
Laconia, New Hampshire 03246
WASR-AM 1420 kc
Varney Road
P. 0. Box 900
ATTN: Al Severy
Wolfeboro, New Hampshire
03894
Mr. Charles E. Bolian
Department of Sociology &
Anthropology
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Mr. W. Dennis Chesley
Route 8
Concord, New Hampshire
Mr. Howard R. Sargent
Box 425
George's Mill, New Hampshire 03751
Concord Monitor
3 North State Street
P. 0. Box 502
Concord, New Hampshire
ATTN: T. W. Gerber
Laconia Evening Citizen
171 Fair Street
P. 0. Box 40
ATTN: E. J. Gallagher
Laconia, New Hampshire 03246
Journal-Transcript
403 Central Street
P. 0. Box 271
ATTN: Gail Manyan
Franklin, New Hampshire 03235
The Trumpeter
334 Central Street
P. 0. Box 112
ATTN: Fay Mahoney
Franklin, New Hampshire 03235
Granite State Vacationer
200 South Maine Street
ATTN: Louise D. Flynt
Laconia, New Hampshire 03246
The Meredith News
5 Water Street
P. 0. Box 729
ATTN: Neal W. Phillips
Meredith, New Hampshire 03253
Granite State News
South Main Street
ATTN: Kenneth Webb
Wolfeboro, New Hampshire 03894
Continental Cablevision
Channel 12
15 Pleasant Street
ATTN: Katharine Kinderman
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
-------
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS (CONT'D.):
WKXL-AM 1450 kc
WKXL-FM 102.3 me
37 Redington Road
P. 0. Box 875
ATTN: Timothy Clark
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Johanne Bowman
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Mr. H. Paul Friesema
Associate Professor
Northwestern University
Center for Urban Affairs
2040 Sheridan Road
Evanston, Illinois 60201
J. R. Blais Assoc., Inc.
1 Pleasant Street
Meredith, New Hampshire
0.12
Mr. Harold Geary
9 Gould Street
Danvers, Massachusetts
01923
B.P.A. Reporting Associates
Inc.
294 Washington Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Mr. Wesley E. Brown
Vice President
Anderson-Nichols
22 Commercial Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Mr. Ray Todd
14 Seed Street
Salem, New Hampshire
03079
Mr. Jay R. Farrell
P. 0. Box 77 Weirs Beach
Laconia, New Hampshire 03246
Mr. James H. Peabody
115 Newbury Street
Lawrence, Massachusetts 01841
Mr. George Colby
Hemlock Street
Plainstow, New Hampshire 0386f'
-------
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, a growing concern about water quality in
the Lakes Region of New Hampshire has motivated the State's Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC) to initiate
action to preserve and protect those waters exhibiting no degra-
dation and to eliminate sources of pollution to those waters
which have already deteriorated. Accordingly, the consulting
firm of Charles A. Maguire was commissioned "...to establish a
comprehensive basin plan for wastewater collection and disposal
facilities in the Winnipesaukee River Basin..." (Maguire, 1972).
In the study, completed March, 1972, nine alternate plans for
providing pollution 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 study 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 which may have 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, (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 opera-
tion of the proposed system, and thereby give meaningful considera-
tion 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 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 land 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 responsible 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 has been kept completely informed
regarding the proposed action, and that it participates to the
fullest extent possible in EPA's decision-making process, the
draft EIS was circulated for a 60-day review period. In addition,
a formal public hearing was held on January 27, 1976 to solicit
public comment on the project. The final EIS has responded to
all substantive comments raised through the review of the draft
EIS. Copies of the final EIS shall be distributed to appropriate
Federal, State, regional and local agencies and interested persons
xvi
-------
SECTION I
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
This section of the environmental impact statement
contains information concerning existing and pro-
posed sewage collection and treatment facilities in
the Winnipesaukee River Basin. The discussion
identifies the Study Area and defines the goals and
objectives of the proposed project. Also, a descrip-
tion of the existing wastewater treatment facilities
in Laconia and Meredith, their attendant problems
and limitations, and proposed modifications to these
facilities is presented. Information developed in
this section will be utilized as the basis of deter-
mining the the proposed project's environmental im-
pact (Section IV) as well as the impact analysis of
feasible alternatives to the applicant's proposed
project (Section V).
-------
A. BACKGROUND
1. Location and Identification of Study and Service Areas
Area limits have been established to clarify the discussions
of the proposed project throughout the EIS. These limits serve
to confine 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
Peinigewasset 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 and 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 Cities of Franklin and Laconia, and
the Towns of Tilton, Northfield, Sanbornton, Belmont,
Gilford, and Meredith.
Peripheral Study Area. This portion of the Study
Area encompasses the less densely populated communi-
ties surrounding Lake Winnipesaukee. It includes
the Towns of Center Harbor, Moultonborough, Tufton-
boro, 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 parts of
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 e. 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 towns (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 into 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 Winnisquam. In later years, excessive
infiltration during the wet season caused flows to exceed the
hydraulic design capacity of the plant and reduced 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 plant 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. An 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
1-4
-------
WInnlpesaukee Kivei Wau-.i •
-Proposed 208 I'ldimin.j Aitid
•.... I'l.llini ll-l Jill I -,,| I , I i.ui i>| | .-,1 r-.
Region Planning lominl ss ion
Communities Within the Study Area
FIGURE 1-3.
JURISDICTION OF THE LAKES REGION
PLANNING COMMISSION SHOWING THE
WlNNIPESAUKEE RIVER WATERSHED, THE
208 PLANNING AREA, AND THE STUDY
AREA.
1-5
-------
FIGURE 1-4. EXISTING HASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
RAW DISCHARGES.
Treated Uastewater Discharge
Raw Wastewater Discharge
1-6
-------
eliminated, because tests showed it was not cost-effective,
thereby lowering 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. Also, alkalinity
and heavy metals 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 resultant
lime sludge appears to be inert, with little odor. A plan is
being developed to apply the sludge as a soil conditioner to
land near the Laconia Airport (Rose, 1975). 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 anticipated maximum dura-
tion of the demonstration project is expected to be two and
one-half years (Rose, 1975). Ultimately, It is planned that
sludge will be trucked from Laconia for treatment at the
regional sewage treatment plant in Franklin, if the Laconia
plant is still operational when the capacity of the disposal
site has been reached.
1-7
-------
Plant
Influent
Rack
Grit
Chambers
-Raw Sewage Pumps
Comminutors , , >Q—
. and _
Lime Coagulants
or 3
S1udge
A
vScum
Recarbonat ion
Chamber
second Stag
Clarifier
V I Pump
Recarbonation
Chamber
Vacuum
FiIters
n>
00
0)
o
7T
0)
I/)
A
Fi1ter Cake
to Disposal
Chlori nators
—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 System.
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 are 100,000
gallons per year from the American Asbestos Corporation and
40,000 gallons per month from two laundries (Maguire, 1972).
All sewage is collected either by gravity or by a pump
station near Meredith Bay and pumped uphill to the treat-
ment plant located off Route 3 near Hawkins Brook. The
1972 sewered population was 1,400, with an average flow of
approximately 150,000 gpm, including infiltration and in-
dustrial flows (Maguire, 1972). High flows occurring during
both the tourist season and spring infiltration overload the
plant and reduce 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 duckweed
in the pond and swamp. A screen at the outlet of the pond
prevents floating 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).
Wolfeboro 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. A separate reservoir
is capable of storing sewage during winter months, when
spraying is not possible.
3. Qn-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, i.e., soil type, slope, depth to bedrock, and height of
the high water table, influence the design of the leach field. In
most cases, these additional fiictors determine the applicability
of using septic tanks.
Throughout the Lake Winnipesaukee area, the low density of
development has precluded the use of municipal treatment facilities
in most instances. Therefore, the majority 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 community 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 enumeration 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 town, 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)
Municipality
Alton
Belmont
Center Harbor
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Moultonborough
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
TOTAL
Year-Round
2,
1,
5,
1,
1,
621
865
226
492
086
090
099
423
689
369
872
327
226
SeasonalJ
1,271
215
66
230
546
291
967
1,405
49
257
46
652
936
15,385
6,931
Total
1,892
1,080
292
2,722
1,632
5,381
2,066
1,828
738
626
918
979
2,162
22,316
Note: Due to the Census procedures, the number of seasonal,
housing units may be significantly greater. Seasonal housing
is here defined by occupancy, not structural characteristics.
1-11
-------
TABLE 1-2
1970 WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Municipality
Alton
Belmont
Center Harbor
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Moultonborough
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
TOTAL
Total Number
of Units
1,892
1,080
292
2,722
1,632
5,381
2,066
1,828
738
626
918
979
2,162
22,316
Sewered
290
71
4,467
478
170
334
381
790
9,016
Septic
1,892
790
221
687
1,632
914
1,588
1,658
404
626
537
979
1,372
13,300
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 expanded in 1971 to include all new
septic tank systems within the entire state. The law still does
not require that a registered engineer design the system as long
as there is four 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 the Town of Gilford (Table 1-3). This data is a
compilation of the number of systems that required either replace-
ment or repair, including excavation. The estimated number of
septic tank systems in Gilford is 1,632 (Table 1-2). The average
failure rate for the past five years is 2.0 percent per year, i.e.,
32.4-^1,632. The highest yearly failure rate was 2.6 percent in
1-12
-------
TABLE 1-3
GILFORD SEPTIC TANK SYSTEM FAILURES*
(Source: Personal communication: with Mr. Joe April,
Gilford Town Engineer)
1970 36
1971 42
1972 40
1973 24
1974 2Q_
TOTAL 162
Average 32.4 (excludinq 1975)
1975 (through July) 17
* Requiring repair or replacement
TABLE 1-4
ESTIMATED SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURES
M . . n. . (2.0%)
Municipality Low Rate High Rate Average Rate
Alton 23 49 38
Belmont 9 21 16
Center Harbor 3 6 4
Franklin 8 18 14
Gilford 20 42 33
Laconia 11 24 18
Meredith 19 41 32
Moultonborough 20 43 33
Northfield 5 11 8
Sanbornton 8 16 13
Tilton 6 14 1:L
Tuftonboro 12 25 20
Wolfeboro 16^ 36 27
TOTAL 160 346
267
1-13
-------
1971, and the lowest rate was L.2 percent in 1974. Application of
these extrapolated failure ratas to the other jurisdictions pro-
vides an estimate of the failure rate for all the municipalities
in the Study Area (Table 1-4).
Applying the average failure rate for Gilford over tho on lire
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 town. Table 1-5 presents a
disaggregation by town of the general land suitability within the
Merrimack River Basin for septic tank use. The land within each
town has been classified into one of three suitability categories-
slight, moderate, or severe. Each category is defined by a com-
posite 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 compiled for
each town 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 suitability on an areawide basis. As indicated in Table 1-5,
every town except Gilford has moderate to severe limitations of over
50 percent of its land. Nearly half (6 out of 13) of the communi-
ties have severe limitations on 50 percent or more of their land.
The limited suitability of the Study Area for septic tank use is
attributed to mainly three factors: 1) low depth of soil;
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. 1974)
LIMITATIONS (Percentage)
Municipality Slight Moderate Severe
Alton 37 -- 65
Belmont 25 15 60
Center Harbor -- 90 10
Franklin 30 50 20
Gilford 55 — 45
Laconia 15 20 75
Meredith 5 60 35
Moultonborough 5 45 50
Northfield 20 35 45
Sanbornton 20 15 65
Tilton 35 — 65
Tuftonboro — 60 40
Wolfeboro -- 55 45
1-14
-------
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 limita-
tions but they also can significantly increase costs. Tlie
practice of trying to avoid a prohibitively expensive syntom
yet, still develop the available Land, tends to promote mar-
ginal system installations and place excessive pressure on
WSPCC and local health officials tor 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
communities, i.e., Gilford, Meredith, Laconia and Alton have
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 i.ri:ipr;<:i i on.
Before this, marginal systems were approved without noi.iHon or
conditions.
There are no recorded instances in the Winnipesaukee area
of a public health problem resulting from septic tank malfunc-
tions. This is due probably more to the relatively low density
of population and the large dilution of the lakes than to effec-
tive operation of septic tanks. It is known that in Gilford,
which has some of the best natural conditions of the area, there
is a failure rate of 2 percent per year. In other areas with more
severe geologic conditions the failure rate is probably higher.
Marginal systems continue to be built which are also prone to
failure. As development increases, the area's limited environ-
mental capacities will be further taxed. As these situations
continue and compound themselves the probability of a serious
public health problem increases. In order to avoid this possi-
bility, the future use of septic tanks should be strictly regu-
lated. Regulations should be carried out with the goal of mini-
mizing 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 gallons 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 million gallons per 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 million gallons per year appears
to be a reasonable estimate.
1-15
-------
Septic tank cleaning wastes from all communities except
Meredith and'Franklin are disposed of in Tilton at a site pro-
vided by the Tilton Sand and Gravel Company. Meredith provides
for disposal in a lagoon at its treatment plant and the disposal
location for Franklin is unknown. The regional wastewater treat-
ment system will provide for the disposal of septic tank cleaning
wastes (WSPCC, 1975). These wastes, although suspended solids
concentrations are high, have relatively low BOD5 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 opera-
tion 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
Municipality Flow (mgd) BOD (Ibs/day) SS (Ibs/day)
Belmont 0.174 395 469
Franklin 1.95 3,250 4,070
Northfield 0.113 559
Tilton 0.146
In addition to existing raw waste discharges from on-site
and centralized wastewater collection systems, boats are another
source of water pollution. Boating wastes are regulated by the
NHWSPCC under RSA 149-A, which prohibits sewage discharges from
boats except to a municipal sewerage system or to any adequate
sewage disposal system on shore. However, interviews with marina
operators indicate that, while the law is on the books, enforce-
ment is so lax as to constitute voluntary compliance. According
to the operators, the only real enforcement derives from the
rules they, themselves, impose upon boats using their facilities.
It is obvious that at least a significant part of the boating
community is openly skeptical of the State's effectiveness in
enforcing its rules against raw waste discharges from boats.
1-16
-------
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
1. General
The applicant's project is proposed to implement the
recommendations of a 1972 study on water quality control for
the Winnipesaukee River Basin (Maguire, 1972). Based upon an
in-depth study of numerous engineering and water-quality re-
ports, the Basin Plan presented seven (7) alternative plans
for sewering the Primary Study Area and two (2) alternative
plans for sewering the Peripheral Study Area. From these
alternatives Plan B was recommended 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 transported to the Franklin
regional STP for treatment. The effluent from the Franklin STP will
be discharged to the Merrimack River and the sludge will be dis-
posed of by land spreading. At completion of the project, the
system will be in conformance with State policy which forbids
any new effluent discharge into the Lakes.
Since 1972, subsequent delays, engineering modifications
and financial considerations have caused some changes in Plan
B. Principally, 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 described as follows:
Phase I - Work completed 1972-1975. Upgrade the Laconia
plant to remove phosphates and achieve a higher BOD re-
moval. (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 up-
grading in the future;
Construct interceptors in Franklin to serve Franklin resi-
dents ;
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 Winni-
pesaukee River will last for an estimated 3 to 6 months.-
1-17
-------
Extend the Franklin interceptor to collect sewage from
Tilton and Northfield;
Construct the Gilford and West Paugus interceptors;
Construct the interceptor from Tilton and Northfield
to join the interceptor from Laconia at a point south
of Silver Lake. Identified in this report as the
"Laconia Connection," this interceptor will provide
the link between the southern and northern parts of
the system, and then the Laconia plant will be abandoned
or modified;
Construct interceptors to serve Meredith, Belmont and
Sanbornton; and
The construction schedule for projects in the Winnipe-
saukee River Basin is shown in Table I-6a.
The Peripheral Study Area, including the Towns of Center
Harbor, Moultonborough, Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro and Alton, was
examined in the Basin Plan. It was concluded that installa-
tion of local advanced waste treatment facilities would be
more cost effective than extension of regional collection sys-
tem 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
interceptor sewers be constructed with sufficient excess
capacity to transport 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 de-
signed for the peak seasonal population rather than the permanent
population. Per capita domestic sewage flows are assumed (Maquire,
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 in-
dustrial flows takes into account a substantial amount of ex-
*New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission,
Rules and Regulations Implementing RSA 149, Number 16a,
October 31, 1973.
1-18
-------
TABLE I-6a
WINNIPESAUKEE RI 7ER BASIN PROGRAM
ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE
(SOURCE: NHWSPCC, 1976)
Project
Laconia Treatment Plant
State School Pumping
Station
Winnisquam By-pass
Sewer
Franklin Treatment
Plant
Franklin Interceptor
Sewer
Tilton-Northfield
Interceptor Sewer
West Paugus
Interceptor Sewer
Gilford Interceptor
Sewer (Sect. 1)
Gilford Interceptor
Sewer (Sect. 2)
Meredith
Interceptor Sewer
Sanbornton
Interceptor Sewer
Belmont
Interceptor Sewer
Present
Status
Completed
Under
Construction
Engineering
Complete
Anticipated
Construction
Start
March 1976
Design Completed May 1976
Under Design
April 1976
Design Completed April 1976
Redesign
April 1976
Design Completed April 1976
Engineering
Started
Engineering
Contract
Signed
April 1977
April 1977
Awaiting Design May 1977
Anticipated
Construction
Completion
September 1976
September 1978
October 1978
October 1978
October 1978
May 1978
May 1978
October 1978
April 1978
Awaiting Design February 1977 October 1978
April 1979
Franklin
Interceptor Sewer
(Pemigewasset)
Tilton
Interceptor Sewer
Northfield
Interceptor Sewer
Engineering
Negotiations
Underway
Engineer
Not Selected
Engineer
Not Selected
May 1977
July 1977
July 1977
April 1979
November 1978
November 1978
1-19
-------
pansion 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 I.A.4).
These flow reductions have been considered in the preparation
of Tables 1-7 through 1-10.
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
excessive I/I. In Tables 1-7 through 1-10 the estimated infil-
tration flows take into account both removal of excessive I/I
in existing sewers and additional I/I as the sewerage systems
are expanded. The excess capacity allowed for the Peripheral
Area is as follows:
Average Flow (mgd)
Municipality 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 ease-
ment 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 infil-
tration from groundwater. All interceptors are designed to
carry flows projected for the year 2020.
1-20
-------
TABLE IT; 7
ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS - YEAR l'J7r>
(Source: Update of Maguire, 1972)
Domestic Industrial
Municipality
Meredith
Laconia
Gilford
Sanbornton
Belmont
Tilton
Northfield
Franklin
TOTAL
mgd
.16
1.02
.14
—
.12
.21
.14
.55
2.34
ESTIMATED
(Source:
mgd
.02
.30
.02
—
.02
.07
.02
0..10
0..55
TABLE 1-8
SEWAGE FLOWS - YEAR
Update of Maguire,
Domestic Industrial
Municipality
Meredith
Laconia
Gilford
Sanbornton
Belmont
Tilton
Northfield
Franklin
mgd
.31
1.56
.45
—
.23
.25
.20
.75
mgd
.04
1.01
.C4
.03
.08
.06
0.20
Infiltration
mgd
.12
.50
.10
— —
.08
.16
.11
1,30
2. .37
1985
1972)
Infiltration
mgd
.20
.86
.28
—
.15
.16
.13
1.40
Total
• mgd
.30
1.82
.26
_ _
.22
.44
.27
1.95
5.26
Total
mgd
.55
3.43
.77
—
.41
.49
.39
2.35
TOTAL
3.75
1.46
3.18
8.39
1-21
-------
TABLE 1-9
ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS - YEAR 1995
(Source: Update of Maguire, 1972)
Municipality
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
0,20
2.32
Infiltration
mgd
.28
1.20
.45
.06
.21
.17
.15
1.49
4.01
11.54
TABLE I-10
ESTIMATED SEWAGE FLOWS - YEAR 2020
(Source: Update of Maguire, 1972)
Municipality
Meredith
Laconia
Gilford
Sanbornton
Belmont
Tilton
Northfield
Franklin
Domestic
mgd
.80
2.56
1.92
.24
.66
.43
.45
1.50
Industrial
mgd
.07
2.03
.16
.02
.06
.20
.20
0.40
Infiltration
mgd
.40
1.47
.96
.12
.33
.22
.27
1.70
3.60
TOTAL
8.56
3.14
5.47
17.17
1-22
-------
FIGURE 1-6. PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
SYSTEM FOR HINNIPE-
SAUKEE RIVER BASIN.
3.9* Average Dally Flow, MGO
Year 2020
^^ Treatment Plant
Q Pumping Station
* Temporary Discharge
•••• Gravity Flow
^ Force Main
1-23
-------
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 City's eastern boundary. It will parallel the rail-
road into the downtown area, then follow the Winnipesau-
kee 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 land-
fill and enter the Franklin treatment plant site.
The Pemigewasset interceptor will start on the west bank
of the Pemigewasset River, and follow the River south-
ward for about a half mile. It will 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 railroad be-
tween Tilton and Northfield. In Tilton, the sewer will
diverge from the railroad and follow the main street of
town, then cross the Winnipesaukee River at a parking
lot opposite Citizen's National Bank, and rejoin the
railroad in Northfield. Completion of this interceptor
will eliminate raw sewage discharges from Tilton and
Northfield into l.he Winnipesaukee River.
Laconia Connection. The Franklin interceptor will be
extended from Tilton northeastward along the B&M rail-
road to join the Winnisquam outfall. This will allow
sewage from the communities northeast of Tilton-North-
field to be treated at the Franklin STP and will permit
abandonment, or modification of the Laconia STP. (Note:
This interceptor has been referred to in various reports
as "part of the Winnipesaukee Interceptor," "the Inter-
ceptor from Tilton and Northfield," and the "Tilton-
Northf ield Interceptor Sewer." The term "Laconia
Connection" is used throughout this report).
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.
1-24
-------
Then, the interceptor will follow Route 140 the re-
mainder 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.
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.
Winnisquam Outfall System. The Winnisquam outfall system,
soon to be under construction, will carry treated
sewage from the Laconia STP to a discharge point
on the Winnipesaukee River oelow 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. The outfall will end about 1,800
feet north of Route 140. The center of the interceptor
will be placed 16 feet from the center of the railroad
track.
West Paugus Interceptor. The West Paugus interceptor
will collect sewage fro'm the Meredith and Gilford in-
terceptors, 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
Coves will be widened. A pumping station located two-
1-25
-------
thirds down Paugus Bay will pump the sewage across the
golf course to the north shore of Opechee Bay. Another
pump station located half-way down Opechee Bay will
provide enough lift to bring the sewage to the Laconia
plant. Subsequent changes to this description as a re-
sult of public controversy and alternatives studied to
mitigate environmental impacts are discussed in Section
V.B.I of this report.
Meredith Interceptor. The Meredith interceptor will
start at the existing pump station in Meredith and
paralleling the Meredith Bay shoreline, follow the
B&M railroad to Weirs Beach. Construction of this
line will allow the treatment plant at Meredith to bo
abandoned.
Gilford Interceptor. The Gilford interceptor starts
near the town's eastern boundary (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 dis-
placed. The interceptor will collect sewage from
one of the most heavily developed sections of shoreline
on Lake Winnipesaukee, including several marinas.
In addition, Governors Island, located just east of
Pendleton Beach, could be served by the interceptor.
In the original design (Maguire, 1972), the Gilford
interceptor was 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 was planned to run
towards 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 difficulties are now being encountered in
finding a suitable land disposal site for the pro-
posed STP at Alton, there is a possibility that Alton
will have to join the regional system instead of con-
structing its own treatment plant. In this case,
the proposed sewerage in Alton would have to be ex-
tended 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.
1-26
-------
4.
Treatment Plants
Laconia STP. The Laconia sewage treatment plant is
designed for interim use until regional sewage treat-
ment can be provided at Franklin. The plant was con-
structed 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 Winnisquam, which is rapidly
eutrophying. Section I.A.2. describes in greater
detail the Laconia STP.
The STP will have a 1985 average daily flow of 4.75
mgd (=7.35 cfs). Table 1-11 summarizes the effluent
limitations 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 pl.ant, except.
for the pump station, will be abandoned or modi tied.
If continued as a primary treatment plant, it will
remove settleable solids deposition in the inter-
ceptors during low flows. Also, other processes,
such as grit removal and chlorination might 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, 1975)
Parameter
Maximum Monthly
mgTTIb/day
Maximum Weekly
mg/1Ib/day
Maximum
Any Time
mg/1
5-day BOD
Total Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
Total Phosphorus
Total Coliform
PH
30
15
N/A
1.0
Less than 240/100 ml at all times
6.5 < pH < 8.0 at all times
1188
594
N/A
N/A
.5
.2
45
20
0.1
N/A
ml/1
1782.
792.
7
3
50
25
0.
2.
3
0
ml/1
1-27
-------
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
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR THE FRANKLIN TREATMENT PLANT
(Source: 40CFR 133)
Parameter
5-Day BOD
Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliform
PH
Maximum
Monthly
mg/1
Maximum
Weekly
mg/1
30 45
30 45
200/100 ml 400/100 ml
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 (Section I.E.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) .
1-28
-------
Plant
Influent
Rack
Grit Raw Sewage Pumps
Chambers Conmun!tors
ludge
Flotatl
Ickene
Vacuum
Filter
Vacuum
Filter
To Sanitary
Landfill
Return
Activated
ration Tanks
f.
pi 1
[
ks
j__^^
Aeration
1
!
cum
Secondary
Clarlfler
Secondary
Clarlfler
Chlorinators
)hlorine Contact
Chambers
Plant Effluent
LJ 1975 Construction
Future Construction
FIGURE 1-7.
BASIN WASTES TREATMErfT FACILITIES AT FRANKLIN
FLOW DIAGRAM - ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
1-29
-------
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.B.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.
1-30
-------
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 require
disposal of approximately 8.4 acre-feet per year of de-
watered 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. Sanitary landfill of digested
sludge on the Franklin site has been selected. Appendix
A-l presents the NHWSPCC's description of the proposed
landfill.
The area proposed for sludge disposal would be immediately
adjacent to the proposed treatment plant. The land is
currently owned by the City of Franklin. They have pro-
vided the Commission with an easement of 50 acres of the
total 220 acres that they have under ownership. Also,
they have advised them that as much of the 220 acres as
will be needed can also be obtained.
Much of the area is being actively farmed for the production
of corn which is for livestock ensilage.
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 must be scaled to the latest
appropriate EPA index. The current project cost estimates are
reflected in Table 1-14.
TABLE 1-13
COST ESCALATION SINCE DECEMBER 1971 ($ MILLION DOLLARS)
Value
Cost Index Dec. 71 Current Value Ratio
ENR Construction Cost 1,950* 2,290 July 1975 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.
1-31
-------
TABLE 1-14
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Capital Costs
(Source: NHWSPCC, 1976)
Cost* (April 1975)
Interceptor:
Meredith
West Paugus
Laconia-Tilton
Tilton-Franklin
Franklin - STP
Gilford
Belmont
Sanbornton
Pemigewasset
Franklin STP
Operation and Maintenance
(Source: Update of Maguire, 1972)
Franklin STP
Sub-Total
Total
$2,873,000
6,938,000
8,121,000
8,347,000
5,269,000
5,046,000
2,347,000
1,165,000
4,139,000
$44,245,000
10,755,000
$55,000,000
Annual Cost
1985
$490,000
1995
$634,000
* Includes Engineering and Contingencies @ 15 percent. EPA
Region I allows ten percent contingency on the bid price
and another ten percent on the actual construction costs.
Thus, using the full EPA allowance and four percent engineering
costs, the actual project cost could be as high as $59 million.
1-32
-------
C. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: 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 implemen-
tation 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 Winnipesaukec,
Paugus Bay, Lake Winnisquam, Silver Lake, and trib-
utary streams;
2. To permit the existing treatment plants at Meredith,
Laconia, and possibly Center Harbor and Wolfeboro
to be phased out;
3. To prevent the continued proliferation of on-site
septic tanks in areas of poor and marginal soils;
4. To improved regional water quality management through
the prevention 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.
1-33
-------
SECTION II
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following section of the environmental impact
statement contains a description of the current
environmental setting of the Winnipesaukee Basin.
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). The status of the Study Area's
condition is based on an evaluation of the following
environmental parameters:
Natural Environment
Climate
Air Quality
Geology
Topography
Soils
Hydrology
Biology
Aesthetics
Historic and Archaeologic Resources
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Social and Economic Environment
Population Characteristics
Land Use
Economy
Community Services
-------
A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The natural environmental setting of the Study Area ami i l:;
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
system in the Winnipesaukee River Basin.
1. Climate
The Winnipesaukee Basin has a north humid continental climate
characterized by cold winters, moderately warm summers and abun-
dant, well-distributed precipitation. Climatic conditions are
influenced by both the prevailing westerly winds and storms
which pass over the Basin from the west or southwest or traveling
up the Atlantic coast. Differences in elevation and topography
produce some local variation in temperature and precipitation
(NHWSPCC, 1973). High areas generally receive more precipitation
and have a wider range of temperature extremes.
While the National Weather Service does not directly operate
any climatological stations in the Winnipesaukee Basin, several
stations are operated by Cooperative Climatological Observers
under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin i strat: i.on ' :i
(NOAA) sponsorship. Stations are located in 1,/jkoporl:, Woir<-l>on>,
Moultonboro, New Durham, Franklin and Franklin l-'ii.l Is. The -ivcr-
age annual temperature at Lakeport is 46 F. Temperatures rancjo
from less than -25 F to the high 90's. Average monthly tempera-
tures 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 diff-
erences in elevation (Kitchel, et al. 1963). In the vicinity of
Laconia the average 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 dis-
tributed 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. Average annual snowfall
at Laconia is approximately 80 inches. Large amounts of snowfall
are generally recorded in the mountainous areas around the peri-
meter of the Winnipesaukee Basin. The spring snow melt coupled
with slightly increased amounts of precipitation 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 Primary Study Area lies within the Merrimack Valley
- Southern New Hampshire Interstate Air Quality Control Area
is located in the Central New Hampshire Air Quality Control
Region. The Merimack Valley - Southern New Hampshire Inter-
state AQCR is classified Priority I for particulate matter and
sulfur oxides and Priority III for oxides of nitrogen, carbon
monoxide, and photochemical oxidants; the Central New Hampshire
Intrastate AQCR is classified Priority III for all pollutants.
The classification of a region for each pollutant is based on
the measured or estimated data in the baseline year as described
in 40 CFR 52, subpart GG. This means that in the Merrimack
Southern New Hampshire Interstate AQCR, particulate and sulfur
oxide concentrations were estimated or measured to be above the
national primary standards, whjle carbon monoxide, nitroqcn
dioxide and photochemical oxidants were less than the national
secondary standards. In the Central New Hampshire J.ntrani.ai «•
AQCR, the measured or estimated air quality is currently within
all standards.
No Transporation Control Plan was required in either region,
implying that no special restrictions are needed to attain or
maintain the standards for mobile source pollutants (carbon mon-
oxide, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen). Also, there is no currently designated Air Quality
Maintenance Area in either region. Changes are being monitored
for potential problems.
Air quality data for the Study Area is very limited as
monitoring, which began in 1973, pertains only to the measure-
ment 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 1973 and 1974 maximum measured concen-
trations for particulate matter are juxtaposed with the
applicable air quality standards in Table II-2.
Since no measured sulfur dioxide (SCO data are available
for the Winnipesaukee area, the monitoring data for Concord and
Plymouth are used in Table II-2 to illustrate the general SO
concentrations in the Southern New Hampshire region. It should
be noted that because of the difference in pollutant sources,
meteorological and topographical conditions, these shown sulfur
oxide concentrations may not be representative of the Franklin
area in the vicinity of the wastewater treatment plant.
II-3
-------
TABLE II-2
BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY DATA (IN MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
MAXIMUM MEASURED AIR QUALITY CONCENTRATIONS (SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE)
Pollutant
Particulate
Matter
Annual Geo-
metric Mean
2 4 -Hour
Maximum
Sulfur Oxides
Annual Arith-
metic Mean
24-Hour
Maximum
3-Hour
Maximum
Laconia++
1973
51
126
*
*
*
1974
43
230
*
*
*
Tilton++
1973
38
132
*
*
*
1974
34
108
*
*
*
Concord
1975
-
-
29.1+
93+
*
Plymouth
1975
_
-
32.4 +
12.4 +
*
National Standard
Primary
75
260**
80
365**
-
Secondary
. 60
150**
State
Standard
60
150*
60
260**
1,300**
1,300**
* No data available.
**These standards may not be exceeded more than one per year.
+ Because no data is available for the Winnipesaukee area, these data were used to represent
the background concentration in the Southern New Hampshire Region.
+J-Comparable 1975 particulate data were not available at the time of this analysis.
Souce: State of New Hampshire, Air Pollution Control Commission.
-------
The National Primary Air Quality Standards (Table 11-2) arc-
established to protect public health while the goal of the more
stringent secondary standards is the protection of public welfaiv
Except for the annual average arithmetic mean, the short-term
standards may not be exceeded more than once per year. Tht« Sraif
of New Hampshire ambient air quality standards are more siriiuM'ni
than national standards for participate matter and sulfur iltoxuK
As shown in Table II-2, none of the maximum measured
^nC?S™ati°nS exceed the national or state standards except
the 1974 maximum particulate concentration of Laconia The
second highest reading of 1974 particulate concentration at
Laconia was 110 mg/mj which is well below the standard. As
the short-term standard may be exceeded once per year, there
appears to be no violation of national or state standards
based on measured data. Larson's method was used to estimate
the second highest concentrations if the data were continuous.
The results indicate that the second highest 24-hour TSP con-
centration (equal 225 micrograms per cubic meter) at Laconia
Station would exceed National Secondary and thus State Standards.
The principle sources of suspended particulates are heavy
construction and combustion activities, such as the burninc,
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 experienced in the vicinity of Lake Winnipesaukee.
3. Geology
baSi^Tforgfh10gy ?f the StUdy Area is described to provide a
basis for the analysis of the area's topography, soils and
SSSSi.'S rf"
s
area s ground water resources
The Winnipesaukee River Basin iies entirely within the
Appalachian geologic province. It was formed by the excavation
a' m°e ™
dill, ,
P T™i » 5' and 0ssiPee Mountains around the margin of
All of the ba5Ja Tre 5^ fr°m m°re erosion resistant rocks?
r™ ?CS ln the BaSln was formed in the Paleozoic
Compacted marine sediments slid and broke along great
^^ lntruded from b£low by molten magma and
were converted into metamorphic rocks. Erosion, uplift
II-5
-------
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
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 glaciation have resulted in the diverse surface
geology of the Winnipesaukee Basin Very little erosion
has taken place in recent time. During the Pleistocene
II-6
-------
FIGURE ii-i. BEDROCK GEOLOGY
[Source: Billings, 1968]
LI Littleton Formation
Hi Kinsman Quartz Honozite
I Quartz Diorite
HI White Mountain Magma Series
H-7
-------
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 extremel/ dense, heterogeneous 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
Kames, 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-
till, while rocks containing feldspar are quarried for use
in ceramics. Granite is quarried in many places for use
in building activities and as decorative stone. Sand and
gravel are mined and used for many purposes.
Summ iry
The geology of the Study Arra is dominated by two meta-
morphic formations: the LittleHon formation and the White
Mountain Magna Series. Kinsman quartz monozite and quartz
di°rite 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 PeripSe
Study Area. ^
II-8
-------
FIGURE 11-2. SURFACE GEOLOGY.
Ground Moraine
Drumlins
Boulder Trains
H Stratified Gravel and Sandy
Gravel
m* Glacial Outwash and Recent
' Stream Depos!ts
II-9
-------
4. Topography
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 surroundi ig 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)
Red Hill, Ossipee, and Belknap Mountains contain most of the
areas with slopes greater than 25 percent, although steep
ledges 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
have cut down to the bedrock. Relatively flat, swampy areas
at the headwaters of many of the small streams have been
formed.
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
not been published for Carroll County; however, information
for this analysis has been gathered from a general publica-
tion prepared by the State of Naw Hampshire (State of New
Hampshire, 1968). Five main soil associations are described
for Belknap County; five are described for Merrimack; and,
four 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.
11-10
-------
FIGURE II-3- SLOPES
[Source: NHOCP * NERBE, 1975]
11-11
-------
FIGURE Il-'t. SOIL ASSOCIATIONS.
[Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service]
Windsor-Hinckley-Au Gres
Gloucester-Shapleigh-Whitman
Hermon-Becket-Canaan
Gloucester-Paxton-Shapleigh
Paxton-Shapleigh-Woodbridge
Gloucester-Shapleigh-Acton
Ondawa-Windsor-Agawam
[J Gloucester-Shapleigh
11-12
-------
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-Whitman Association occupies
approximately 15 percent of the county.THe
association is generally confined to the northwest.
Gloucester and Shapleigh soils are somewhat ex-
cessively drained and Whitman soils 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 association is forested.
r— - -- - -
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 somewhat excessively drained. Wood-
bridge soils are moderately well drained. Paxton and Wood-
bridge soils have a pan layer approximately 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.
II-13
-------
The Gloucester-Paxton-Shapleigh Association, comprising about
12 percent of the County, occurs throughout the central
part. Gloucester and Shapleigh soils are somewhat
excessively drained and Paxton soils are well drained.
Gloucester and Shapleigh soils are moderately coarse tex-
tured while Paxton soils 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
and stone. On a county-wide basis, 85 percent of this asso-
ciation is forested.
The following are the major 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.
11-14
-------
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-Shapleigh-Whitman
5+ feet Rapid-Very Rapid
5+ Very Rapid
0-.5 Moderate-Rapid
Slight-Severe
Slight-Severe
Severe-High water table
Slight-Severe
Slight-Severe
Severe-High water table
2
2
High water table
Gloucester
H Shapleigh
I
I-1 Whitman
01
Shapleigh-Gloucester
5+
1-1.5
5+
3+
1-1.5
0
Rapid
Rapid
Slow-Moderate
Shapleigh 1-1.5 1-1.5 Rapid
Gloucester 5+ 3+ Rapid
Paxton-Shapleigh-Hoodbridge
Slight to Severe
Severe-shallow bedrock
Severe-high water table
Severe-shallow bedrock
Slight-Severe
Moderate to Severe
Severe-shallow or
exposed bedrock
Severe-high water table
Severe-shallow or
exposed bedrock
Moderate to Severe
Shallow bedrock
High water table
Shallow bedrock
2
Paxton
Shapleigh
Woo dbridge
5+ 2+ Slow-Moderate
1-1.5 1-1.5 Rapid
5+ 1-2.5 Slow-Moderate
Gloucester-Paxton-Shapleigh
Gloucester
Paxton
Shapleigh
5+ 3+ Rapid
5+ 2+ Slow-Moderate
1-1.5 1-1.5 Rapid
Moderate-Severe
Severe-shallow bedrock
Moderate-Seasonal high
water table
Slight-Severe
Moderate-Severe
Severe-shallow bedrock
Moderate-Severe
Severe-shallow or
exposed bedrock
Moderate-Severe
Moderate-Severe
Moderate-Severe
Severe-shallow or
exposed bedrock
Slow permeability.
Shallow bedrock
Slow permeability
Slow permeability
Shallow bedrock
1 A rating of severe in the Homesites and Streets categories indicate that steep slopes are
2 Soil suitability for septic use differs within this major use.
the major limiting factors unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE II-4. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MAJOR SOIL ASSOCIATION OF HEHRIKACK COUNTY. (SOURCE: USDA, 1965)
Soil Association
Herman-Canaan-Colton
Herr.an
Canaan
Colton
Depth
to bedrock
2+ feet
0-2
5+
Hinckley-Windsor-Au Gris
Hinckley 5+
Windsor 5+
Au Cris S-i-
Paxton-Shapleigh-Wooabridge
Depth to
Seasonally
High Water
Table Permeability
feet
0-2
5+
5+
5+
0
Rapid
Rapid
Very Rapid
Very Rapid
Very Rapid
Rapid
Paxton
Shapleigh
Woo abridge
3+
0-2
3+
2+
0-2
1 1/2
Moderate above
2 feet, slow
below
Rapid
Moderate above
2 feet, slow
below
Homesites
Sto.-.es and boulders*
Shallow bedrock*
Gravel and cobbles
Gravel ar.d cobbles
Loose sand
Extreme wetness*
Par. layer two feet below
surface*
Shallow bedrock*
Pan layer two feet below
surface, seasonally
high water table*
Limitations to Community Development
Streets ar.d Parking Lots
Stoniness
Shallow bedrock.-seepage
Establishment of plants
on cuts difficult
Establishment of plants
on cuts difficult
Erodiijle
High Water Table
Stoniness; seepage
Shallow bedrock; seepage
Stoniness; seepage; high
water table
Septic Systeos
Good drainage
Shallow bedrock
Very rapid perr-eability
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 -
Ondava-Windsor-Agawam
Ondawa 5+ 3+ Rapid
Windsor 5+ 5+ Very Rapid
Agawao 5* 5+ Rapid
Limitations to Cor.T.urity Development
Homesites
Stones and Boulders*
Shallow bedrock*
Subject to flooding*
Loose sand
No major problems
Streets and
Parking Lots
Sto~ir.ess
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 farminq 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-
ticant 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.
11-18
-------
6. Hydro .logy
Lake Winnipeaaukee Hydrology. Lake Winnipesaukeo hna 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).
Maximum variation of the 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 .11-5 displays Lake Winnipesaukee discharge values
by monthly averages and extremes, and monthly medians.
On the average, significantly greater than annual average
discharges occur from February through May; and signifi-
cantly 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 signi-
ficantly 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 "
11-19
-------
3000
FIGURE II-5. LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE MONTHLY DISCHARGE STATISTICS
MEASURED AT LAKEPORT DAM 1933-1972
[Source: Lakes Region Planning Commission]
H
H
I
Highest
Monthly
Average
-------
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
ii H
n H
n n
n n
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 for a number of reasons: 1) evapo-
ration increases during warm weather; 2) more dense
and more active vegetative cover increases transpira-
tion; and 3) scattered rainfall allows the ground to
dry-out between storms.
U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations have
been maintained at the following locations within
the Study Area:
11-21
-------
Location Date of Record
Lake Winnipesaukee at Weirs Beach 1933 - present
(lake level only)
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.
In an average year, Lake. Winnipesaukee rises most
rapidly in April (+1.27 feet, equivalent to an increase
of 2,561 million CF of water ..a-ncl falls most rapidly in
August (-.047 feet, or a decrease-of 936 million CF oi
water). It changes least in January (-0.07 feet; -J4J
million CF) and November (+0.09 feet; +186 mi.lli.ori u-) .
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 maximum storage avail-
able to hold back flood waters. It cannot be utilized
for low flow augmentation purposes.
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 within the watershed (including stream
inflows, surface runoff, ground water inflow, etc.).
Runoff combines the effects of: a) precipitation
falling on the land; b) evapotranspiration from land
surfaces; and c) land storage as ground water and/or
snow pack.
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-
II-??.
-------
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 40 523
outlet at Lakeport,
New Hampshire
Winnipesaukee River 35 690
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
10/1,3,4/48 112
8/28/65
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, have
occurred in the months of March, April or May and
resulted from snow melt augmented by rainfall. The
magnitude of these spring floods has 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
11-24
-------
TABLE I1-6
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 Nov. 1927 Flood
Area Peak Discharge
(sq. mi.) cfs cfsm
622
1,507
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
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 10 years 25 years 50 years 100 years
34,100 40,600 57,900 70,800 85,900
30,000
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
fishing 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 (Table II-9). Locations of the
stations are shown in Figure I1-6. These
data indicate that the major rivers drainimj
the Study Area are of generally excellent: quail Ly
in regard to their oxygen content. Oxyqon riupfr-
saturation in the Winnipesaukee River may LJCJ dut:
to production of oxygen by algae in Silver Lake
upstream of the sampling station,but more likely is
related to the 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 attributed to raw 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.
11-26
-------
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
Existing
Classification
B
Water Quality
Classification
B
14
Winnipesaukee River between
Weirs Beach and confluence
with Tioga River. Includes
Paugus Bay, Opeechee Bay,
Lake Winnisquam and Silver
Lake
B
ISA Winnipesaukee River below Silver
Lake to Tilton-Northfield
B
15B Tioga River below Belmont
15C Winnipesaukee River from Tilton-
Northfield to Mouth
B
B
C
C
16 Merrimack River from confluence
of Winnipesaukee and Pemige-
wasset Rivers south to Contoo-
cook River
B
12
Pemigewasset River from Newfound
River to Winnipesaukee River
B
11-27
-------
TABLE II-9
WATER QUALITY OF MAJOR RIVERS IN 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 OF OBSERVATIONS)
AND THE RANGE OF OBSERVATIONS. ALL SAMPLING OCCURRED BETWEEN 1973-1975.
H
I
NJ
CO
River and Station 1
N-j.7\i>er
! 33-2-WIN)
Winnipesaukee River
Bridge on RoVites 3 &
11 in FranJclin, N.H.
(33-1-PMI]
Pemigevasset River
Bridge on Route 3 to
Route 3A s. 11
Franklin, New Hampshire
[29-MER]
Merrimack River
Bridge on Hoit Road
Boscawen, New Hampshire
1973 Zata\
I All
" 1974 DataJ
. .. Log Mean
'emperature
CO
18.1(17) 6.
7.7-25.5
16.9(13) 6.
6.1-23.3
18.7(16) 5.
7.0-24.5
other figure*
£H
1-7.3
(17)
3-6.9
(13)
7-7.1
(16)
D.O.
(mg/1)
9.8(15)
8.3-11.9
9.17(9)
7.7-12.6
9.2(16)
7.8-11.9
: represent 1973,
D.O.
Fecal
Satura- Total'" coli-
tion Coiifcr=s for=s
Level C00 N-NH3 • N-kjel N-N03 N-N02 P-Ortho P-Total (per/ ;ie-/
'"•9/1) BOD (mg/1) (mg/1) (ir,g/l) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) lOOnl) r.l)
9.52 1.25(12) 11.4(4) <0.1(7) .24(7) .11(7) .0026(5) .0056(7) .032(7) •ISOi'.S) -o = S(l
(.8-2.8) 4.0-14.8 - .093-. 35 0.1-.18 (.001-. 005 .002-. 009 .018-. 043 "54,535(3) "15E6I
9.76 8.66(9) - ^0.1(4) 0.09(4) .21(4) .002(4) .003(4) .027(4) - 70(6)
•2-2.2 - - .084-. 1 .098-. 275 .001-, 004 .001-. 006 .026-. 024 - 10-184
9.41 1.03(7) - <0.1(5) .733(5) .18(5) .0026(5) .008(6) .022(6) -9"(6) '£56!:
°-°-2-6 - - .065-. 21 .04-. 253 .001-. 004 .003-. 018 .014-. 027 "12,260(11) "563(
1974 and 1975 data.
-------
M
I
NJ
VO
NHWSPCC Lake Winnisquam
A NHWSPCC Studies Stream Stations
]_8 Yeo & Mathieson Lake
Winnipesaukee Stations
EPA Lake Winnipesaukee &
Tributary Stations
a LRPC Lake Winnipesaukee
Stat ions
FIGURE I1-6. LAKE & STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS.
-------
U)
o
Class A Qua!ity
Class C Quality
ALL OTHER SURFACE
WATER IS OF CLASS B QUALITY
A NHWPCC WATER
QUALITY STATION
L29
FIGURE 11-7. EXISTING WATER QUALITY.
-------
Nitrogen (NH3 + N03 + N02) to orthophosphorus
(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, NC>3, 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 may 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 Lime many heavy industries
located on the upper reaches of the Winnipesaukee
and Pemigewasset Rivers have relocated. In order
to verify the existing water quality conditions in
these streams a more recent study of the benthic
invertebrate situation should be conducted. Secon-
ly, several small municipal discharges do 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 exhibited
by the rivers in the Study Area. Finally, due
11-31
-------
to the high reaeration capacities of most streams
in the Study Area, high levels of dissolved oxy-
gen are usually present. 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 a total of 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 (iight lake sampling stations
(Figure TI-6) are reproduced in Table 11-10.
11-32
-------
This table summarizes the analysis of October,
1972 samples. The lake was completely mixed at
that time;
• The sources of njtrogen and phosphorus uontribu-
tions to Lake Winnipesaukee are summarized from
the EPA report in Table 11-11;
• A review of the EPA phosphorus data suggests
for Lake Winnipesaukee 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 II-10
LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE SAMPLING UA'I'A*
(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 Winnipesaukee's 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.
11-33
-------
Table 11-11
NUTRIENT LOADINGS TO LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE*
[Source: EPA, 1974].
Total Phosphorus
i
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
Accumulation
Ibs P
Year % of
9,
2,
8,
5,
8,
3,
6,
800
360
200
210
C50
770
960
23
05
20
12
21
9
16
Total
.8
.7
.0
.7
.0
.2
.9
Ibs
N
Year % of
336,
145,
24,
15,
41,
80,
429,
620
660
820
760
930
070
540
31
13
2
1
3
7
40
Total
.3
.6
.3
.5
.9
.5
.0
44,950
9,400
35,550
100.0
1,074,400
299,390
775,010
100.0
* Corrected for error in water budget, see reply to Dr. Widger's comments.
-------
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 Winnipesaukee1s 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. Also extensive
algal counts were 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 have been reported in
Meredith Bay (LRPC, 1974b), although samples taken
by NHWSPCC do not confirm this data. These coliform
counts could be associated with a number of sources,
including the discharge of secondary treated wastes
via Corliss Brook, and urban runoff. For nonsewered
areas, there is insufficient data to be able to
determine the proportions of bacterial contamination
11-35
-------
that are contributed by land runoff, septic tank
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 Winnipesaukcc 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
11-36
-------
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/m2/yr
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/m2/yr.
Phosphorus loading rates are discussed further
in Section IV.A.I. and Appendix C.
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
TOTAL
FLOW
Percent
mgd of Total
236.55
6.36
1.75
0.10
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
identified 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
11-37
-------
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
evapotranspiration 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 wells 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 recent years, most new wells have been drilled into the
bedrock to an average depth of 100 to 200 feet. Well dril-
ling has produced highly unpredictable results. Approxi-
mately 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 within the two Study
Areas are served by a public water supply. A public water
supply is defined as any water supply providing more water
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 served population of about 42,500 per-
sons, average daily consumption overall was approximately
95 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and ranged from 38
to 150 gpcd. This consumption rate includes some indus-
trial use and may be distorted by the inclusion of
11-38
-------
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
11-39
-------
TABLE 11-13
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES - JANUARY, 1974
[Source: NHWSPCC, 1974].
I
£>.
O
Name of Utility
Alton
Alton Water Works
Belmont
Belmont Water Works
Center Harbor
None
Franklin
Average
Daily
Population Consumption
Served (gallons)
4,000 180,000
827 52,000
Franklin Water Dept. 7,200 1,000,000
Gilford
Gilford Village Water
District
148
7,000
Laconia
Laconia Water Works 16,000 1,750,000
Meredith
Meredith Water Dept. 2,000 300,000
Moultonborough
None
Northfield
Served by Tilton-Northfield Aqueduct Company
Sanbornton
None
Source of Supply
two gravel packed wells
two gravel packed wells
39 wells in Sanbornton
2 wells in Franklin
deep well
Treatment
none
none
none
zeolite
filter
Daily per
Other Capita
Communities Consumption
Served (gallons)
none
none
none
none
Paugus Bay-Lake Winnipesaukee chlorine PO4 Lakeport,
(Weirs Beach) Gilford,
Lake Waukewan-Meredith
Reservoir
Weirs
hypochlorite none
45
63
139
47
109
150
-------
Table 11-13.(Cont'd.)
Name of Utility
Average
Daily
Population Consumption
Served (gallons)
Source of Supply
Daily per
Other Capita
Communities Consumption
Treatment Served (gallons)
M
M
I
Tilton
Tilton-Northfield 8,000 300,000
Aqueduct Company
Tuftonboro
None
Wolfeboro
Wolfeboro Water Dept. 4,317 491,581
TOTALS 42,492 4,080,581
Knowles Pond
Upper Beech Pond
hypochlorite Northfield 38
hypochlorite none
114
-------
seasonal users in population served. Both per capita
and summer water consumption rates are higher than the
annual average consumption due to the higher seasonal
population and the increased consumption associated
with summer.
Most of the municipalities in the Primary Study Area are
served by a public water .supply. Also, Alton and Wolfe-
boro, which are in the Peripheral Study Area, have public
water supplies. The water utilities serving Alton, Bel-
mont, 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 water lines 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.
Individual water supply systems, serving lakeshore
developments, often draw water from one of the lakes. A
survey of water supply systems serving lakeshore develop-
ments in Sanbornton was undertaken (Foudriat, 1975). The
data are probably representative of the types and percent
distribution of systems serving lakeshore developments
throughout the Study Area and are presented below:
11-42
-------
Lake only 31%
Lake and shallow well 45%
Shallow well only 17%
Deep well 7%
It can be concluded that direct withdrawal from lakes,
and shallow wells, supplmented by lake withdrawals during
the summer when shallow wells run dry, are the major types
of individual water supply for most lakeshore developments
Individual water supply systems in inland areas rely
principally on shallow and deep wells.
Future Water Supply. The New Hampshire Office of Compre-
hensive Planning (NHOCP) and the Lakes Region Planning
Commission have undertaken a number of water supply
studies which involve the Lakes Region. NHOCP in a
report prepared by Anderson and Nichols, Inc.(1972) rec-
ommended 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 until the recent past, Lake Winni-
pesaukee has been considered an attractive 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 t>e 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 from run-off
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 supports a number of recreational activities crucial
to the region's economy. The recreational use of the
lakes would be severely affected if large fluctuations
in water levels were allowed. The lake level is
11-43
-------
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 riparian
requirements. The average amount of water which could
be withdrawn from Lake Winnipesaukee is 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) . During the months of July through September
when demands for water supply and water recreation uses
are at their maximum, on the average less Uian four
percent of the annual water resource buromua nvfli 1 .ihi n
(Biosphcrics, 1974). Uun-oH plun prrc I pi I rti. i on mi mi;-.
evaporation results in a relatively small neb 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 Basin. Aside from the extensive lake and pond
environment in the area, there are many small rivers
which drain into the major lakes. The Winnipesaukee
River, which originates at the outfall of Lake Winnis-
quam, provides the major drainage for the Study Area.
The entire Study Area comprises a total of 966 square
TI-44
-------
miles, 486 of which are in the Winnipesaukee 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 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 partially controlled by
copper sulfate treatments. The lower end of the Lake
exhibits low oxygen values in the hypolimnion caused by
the discharge of sewage at Laconia. Also selected embay-
ments in Lake Winnipesaukee have exhibited bloom condi-
tions, and localized growths of Myriophyllum heterophyl-
lum have occurred. 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 meam depth of 47 feet, a maximum depth of approxi-
mately 180 feet and a mean hydraulic retention time
of 5.5 years. 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 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
11-45
-------
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 eutro-
phic. On the basis of their evaluation of selected
embayments, Yeo and Mathieson assigned an overall rating
of mesotrophic to the Lake. It should be noted that all
of the stations invest igated by Yeo and Mathieson are
nearshore stations or are in embayments. EPA (1973)
evaluated nutrient loading rates for the Lake and deter-
mined that it was oligotrophic, with restricted areas of
eutrophy. This appears to be the best assessment of the
current lake status. The open lake waters are still
highly oxygenated with at least 6 ppm of dissolved oxygen
at all depths (Seamans & Newell, 1973). The continued
maintenance of the Lake as a recreational and natural
resource requires that any trend towards continued
enrichment be reversed.
Myriophyllum heterophyllum, Eurasian water milfoil, has
occurred in Lake Winnipesaukee since at least 1970.
Localized growths are extensive enough to cause nuisance
conditions, but such beds are not common. Except in a
small number of localized areas large stands of Myrio-
phyllum are not present. The biology of this plant is
currently under investigation by personnel of the
University of New Hampshire. This study will not be
completed until June, 1978. Initial field work was con-
ducted in the summer of 1975, but a detailed discussion
of the problem is not possible at this time (Baker,
1975).
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 1950's (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
11-46
-------
recommended corrective measure was removal of phos-
phorus 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 evaluated 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 was not known. It was suggested
that it might have been related either to the copper
sulfate treatments or to production of a toxin by a
blue-green algae. In any case, the use of copper sul-
fate continued. It has since been determined that the
fish kill was probably caused by a toxin released by a
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
algae 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 Squam. The third largest lake in the Study Area,
is not reported as having any current problems 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 affected.
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; NHWSPCC
1973a). These lakes are Silver Lake, Knowles, Pond, Moun-
tain Pond and Lake Waukewan. No corrective measui.es are
currently being undertaken in any of them. Appendix C
is a summary of the available data for all of the lakes,
both major and minor, in the Study Area.
11-47
-------
Rivers and Streams. Many small rivers and streams drain
into the" lakes of the region. Three major rivers, th
Winnipesaukee, the Pemigewasset and tht> Morrimack ocmir
in the Study Area, Of these, only the Wi nn i pesmikoo Uiv«-r
is entirely within the Study Area. This river or i q i nn I e.M
at the outfall of Lake Winnipesaukee and flows through
Paugus Bay, Lake Winnisquam and Silver Lake beforo joini.iirr inuick
River. The Winn-ipesaukee is not noticeably affected by
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 aroa re-
present a varied aquatic habitat, and while there hi
extensive literature on the fish populal. ioriH of I h<<
area, the aquatic fauna is not arlerjuni e J y n\/nl n,i\ >->\
The phytoplankton populations of Lake Wi nn i S«JU<-JIM ,iml Uiktj
Winnipesaukee have been well documented because of I lie
eutrophi cation prohiemu in those wai.ei In.'lit a HI/I-.
pl-inkl-OH fiOpii 1,'it j'JMH hi I Il<> r<*IMfl 1 H hi') I n !• c-. = I..T/C-. i,..I j.cci,
evaluated, t-jnd the role o£ rooted oqnnt. i r-& I,,-IR noi LOOM
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 D. of the 29 species of fish known to occur in
the area, 12 support a sport fishery (Appendix E).
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 (Safvelinus
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.
11-48
-------
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 organisms for many varieties of larval
fish, and represent an intermediate link between phyto-
plankton production and the higher tropic levels.
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 F 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. Eurasian water mil-
foil is a localized problem in some regions of 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, Gloeotrichia and Aphanizomenpn. 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 F.
A comparison of Appendix Tables F-l and F-2 illustrates
clearly that the two lakes have extremely different
phytoplankton assemblages.
The remaining lakes and the rivers have not been exten-
sively surveyed, but depending on their trophic state,
could be expected to contain phytoplankton populations
similar to those present in these lakes. In littoral
areas of the large lakes and in small shallow ponds, the
role of rooted aguatics may be significant and need
evaluation.
Terrestrial. EcolSciences' staff inspected the proposed
interceptor 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). In addition, specific vegetational
11-49
-------
patterns and animal communities found in the vicinity of
each interceptor corridor as well as the design service area
are described in more detail. Section IiB provides an engin-
eering description of .the" proposed interceptor system and
the STP site, and Figure 1-2 identifies the: proposed sewer
service area and Figure 1-6 the location of the interceptor
routings.
General. Virtually all the forests that once occupied
central New Hampshire have been cut over, burned off or
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 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 wetlands occur at scattered locations throughout the
region and are usually small in area. Larger marshes
do occur along the Tioga River and other tributaries of
the Winnipesaukee River and on land between Paugus Bay
and Lake Winnipesaukee.
*Scientific names of woody species are provided in
Appendix G .
**Animal species anticipated in the Study Area are
listed in Appendix H and i>
11-50
-------
These wetlands have long been recognized for their value
for wildlife and several that occur in the Study Area
have been identified by 1.he County Conservation Dis-
tricts as "natural areas" (Section II.A.10).
Wooded wetlands in the Study Area are usually dominated
by red maple. A shrub community of willows, alder,
sweet gale, swamp dogwood and several herbaceous plant
species including cattail, sedges and rushes covers land
which is more frequently or permanetly flooded.
Disturbed areas, such as abandoned fields, road and
railroad rights-of-way and vacant lots 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 portions of the
Study Area include the same species present in disturbed
areas. Both natural and introduced species have been
used for landscaping material. The vegetational pat-
tern in residential areas 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 potential 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. Tilton, Northfield, and Bel-
mont provide good wildlife habitats as each township has
an abundance of edge vegetation and water.
11-51
-------
The Meredith and Laconia service areas, in those sectors
where development has not occurred, have thin forests
and typical disturbed area vegetation. Small areas
also are covered by wetlands or lakeside plant communi-
ties .
Meredith Interceptor. Vegetation along the Boston
and Maine Railroad between Meredith and Weirs
Beach is composed of scattered, thin stands of
maple, oak, pine, and aspen, plus trees, shrubs and
vines which typically occupy disturbed areas. 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 fields for a short distance.
Winriisquam Outfall System. Along the outskirts of
Laconia, the interceptor will follow the railroad
through a vegetationally disturbed area, where
commercial and industrial development has occurred.
Outside the City boundary, the vegetative composi-
tion changes. The railroad embankment has disturbed
vegetative cover; however, the wider sewer corridor
also includes alternatie hardwood forest and white
pine stands faced with edge vegetation. Near
southern end of Lake Winnisquam some wetland shrub
communities will be traversed. This wetland area
has been disrupted already by construction of
summer cottages and access roads.
Sanbornton Interceptor. The part of Lake Winni-
squam through which this interceptor will pass,
already has experienced considerable residential
development. The vegetation in this corridor is
typical of that in the other lakeside communities.
Part of the sewer corridor will be 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.
11-52
-------
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.land 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 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 tlie
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 a shrub swamp and swamp forest exist.
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.
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
11-53
-------
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 percent 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 usually 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 exist in areas of
lower elevation and along the brooks draining into
the area.
The Merrimack River is fringed by mature silver
maple and American -elm trees. A strip of grass
approximately forty feet wide lies between the river
and cultivated field.
11-54
-------
The northwest side of the site supports some ex-
cellent wildlife habitat by providing water, nesting
sites and cover. Food plants present include
butternut, choke cherry, dogwood, several viburnums,
blackberry, apple.;, elderberry, and wild grape.
c-'tilford l nterceptpr. The desiyn sower CK-I-VIC*' -HTM <>i
Gilford is extensive and the vegetational pattern 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.
Between Gilford and Laconia, substantial shoreline
development has occurred west of Belknap Point. Con-
struction of residential homes in this area has resulted
in only minimal clearing of forests. Woodlands in these
developed areas are comprised of a sugar maple - oak com-
munity type and include 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.
Peripheral Study Area. Center Harbor, Moultonborough,
Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro and Alton, located in the northern
part of the Study Area, may be potentially serviced by
this project in the future; however, plans for extending
the interceptors to these communities are not included in
this grant application.
In the Peripheral Area, a northern hardwood-white pine
forest forms a patchwork pattern with cultivated fields
and pastures. In general, woodlands in this region are 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
few small lakes which have been identified as wildlife
resources (New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Plan-
ning, 1974). These wetlands are located both within
and outside the project's design service area.
Wolfeboro has more pasture and cropland, while Alton
appears to have the better developed forests. Wolfe-
boro has more lakeside development and the design service
area includes part of the shoreline of Lake Wentworth
in addition to that along Lake Winnipesaukee. Where
development has occurred along the shoreline in Wolfe-
boro, vegetation is heavy and in most areas homes are
secluded by woodlands.
11-55
-------
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 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 vast expanse
of Lake Winnipesaukee is framed to the northwest by Red Hill
ascending 2,000 feet in Moultonborough, to the northeast by
the Ossipee Mountains rising nearly 3,000 feet in Moultonborough
and Tuftonboro, and to the south by Belknap Mountain 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. Where forest cover is still abundant, the loca-
tion of housing has not significantly detracted from the area's
natural aesthetic qualities. In other selected areas, 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 these areas.
Significant changes in the natural beauty of Opechee Bay
and Paugus Bay 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 impacted by numerous motels, commerical
cottages, private residences and apartments.
Around Lake Winnisquam and Lake Winnipesaukee, many areas
have retained their natural beauty, while others have been
spoiled by intensive land use.
The interior of each municipality 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" devel-
opment, in the near-shore regions, particularly in the Peripheral
Study Area, is progressively encroaching on the scenery.
11-56
-------
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 com-
munities, such as 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 Archaeologic Resources
To establish a comprehensive inventory of the historic and
archaeologic resources within the Primary and Peripheral Study
Areas, numerous information sources were consulted, including
the following: 1) the National Register of Historic Places;
2) files maintained by the New Hampshire State Historic Office
in Concord; 3) County inventories; 4) the Historic American
Engineering Record; and 5) a listing of Historic Indian Trails
prepared by the New Hampshire Archaeological 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. The list of contacts was provided
by the State Historic Office in Concord. These societies were
asked to both validate the lists, making additions or deletions
where necessary, and locate each site on the inventory map.
Due to the lack of an official, complete archaeologic and
historic inventory for the Study Area, it was felt that this
effort would provide the best available data since local his-
torians and archaeologists would be most familiar with the
specific location of sites and existing private collections.
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 obtained is incomplete. To avoid presentation of
incorrect data, only sites appearing on official inventories
or the responses received from the local historical societies
aro listed in Table 11-14. Responses were received from
Meredith, Centre Harbor and Sanbornton. Figure II-9 identifies
the location of the sites for which an exact location is known.
11-57
-------
Table 11-14
HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL 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 comtunications with town Historic Societies)
Inventory Listing"
Name of Site Location Date
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
FRANKLIN
* MAP*
1 Conicl Webster Family South Main Street
Home ( The Elms )
2 Daniel Vtebster 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
NHAS
CI
X
X
M
M
I
01
00
-------
Inventory Listing
Name of Site Location Date
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 Laoonia
Archeological Site
17 Meredith Neck Union 4 mi. from Rt. 65
Church
18 Stonedam Island Indian west of Meredith Neck
Campsite
NORTHFIELD
19 Fifield House Park Street
SANBORNTON
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
-------
Inventory Listinq
Name of Site Location
25 Congregational Church Historic District
TILTON
26 Brick and Wood Mills West Main Street
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
ALTON
27 Camp Kabeyun Clay Point
28 First Free Baptist Church US. 28
29 Oilman House US. 140
30 Historical Society Building us. 28A and 11
31 Quannippi Indian Village Alton Bay
32 Robert's Cove Indian
Camping Place
CENTER HARBOR
33 Coe Mansion
34 Dudley-Leavitt Home N.H. Rt. 25
35 Centre Harbor Congregational Main Street
Church
36 Original segment of the
College Road from Wolfe-
boro to Dartmouth College
laid out by Governor
Wentworth.
Date
1834
c. 1850
1857
1820
1837
1771
NHR
NHL
HAER
X
NHSHI
X
X
NHAS
X
X
X
CT
X
X
X
-------
Inventory Listing
Name of Site Location Date
37 Dr. Leonard G. Morrill 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 NHAS
X
CI
I
cr>
* See Figure II-9 for location of sites.
-------
FIGURE II-9. HISTORIC t ARCHAEOLOGIC
SITES.
Historic & Archaeologic Sites
listed in the National Register.
Local Historic Sites
(See Table ll-l't for identi-
fication of numbers)
11-62
-------
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:
The Belknap-Sulloway Mill on Mill Street in Laconia was
built around 1823. It is thought to be one of the oldest
intact textile mills of its types 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, joisted flooring and open ceilings date back to
the original structure.
The Busiel Seeburg Mill was constructed in 1850, with addi-
tions built in 1878 and 1882. It is located on Mill Street
in Laconia, 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.
The 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 house in 1829 and used it
as a vacation retreat and experimental farm.
To supplement the information contained in the Draft EIS
a survey of archaeologic sites within the primary impact area
is currently being contracted with professional archaeologists
to provide an evaluation of the archaeological resources within
the primary impact areas. The evaluation of archaeological
resources will include as the minimum, a literature review and
preliminary archaeological reconnaissance along the route of
the proposed wastewater collection and treatment plant *sites.
Preliminary findings from this survey work have been incorpor-
ated into the final EIS as Appendix J.
11-63
-------
In addition, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
has requested that additional data to indicate that the project
is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 be furnished to them. Although
EcolSciences specifically requested comments several months
ago from the State Historic Preservation Officer that would
have met the Advisory Council's requests, the information has
not been provided at this time (March 12, 1976). Therefore,
compliance with Section 106 has been attached as a grant con-
dition which must be satisfied prior to construction of the
proposed project.
10. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Environmentally sensitive areas are areas which contain
valuable natural and cultural resources. During planning and
subsequent development of an area, preservation of these re-
sources is an important consideration. Development or distur-
bance of certain environmentally sensitive areas may result in
significant environmental, social and economic costs. Loss of
environmentally sensitive areas to development often represents
irretrievable loss of limited, non-renewable resources. Identi-
fication of these areas is a first step in satisfactorily
resolving the inherent conflicts between man and nature in a
developing area. Figure 11-10 identifies the general location
of known environmentally sensitive areas. Natural and cultural
resources of unique value include the following:
Surface Waters. The Study Area contains extensive aquatic
resources which are of prime importance to the aesthetic,
natural, economic and recreational value of the region
(Section II.A.7). Major bodies of water include:
Lakes Winnipesaukee, Winnisquam, 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. Also
most of the area's smaller lakes 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
typicaltrout stream"Fauna.
11-64
-------
FIGURE 11-10. ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREAS
[Source: Adapted from NH Office of
Comprehensive Planning; NH Dept. of
Resources & Economic Development I
New England River Basins Commission
197*.]
I Wetlands
'• Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(See Table 11-16 for Number
Identification)
11-65
-------
Many of the lakes throughout the Study Area serve as the
primary or secondary 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, Tiltnn and Wolfehoro. All nae nf land
atiMiiiil l\u»wloe> I'npil, I ho I'Ml'Mi1 vvplot supply TIM NntthfIPId,
is restricted (see
-------
Wetlands are 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 Board;
RSA 482:41-e-i restricts the filling in of ponds
over10 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 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).
11-67
-------
TABLE 11-15
Municipality
Laconia
Sanborntor.
I
<^
oo
Til ton
Center
Harbor
WETLAND AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE PRIMARY AND PERIPHERAL STUDY AREAS
(Source: Office of State Planning, initiated 1968)
Name of Identity
Map No.* of the Area
1 Perley Pond
Cawley Pond
Giles Pond
Rollins Pond
Bog on part of
Chapman Brook
Proctor Wildlife
Sanctuary
Pineland Cove
(Squam Lake)
Sturtevant Bay
(Squam Lake)
Swamp (Route 3 and
Town House Road)
Primary Study Area
Location
Route 3
1/2-mile
Present Use
of Area
Private
3B NH 3 miles Private
from Sanbornton
Square
West of Route Private
127 near Frank-
lin line
3B next to
Cawley Pond
US 3 just off
Peripheral Study Area
Route 25B
Private
Private
Description of Area
Small attractive pond and bog area
near center of the city with inter-
esting forest and aquatic growth
Bog with open water and wooded area
Large undeveloped body of water
surrounded by wetland. Area wooded
Bog with open water and wooded area
Muck and peat area; about 2/3 of the
area is in Sanbornton. Wildlife
refuge-and spawning area for smelt
::ew i:ump- Natural wetland area running from 25B
shire Audubon to Pineland Cove on Squam Lake. Ex-
Society
cellent for wildlife. Now habitat for
beaver, mink, muskrat, and-many birds
Off 'Centre Private
Harbor Neck Road
Off High Haith Private
Road
Natural wildlife weltand area.
by loons for nesting
Used
Route 3
Private
Natural wildlife wetland area. Ex-
cellent as nesting area for all
waterfowl
Large wetland area. Some water, some
wooded. Excellent for all kinds of
wildlife
-------
TABLE 11-15. Continued.
Municipality Map No.*
Alton
Tuftonboro
8
Name of Identity
of the Area
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 H-10.
-------
Also, each town has the authority to protect their
wetlands by regulating the uses permitted in these
areas; and
Flood Plains
The Soil Surveys of Belknap County (1968) and Merrimack
County (1965) and the Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment Project for Carroll, Grafton, and Coos Counties
(1968) have delineated flood plain soils within the Study
Area (Figure II-4). This 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 plains
in the Study Area 'are located along the Pemigewasset and
Winnipesaukee Rivers. Smaller flood plains parallel the
Tioga River (Belmont), Alton Bay and Merrymeeting River
(Alton), Gunstock River (Gilford), and Durkee and Jewett
Brooks (Laconia and Gilford). Development 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 federally subsidized
insurance. Figure II- 11 indicates the relationship
of the proposed STP site to the 100-year flood plain
of the Merrimack River.
11-70
-------
\
Approximate Location
FRANKLIN STP SITE
FIGURE 11-11. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROPOSED FRANKLIN
STP SITE 6 THE lOQ-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN flF
.• 'THE MERRIMACK RIVER.
.00 0
1000'
2000'
11-71 * %
.3000
Approxi mat e Scale
-------
Ground Water Kecharge 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 ot
stratified glacial deposits, including kames, eskers and oul-
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.
Steep Slope3
The Study Area has slopes ranging from 0-25% (Figure
II-3). Lowlands, comprising slopes of less than 8%, surround
Paugus Bay, Winnisquam Lake, Silver Lake, the Winnipesaukee
River, and the northern and northeastern fringe 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.,
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 comprised of 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; and
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 not only woodland, but also
cultivated, pasture, swamp and otherwise open land (Section
II.B.2). The 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
11-72
-------
majority of which is wooded. The off-shore areas of each town
have vast woodlands, with Alton and Gilford having particularly
good forest resources. A]1 of the mountains, i.e., Sanbornton,
Belknap, Ossipee and Red Hill, are heavily forested. Also, much
of the land with.in t hr>. Pein.Uiewasset flood control n rea i a woorle.1 .
Thr>i f> rt i"r» FirWrsrn I i|ov" Mini"))!. "Dirt nn<|nd hnnHlpi ||, | ||c, .-i i rsn , willi
UclKn.-ip Static Kcyai.-vnhJ.on i.tl (111 Ton I boiii'l f.h« l.-ii<|"Fii •
Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species
The Office of Endangered Species and International Activities,
U. S. Department of Interior, identifies animal spec ion con:; i dr-rfrj
to be endangered. The Eastern Cougar, (Fe_lis concoliir cou
-------
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-
danqered small whorled pagonia, I s o t r i a m e d eo 1 o i des\, in Alton.
Presumably this citation i.3 based on a collection hou«
-------
B. SOCIAL AND KCONOMI.C ENVIRONMENT
1. Population Characteristics
The resident population of the Lakes Region consists of
two components year-round or permanent population and sea-
sonal 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 of basic
importance in evaluating current and future service needs
within the Study Area.
The following section outlines existing population
characteristics of jurisdictions within the Study Area. Year-
round and seasonal population elements are analyzed in turn.
In addition, 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. The entire Study Area's year-
round population was 50,171 in 1975-41,392 in the Primary
Study Area and 8,779 in the Peripheral Study Area
(Table 11-16) . Population growth has been rapid durimj
the past 15 years in all but three or four of the Study
Area's jurisdictions. The Primary Study Area has
absorbed an increasing share of the region's 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 municipalities, with the exception of Wolfeboro,
have grown at comparable rates. The cities of Laconia
and Franklin, which have the largest year-round popula-
tions, have grown slowly during the period from 1960-1975.
Laconia lost population between 1960 and 1970.
While population growth in the Study Area continued at a
rapid pace during the early 1970fs, constraints imposed
by declining economic conditions and fuel shortages have
dampened the rate of growth in recent years (NHOCP,
1975) .
The population of the Peripheral Study Area is generally
older in composition than the population of the Primary
Study Area (Table 11-17). This can be explained by the
comparatively greater importance of retirement settlement
in the Peripheral Study Area.
Non-white population represents less than one percent of
total Study Area population (Table 11-17). Negro popula-
tion comprises less than one tenth of one percent of total
year-round population.
11-75
-------
TABLE 11-16.
YEAR-ROUND POPULATION - PRIMARY AND PERIPHERAL STUDY AREAS
I
-J
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Titlon
SUBTOTAL
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
1 .
V jv
Census
T9bU
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
jui^e; wnv/v-r , ijrtrv_ , cui
Population
1910
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 , 0 3 &
7 , 443
"i •* i *J J .3
u x^ /u census;
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
Population
Resident
1975
3,062
7,538
4,751
15,575
3,720
2,469
1,383
2,894
41,392
. 2,007
642
1,848
1,122
3,160
8,779
50,171
Resident population differs in certain respects from Census year-round population category.
The primary difference involves the exclusion cf population in group quarters from the reside:
population count.
-------
TAFI.E 11-17
SEX, RACK & AGE STATISTICS
(Source: 1970 Census)
SEX
RACF.
AGE
(%) Non
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuf tonboro
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
White
.4
.1
.2
.5
.3
.5
.9
.4
—
.7
.2
.1
.3
Median %<18"
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
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
-------
Average population densities are significantly higher in
the Primary Study Area than in the Peripheral Study Area
(Table 11-18). The Primary Study Area is generally far
more heavily developed than the Peripheral Study Area,
which remains somewhat less accessible.
TABLE 18
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
Tilton
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
1975
102.8
268.3
124.0
767.2
93.2
84.8
29.1
251.7
31.3
56.8
31.9
27.2
. 65.2
1970
83.7
259. !i
H4 .0
733.4
72.8
75.4
21.5
224. 3
25.7
47.8
22.6
22.1
62.6
1970
3. 35
i. 1 1
', . >"!
'/.')\
2.93
3.39
3.23
3.04
2.96
2.89
2.93
2.78
2.84
Summary
Estimated resident population in the Study Area in 1975 was
50,171-41,392 in the Primary Study Area and 8,779 in the Peri-
pheral Study Area. The major share of growth in the permanent
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.
11-78
-------
Seasonal Population. The 1970 seasonal population has
been estimated at close to 50,000 within the Study
Area. Almost 60 percent of the seasonal popular:i on
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
80,000 or 90,000.
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 Study Area 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 OHI. i m.ii <•;;
have been based on the seasonal housing counts conUi i n<:<\
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 n-19) . These variances can be attributed to
differences in the application of Census data categories.
11-79
-------
TABLE 11-19
SEASONAL POPULATION ESTIMATES, 1970
(Source: NHOCP and LRPC)
Primary Study Area NHOCP LRPC
Belmont 1,700 1,754
Franklin 1,900 1,940
Gilford 3,800 3,819
Laconia 2,900 2,963
Meredith 6,300 6,652
Northfield 500 520
Sanbornton 1,900 1,953
Tilton 500 477
Subtotal 19,500 20,078
Peripheral Study Area
Alton 7,800 8,196
Centre Harbor 500 539
Moultonborough 8,500 8,686
Tuftonboro 3,900 3,974
Wolfeboro 6,400 6,460
Subtotal 27,100 27,855,
TOTAL 46,600 47,933
11-80
-------
There are significant problems associated with Lho
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 approximately 130 percent of the reported
figure. Similar data from Wolfeboro, which is serviced
by a municipal power company, suggests an underestimate
equal to approximately 70 percent of the" reported figure.
The two towns from which reasonably accurate housing
counts are available exhibit implied current seasonal
population figures [(seasonal dwelling units + second
homes) x 6.2 people per dwelling] which are 67 percent
(Meredith) and 57 percent (Wolfeboro) above those
based on reported Census housing counts, adjusted to
include recent population growth.
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 yield a seasonal
population of close to 50,000. But, as indicated above, the
actual figure nay be significantly higher. Accurate municipal
estimates for Meredith and Wolfeboro suggest that the discrep-
ancy may average as much as 60 to 70 percent. The likelihood
of such a sizable underestimate has been confirmed by discus-
sions with a Census official from the national office and
demographers from the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive
Planning. Apparently, current seasonal population within the
Study Area may actually be closer to 80,000 or 90,000. The
reliability of future planning work in the Lakes Region will
depend upon successful resolution of the uncertainty concerning
existing seasonal population. Such work is the responsibility
of the Lakes Region Planning Commission in consultation with
the State Office of Comprehensive Planning.
11-81
-------
2. Population Projections and Distributions
Significant population growth, both in year-round and
seasonal population, has been projected for the Study Aroa.
Projections of year-round population in 'S.Q'S.Q ranqc- bot.wi-«Mi
70,000 and 120,000, representing 50-year increases ol 40 i..o
240 percent. Seasonal population projections are subject to
greater uncertainty, and range from 80,000 to 290,000,
reflecting 50-year increases of 67 to 605 percent. Alterna-
tive population projections for the Study Area are evaluated
in this section, and a composite population projection is
presented.
Available Projections
PEERS Projections are available for those counties
in the Merrimack Water Resources subarea that are
outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
(SMSA). This includes both Belknap and Merrimack
Counties, for which the population is projected to
be 152,600 in 1995 and 182,400 in 2020. Further
disaggregation is not available. The two-county
area includes many jurisdictions which are outside
the Study Area, and excludes a number of jurisdic-
tions which are part of the Study Area.
New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning (NHOPC)
has released preliminary projections of state popu-
lation by age and sex by five-year intervals to the
year 2000. Projections were based upon a cohort-
survival method. This demographic projection model
utilized a disaggregative 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 11-20) .
The NHOCP regional projections were generated using
the same cohort-survival method used for the state-
wide projections. The municipal projections were
disaggregated from the regional control totals on
the basis of accessibility indices calculated for
each jursidiction. The three components of accessi-
bility included 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 Devel-
opment 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 were similarly derived.
11-82
-------
TABLE 11-20
NHOCP YEAR-ROUND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Primary Study Area 1995 20201 (N.A.)
Belmont 3,640
Franklin 8,350
Gilford 6,300
Laconia 17,340
Meredith 4,700
Northfield 3,650
Sanbornton 1,970
Tilton 3,300
Subtotal 49,250
Peripheral Study Area
Alton 2,700
Center Harbor 1,100
Moultonborough 2,450
Tuftonboro 1,550
Wolfeboro 3,680
Subtotal 11,480
TOTAL 60,730
Official State projections of year-round population are not
available beyond 2000.
11-83
-------
Municipal disaggregation for Belknap, Carroll,
Grafton and Merrimack 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, to-
gether with 1966 population estimates.
ANCO population projections for municipalities
within the Study Area are presented in Table 11-21.
TABLE 11-21
ANCO POPULATION PROJECTIONS
(ANCO, NHOCP and 1970 CENSUS)
ANCO
Primary Study Area 1995 2020
Belmont 5,950 10,000
Franklin 9,300 14,500
Gilford 8,800 15,000
Laconia 15,000 15,000
Meredith 4,800 8,000
Northfield 4,650 13,500
Sanbornton 1,800 3,000
Tilton 2,700 3,500
Subtotal 53,000 82,500
Peripheral Study Area
Alton 3,200 6,000
Center Harbor 3,400 6,000
Moultonborough 2,200 6,200
Tuftonboro 2,100 6,000
Wolfeboro 5,000 15,000
Subtotal 15,900 39,200
TOTAL 68,900 121,700
Note: 1995 figures based on interpolation between 1990
and 2000.
11-84
-------
The ANCO projections may be somewhat high in light
of current conditions. The suggested long-term
(10+ 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 expecta-
tion. 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 develop-
ment 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
alternative 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 em-
phasis upon preservation 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 sea-
sonal 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 aver-
age population density of 4,000 people per square
mile. Seasonal and year-round population projections
for jurisdictions within the Study Area are outlined
in Table 11-22.
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
development capability classes. The four capability
11-85
-------
TABLE 11-22
NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POPULATION PROJECTIONS
(Source: NHOCP, 1975)
Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
M
^Subtotal
oo
^Peripheral Study Area
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Subtotal
TOTAL
1970
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
Seasonal
1,700
1,900
3,800
1,900
6,300
500
1,900
500
19,500
7,800
500
8,500
3,900
6,400
27,100
46,600
Total
4,200
9,200
7,000
17,800
9,200
2,700
2,900
3,100
56,100
9,400
1,000
9,800
4,800
9,400
34,400
90,500
1995
Round
5,950
9,300
8,800
15,000
4,800
4,650
1,800
2,700
53,000
3,200
3,400
2,200
2,100
5,000
15,900
68,900
Seasonal
7,100
5,000
7,600
15,800
27,300
1,500
11,800
2,700
78,800
18,900
3,900
30,900
14,300
20,700
88,700
167,500
Total
13,050
14.300
16,400
30,800
32,100
6,150
13,600
5,400
131,800
22,100
7,300
33,100
16,400
25,700
104,600
236,400
2020
Round
10,000
14,500
15,000
15,000
8,000
13,500
3,000
3,500
82,500
6,000
6,000
6,200
6,000
15,000
39,200
121,700
Seasonal
12,500
8,100
11,400
28,600
48,300
2,600
21,600
4,900
138,000
30,100
7,200
53,300
24,600
34,900
150,100
288,100
Total
22,500
22,600
26,400
43,600
56,300
16,100
24,600
8,400
220,500
36,100
13,200
59,500
30,600
49,900
189,300
409,800
Note: Figures for 1995 based on interpolation between 1990 and 2020.
-------
classes were identified on the basis of natural
development constraints imposed by slopo, MOiI
associations, ground water and surface walci.
Maximum desirable densities for the four capabil-
ity areas are given in Table 11-23.
TABLE 11-23
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 desir-
able population capacities (Table 11-24) were gener--
ated by multiplying the areas in each capability class
by the corresponding average density figures given
above (Table 11-23).
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 popu-
lation in Laconia already exceeds the EQ maximum
desirable population. Given the assumptions upon
which the EQ holding capacities were based, popula-
tion growth beyond these levels should result in
some deterioration in environmental quality. The
nature and significance of such deterioration
would be dependent upon the magnitude, distribution,
and composition of excess development.
The ANCO population projections also included calcu-
lations of maximum desirable population capacities.
These calculations were based upon development suit-
ability considerations, apparently more from the
standpoint of construction technology than environ-
mental quality. The resulting holding capacities
were generally more than twice the magnitude of the
Guide Plan maximum desirable population levels.
11-87
-------
TABLE 11-24
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MAXIMUM
DESIRABLE POPULATION LEVELS
(Source: NHOCP, 1975)
Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Subtotal
Peripheral Study Area
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Subtotal
TOTAL
Equivalent Year-round Population
10,100
17,900
11,600
13,200
15,400
16,200
20,200
21,700
126,300
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.
11-88
-------
The EQ year-round population projections (Tahiti
II-^T)) wore developed uainq both t ho ANCO and Cui.l,,
Plan maximum de8i.rub.Lo population IOVO.IH. Th««
ratio of ANCO projected population growth between
1970 and 2020 against ANCO maximum desirable popula-
tion was multiplied by the Guide Plan maximum desir-
able 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 population 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 occu-
pancy 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 projections, 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 pro-
jections for both year-round and seasonal population
are presented in Table 11-25.
The range between the NED and EQ population projec-
tions is considerable. The Environmental Quality
alternative generates a total Study Area population
of 162,000 in 2020, with a year-round population of
74,000 and a seasonal population of 88,000. The
National Economic Development Alternative yields a
total Study Area population of 409,800 in 2020,
more than 2-1/2 times the level indicated by the
Environmental Quality Alternative. The NED year-
round population would be 121,700, and the seasonal
population would be 150,100. Both projections
involve some rather arbitrary assumptions, as out-
lined above. However, the NED and EQ projections
are useful in illustrating the range in potential
population growth associated with two contrasting
development strategies.
11-89
-------
TABLE 11-25
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ALTERNATIVE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
(Source: NHOCP, 1975)
H
Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Year-
Round
2,500
7,300
3,200
14,900
2,900
2,200
1,000
2,600
Seasonal
1,700
1,900
3,800
2,900
6,300
500
1,900
500
Total
4,200
9,200
7,000
17,800
9,200
2,700
2,900
3,100
Year-
Round
4,200
8,600
5,800
15,000
4,000
3,900
1,500
2,800
Seasonal
2,800
2,500
4,600
2,900
10,500
700
3,900
900
Total
7,000
11,100
10,400
17,900
14,500
4,600
5,400
3,700
Year-
Round
5,900
9,900
8,500
15,000
5,200
5,600
1,900
3,000
Seasonal
3,900
3,200
5,300
2,900
14,700
900
5,800
1,300
Total
9,800
13,100
13,800
17,900
19,900
6,500
7,700
4,300
>Subtotal 36,600 19,500 56,100 45,800
Peripheral Study Area
Alfcon 1,600 7,800 9,400 1,700
Center Harbor 500 500 1,000 1,500
Moultonborough 1,300 8,500 9,800 2,300
Tuftonboro . 900 3,900 4,800 1,800
Wolfeboro 3,000 6,400 9,400 5,200
Subtotal 7,300 27,100 34,400 12,500
T°TAL 43,900 46,600 90,500 58,300
Note: Figures for 1995 based on interpolation between 1990 and 2020.
-------
The Lakes Region Planning Commission (I.RPC) was
involved in the review process through which t ho
preliminary NHOCP regional and municipal popula-
tion projections were revised and finalized i,m>c
concurs in the use of the official NHOCP population
projections for planning purposes (LRPC, 1976).
LRPC has developed an accompanying sot of MO.-ISOI. ,|
population projections, based on 1970 estimates
and on recent seasonal growth trends (Table 11-26) .
TABLE 11-26
SEASONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, LRPC
PRIMARY STUDY AREA 1995 2020
Belmont 3,200 4,000
Franklin 3,200 4,000
Gllford 5,400 6,000
Laconia 3,200 3,200
Meredith 9,000 10,000
Northfield 900 1,000
Sanbornton 4,700 6,000
Tilton 600 600
Subtotal 30,200 34,800
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
Alton 11,200 12,000
Center Harbor 1,000 1,200
Moultonborough 11,500 12,000
Tuftonboro 7,000 8,000
Wolfeboro 9,000 10,000
Subtotal 39,700 43,200
TOTAL 69,900 78,000
C. E. Maguire, Inc. prepared projections for boi-h
'strarnal P°Pul«"°n i« t^ Pr'
Study Areas. These figures were
'
Plan
l
11-91
-------
TABLE 11-27
POPULATION PROJECTIONS, C. E. MAGUIRE, INC.
MAGUIRE
H
M
I
vo
NJ
Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Subtotal
Peripheral Study Area
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Subtotal
TOTAL
1995
Year-Round
6,000
10,100
9,500
19,000
5,000
3,400
1,800
3,000
Total
7,900
11,600
20,000
29,000
14,000
4,700
3,800
4,900
2020
Year-Round
10,000
14,500
12,500
24,000
8,000
5,000
3,000
3,600
Total
13,300
16,500
25,000
36,000
19,000
7,500
5,000
6,100
57,800
3,100
2,000
2,500
1,500
4,500
13,600
71,400
95,900
9,500
4,000
10,300
6,500
14,500
44,800
140,700
80,600
6,000
2,500
5,500
2,500
7,000
23,500
104,100
128,400
20,000
6,500
18,500
12,500
19,000
76,500
204,900
-------
Summary Analysis
Five alternative projections of year-round population
have been obtained for the Primary and Peripheral Study Areas
(Table 11-28) . The NHOCP projections include f Ujures for:
1995, but have not. been extended beyond 2000. Since t-.lu-
other four projections all include year-round H.qurnH lor
2020, the NHOCP projections have been extrapolated to 2020 by
EcolSciences. Although the resulting figures have not been
endorsed by NHOCP, they are consistent with the official State
projections to 2000, and are presented for comparison.
NHOCP year-round population projections for 1995 are the
highest-level official governmental projections available for
the Primary and Peripheral Study Areas. The figures have been
endorsed for planning use by both the State and the Lakes
Region Planning Commission. Furthermore, these projections
compare favorably with recent estimates of Study Area popula-
tion (Table 11-16). The NHOCP projections of year-round
population have therefore been found to be the best available
for planning purposes. Extrapolations of the NHOCP projec-
tions of Primary and Peripheral Area population to 2020, while
not officially endorsed, have been included for use in lonq-
range planning. The extrapolated figures are considered to
be consistent and defensible extensions of the official State
projections.
Four alternative projections of seasonal population
have been obtained for the Primary and Peripheral Study
Areas (Table 11-28). Two of these, the NED and EQ Guide
Plan projections, have been rejected as inappropriate for
use in facilities planning. The Guide Plan projections of
seasonal population are essentially policy projections, de-
signed to contrast the effects of alternative growth scenarios
The NED projection assumes maximization of regional economic
growth and development, while the EQ projection assumes adher-
ence to rigorous standards of environmental quality. Both
assumptions are considered unrealistic in projecting expected
future population. The projection process should here be
independent of policy alternatives which are unlikely to be
implemented. Thus, despite the fact that the EQ seasonal
population projections fall within the range established by
the remaining two projections (LRPC and Maguire), neither the
EQ nor the NED projections were considered for further use.
Among the two remaining seasonal population projections,
the LRPC projections are the most current, reflecting recent
seasonal growth trends which were not apparent when the Maguire
projections were prepared. Although the 1995 projections are
within one percent of each other, the 2020 projections diverge
significantly. The rationale embodied in the lower LRPC
figures is that the decreasing availability of land which is
11-93
-------
TABLE I1-28
COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
NHOCP
Primary Study Area
Peripheral Study Area
Total
ANCO
Primary Study Area
Peripheral Study Area
Total
H
I Guide Plan NED
)j° Primary Study Area
Peripheral Study Area
Total
Guide Plan EQ
Primary Study Area
Peripheral Study Area
Total
Maguire
Primary Study Area
Peripheral Study Area
Total
LRPC
Primary Study Area
Peripheral Study Area
Total __ 69,900
(1) Official NHOCP projections are available through 2000.
a manner consistent with the original projections.
1995
Year-
Round
49,250
11,480
60,730
53,000
15,900
68,900
53,000
15,900
68,900
45,800
12,500
58,300
57,800
13,600
71,400
Seasonal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
78,800
88,700
167,500
28,800
38,500
67,300
38,100
31,200
69,300
30,200
39,700
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
131,800
104,600
236,400
74,600
51,000
125,600
95,900
44,800
140,700
2020
Year-
Round
57,000(1)
14,000(1)
71,000(1)
82,500
39,200
121,700
82,500
39,200
121,700
55,000
19,000
74,000
80,600
23,500
104,100
Seasonal
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
138,000
150,100
288,100
38,000
50,000
88,000
47,800
53,000
100,800
34,800
43,200
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
220,500
189,300
409,800
93,000
69,000
162,000
128,400
76,500
204,900
78,000
These figures have been extrapolated by EcolSciences in
-------
both desirable and suitable for seasonal development, t .
with rapidly rising development and transposition costs, will
exert progressively more effective constraints upon future
seasonal population growth. On this basis, the LRPC seasonal
population projections appear to be the most realistic with
respect to current and anticipated conditions affecting sea-
sonal development in the Lakes Region. Serious reservations
must be expressed concerning the LRPC projections, however.
As outlined previously (see p. 11-91-94), considerable uncer-
tainty is attached to the baseline seasonal population estimates
utilized by both projections. It is likely that existing
seasonal population levels are significantly higher than those
assumed by LRPC. Associated projections should therefore be
utilized only with a great deal of caution. Future survey
work is imperative in order to develop more reliable seasonal
population projections.
Synthesis of the preceding analyses has been achieved by
combining the selected year-round (NHOCP) and seasonal (LRPC)
population projections. The resulting composite projection of
total population encompasses the best information generated by
the full range of alterantives evaluated (Table 11-29).
Projected Service Populations
Projected Study Area populations have been disaggre-
gated by the Lakes Region Planning Commission in order
to derive corresponding service area populations.
Expected service areas were identified, and projected
population growth within these areas was calculated
based on anticipated growth patterns and relative
densities of development. The LRPC service population
projections (Table 11-30) are comparatively close to
the original Maguire service populations in 1995, but
diverge significantly by 2020.
The LRPC service population projections for 1995 were
based on the year-round and seasonal projections of
Study Area population adopted for use in the compo-
site projection of total population (Table-11-29).
LRPC's service population projections for 2020 were
based on a set of total population projections which
are somewhat higher than those reflected in the compo-
site projection for 2020. LRPC incorporated a differ-
ent set of year-round population projections than those
utilized by EcolSciences. Despite this discrepancy,
the LRPC service population projections are considered
to be generally consistent with the composite projec-
tion of total Study Area population in both 1995 and
2020. Based on the best information currently avail-
able, the preceding service populations projections
are recommended for use in facilities planning.
11-95
-------
TABLE 11-29
COMPOSITE PROJECTION OF TOTAL POPULATION
[Source: NHOCP, 1975; LRPC, 1976; EcolSciences, 1975].
Primary Study Area
Peripheral Study Area
V Total
vo
Year-
Round
49,250
11,480
60,730
1995
Seasonal
30,200
39,700
69,900
Total
79,450
51,180
130,630
Year-
Round
57,000
14,000
71,000
2020
Seasonal
34,800
43,200
78,000
Total
91,800
57,200
149,000
-------
TABLE 11-30
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Subtotal
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
PROJECTED SERVICE PROJECTIONS
[Source: LRPC, 1976; Maguire, 1973].
LRPC 1995
LRPC 2020
Year-
Round
2,000
6,500
2,000
15,000
2,500
2,500
1,200
2,400
Seasonal
1,500
2,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
700
2,000
500
Total
3,500
8,500
5,000
18,000
5,500
3,200
3,200
2,900
Total
Round
3,000
7,500
5,000
17,500
4,000
400
1,500
3,500
Seasonal
2,000
3,000
4,000
3,200
4,000
800
3,000
500
Total
5,000
10,500
9,000
20,700
8,000
1,200
4,500
4,000
34,100
15,700
49,800
42,400
20,500
TOTAL
39,800
31,700
71,500
51,800
43,600
62,900
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Subtotal
1,200
800
1,200
500
2,000
5,700
7,000
500
4,000
1,000
3,500
16,000
8,200
1,300
5,200
1,500
5,500
21,700
2,200
1,200
2,000
1,000
3,000
9,400
8,000
600
6,000
3,000
5,500
23,100
10,200
1,800
8,000
4,000
8,500
32,500
95,400
-------
). Kx I. Ml. 1 nfj i.rirul UM«>
The pattern of development and land use within the Study
Area 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 municipalities 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 run primarily
north-south, due to the location of lakes and topographic
features which restrict east-west movement.
Table II- 31 inventories the existing land uses for both
the Primary and Peripheral Study Areas, and Figure 11-12
identifies the location of these major activities.
Residential development, occupying roughly 31 percent
of all developed land within the Study Area,
represents the most extensive land use in both the
Primary and Peripheral areas. The perimeters of the
major and most minor wat§r bodies are extensively
develope'd. 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 communities for the City of Laconia. Extensive
second-home development is occurring along the Winni-
pesaukee shoreline, particularly in Moultonborough,
Tuftonboro, and Wolfeboro (LRPC, 1973). While several
multi-family units, i.e. apartments, townhouses, and con-
dominiums, are located in some of the urban centers,
the majority of housing is. single family in character.
Land occupied by detached homes represents roughly
88 percent of all the residential areas.
11-98
-------
TABLE 11-31
•
EXISTING LAND USE
(Source: LRPC, 1973)
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Municipality
Belnont
FranJclin
Gilford
La con i a
H
M
1
^> Meredith
\D
Northfield
Sanbornton
Til ton
Land
Area
(acres)
18,850
18,000
24,600
13,000
25,500
18,600
30,100
7,400
— — ^-^—
Subtotal 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
Developed
Committed or
Developed or
Urban (acres)
1,286
3,900
4,715
5,500
3,530
990
2,060
1,165
23,146
as %
of Total
7
21
19 1
42
14
5
7
16
15 3,
450
400
,000
400
800
150
400
200
800
Residential
Med. High
150
150 350
100
350 800
300 50
150 20
200
150 25
1,550 1,245
Commer- Trans-
it cial & por-
Total
600
900
1,100
1,550 1
1,150
320
600
375
6,595 2,
Service
100
200
150
,000
300
20
150
150
070
tation
550
650
850
750
900
550
750
450
5,450
acres) •
Leisure
Indus- Insti- & Recrea-
trial tutional tion
6 — 30
100 ISO 1,900
15 — 2,600
200 1,800 200
30 400 750
100
10 50 500
30 ISO 10
391 2,550 6,090
-------
TABLE II- 31 . Continued.
Open and Committed c
Land Water Un- Developed c
Area Area developed Urban
Municipality (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Alton 41,000 12,600 38,345 2,655
Center Harbor 7,250 1,600 6,080 1,170
Moultonbo rough 37,100 9,800 35,200 1,900
£J Tuftonboro 26,350 5,700 24,345 3,005
1
O Wolfetoro 31,000 6,400 27,975 3,025
O
Subtotal 142,700 36,100 131,945 10,755
Total 62,250 265,149 33,901
(Primary 6
Peripheral
Areas)
>r Developed Urban Development (acres)*
>r as % of Comner- Trans- Leisure
Total Residential cial & por- Indus- Insti- & Recrea-
Land Low Med. High Total Service tation trial tutional tion
6 250 600 850 300 700 5 500 300
16 100 50 150 50 250 500 220
5 500 300 800 100 600 100 300
8 300 300 600 250 450 700 5
10 1,200 300 50 1,550 300 650 75 200 250
8 2,350 1,550 50 3,950 1,000 2,650 80 2,000 1,075
23 6,150 3,100 1,295 10,545 3,070 8,100 471 4,550 7,165
-------
FIGURE 11-12. EXISTING LAND USE
[Source: Lakes Region Planning
CommissIon]
Residential
Lake Built-Up Area
Contnercial
Industrial
Compact Area
State Parks-Forest-Recreation
Wetlands
I I Undeveloped Land
11-101
-------
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 comprise 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 Study Area 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 11-32 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
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 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 11-33 indicates the general locations and primary
types of farming activities in the Belknap County portion
of the Study Area.
11-102
-------
TABLE H-32
EXISTING INDUSTRIES
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
Insulfah 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.
Acrofab
AJlon-Rogors 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 & 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 & Pressure 400*
Relief & Reducing Valves
Wheel Alignment & 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
11-103
-------
TABLE U-32.
LOCATION
Continued
I'M RM NAMI-J
Me Ik nap Industries, Inc.
Beninar Apparel.
Browning Loboratori.es, Inc.
Carpenter R 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.
Sericrnf I:, Inc.
Tangent' Tool Die Company
Tyler Advertising, Inc.
Vernitron Electrical
Components
PRODUCT
NO. EMPLOYED
Hosiery f, Y.irn 70
Ladies SJnckr. 1'.**
Two-Way K.ulio Ti.» lophonr SO
Pipe Supports K, Hanger:: 200
Sheet Metal Fabrications l)
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
11-104
-------
TABLE 11-32. Continued
LOCATION
Meredith
Sanbornton
Tilton
Wolfeboro
FIRM NAME
Visual Paper Corporation
Wilcom Products
Winconia Corporation
Wrought Iron Modes Inc.
Amatex Corporation
Annalee Mobilitee Dolls
Inc.
Doherty Machine Company
Meredith News Inc.
Persons Concrete Inc.
Prescott Lumber Company
Inc.
Diamond Microwave Cor-
poration
Persons Concrete Inc.
Tilton Electronics
Corporation
Tram.Corporation
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. KMI'l-OYKI)
Sand & Gravel
Boat and Marine Repairs
Hand Cast Pewterware
Goodhue Hawkins Navy Yard
Inc.
Hampshire Pewter Company
Inc.
Hewd Manufacturing Company Women's Outerwear
Kingswoqd Press', The
Smith River Company
Job Printing
Excelsior and Excelsior
Chick Pads
M
55
35
2
135
75
1
14
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 tne Franklin Industrial Park.
**Located in the O-Shea Industrial Park.
11-105
-------
Table 11-33
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 Winnisquam 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 uses, including major establishments
such as colleges, hospitals, summer camps, and
county homes, account for approximately 13.4 percent
of the developed land within the 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.
11-106
-------
in addition to summer recreation camps otner 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.
Transportation encompassing highway, air and rail
facilities, represent 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 — connectina
Meredith, Moultonborough 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).
11-107
-------
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) of the
entire study Area- This is the second largest land
use for the' Primary Area and the third largest for
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 11-34 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 11-34 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 Study Area. This facility
encompasses approximately 1,300 acres, with opportuni-
ties for both winter and summer recreation.
11-108
-------
TABLE 11-34
I
h-1
o
****
Map # Location
1
2
3
7
8
9
Franklin
Tilton
EXISTING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
(Source: LRPC, 1973 and New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Service, 1975)
PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Facility
Pemiqewasset 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
Daniell Park
Great-Gains Area
Pine Meadow Golf Club
Winnisquam Beach
Campground
Wadleigh Marine
Clay's Marina
Ownership Type of Facility
Federal Forestry, natural area, flood cc;
State Historical park, forestry
City Swimming, Picnicking
City Swimming, Picnicking, Boat Ram?
City Indoor Recreation
City Playground, Swimming Pool
Ball Field, Playground
Private Golf Club (9 Holes)
City Ball Park, Tennis
City Ski Area, Recreation Area
Private Golf Club
Camping, swimming
Marina
Marina
trol
3 ,39"'
!;•;•
3
22
4
700
-------
TABLE II- 34. Continued
H
H
1
M
t— "
Map S Location
1 North fie Id
2
3
1 Belmont
2
3
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
Ownership
State
Private
Town
Town
Town
Private
Type of Facility
Forestry
Ski area
Swimming ,
Playground
Swimming ,
Golf club
picnicking
, ball field
picnickj ng
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sanbornton
Pemigewasset River
flood plain
Hermit Lake
Town Beach
Hunkins Pond
Den Brae Golf Course
Hermit Lake
Federal Forestry, natural area, flood control
Town Swimning, boat launch site
Pluygrjund
Town Swimming
Town Boat launch site
Private Golf course
Town Picnicking
Acreage
8**
3+
15
1
55
45
-------
TABLE H-34. Continued
Map if Location
1 Laconia
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, playgrdur, boat ramp
Boat ramp
Swimming, playground
t
Playground, playfield
Playground
Playground
Golf course
Acreage
1800 total
44***
165***
40***
263***
120***
106***
2.5
30.3
6.6
75
20
Additional campground & marina facilities scattered within the township.
3.7
17.9
1.2
2.0
20+
-------
TABLE II- 34 . Continued
I
t->
M
to
Ma? H Location Facility
1 Gilford Belknap Mountains, State
•Forest
2 Ellacoya State Park
3 Salt Marsh Pond Tract
•* Gunstock Ski Area
5 Lake Winnipesaukee
6 Town Dock - Lake
Winnipesaukee
7 Mt. Rowe. Inc.
8 Village Field
Pleasant View Country
Club
Additional camping, marina,
1 Meredith Chemung State Forest
1 Lake Winnipesaukee
(Leavitt Park)
2 Public Schools
3 Prescott Park
4 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
130C
227
73<
376
15
15
Clough Park
Town
Picnic Area
-------
TABLE 11-34. Continued
Map f Location
Facility
6
7
8 & 9
10
11
12
M
M
1
Ul
Mao ¥ Location
1 Center
Harbor
2
3
4
5
6
Lake Winnipesaukee
(Hesky Park-Meredith Bay)
Lake Waukewan
Lake Winnipesaukee
(Meredith Neck)
Meredith Center
Wicwas Lake
Oak Hill Golf Course
*
Town
Town
Town
Town
Private
Additional capping and marina facilities
• j r ^ *•* •• *Mx.AA^v.y
Picnicking
Swinroing, boat ramp
Boat ramp
Playground
Golf club
Golf club
scattered within township
PERIPHERAL STUDY AREA
Facility
Squam Lake
Lake Winnipesaukee
Lake Winnipesaukee
Town Forest (Chamberlin
Reynolds Memorial Forest)
Waukewan Golf Club
Lake Winona
Ownership
Town
Town
Town
New England
Forestry
Foundation
Private
Town
Type of Facility
Boat ramp
Town docks
Boat ramps, swimming, picnicking
Swindng, picnicking, bird study
and cuping.
Golf club
Boat launch site
Acreaae
34-1
Acreage
177
75
Additional camping areas in the township.
-------
TABLE 11-34. Continued
Map H
1
2
3 & 4
5
6
7
8
10
1
2 & 3
4
5 & 6
Location Facility Ownership
Moultonboro Squam Lake Town
Lees Pond Town
Lake Winnipesaukee Town
Lake Winnipesaukee Town
Kanasatka Lake Town
Bald Peak Colony Club Private
Lake Winnipesaukee Town
(Long Island)
Lake Winnipesaukee Town
(Long Island)
Kona Mansion Inn Private
Red Hill Lookout Towner State
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
Acreage
250
Winnipesaukee Fish & Game State
Department
Additional camping marina facilities scattered throughout township and lakefronts.
Tuftonboro Lake Winnipesaukee Town Swimming
Lake Winnipesaukee Town Boat ramp
Copps Pond State . Boat launch site
Lake Winnipesaukee State Swimming
58+
-------
TABLE H-3.4. Continued
Map 3
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
M
n
I 6
^ 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Location Facility
Mirror Lake
Mirror Lake
Wolfeboro 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
Kingswood Golf Club
Lake Winnipesaukee,
Carry Beach
Brewster Beach
Rust Park
Ownership
Town
Town
State
State
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Town
Private
Town
Town
Town
Type of Facility
Swimming
Boat launch site
Historic, recreation
Historic, recreation
Downhill skiing
•Boat ramp
Town dock , boat ramp
Boat ramp
Indoor recreation
Rest area, walks, beaches
Dock
Golf club
Swimming
Swimming
Acreace
96
17
60
Additional camping, swimming and marina facilities.
33+
-------
TABLE II- 34. Continued
Map # Location
1 Alton
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Facility
Alton Bay State Forest
Mt. Major
Lake Winnipesaukee
Lake Winnipesaukee
Sunset Lake
Lake Winnipesaukee, Bay
Beach
Lake Winnipesaukee
Public schools
West Alton
HaIfmoon 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
Additional camping and marina facilities on lake shores and throughout township.
•Includes flood plain land within Sanbornton.
**Extends into Cantebury - 42 acres.
***A11 part of Laconia State School holdings.
-------
FIGURE 11-13. EXISTING RECREA-
TIONAL FACILITIES
See Table 11-25 for Identification
of numbered facilities.
11-117
-------
Municipal Recreational Lands. Recreational arens
managed by the municipalities are generally small,
with the majority offering swimming beaches, parks,
playgrounds, picnic areas and other types of speciali/.ed
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 t:ho
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
municipal, 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 11-^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 municipality.
Within the Primary Area, as indicated in Table 11-34,
Laconia has the smallest percentage of open space
(58 percent), most of which is located in the north-
eastern and northwestern sections of the City.
Northfield (95 percent open), Sanbornton (93 percent
open), and Belmont (93 percent 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 Winnisquam 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 Lake Winnisquam and Silver Lake
shorelines, a more recent type of strip residential
development. This leaves most of Belmont's interior
undeveloped.
11-118
-------
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 town 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 towns 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 town 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
11-119
-------
is concentrated along portions of the Lake W.inni-
pesaukee shoreline and in the small communities ot.
Melvin Village, Mirror Lake, Tuftonboro Center, and
Tuftonboro Corner.
In Wolfeboro, 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
Study Area is presently undeveloped. However, a significant,
though undetermined, percentage of the open space is either
mountainous or swampy. Existing development is primarily con-
centrated in these areas: (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 popula-
tion centers; (3) along the main highways such as 1-93, and
Routes 11 and 104; and (4) within the rapidly growing "back-lot"
areas. The character of existing development is predominantly
residential. The relative distribution of land use indicates
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 de-
voted to this use than the Primary Area. Further, the Primary
Area's acreage in leisure and recreational use is almost equiva-
lent to the amount used for residential purposes. In the
Peripheral Area, it is less than one-third of that used for
residential use. In both parts of the Study Area, a significant
proportion (almost 25 percent) is devoted to transportation
facilities.
11-120
-------
4. Economic Base
Historic Perspective on the Region's Changing Economy.
The character of the Study Area's economic base~Ts
constantly changing in response to market conditonR.
A brief review of this evolutionary process indicat OM
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-1800s 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.
11-121
-------
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 11-35, 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 11-36 pro-
vides a comparative evaluation of the changing
conditions of industrial activity between 1960 and
1970 for each of these urbanized areas.
11-122
-------
Table 11-35
INDUSTRIAL COVERED EMPLOYMENT
FOURTH QUARTER, 1973
(Source: New Hampshire Department of Employment Security, 1973)
Number of Number of Median Number of
Industry Firms Employees Employees Per Firm
Manufacturing 135 7,112 53
Durable Goods 88 4,326 49
Lumber/Wood Products 25 704 28
Furniture/Fixtures 6 150 25
Stone/Clay Products 5 238 48
Primary Metal Products 6 473 79
Fabricated Metal Products 10 756 76
Machinery 18 1,193 66
Electrical Products 10 635 64
Miscellaneous & Other 8 177 22
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods 47 2,786 60
Food/Kindred Products 9 128 14
Textile Mill Products 10 731 73
Apparel 6 307 51
Paper, Printing & Allied 17 229 13
Products
Rubber, Plastics, Leather 5 1,391 278
& Other Nondurables
Non-Manufacturing 1,538 9,591 6
Construction/Mining 343 1,767 5
Transportation, Communica- . 61 510 8
tions, Utilities
Trade 560 3,801 . 7
Financial, Insurance, Real 114 614 5
Estate
Services and Other 460 2,899 6
TOTAL 1,673 16,703 10
11-123
-------
(Source:
TABLE II- 36
INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION
OF COVERED EMPLOYMENT (1960-1970)
New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)
Job Center Industry
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Machinery, Metals,
Miscellaneous Products
Other Durable1
LACONIA Nondurable Goods
Textile Products
Leather Footwear, Apparel, Other
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
48
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)
Average
Employment
1960 1970
3873
2988
2651
337
885
476
409
2018
413
134
931
149
391
5891
1515
619
371
248
895
711
184
3128
2213
1692
521
915
292
623
3311
505
255
1580
185
786
6439
1209
597
N.A.
N.A.
6.2
4B6
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)
-------
Table I1" 36- . (Continued)
Average
Fourth
Job Center Industry 1960
H
M
1
N)
Ul
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
Nondurable Goods N
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
T-™— .
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 n-36. (Continued)
Average
H
H
1
t t
to
(Ti
Job 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 Estate4
Services, Other
TOTAL
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
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.
4
No reporting for this category.
-------
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.
11-127
-------
The strength of the regionls diversified economic
base is indicated by the number of firms and jobs
in the non-r-manufacturing 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 nonr-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 11-37.
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.
11-128
-------
TABLE 11-37
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING 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
M
H
M
H
M
N
N
M
L
L
N
M
L
Service Area2
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,
2
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.
11-129
-------
Table 11-34 in Section II.B.2 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 11-38
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 11-38
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.
Belknap County
County Population Ratio
Percentage Visitor/Year-Round
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
4.4
4.5
77.5
14.5
9.6
13.6
9.6
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 11-39. 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.
11-130
-------
TABLE 11-39
BELKNAP COUNTY SALES RECEIPTS - 1967
(Source: 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 ————— =zzm
TOTAL $93,739 $2,470 $3,059
Table 11-39 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
11-131
-------
estimate of the subsequent non-resident population
in Belknap County ranged from 27,500 (LRPC) to
34,400 (Hendrick & 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 11-40
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 11-40
FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS1
(Source: Census of Agriculture, 1969)
Farm Classifications
Class I - Sales of $40,000 and over
Class II - Sales of $20,000 to $39,000
Class III - Sales of $10,000 to $19,999
Class IV - Sales of $ 5,000 to $ 9,999
Class V - Sales of $ 2,500 to $ 4,999
Others - Sales less than $2,500
TOTAL
Number of
Farms
9
14
15
16
25
76
Percent
5.8
9.0
9.8
10.
16,
3
1
155
49.0
100.0
Based on the value of product sales.
11-132
-------
As Table 11-40 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 II-41 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.
11-133
-------
Table 11-41
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 Reporti
H
H
I
M
U)
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
72
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.
5. Community Services
Sewage. Presently, four 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, i.e., 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 II.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
11-135
-------
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 Area based upon proximity to the Gas
Service, Inc. transmission line which starts in Concord
and terminates 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 (liquified 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 5,000 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 11-42 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 11-43 provides a summary of the
number of full and part-time officers as well as
financial budgets by municipality.
11-136
-------
TABLE 11-42
EXISTING PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND CAPACITY OF FACILITIES
(Source: Supervisory School Unions, 1975)
ENROLLMENT (1974-75)
CAPACITY
H
\
M
U>
District .
Alton
Belmont
Gilford
Laconia
Franklin
Gov.Wentworth
Inter-Lakes
Coop.
Winnisquam
Municipality
Alton
Belmont1
Gilford
Laconia
Franklin
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Center Harbor"]1
Meredith
Northfield
Tilton
Sanbornton
Elementary
331
Junior
High
Senior-
High
432
592
190
98
344
>
554
500
65
34
137
191
563
827
115
82
258
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 11-43
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.
11-138
-------
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 11-44. 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 11-44
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 11-44 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
11-139
-------
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 11-45 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 11-46 and represent current estimated
waste quantities. Future projected per capita rates
are expected to increase two percent per year.
11-140
-------
TABLE 11-45
EXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Municipality.
Alton
Blemont
Center Harbor
Gilford
Meredith
Moultonborough
Sanbornton
Tilton
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
Laconia/Gilford/
Franklin/
Northfield/
Tilton
Site Area Available Area for Estimated Life
(Acres) Future Disposal Expectancy
2.3
20.0-30.0
11.5
Unknown
Unknown
6.0
Unknown
3.0
70.0
- 1.3 '
18.0-28.0
9.5
.___ PI i-iooH — -
Unknown
Unknown
5.0
Unknown
Minimal
30.0-35.0
38. Oj^
1 yr+
11 yrs
1 yrj^
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).
TI-.141
-------
TABLE 11-46
CURRENT PER CAPITA REFUSE GENERATION RATES
Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
Quantity of Solid Waste
(Ibs/day/per capita)
3.50
6.00
7.00
3.25
6.75
Peripheral Study Area
Alton
Center Harbor
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
3.75
5.75
3.75
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 Town 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.
11-142
-------
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.
6. Other Governmental Projects
Listed in Table 11-47 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 11-47
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.
11-143
-------
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
11-144
-------
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 Study Area. The
discussion includes a description of the planning
agencies having jurisdiction in the Study Area and
their projections of future development. Existing
land use plans and growth management tools are des-
cribed and analyzed. The consistency of the appli-
cant's proposed project with local and regional
planning objectives is assessed. Information de-
veloped 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).
-------
A. PLANNING AGENCIES AND ACTIVITIES
To date, land use planning for both the Primary and Peri-
pheral Study Areas has been conducted on an individually,
municipal basis. As indicated in Table III-l, two of the eight
communities in the Primary Area and two of the five towns
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 Proiect
Study Area.
1. State Planning
The New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning (NHOCP)
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 NHOCP 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
-------
Ill Winnipesaukee River Watershed
— —•• Proposed 208 Planning Area
— Planning Jurisdiction of Lakes Region
Planning Commission
Communities within the Study Area
FIGURE in-1 JURISDICTION OF TH* LAKES REGION
PLANNING COMMISSION SHOWING THE
WINNIPESAUKEE 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 Plan 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 communities within both the Primary
and Peripheral Study Areas are under the planning jurisdiction
of 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; and
To review and assist in the preparation or amendment
of zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations or
single purpose ordinances.
In addition, LRPC coordinates its work with other govern-
mental 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; and
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 June, 1978.
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 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
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 is presently updating this plan. Projected com-
pletion date is December, 1976.
**None of these plans has been formally adopted, nor is it
likely that any will be until State 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 seven 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;
Assume all functions previously performed by the
zoning commission;
Make recommendations to select men on zoning changes; and
Prepare a master plan for the town.
III-5
-------
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 voteirs
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 development, 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- Status of the Regional Development Plan
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
P^flle 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 future 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.
2. Regional Land Use Goals and Objectives
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.
The following statement of goals and objectives represent
the region s only formalized planning tool to date which des-
cribes 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 sum-
marizes LRPC's overall goal and objectives as well as a listing
o± specific goal statements on important topics of plannina
concern. y
Overall Goal. To provide for the needs of present and
future regional residents while at the same time re-
cognizing that resulting development must occur within
the qualitative limits necessary to maintaining the
superior natural environment.
III-7
-------
Overall Objectives: Provision of a diversified and modern
economic base which will provide employment for a popu-
lation of varied characteristics and employment skills;
To assure maximum opportunity for the full development of
each resident through the provision of maximum educational
and nob training opportunities, social and health services
and the maximum possible level of cultural opportunities; and
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; and
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.
3- Adopted Municipal Comprehensive Plans: Future Growth
Concepts ~~~ ---- - --
oom™H the1defined Study Area eight communities have unadopted
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
iT^ ??°KghcanK Tuftonboro- The first plan was published '
recent ;?» I Sanbornton, followed by Laconia in 1963. The most
for Center" HarboJ Pr6pared by a local municipality was in 1971
Recognizing the need to reevaluate and periodically update
n^n^ enS1VJ ?lanS t0 refl6Ct Changes which have^ccurred
the passage of time, Laconia and Alton have requested the
QenerationSofStanCe ^ LRPC tO begin Preparation of a second
generation of comprehensive plans for their communities.
An analysis of the comprehensive master plans and the
^owth31171"9 56Xt rterlal indicate several basic underlying
growth concepts relating to the proposed spatial distribution
S^00"^" "
-------
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 residential development
-------
Conservation, Open Space and Recreation. The future use
identified iiaJ£ S f°Vhese Proses are distinctly
Gi??nJn ?ii the »«nieipal comprehensive plans of Belmont
Gilford, Alton and Meredith. The provision for these uses
rLr^i0311? twofold: a> P^vide for active and pSsSive
recreational opportunities (public access) to existing fnd
proposed public parks, beaches and stream vaJlSys; and bf
SrSltlanS Prot^ct environmentally sensitive areas such
as wetlands, flood plains and adjacent steep slope areas?
4J Existing Regulatory Controls for Managing Growth
!;§?•
ordinance, followed by zoning and the comprehensive plln
nS a"d ^^relationships between
.
111-10
-------
TABLE II1-2
EXISTING LAN!) USE CONTROLS
AND EXTENT OF USE BY MUNICIPALITY
(Source: LRPC, 1975)
MUNICIPALITY
Primary Study Area
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Northfield
Sanbornton
Tilton
REGULATORY CONTROLS IN USE
Comprehensi\
Plan
X
X
X
X
X
no
X
no
re Zoning
Ordinance
no
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
Subdivision
Ordinance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Building
Code
X
no
X
X
no
no
no
no
Peripheral Study Area
Alton
Center Harbor
Moultonborough
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
x
x
no
no
x
X
X
no
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
no
no
no
x
TOTALS
11
13
III-ll
-------
intermunicipal coordination and cooperation along common bound-
aries. In part, this state of affairs can be attributed to the
fact that the LRPC was not established until 1968 and by then,
many communities had embarked independently on developing their
own "planning programs".
5- Interrelationship Between Existing Zoning Regulations
and the Availability of Public Services (Water and
Sewer) " ~~~
In order to assess the potential implications of expanded
sewer service in the Study Area, a baseline investigation and
analysis of the interrelationship between zoning regulations and
public services 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
private property. In addition, the intensity of land develop-
ment which is regulated by zoning, is tied directly to the
availability 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
when one or both public sewer and water is available to a
building site. Table III-3 identifies the variations in mini-
mem lot size required by each municipality's zoning ordinance
within the proposed sewer service area, depending on whether on-
or off-site water and sewage disposal systems are utilized.
On the basis of these standards, it is possible to estimate
the potential growth inducement effect resulting from the pro-
posed project. The increment of growth directly attributed to
the project can be measured on the basis of the change in mini-
mum lot area for development with on-site and off-site public
services.
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 public services 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
sewered areas was estimated by zoning classification;
111-12
-------
FIGURE III-2. EXISTING ZONING, 1973.
[Source: Lakes Region
Planning Commission]
I—1 Residential-Agri cultural
EH Low Density Residential
I Medium Density Residential
I High Density Residential
am
\Ua Lake Shore Residential
Ea Historic Preservation
Ha Commercial
rU Commercial-Resort
lig Commercial-Industrial
• Industrial
Areas for which Zoning does not exist
or was not aval(able.
111-13
-------
TABLE III-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 (F)
Industrial (I)
Commercial (C)
Local Business (B)
Residential-Agriculture (RA)
Residential (R)
Commercial (C)
Industrial (IND)
Low Density
Residential (R-l)
High Density
Residential (R-2)
Conservation District (C-l)
Business District (B-l)
On-Site
Sewer
& Water
30-40,000
30,000
30,000
2 ac.
2 ac.
2 ac.
2 ac.
3 ac.
1 ac.
1.5 ac.
1.5 ac.
30-57,000
30-57,000
30-57,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
2 ac.
1 ac.
30,000
40,000
40,000
10,000
80,000
—
Industrial District (1-1) 100,000
Off-Site
Sewer
Or Water
30-40,000
20,000
20,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
3 ac.
1 ac.
1.5 ac.
1.5 ac.
30-57,000
30-57,000
30-57,000
80,000
80,000
80,000
2 ac.
30,000
30,000
40,000
30,000
10,000
80,000
—
100,000
Off-Site
Sewer
& Water
10,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
11,250
10,000
10,000
10,000
8,000
60,000
20,000
3 ac.
1 ac.
1.5 ac.
1.5 ac.
15,000
15,000
15,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
1 ac.
30,000
30,000
40,000
20,000
10,000
80,000
5,000
40,000
111-14
-------
Table III-3Continued.
Municipality Zoning Districts
On-Site Off-Site Off-Site
Sewer Sewer Sewer
& Water Or Water & 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
-------
Third, potential development yields by zoning classi-
fication were calculated on the basis of minimum lot
area restriction. Yield figures were divided into
three possible ranges which recognized the variation
of 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 accom-
modate future land development; and
Fifth, the conversion of the number of potential resi-
dential 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 #3 entitled, Population of New
Hampshire.
Table III-4 summarizes the potential development yields
and resulting population with or without public services (water
and sewer). Without 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
systems. The availability of public services will permit this
figure to increase to 11,864 dwelling units or an increment
or 2,366 units (32 percent). If public water becomes avail-
able in the future, the combined presence of public water and
sewer will permit development to reach a total of 20,377 dwell-
ings or 11,379 dwellings more than what is permitted currently
with on-site facilities. This is equivalent to approximately
a 126 percent increase. Correspondingly, 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 per-
sons if development occurs on the basis of the availability of
public sewer and water. The same potential effect is true with
commercial and industrial property in the sewered area. However,
the more restrictive industrial requirements minimize the develop-
ment yields for properties with on-site services and those with
just public sewer and/or water.
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
(2)
Off-Site
Sewer
or Water
1,179
571
2,286
746
2,950
121
38
1,696
811
256
1,365
241
198
(3)
Off-Site
Sewer
& Water
3,575
1,143
5,028
2,240
232
3,400
121
38
1,696
811
256
3,642
481
396
(Zoning Data Not
1,253
97
8,998
1,544
236
1,577
97
11,864
2,030
236
2,225
97
115
20,377
4,338
781
POTENTIAL POPULATION
(1) (2) (3)
2,684 3,454 10,475
2,290 6,652 14,631
7,030 9,560 11,020
5,682 5,692 5,682
2,652 2,652 2,652
4,150 4,150 11,072
Available)
3,897 4,905 6,920
28,384 37,054 62,451
___
111-17
-------
C. 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).
111-18
-------
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 ground water 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. Also, Title IV 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.
111-19
-------
3. Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
; . J
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
111-20
-------
Second, all identified flood-prone communities must
enter the program by July 1, 1975, or within 1 year from
the date #UD 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; and
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
111-21
-------
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 tho Comires.M
on matters pertaining to historic preservation. AI MO, tho Ad
charges the states with the responsibility of carrying out
surveys of historic sites within their boundaries to determine
their suitability for protection on the National Register of
Historic Places. The Advisory Council's strength and the
National Register's 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
included on 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; and
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
T97T:
Public Law 93-291, The Archaeological and Historic
Preservation 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
construction project or financial assistance may cause irrep-
arable loss of historical or archaeological data, the Secretary
of the Interior is to be notified so that a survey of the
affected 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 archaeo-
logical resources.
111-22
-------
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).
-------
A. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
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-term. 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
Historic and Archaeologic Resources
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 PROJECT IN THE WINNiPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN
PARAMETER
IMPACTED
Surface Water
Quality
IMPACTING ACTION
Relief of septic tank sewage disposal
systems and raw sewage discharges.
Export of controllable nutrients
away from Lake Winnipesaukee and
Lake Wir.nisquam.
Continued BOD loading to Lake Winnis-
quam from Laconia STP through Phase
II.
BOD loading to the Winnipesaukee
River below Silver Lake for 3-6
months in Phase II.
Nitrogenous oxygen demand from the
proposed unnitrified effluents.
Raw sewage discharges from failure
of pumping stations
Increased erosion and sedimentation
TYPE OF IMPACT
Primary,
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term
Primary,
Short-term
Primary,
Short-term
Primary,
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term
Primary,
Short-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT DEGREE OF IMPACT
Beneficial Significant
Beneficial Minimal to Moderate
Adverse Minimal
Adverse Minimal
Adverse Minimal
Adverse Minimal
Adverse Minimal to Moderate
MITIGATING MEASURES
None required.
None required.
Employ activated carbon process
at Laconia.
Continue discharging to Lake
Winnisquam for this period.
Install AWT (nitrification) at
Franklin STP.
Follow NHWSPCC 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.
-------
TABLE IV-1. Continued.
PARAMETER
IMPACTED
Surface Water
Quality
Ground Water
Water Supply
IMPACTING ACTION
Increased urban runoff
Increased loading rates of nutrients
from non-point sources.
Improved ground water quality from
elimination of septic tank effluent.
Reduction of ground water recharge
through urbanization.
Reduction of ground water recharge
through exporting of sewage
Ground water contamination from
increased urban runoff
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
Primary,
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 Minimal
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 streams.
Adoption and implementation of growth
management controls.
None required.
Strict control of development on
stratified deposits providing rapid
recharge. Minimize areas of imper-
vious surfaces such as parking lots,
sidewalks, etc.
None required.
Stormwater management.
None 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
IMPACTING ACTION
ASSESSMENT
TYPE OF IMPACT OF IMPACT
DEGREE OF IMPACT
MITIGATING MEASURES
Air Quality
Biology
<
CTl
Degradation of air quality from Primary, Adverse
construction activities. Short-term
Increased air pollutant loading Secondary, Adverse
from industrial and automotive Long-term
sources attributed to secondary
gtowth.
Improvement of aquatic habitats Primary, Beneficial
through elimination of septic Long-term
tank effluent, waste treatment
and raw sewage discharges.
Aquatic habitat destruction due
to construction and operational
effects of the project:
- Construction disturbances to Primary, Adverse
salmonid spawning areas Short-term
- Temporary effluent discharges Primary, Adverse
to Winnipesaukee River for . Short-term
3 to 6 months from Laconia
STP
Increased effluent loading to Primary, Adverse
the Merrimack River Long-term
Potential-Minimal
Potential-Minimal
Dust control measures.
Enforcement of Federal and State
emission standards; coordinated
land use and transportation planning
by local and regional planning
agencies.
Minimal to Moderate None required.
Potential-Minimal to
Moderate
Minimal
Minimal
Adoption and enforcement of erosion
and sedimentation controls, proper
timing of construction activity.
Continue discharging to Lake Wianis-
quarn for this period.
Proper operation and maintenance of
Franklin STP, require AWT.
-------
TABLE IV-1. Continued.
<
PARAMETER
IMPACTED IMPACTING ACTION TYPE OF IMPACT
Biology Destruction of vegetation:
- Loss of wildlife habitat
Reduced stormwater retention
Increased siltation of surface
waters
Aesthetics Construction of the interceptor
(Noise) sewers, construction and operation
of the Franklin STP
(Visual) Improvement of water quality and
elimination of raw discharges, mal-
Primary ,
Short-term
Secondary,
Long-term
Primary and
Secondary,
Short-term
Long-term
Primary,
Short-term
Primary and
Secondary,
Short-term
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT DEGREE OF IMPACT MITIGATING MEASURES
Adverse Minimal *Reduce width of construction corridors
and route sewers along public rights-
of-way as much as possible.
Adverse Minimal to Significant Growth management controls.
Adverse Minimal to Moderate *Prompt reestablishment of disturbed
areas, and adoption and enforcement
of stormwater management control.
Adverse Minimal Prompt reestablishment of vegetative
cover.
Adverse Minimal to Signifi- Adoption and enforcement of noise
cant control ordinance, *supervision of
contractor to prevent undue noise.
Beneficial Moderate to Signifi- None required.
cant
functioning septic tanks and even-
tual reduction of algae blooms.
Destruction of vegetation at site
of Franklin STP.
Primary,
Adverse
Minimal
Selective siting of STP
Destruction of vegetation and visual Primary,
screening along the interceptor Short-term
routes • Long-term
Adverse
Minimal
•Reestablishment of vegetative cover.
-------
TABLE IV-1. Continued
PARAMETER
IMPACTED
Aesthetics
(Visual)
Recreation
Historic and
Archaeologic
Natural Resources
Public Health
IMPACTING ACTION TYPE OF IMPACT
Destruction of vegetation and altera-
tion of landscape from increased de-
velopment
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
Secondary,
Short-term
Long-term
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 DEGREE OF IMPACT
Adverse Moderate
Beneficial Minimal to Moderate
Adverse Minimal to Signifi-
cant (local areas';
Adverse Moderate
Potential- Unknown
Adverse
Adverse Minimal
Adverse Moderate to Signifi-
cant
Beneficial Significant
Potential- Minimal to Signifi-
Adverse cant
Adverse Minimal to potentially
significant
MITIGATING MEASURES
Preservation of open space through
growth management controls.
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.
Growth management controls.
None required.
Stormwater management.
Monitoring 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
Increased regional employment and
related economic activities
TYPE OF IMPACT
Primary
Primary,
Short-term
Primary,
Short-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT DEGREE OF IMPACT
Beneficial Significant
Adverse
Moderate
Beneficial Significant
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.
Existing and
Future Land
Use
Local share of capital costs as well
as annual operation and maintenance
expenditures
Construction of Franklin STP
Construction of interceptor sewer
and pump station
Secondary,
Long-term
Primary,
Long-term
Primary,
Short-term
Primary,
Short-term
Beneficial Significant
Beneficial/ Minimal to Moderate
Adverse
Adverse Minimal
Adverse Minimal to Moderate
None required.
Careful siting of facilities and
access road.
Minimize width of construction.
-------
TABLE IV-1. Continued.
PARAMETER
IMPACTED
Existing and
Future Land
Use
I
I-1
o
IMPACTING ACTION TYPE OF IMPACT
Encourage upgrading of existing Secondary,
land uses and enhancement of Long-term
property values.
Increased land utilization by re- Secondary,
moving the development constraint Long-term
of poor soils.
Increase in allowable development Secondary,
densities. Long-term
Reinforcement of the region's Secondary,
existing growth pattern. Long-term
Increased cost, speculation and Secondary,
change of land ownership Long-term
Consistency with local and regional Primary,
planning goals and objectives
Effects on Peripheral Study Area. Secondary,
Long-term
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT
Beneficial
Adverse
DEGREE OF IMPACT
Moderate to Signifi-
cant
Minimal to Signifi-
cant
Beneficial Moderate to Signifi-
and Adverse cant.
Beneficial Moderate to Signifi-
and Adverse cant.
Adverse
Moderate
Beneficial Significant
Unknown
Unknown
MITIGATING MEASURES
None required.
Proper planning and location of
sewage collection system.
Use of zoninq controls, buffer zones,
and development plan reviews.
Growth management controls.
Coordinated regional growth
management program.
None required.
Unknown
-------
B. EFFECTS ON THE 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 purposes 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 in 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-term 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 C).
IV-11
-------
Continued BOD loading to Lake Winnisquam from the Laconi.a
STP through Phase II. Since dilution of the wastew7fter~~i n
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 Winnipesaukee 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 0.5 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.
Actual conditions will be considerably better than the
"worst case" estimate.
*Assumptions employed in calculating the dissolved oxygen
deficit below the Laconia outfall includes:
Stream Temperature 25°C (maximum for Winnipesaukee
River reported for 1973-74 was
25.5°C)
Stream Flow = 200 cfs = 129.3 mgd
Sewage Flow = 2.5 mgd (design flow for Laconia
STP)
BODr^ of River = 1 mg/1
BOD5 of Sewage = 150 mg/1 (maximum weekly BOD if
carbon absorbtion is not used at
Laconia)
Deoxygenation rate at 25°C
KI (25) = 0.25/day
Reoxygenation rate at 25°C
K2 (25) = 1.16/day (estimated using O'Connor-
Dobbins method)
Dissolved Oxygen of stream = 8.4 mg/1 (saturation at 25°C)
Dissolved Oxygen of sewage = 0 mg/1
IV-12
-------
BOD loading to the Merrimack River below the Franklin sewage
treatment plant at the 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, occurring immediately below
the outfall, would be approximately 0.2 mg/1.
*Assumpation employed in calculating the dissolved oxygen
deficit helow the Franklin outfall include:
Stream Temperature =
Stream Flow =
Sewage Flow =
BOD of River =
Deoxygenation rate at 25°C
KI (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 (7-day, 10-year
low flow)
11.5 mgd (1995 projected flow)
45 mg/1 (maximum weekly BOD according
to effluent limitation)
0.25/day
1.15/day (McGuire, 1972)
6.9 mg/1 (saturation at 25° = 8.4 mg/1)
0 mg/1 (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 de-
pletes oxygen at a slower rate. Using this model, the
greatest deficit still occurs 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 is still at
the outfall. AS is the case with the Winnipesaukee River,
at realtively low pollutional loads, the high reoxygenation
IV-13
-------
Therefore, the net effect of NBOD will be to slow the rate
of the River's recovery from the additional 0.2 mg/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 minimal.
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 municipalities 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-a 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. Although responsible for its adminis-
tration, the NHWSPCC is not funded to administer the dredge
and fill law. Therefore, it must rely upon the New Hamp-
shire Fish and Game Department for complaint 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 siqnil"icnntIy
increase erosion. The amount of sedimentation that wilJ
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 .eut?r.9phication process by absorbing and releasing
nutrients: avseh. in aerobic conditions and may, therefore,
act. to: re'tain;. nutrients in the bays, coves and other near-
shore are*,s o'f 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 run-off 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 (1969)
reported the following partial composition of urban run-
off from a residential - light commercial area:
Average Total Load
Constituent Concentration (mg/i) (Ibs/mi2/yr
Suspended Solids 226 366,000
COD 111 178,000
BOD 17 27,000
Inorganic Nitrogen 1.0
Total Phosphorus 0.36
IV-15
-------
In addition, run-off from developed areas transport 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 C.
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 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
accessible 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
to 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 (Ibs-N/mi^/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/mi2/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
BASIN AND AVAILABLE DATA FOR FOREST WATERSHEDS
(Ibs/mi2/year)
Total Phosphorus Export
High Low Average
Lake Winnipesaukee
Drainage Basin
70
45
57
Total Nitrogen Export
High Low Average
References
2,728 1,024 1,880 EPA (1974a)
Northcentral and
Northeastern
U. S. "forest"
48
2,466
EPA (1974b)
"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 per-
missible population increase was calculated on the basis of
the phosphorus data (Appendix C 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
H
1
I-"
00
Estimated "Full
Development"
Estimated Present Estimated 1995 Nutrient Export
Nutrient Export Nutrient Export Rates
Rates Rates ' (Zoning Basis)
Sewer Service Area Ib/year Ib/year Ib/year
Watershed mi^ N P N P N P
Lake Winnipesaukee 11.3 20,624 916
Based upon a population of: 3,200
Lower Lakes 22.7 39,662 2,615
Based upon a population of: 15,625
Winnipesaukee- 12.7 21,826 1,622
Pemigewasset-
Merrimack Rivers
below Silver
Lake
19,373 1,464
9,650
37,660 3,492
26,000
21,258 1,870
17,804 1,508
17,748
36,989 3,786
29,480
19,358 2,704
Based upon a population of:
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 Ib/mi2/yr
P = 355 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 TV-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 sliyhtly
above average nitrogen export rates in the Winnipesaukee
watershed (1,880 Ibs/miVyr. 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 the methodology set forth in Appendix C.
Lake Winnipesaukee is only slightly affected by the proposed
action. The current total phosphorus load to the Lake is
47,074 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 26,196 and 77,406
Ibs P/yr respectively would be necessary. Even full develop-
ment permitted by existing zoning contributes only a fraction
of this amount (Table IV-3). The Primary Study Area, how-
ever, includes only approximately 4% of the Lake Winnipesaukee
Basin. The future water quality of the Lake is not controlled
by the effects of this action, but by conditions throughout the
remainder of the Basin. The critical issue of population growth
in the Lake Winnipesaukee Basin is discussed in Appendix C.
Conditions in Lake Winnisquam are much less hopeful (Appendix
C) . 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 primarily to data deficiencies for
Lake Winnisquam. Based upon EcolSciences1 calculations, using
the equation formulated by Dillon, 1975, the total phosphorus
load possible prior to exceeding the ologotrophic level is
30,820 Ibs/yr. Assuming removal of the Laconia and State
discharges, a base input of attleast 22,000 Ibs/yr currently
enters the Lake. "Full" development in the service area
would add another 1,000 Ibs/yr. New Hampshire data (NHWSPCC,
IV-19
-------
1975) indicates that a permissible loading rate which is
approximately half that calculated by EcolSciences. The con-
servative 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 predicted on a more extensive analysis
than is presented here. It is recommended that such an
evaluation be undertaken by the State.
Other Lakes
There is insufficient data available to conduct similar
analyses for the remainig 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
208 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 ground water. 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 impervious 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
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 sources 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, pesti-
cides, traffic residuals, animal droppings, and vegetative
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 project's 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 from 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 Winnipesaukee
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-22
-------
4. Air Quality
Primary Impacts on Air Quality. For a waatowater I rajtmen I
facility of the type proposed for the Franklin a i U-, t lion-
may be both primary and secondary impacts upon air quality.
The primary impact would consist of the additional concen-
trations of pollutants in the ambient air due to point
sources within the project. Since no incinerators or other
pollutant-generating facilities are proposed for the project,
no primary impact, from other than construction activities on
air quality are anticipated as a result from this project.
The construction impact will result from the transport of
building materials and workers to the site; from grading,
grubbing and other earth moving activities; and from construc-
tion. These impacts may generate dust (particulate matter)
in the short-term; there may also be some short-term;mobile
source pollutants as a result of the additional vehicular
movement. The dust can be controlled by good construction
practice, i.e. watering during earth-moving, covering dirt
loads, cleaning truck tires before the vehicles leave the
construction site, etc. The vehicular pollutants will be
minimal and may be reduced if vehicles do not use congested
roads during peak travel times.
However, secondary impacts may occur due to additional emis-
sions resulting from growth induced by the wastewater treat-
ment facility.
Secondary Impact of Induced Growth on Air Quality — The
growth analysis presented in Section III.B.5 indicates that
the project as proposed will result in an increased level of
growth above that permitted by alternative on-site sewage
disposal methods. However, the amount of induced growth is
consistent with local land use policies and controls. Develop-
ment 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 con-
centrations (without the project) and the concentrations pre-
dicted with the maximum projected population (with the pro-
posed 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 pre-
sented in Appendix K. 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) state standards
and other criteria defined in federal and state legis-
lation;
IV-23
-------
• Estimate existing pollutant emissions for both point
sources and area sources from inventories obatined
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 pro-
ject. The annual average TSP and SO2 concentrations
are projected using the Climatological Dispersion
Model as recommended by EPA. The 24-hour TSP concen-
trations are estimated by applying Larsen's method
using the geometric standard deviation from monitored
data. The short-term SO2 concentrations are not
estimated because no measured geometric standard
deviation is available; and
• Superimpose man-made concentrations on natural back-
ground concentrations to obtain total concentrations
both with and without the project and compare to
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Results — The analysis indicates that a marginal increase
in pollutant concentrations will result from the additional
growth induced by the project. As compared to the no-build
alternative, the project will cause a maximum annual increase
of 0.11 yg/m3 in sulfur dioxide concentrations. The maximum
annual increase in TSP and SO2 concentrations during the 15
years between 1985 and 2000 are estimated to be 0.26 yg/m3
for TSP and 0.60 yg/m3 for SO2.
Among the 15 selected receptor sites in the Study Area, it
is expected that the receptor at Laconia will receive the
highest ground-level concentrations because the largest sources
of pollutants are concentrated in that area. The estimated
maximum TSP and S02 concentrations in the Study Area are com-
pared with the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
in Table IV-4. Based on the assumptions used, none of the pro-
mulgated ambient air quality standards will be violated with
or without the project. However, it is recommended that the
pollutant emissions resulting from the greater development
induced by the project be included in the State Air Pollution
Control agency's long-term air quality maintenance planning.
Assuming that the sludge is disposed of on the site of the
wastewater treatment facility, it is not anticipated that there
would be any significant air pollutants generated that would
adversely impact surrounding land uses.
iLarsen, R.I., EPA- publication AP-89, "A Mathematical Model
for Relating Air Quality Measurements to Air Quality Standards.
IV-24
-------
TABLE IV-4
PROJECTED AND ALLOWABLE INCREMENT IN AIR QUALITY
Pollutant
Particulates (yg/rn-^)
- annual geometric mean
- 24 -hour maximum*
Sulfur Oxides (yg/m3)
- annual arithmetic mean
- 24 -hour maximum*
- 3-hour maximum*
Maximum Incremental Concentrations Class II Region**
Year 1985
Without With
Project Project
0.5 ' 0.53
4.9
1.0 1.01
3.0
10.1
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
I
M
* Due to the sludge incinerator only
** Equivalent to the "allowable incremental increase". If the maximum incremental c
tions are less than the Allowable Deterioration Increment, then the National Ar±,i
Quality Standards are not related.
cr.centra-
zr.~ Air
-------
5. Biology
The proposed project will have several primary impacts upon
the biological communities of the Study Area. Ther 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 interceptor corridors, increased erosion andssedi-
mentation in the avrious lakes and streams adjacent to contruction
areas, temporary increased effluent loading of the Winnipesaukee
River below Silver Lake, and long-term increased effluent loading
to the Merrimack River below Franklin. Secondary impacts are
adverse and include water quality degradation and habitat de-
struction resulting from increased area development.
Improvement of aquatic habitats.will result from the removal
of septic tank effluent and the discharge from waste treat-
ment 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 re-
duction of the blue-green algae bloom common rlurJruj tho .summer
months. Water quality in Lake Winnipcsaukoc? will ho i mpi cwi»il,
but only to a minimal degree because of tho project: '» limil.fd
sewer service area in relationship to the Lake's total, draimujo
basin. The project impacts of these water bodies and discussed
in further detail as follows:
Lake Winnisquam. Extensive research indicates that sewage
effluent discharges into the Lake are a major agent in
its eutrophication. This problem is now being corrected
by phosphorus precipitation. While phosphorus removal
has resulted in improvement, diversion of the effluent
from the Lake will quarantee that plant overloads or mal-
functions will not affect the Lake. Research experience
in other areas (Edmondson, 1969) has indicated the
beneficial effects of sewage diversion. In Lake Washington,
diversion of the Lake's short retention time and low back-
ground nutrient levels in the source streams. While these
conditions are not present in the case of Lake Winnisquam,
calculations by the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control Commission (1975) indicate that even total
diversion may not bring the Lake's nutrient loading level
below critical rates. Diversion does lower nitrogen and
phosphorus loading, but depending on the mixing and
flushing characteristics of the Lake, which are poorly
defined, algal populations 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 continuing build-up of high-BOD sediments and
will allos the Lake to begin to assimilate the accumulated
deposits. The length of time for full recovery cannot be
IV-26
-------
estimated with the available information. If the
optimistic estimates of retention time for the Lake
are correct, 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's 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 discharges to the Lake 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 C.
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 watercourses affected by construction.will be suitably
maintained, and, if temporarily affected, will be restored
to their 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 hatch in the spring
(young free swimming by May), construction should not
occur during this period in areas where extensive spawn-
ing ground exist. Most other species of fish common in
IV-27
-------
the area spawn in spring or early summer; environmental
disruption in sensitive areas during this time period should
be minimized.
Winnipesaukee River. As a temporary measure, the Winnis-
quam 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 degradation concept.
There is no indication that dissolved oxygen values low
enough to affect fish populations will occur. The efflu-
ent to be discharged may be chlorinated to prevent septic
conditions from occurring in the outfall. If it becomes
necessary to chlorinate at an intermediate point or to
add a heavy dose at the treatment plant, then there could
be 0.5 mg/1 of total residual chlorine in the discharge
with a maximum of 1.0 mg/1. Using this information, and
knowning the proposed sewage flow rates and river dis-
charges, 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 rapily remove the
chlorine, but no measurements of chlorine demand are avail-
able. In 1978, the average chlorine level in the River
at the outfall will be 0.01 mg/1, with a "worst possible"*
concentration of 0.07 mg/1. As can be seen in Table IV-5,
these levels can be expected to affect 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. Proper control of any chlorination can greatly
reduce the amount of chlorine discharged.
Merrimack River. The Franklin treatment plant, which will
ultimately receive most of the Basin's sewage, 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 in-
volved, nutrient additions to the River will occur. This
probably will promote aquatic plant growth. Since this
section of the River is a valuable resource in terms of
wildlife, fisheries, and aesthetics, consideration should
*River flow of 200 cfs; 1 mg/1 chlorine at peak sewage flow.
IV-2 8
-------
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
*1 mg/1 total residual chlorine discharge, peak sewage
flow and 7-day, 10-year low flow in river.
IV-29
-------
<^nparing these values with Table I"-S Indicates that the
discharge should normally have only a limited effect on
aquatic life. At low river flows and peak sewage flows
toxicity problems including fish kills could occur if
chlorine additions are not carefully controlled. Again,
this estimate is conservative in that no chlorine demand
was assumed for the River.
In conclusion, these calculations point out the need to
install and maintain a modern chlorination control system
at the Franklin plant. Statems are available which can,
using "feedback control" techniques, limit chlorine dis-
charges to acceptable levels.
Destruction of vegetation will be both a primary and
a secondary consequence of the proposed project. Removal
of vegetation during construction of the treatment plant,
pump stations and installation of the interceptor sewers
constitutes a negative primary impact to terrestrial biota.
The degree of impact depends upon the quality of the vege-
tation as a timber resource or its ability to perform other
functions. The amount of valuable timber resources within
construction corridors, at the treatment plant, and at
the pump station sites is insignificant when compared with
the total forest resources in the region. However, the
vegetation to be removed presently provides desirable
benefits which will be lost. These benefits include
aesthetic 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 vegetation. The
vegetational pattern varies along these corridors. These
factors are considered in developing the arbitrary assign-
ment of the degree-of-impact to each function. Where the
interceptor corridor is coextensive with the railroad
embankment, a minimal impact may be anticipated from loss
of timber resources and aesthetic values, because the
plants present are of a weedy type. However, these weeds
may screen an undesirable view of the railroad tracks
from nearby residential developments. Loss of soil may
occur and be detrimental where the corridor alignment is
near surface waters or wetlands, thereby, constituting
a moderate short-term impact. A moderate impact to wild-
life is expected since railroad flora not only is an excel-
lent food source, but also, provides valuable nesting sites
and cover. This impact will be of short-term duration
because these species are quickly reestablished.
Primary impacts attributed to the project's construction
are described as follows:
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 construction corridor to Lake
Winnipesaukee, some sedimentation may occur. Visual
IV-30
-------
I
OJ
CORRIDOR
Meredith
Gilford
West Paugus
Winnisquam Outfall
Sanbornton
Laconia Connection
Belmont
Tilton-Northfield
Franklin
Key:
INS
MIN
MOD
SIG
NA
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
MQD
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
Insignificant
Minimum
Moderate
Significant
Information Not Available
-------
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
reestablish itself;
Gilford Interceptor. A significant impact to aesthet-
ics may result from the interceptor's installation
near homes. Some large trees will be removed from
shoreline communities;
West Paugus Interceptor. It is to be routed along
the forested western shore of the Paugus Bay and will
result in some loss of vegetative cover. Because of
the length of the interceptor corridor, a reduction
of substantial amounts of edge vegetation is expected;
Winriisquam Outfall. A significant short-term impact
to the wetlands may be expected from siltation during
interceptor construction. Wildlife habitat, which is
plentiful along this corridor, will be lost. These
impacts are short-term but will continue until vege-
tative cover is reestablished;
Sanbornton Interceptor. The location of the corridor
adjacent to wetlands makes these areas susceptable to
siltation resulting from erosion during construction;
Franklin Interceptor. Mature forests on steep slopes
will be impacted by construction. Some sedimentation
to the Merrimack River can be expected during con-
struction corridor and will be cleared. These impacts
will be of short-term duration; and
Franklin STP Site. The nature and degree of the
impacts to plants and animals from construction acti-
vities will depend on the final location of the struc-
tures. 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 vegetative 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 contruction will result in a small
reduction in the size of mammal and bird populations
in the area. This type of habitat is abundant along
the Merrimack River, and it is unlikely that any
specific wildlife population is restricted to this
site or would be eliminated as a result of clearing
for the treatment plant.
IV-3 2
-------
A road built along the Merrimack River from the
sanitary landfill to the plant could utilize the
same corridor as the Franklin Interceptor so that
little additional impact from new road construction
v/ill occur.
Anticipated secondary impacts resulting from the opera-
tion of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities
are described as follows:
Meredith to Franklin Service Area. Much of the
land along the lake shores and rivers already has
been urbanized. Although the remaining woodlands
are generally less mature than forests outside
the design service area, it is capable of
supporting a more varied animal community. Clear-
ing woodlands 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.
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 ground water resource. Treatment of wastes
from the Village ot beimont will provide a positive
benefit to the Tioga River and marshland, as well as
improve the quality of surface and ground water resource.
Construction of the Belmont interceptor will require four
stream crossings. Three crossings are small and can
be constructed with minimal disruption to the Tioga
River. However, some temporary siltation can 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 a 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 interceptor 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-33
-------
will be required to maintain the qravity f.low (it
sewage toward the western end of t eh interreptm .
If a pump station is required, it will be bu.i.1.1 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 sta-
tion site, since access can be gained from a segment
of the old Route 140.
Gilford Service Area. It differs from other parts of
the Study Area in that it includes extensive areas
of mature forest. Part of the service area extends
into the Belknap Mountains. Impacts associated with
development in this segment of the service area could
include loss of flood protection for the sub-watershed
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,
minimal 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 provide a view of the
Lake.
The wetlands north of Laconia Airport may be encroached
upon unless the area's protective Wetlands Conservation
District is effective to prevent it.
IV-34
-------
Peripheral Study Area. Center Harbor, Moultonborough
and Tuftonboro, which have large areas of land under cul-
tivation, have a concomitant abundance of edqe voqet-at. i on
at the interface of fields and wood lots as w.
-------
The topography of the Franklin site is a bowl that may
tend to reflect and amplify sound. Thus, it can be ex-
pected that plant noises will be noticeable in the
flood plain and surrounding hillsides. On the plateau
beyond the bowl, however, plant noises will probably not
be noticeable under normal meteorological conditions.
All conclusions regarding plant noise are tentative be-
cause the design and location of the treatment units have
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 extonoi vr-
area. In some instances, these noi.Hos mny »_v crii <•• .1 mi i M.HK •••
to local residents.
Visual Amenities. The major primary adverse impacts to the
aesthetic quality of the Study Area will result from des-
truction of vegetation at the STP site and along interceptor
corridors. These impacts have been discussed in detail in
Section IV.B.5. Most of these impacts are anticipated to
be of short-term duration.
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 value of many of the area's lakes, streams
and wetlands. Eliminating these undesirable features will be
a slow but beneficial process.
Secondary development within the Study Area may encroach
upon aesthetically valuable areas. In addition, refuse
from increased development will collect in local streams and
along local roads. The general aesthetic quality of the area
will be degraded by increased urbanization unless environmental
controls are employed.
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
their capacities.
IV-3 6
-------
Improvement of surface water quality will increase the
long-term recreational potential of the Study Area. Be-
cause the economy of the Basin is heavily dependent upon
tourism and recreation, this impact will be significantly
beneficial. Due to the location of the proposed project,
the greatest benefit will accrue to water bodies in the
Primary 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, un-
sightly and undesirable for water sports. Poor water quality
has 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's
recover from its present condition, but eventually, contact
recreation should be more desirable and fishing more pros-
perous. Beaches, such as Bartlett Beach, which has 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, recreation has not yet been significantly affected;
however, the potential does exist. Long-term benefits to
recreation on Lake Winnipesaukee and Tioga Rivers. Contact
recreation and fishing, which have been adversely affected,
especially along the Tioga River, will 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.
Temporary disruption to recreational areas and facilities.
Construction will both disrupt beach areas adjacent to the
interceptor routes and interfere with traffic leading to cer-
tain facilities. The areas of greatest impact are anticipated
along the Gilford, Meredith, and West Paugus interceptors as
well as the Winnisquam Outfall. Since the Gilford and Meredith
interceptors will follow closely 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.
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 re-
creation will be removed. Public beaches and lake access
IV-37
-------
points throughout the Primary Study Area, and part LeuUir.ly
in Meredith and Laconia, are limited and inadequate for present
demands and will have to be augmented to serve the antici-
pated increase in both year-round and seasonal popula Lions.
As growth continues, the demand for recreation-related facil-
ities such as public parking lots and marinas will increase,
placing a further burden on inadequate facilities.
8. Historic and Archaeologic Resources
Primary construction activities associated with the proposed
project may encroach upon archaeologic and historic sites in
the Study Area. Of the five National Historic Register identifying
two sites 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 boundaries 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 of 1966 can be initiated; and
Sulphite Railroad Bridge. The proposed Franklin interceptor
will be constructed in the vicinity of the Sulphite Railraod
Bridge which crosses the Winnipesaukee River in Franklin.
It will not, however, be routed along the bridge. A deter-
mination of the potential disruption of the area during
construction is necessary for compliance with the National
Historic Preservation Act.
Reconnaissance work is currently underway within the primary
impact areas of the proposed project to identify both historic and
archaeologic resources which may be impacted. At this time,
the survey and reconnaissance work is incomplete. Analysis of
impacts will be undertaken by EPA when the work is complete.
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
and Executive Order 11593 must be satisfied prior to construc-
tion of the proposed project.
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-38
-------
I 0. I'ublLc HoalLh
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 sewage treatment systems contributes to the
area's potential health hazards. The tremendous influx of summer
visitors increases this potential threat. Within the Primary Study
Area, the proposed project's completion by 1980 will provide the
means for eliminating a portion of the Basin's current wastewater
problems. However, elimination of potential health hazards to resi-
dents along Lake Winnipesaukee's eastern shore cannot be expected
until individual municipal sewerage systems are constructed, or
until this area is brought into the regional sewerage 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 lake shores, often in poorly suited soils,
and because 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 these 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 entire region, 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 effluent forms 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-39
-------
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-
ments adjacent to Route 140. The numerous single-
family residences and mobile homes have their own
sewerage systems and, in most cases, water supply. Be-
cause these developments are located near bodies of
water, there is a danger of seepage from failing 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 will
eliminate 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 developments east of the intersection of
South Road and Route 140 namely Pinewood Gardens
(150 mobile home project), 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-
Northfieldinterceptor, 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-40
-------
Increased secondary 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 from boats
and marinas, etc. While the potential growth inducement
effects of the project are considered to be significant, the
accommodation of future population growth on a public sewerage
system outweighs the potential health problems associated
with septic tank developments.
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.
11. 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 Study Area 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
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
IV-41
-------
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 aower sorvirtin
have been implicated as a major contributor to iiKluniri.il
location difficulties in at least ono imin i.c I pa I I ly wllhiu
the study Area. Evidence has been obtained which indicates
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. Dinruptlon
and possible dislocation may be sorioua
-------
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 treat-
ment plants in Center Harbor, Moultonborough, and Wolfo-
boro would employ a total of about 20 people altogether.
Employment would be lost, however, when the Laconia treatment
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 of major significance to the 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, with 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 will 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 facilities.
IV-43
-------
12. Land Use
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 the availability of public
sewerage service and the consequences this will have on poten-
tial development yields.
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. The principal routing
of vehicular traffic (trucks) to and from the treatment
plant site will be along the River which will avoid poten-
tial impacts to the character and aesthetic qualities en-
joyed by residents living in adjacent areas.
Construction of the interceptors 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 interceptor routings
(Winnisquam, West Paugus, and Gilford), no occupied structures
are expected to be displaced or destroyed. However, the
proximity of the interceptor sewer and the proposed depth of
excavation in the vicinity of a few residences in the Pendle-
ton 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, loss of existing vegetation, and temporary interruption
of public services (utilities) will cause temporary inconven-
iences. Specific residential neighborhoods where these pro-
blems will be most severe include: Pendleton Beach Road,
Summit Road and Dock Road. While the interceptor sewer
routings have been located to maximize use of existing
streets and highways, private properties in the above areas
will be impacted.
Encourage upgrading of existing land uses 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-44
-------
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
a major determinant of the region's future growth pattern will
significantly increase. Correspondingly, the effectiveness
of sewers as a planning tool to structure and phase the region's
future development 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 but outside existing
sewered areas.
TABLE IV-8
EFFECT OF REDUCED MINIMUM LOT AREAS
ON POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT YIELDS AND POPULATION
RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT YIELDS
(STRUCTURES)
(1) (2) (3)
On-Site Off-Site Off-Site
Sewer Sewer Sewer
& Water Or Water & Water
Land Use
Residential 8,998 11,864 20,377
Commercial 1,544 2,032 4,338
Industrial 236 236 781
RANGE OF POPULATION
(PERSONS)
(1) (2) (3)
28,384 37,054 62,451
The potential growth inducement effects of the project by
itself can be assessed from Tabel IV-8 by comparing the
difference between the figures of columns 1 and 2. If
public water is extended throughout the proposed sewer
IV-45
-------
service area, the amount of allowable development would be the
difference between column 1 and 3.(34,067). 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. Sub-
sequent changes to existing zoning patterns could alter
these development yield 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 pro-
sent linear or corridor form. In fact, the proposed project
will reinforce the existing development pattern bccau.so 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 of Franklin, Northfield, Tilton, Laconia and Meredith
to be more intensively developed, provided there are suffi-
cient market demands for increased urban development in
these areas.
The construction of the West Paugus interceptor opens the po-
tential for Laconia's physical growth pattern to be extended
and more intensively developed as a new major development
center. Similarly, the expanded capacity of Laconia's treat-
ment 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 Brook 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-46
-------
• Laconia - West side of Paugus Bay
- Area along Route 11
- Durkee Brook 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 amount
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. 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 inconsisten-
cies between the comprehensive plans and existing zoning
classifications.
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
proposed 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-47
-------
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 project's completion.
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 as
large scale planned unit developments or in a more coordi-
nated manner.
Project Compatability with 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
devices used 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.2). The project will relieve existing
failing septic systems and will partially improve the
region's environment quality for the use and enjoyment
of future generations. The maintenance 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 planning goals and objec-
tives and the proposed construction of the interceptor sys-
tem represents only an initial 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. However, the absence
of public sewer service has not been a significant constraint
to land development activities to date.
IV-48
-------
i'. ADVKRSK IMPACTS CANNOT. \W. AVtMliRO
Ttlri |«l I t|>Oantl |>I..1M l~lU .'I Hlrt I I Ili'l lull (if B«W.-|i|n . I I anl Ulcill
I ni'i I 1.1 I no nnd i Ml 01 vcplot .q In Hi" l.akn W I i»n I poBniiltno Hn.ain \v> i | |
result in some adverse environmental impnehs. Mont, of I hone 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, social and economic environments.
1. 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 number 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-49
-------
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.
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 b<- Mul'li
ciently high to adversely affect fish popu I .it i OHM in I !.«•
immediate vicinity of the diifuser. However, cJ i H u,-: ion
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.
2. Secondary Adverse Impacts
The proposed project will induce growth and allow greater
development density in areas where sewer service is provided.
The mitigation of adverse impacts associated with development
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.
IV-50
-------
Removal of vegetation for construction of secondary develop-
ment will result in increased erosion and sedimentation and poten-
tial 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 poten-
tial 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 communi-
ties. Open space will be lost to residential development. Addi-
tional growth will increase pressures on public recreational
facilities and community facilities which are presently inade-
quate.
Planning facilities for recreation and community facilities
are inadequate and will have to be expanded to accommodate pro-
jected growth.
IV-51
-------
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-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 region is a direct function
of environmental quality. Long-term productivity will be en-
hanced 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 dependent.
IV-52
-------
E. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PKOJECT SHOULD
IT BE IMPLEMENTED.
The 1: o.l lowing cliacuMsion Huinnur i'/OH (In- .xlvi.'i M« «l I »•<•!.-i
that the proposed project will h.ive on the beneficial uuc ol
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.
1. Primary Resource Commitments
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.
2. C-econdary 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-53
-------
development will be significantly more extensive than tho
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 ctnd urban runoff.
Recreational and Open Space areas will be irretrievably lost
as development continues throughout the Winnipesaukee Basin.
IV-5 4
-------
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 THK AIMM.TCANT' R
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 Maguire Plans A, C-G
The 1972 Basin Study (Maguire, 1972) examined 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 pro-
cess rather than physical chemical treatment.
The description 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 Total
A 12,259
< B 15,130
C 24,620
D 24,623
E 26,887
F 40,941
G 49,962
50,851 63,110
50,851 65,981
45,335 69, 9S^
44,436 69,059
43,177 70,064
22,746 63,687
22,746 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
•',:-::
7,531
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 system 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 Rave 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 of sewage into the Lake. This effectively pre-
cludes AWT for 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. The Wolfeboro spray irrigation system, nearly completed,
has a probably life of approximately 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 have not been prepared.
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-effectiveness 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 II. 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. Therefore, a delay of one year would
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 about 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, much 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 extension 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. Interceptor Routing Alternatives
Gilford Interceptor. The last two miles of this line
follows the shoreline in the Pendleton Beach area. Construc-
tion impacts will be substantial, particularly from Rilcy
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-
ixting 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
proposed route along the west shore. The advantages of an
east shore routing would be to avoid any possible growth
inducement 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.
The West Paugus interceptor will parallel the railroad
causeway across Pickerel and Moulton Coves. These two
small coves were separated from Paugus Bay when the
railroad was constructed. The original alignment of the
proposed interceptor would have obstructed small boat
traffic between Paugus Bay and these coves.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, District I, has indicated
in telephone conversations that the cover entrances are
considered navigable waterways, and that a permit will be re-
quired to cross the coves. Furthermore, such permits some-
times require public hearings and an EIS, although the EPA's
EIS may possibly fulfill this requirement. Alternatives
studied to avoid or mitigate these impacts are described as
follows:
Pickeral Cove. The only connection between Pickerel
Cover and Paugus Bay is a granite culvert 40 feet long
and 4 1/2 feet wide. Depth of water in this culvert
is 4 to 4 1/2 feet and the headroom is about 3'5".
V-8
-------
Residents of the Pickerel Cove have testified that 14
foot outboard motorboats can be fit through this cul-
vert. Plans have been made by the Pickerel Cove
Association to construct a second and larger culvert.
At present, there are 16 houses around Pickerol Cover;
10 are on the waterfront and six are back-lots. In
addition, there are 45 unoccupied lots. The total
property value of the 16 occupied lots (after adjusting
for the percentage assessed) is $205,274, including the
value of the houses; individual houses and lots range
from $5,000 to $20,000 in assessed value. The total
property value of the unoccupied lots if $93,750. Thus,
the entire cove has a value of about $300,000. Because
access to Paugus Bay is so restricted, none of the lots
are considered shorefront, and they are not taxed as
shorefront property. The Laconia Assessor's office
has said that even if the outlet were completely closed,
there would be no impact on assessed values (DeNormandie,
1975) .
Construction of the West Paugus interceptor across
Pickerel Cove would reduce the headroom at the entrance
to 1 1/2 feet, which would be too low for passage of
most small boats. Although the interceptor would have
no impact on the biology of the cover, it would block
small boat traffic between Pickerel Cove and Paugus Bay.
Several alternatives to blocking boat traffic were
examined:
• Construct an Inverted Siphon under Pickerel Cove
This alternative was investigated by Whitman and
Howard, Inc., Engineers and Architects, who con-
cluded the following:
"Replacement of the Pickerel Cove Crossing
(which presently consists of a gravity sewer in
an embankment fill) with a three barrel siphon
(30", 18", 14") including the siphon inlet and
outlet structure, would necessitate a headless
of 4 1/2 feet at an additional cost of about
$301,000,00.
"An initial headloss in the siphon would re-
quire lowering of 9,760 linear feet of 48"
sewer and 20 manholes at an increased cost of
$78,000.00.
"The lowering of the sewer would occur in an
area that appears, on the basis of borings, to
have considerable ledge and it is estimated that
removal of an additional 7,000 cubic yeards of
ledge at a cost of $210,000.00 would be required.
V-9
-------
"It is estimated that the increased cost for
the Paugus Pumping Station as a result of the
lowering of the station by 4 1/2 f<=>et would
be approximately $60,000.00." (Whitman and
Howard, Inc., 1975).
Thus, the total cost of this alternative would be
$649,000, not including engineering or additional
operation and maintenance costs.
Raise the Grade of the West Paugus Interceptor
By raising the grade of the interceptor, the eleva-
tion of the outside bottom of the pipe could be
matched with the same elevation existing at the in-
side top of the culvert. The sewer would have a
flatter slope but could still carry the design flow
of 23 mgd. This alternative would maintain the
status quo of the cove entrance at no significant
change in project costs.
Construct the Interceptor Along the Shoreline of
Pickerel Cove
The interceptor approaches the cove with an invert
elevation of 506 feet; the water level is 503.58
feet. Thus, a gravity sewer could not be constructed
below grade at the shoreline without incurring about
a 10-foot head loss; this loss is twice that required
for an inverted siphon.
Construction of the sewer above grade would require
encircling the cove with an 8-10 foot high embankment
containing the sewer. This would effectively destroy
most of the shoreline as it now exists. The esti-
mated cost of this alternative is approximately
$1,000,000.
Construct the Interceptor Around the Cove, Back From
the Shoreline
Under this alternative, the interceptor would be
routed around the cove, between elevations 510 and
520; it would cross the tail of the cove near Bill-
iard Road. Approximately one mile would be added to
the total length of the interceptor.
Assuming this route employs the same slope as the
present design, head losses in the extra mile of
pipe would be about 5.3 feet, slightly more than
the 4.5 foot loss of the inverted siphon. The
estimated cost of this alternative is $990,000,
including the costs to lower the remaining 9,760
feet of sewer and the Paugus Pumping Station by
5.3 feet.
V-10
-------
Construct an Additional Pumping Station
This alternative would use a low lift pumping sta-
tion to regain the 4.5 foot head loss of the in-
verted siphon. The peak design flow of this
pumping station would be approximately 15,000 qpm.
The cost of this alternative would be about
$1,200,000.
The pumping station would not offer an advantage
in raising the grade and reducing the necessary
excavation for some of the downstream sections of
the interceptor. However, other sections would
then be placed above grade and require covering
fill.
Install a Boat Lift
This alternative would mitigate the impact of the
sewer blocking the entrance to the cove. A boat
ramp or hoist would be constructed to allow boats
to be pushed or lifted over the sewer line, and
possibly even over the railroad.
The design details of such a boat ramp are beyond
the scope of this statement. Some matters to
consider are: The design of the motor or winch
to lift the boats up one side of the ramp and to
lower them down the other; the railrcad track
crossing design; maintenance; and safety considera-
tions. This arrangement could allow larger boats
than presently used to enter the cove. Costs of
this alternative would be relatively low compared
to the other alternatives.
Provide Docking Facilities Outside the Cove
Like the previous alternative, this alternative would
attempt to mitigate the impacts of the interceptor.
A boat dock would be constructed on Paugus Bay at
Pickerel Cove to replace the docks blocked by the
interceptor. An access road and boat launching
ramp would be required, along with a parking lot.
This alternative would be of benefit to those owning
back-lot property, since they would be provided
with docking facilities on Paugus Bay. Those
owners on the shore of Pickerel Cove, on the other
hand, would lose the use of their lot front docks,
and would have to travel up to one mile to the Paugus
Bay dock.
A variation of this alternative would be to provide
monetary compensation to the Pickerel Cove owners to
purchase docking spaces at existing boat marines.
V-ll
-------
• Acquire Pickerel Cove Properties
This alternative would have the State acquire all
the Pickerel Cove property by negotiation or con-
demnation. Boat traffic throucjh t.ho culvert would
be discontinued.
The occupants of sixteen houses would be displaced
and the owners of 45 unoccupied lots would have to
sell their property.
The total assessed value of Pickerel Cove is
$300,000. Allowing for negotiated values, legal
fees, moving expenses and demolition expenses, the
total costs of this acquisition could amount to
over $500,000. An additional consideration would
be the effect of any long delays on the costs of
the project should this acquisition be successfully
challenged by a court suit.
Moulton Cove. The entrance to Moulton Cove from Paugus
Bay is underneath a railroad bridge culvert. The opening
is 9 feet wide and about 35 feet long. Clearance be-
tween the bottom of the bridge and the water surface is
4'6". The channel depth is about 2'6". It is not known
whether small boats use this culvert, but it is presumed
that they do.
Since Moulton Cove is upstream of Pickerel Cove, the
invert of the West Paugus interceptor is higher at
Moulton Cove. Clearance at Moulton Cove will be 4'2",
a reduction of 4 inches from the present clearance.
Since Pickerel Cove boat owners have testified they can
fit a 14 foot outboard through their culvert - with a
clearance of only 3'5" - the interceptor is not expected
to present a significant obstacle to navigation at
Moulton Cove.
Summary and Evaluation
The present design of the West Paugus interceptor would
effectively block small boat traffic between Pickerel Cove and
Paugus Bay. The head room at the entrance to Moulton Cove would
be lowered by about four inches, but would still be adequate for
small boats.
There are 16 lots with houses (10 on the shore) and 45 un-
occupied lots around Pickerel Cove; total property value is about
$300,000. None of the properties are assessed as "shorefront".
V-12
-------
EcolSciences, inc. considered eight alternatives for the
Pickerel Cove section of the interceptor. Of four alternatives
which would not block the cove entrance, the redesign of the
interceptor which raises its elevation is tho loaat rout ly.
Throo other altornnt LV.IH which aic nil t I i|,-U I n
interceptor to be the most cost-effective and environmentally
sound alternative.
The Corps of Engineers apparently considers the cove en-
trances navigable, and a permit may be required. EPA should
pursue this matter further to formally determine if a permit
is required and, if so, coordinate with the Corps to determine
if the permit will require public hearings or an EIS, or if
EPA's actions have satisfied these requirements.
Belmont Interceptor. By following Route 140 from the Villaqe
of Belmont to the Laconia Connection, the construction
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 con-
tinue along the railroad right-of-way all the way across
the Winnipesaukee River. However, this would result in
potentially significant ecological disturbances to the
lower portion of the Tioga River. An inverted siphon would
be needed to cross the Winnipesaukee River. Thus, this
alternative is at least as costly and has greater environ-
mental impacts than the proposed routing.
Tilton-Northfield Extension. 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.
V-13
-------
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.
2. Treatment System Alternatives
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 capacility of the Laconia plant
is only estimated to be about 50 percent, based on typical
plants of this design, 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 not 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;
V-14
-------
• 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.
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.
Maguire (1972, p. VII) estimated that adding a physical
chemical process to a conventional activated sludge plant
would cost 150 percent more than constructing a physical
chemical plant. EcolSciences, inc., however, basing its
estimates on Maguire's unit costs, disagrees with this
conclusion. Capital costs would increase by about 13
percent compared to a physical chemical plant, operating
costs would be 19 percent lower, and total annual costs
i.e., annualized capital costs plus O&M would be nearly
equal. Thus, according to EcolSciences, inc. building
an activated sludge plant now would not preclude cost-
effective nutrient removal now or at a later date.
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
V-15
-------
sites were found, with a combined area of 264 ai/ros.
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.
3. Treatment Site Alternatives
Primary Study Area Treatment Plant Site. 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 were 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 (COM, 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-16
-------
question whether the useable site area (10 to 12 acres) 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 minimised 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. Ground water 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.
4. 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. Assuming proper system operation
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. Assuming proper system operation, however,
this is not expected. The aesthetic impact of a sewage
discharge would still exist. Relocation to a site just
above the raw sewage discharges from Tilton and Northfield
V-17
-------
above the raw sewage discharges from Tilton and Northfield
would prevent degradation of desirable trout habitat below
Silver Lake. Lengthening the Laconia outfall by 3,000 or
7,000 feet will not result in any unplanned construction or
costs. The outfall extension would be built along the same
route and to the same specifications as the proposed 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 con-
junction 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
sxtes may preclude the most attractive siting alternatives.
5. Sewage Capacity Alternatives
A number of planning estimates were used by the applicant
to arrive at the flow projections for the Primary and Peripheral
Study Areas of 13.34 mgd in 1995 and 20.67 in 2020. In the
application for PL 92-500 funds, the applicant assumed that these
proposed capacity limits were sufficient to treat current and
projected wastewater flows. EcolSciences is concerned that these
projected wastewater loads may not be adequate to handle the most
recent population projections provided by LRPC (Section II.B.I).
Specifically, a significant difference appears between the LRPC"
and Maguire projections for the Primary Study Area's design popu-
lation in 1995 (Maguire-59,700 persons versus LRPC's-71,500 persons)
EcolSciences has reviewed the data required to determine
adequate transport and treatment capacity for the Study Area and
presents the following alternatives.
V-18
-------
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 boon sized
to serve a growing population, not to act .is a cou.sl rn i nt
upon population increases.
Considering that development in the plamii.iu) ,in.vi will
create some adverse impacts Ln proportion to the rale tnul
magnitude of population increases, suppression of growth
rates may be a feasible means of mitigating such impacts.
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 II.B.2). 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 growth in the 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:
V-19
-------
The effectiveness of limiting growth by restrLotimi
the availability of sewerage service is deptMulrnt
upon the lack of available alternative moans of
sewage treatment'and disposal. The use ot suui 1 1
sewage treatment plants Ln most ot" the Study Aro.i
is effectively precluded by New Hampshire's poIiry
of "no discharge" to the lakes. However, tlu> 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.
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 c.onsumption 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:
V-20
-------
• 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
• Increase in water and/or 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 interceptors
(assuming they were designed for 120 gpcd) or redesign o£
the interceptors to reflect the 100 gpcd figure requi red 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 prolongation 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 life of the interceptors.
• Increase Treatment Capacity at the Franklin STP
To assure adequate treatment capacity to handle projected
wastewater loads in the Winnipesaukee River Basin, the
applicant's engineer could redesign the Franklin plant to
accept slightly higher sewage flows on the order of 13
mgd from the Primary Study Area in 1995 rather than
Maguire's lower estimate of 11.54 mgd. Upon evaluation
of this alternative, EPA does not feel that the differen-
tial of 1.46 mgd justifies the costs and time delays to
alter present design plans of the Franklin facility.
Given the conservative assumptions of the flow pro-
jection methodology in terms of per capita waste loads
and inflow/infiltration rates as well as the uncertainties
inherent in the projections themselves, redesign does not
appear warranted.
6. Sludge Handling and Disposal Alternatives
Possible Sludge Handling and Disposal Techniques. For
each of the steps involved in handling and disposal of
sludges from treatment facilities, several unit processes
are available. Figure V-l shows the range of available
unit processes for each of the following steps:
V-21
-------
FIGURE V-l
AVAILABLE UNIT PROCESSES FOR SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TREATMENT
STEPS :
STABILIZATION
CONDITIONING
DEWATERING
REDUCTION
DISPOSAL
I nput
SI udge
Composting
Aerobic
Digestion
Anaerobic
Digestion
Pasteur-
izat ion
200°F
Chemical
Condi tion ing
Elutriat
ion
Heat
Treating
300-500°F
Vacuum
Fi1trat ion
Pressure
Fi1trat ion
Centri fuge
Dry i ng
' Beds
1 nc
inerat ion
Wet Air
Oxidation
Flash
Dry ing
Landfi11
Liqu id
Land
Di sposal
Dry
Land
Di sposal
-------
• Stabilization/Disinfection
• Conditioning/Recycle Treatment
• Dewatering
• Reduction
• Final Disposal/Utilization
Stabilization 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 de-
struction of pathogens and some volatile solids.
The advantages of this process is that nutrients
are retained if land disposal is envisioned. Dis-
advantages include inflexibility of disposal route
and relatively high energy input.
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 liquid 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. Disadvan-
tages include high capital cost and the need for
careful process operation. Poor operation can result
in process unreliability, odor production and explo-
sion hazard.
V-23
-------
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 nrn]ti-
valent ions, such as ferric iron or aluminum o^.
organic polymers, and may be accompanied by
"elutriation" (washing) to remove interfering
soluble substances such as alkalinity. Large
anoants of ash, usually recycled from incinerators,
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 recvcle to main stream
aeration or to separate treatment. The 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
V-24
-------
incineration), simultaneous disinfection and better
dewatering properties than possible with chemical
conditioning. Disadvantages include the greater
strength of the recycle liquor, resulting in the
cjreafcer capacity roqui rement of nil other pnu-rtabcia,
and t lu* ponrHb.1 1 1 ry «•!' ftflvmjfln rhfiminu In I'Uni
effluent quality from refractory Hol.ublo oninnlrn.
Dewatering of conditioned or unconditioned sludges may
be done be several methods beyond thickening. 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.
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 f^Llter 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.
V-25
-------
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
sludgeis successively dried, burned and cooled.
Inert ashes, equal in mass to non-volatile solid.'.,
remain for disposal by landfill ing or*other ni<»miM.
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
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 usinq higher
pressures and temperatures to oxidize volatile
solids. After this procegs, the waste must b«-
settled and cooking liquor must be recycled. Thin
cooking liquor is high in dissolved organic com-
pounds and nutrients, and should be treated H(;\JH-
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.
V-26
-------
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 lanfl 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 ground water 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 lo
groundwa'ter) and in tr>rms of total mass by heavy
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. Dis-
advantages include cost, monitoring requirements,
and the need for backup systems in the event of in-
ability 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 .-,.-,.I
dewatering. These three alternatives are idcntifir-rj j,, ••.,;,],.
V-2 along with their relative costs, land-energy rcrmj rr-n.i-nLs
and areas of environmental sensitivity.
V-27
-------
TABLE V-2
POSSIBLE SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
SLUDGE
ALTERNATIVES
COSTS
LAND
REQUIREMENTS
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
SENSITIVE TO:
M
CO
Liquid land
disposal
Incineration, dry
land disposal
Incineration,
landfill
Digestion, de-
watering,
landfill
low
high
high
high
medium
low
low
medium
high
potentially
low
potentially
low
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
land availability, soil
types, ground water, sludge
composition
-------
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.
V-29
-------
SECTION VI
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-------
The opportunity for direct public involvement in the prepa-
ration of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the Winnipesaukee
River Basin has been continuous since the evaluation of the pro-
posed project was initiated in the summer of 1975. In the course
of preparing the Draft EIS, project staff members from EcolSciences,
inc. and EPA officially notified the towns and cities within the
Study Area of the proposed project and solicited their input and
cooperation. In addition, special meetings were held with appro-
priate local, regional, state and federal agencies, citizen groups
and interested persons. The public comments received through
these contacts contributed significantly to the content and con-
clusions set forth in the Draft EIS.
The Draft EIS was filed with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) on January 7, 1976. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) - Region I advertised and held a public hearing at
the auditorium, Gilford Middle High School, Gilford, New Hampshire,
on Tuesday, January 27, 1976, on the Draft EIS. In addition to
the minimum required comment period of 45 days, the public hearing
record was held open until February 21, 1976. A total of 12 organi-
zations and/or citizens made formal comments at this hearing. A
summary of the public hearing transcript is presented in the Final
EIS under Appendix L. A copy of the complete transcript is avail-
able for review at the offices of EPA and NHWSPCC.
Comments on the Draft EIS were requested from over 100 public
agencies, private organizations and individuals and comments were
received from 19 entities. Table VI-1 identifies the names of
those who submitted written statements and the general area of
their comment. The Final EIS has been revised, considering the
questions raised, and most of the specific substantive comments
were incorporated into the body of the statement. Appendix M
contains copies of all the written public comments received on
the review of the Draft EIS.
The following comments warrant further attention to clarify
technical details, or to set forth EPA's position on public
comments with which it does not agree. The suggested revisions
to the Draft EIS with which EPA concurs, have been incorporated
into the appropriate sections of the Final EIS.
VI-1
-------
TABLE VI-1. GENERAL AREAS OF COMMENT
Written Comments Received From:
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of Army /Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Transportation/FHA
Department of Housing & Urban Development
State Agencies
Air Pollution Control Commission
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission
Regional Agencies
Lakes Region Planning Commission
Organizations
Society for Protection of NH Forests
National Wildlife Federation
NH Archeological Society
Man in the Northeast
Biospheric Consultants
Pickeral Cove Association
tn
4->
in
0
u
4->
U
0)
•I—I
o
Vi
dt
X
in
tr>
c
•H
4J
3
O
tf
ri
0
4J
a
0)
O
^i
0)
4->
M
>,
4J
•H
O
m
a
(0
u
VJ
0)
rfl
(U
M
E-i
X
X
rH
nj
0)
O
OH
01
•H
Q
4->
C
0)
3
rH
M-l
14-1
U
X
en
c
•H
i-H
•a
c
ID
K
0)
CP
TJ
3
i-H
w
X
X
X
U)
0)
>
•H
4J
(0
C
M
0)
4J
rH
<
X
>1
.p
•H
H
(fl
3
CX
H
•H
<
X
>i
4J
•H
iH
OJ
3
CX
h
(1)
4J
(0
X
X
c
o
•H
4-1
(0
4J
0)
CP
(1)
>
X.
(U
14-1
•H
rH
•a
H
•H
s
>i
rH
a
a
3
W
Vi
0)
4J
(0
s
Oi
c
•H
-a
o
o
rH
fo
\
^
s
o
rH
0
^
T3
>,
S
X
X
c
o
•H
4J
(0
>
M
a)
w
0
>H
&
u
•H
rl
O
4-1
U)
•H
X
X
X
X
X
X
U)
Q)
4-1
•H
W
U
•H
cr<
o
rH
O
01
(0
£
u
rl
«:
X
X
X
en
u
•H
4->
0)
£
4->
01
(1)
<
01
(U
•H
rl
0)
x;
in
•H
fo
X
0)
c
o
•H
4->
O
0)
•n
O
rl
eu
c
0
•rH
4J
fl
i-H
3
&
04
X
01
4-1
U
flj
a
6
H
C
0
•H
4-1
U
3
rl
4J
01
0
U
X
X
X
X
01
4J
u
rtj
&
e
H
rH
HJ
C
o
•H
4->
m
V4
0)
a
o
£
4-1
3
0
S-l
C
T3
0)
U
3
T3
C
M
X
X
X
(T
c
•H
c
c
nj
— i
Cu
rtl
0"
| -
1
T;
c
(0
J
X
X
X
i
y
i
H
I
NJ
-------
TABLE VI-1. Continued.
Written Comments Received From:
Individuals
Arthur C. Unsworth
Charles E. Bolian
Kenneth D. Kimball
N. Robert Arthur
in
4J
in
0
U
4->
U
0)
•n
0
IX
in
Cr>
c
•H
4J
3
O
Pi
^
O
4J
cx
0)
u
r4
(U
4->
c
H
^
4J
• H
U
(0
<0
o
^
0)
0)
W
0)
4-1
•H
W
in
in
0)
u
0
IX
4J
c
0)
e
(0
(U
r4
EH
rH
(0
in
O
in
•H
a
4J
c
m
c
0)
4J
rH
X
^1
4->
•H
rH
(0
3
O)
•H
^
4J
•H
rH
flj
3
cx
^_)
0)
4->
(0
X
c
0
•H
4J
(0
4J
O
rH
O
(U
«
.C
U
X
in
u
•iH
4->
0)
X
in
(U
in
0)
•H
^i
0)
JC
cn
••H
Pu
in
c
o
4J
U
OJ
•n
O
a
c
o
4J
(0
rH
3
a
o
(X
w
^j
u
(0
cx
M
c
o
•iH
JJ
u
1-1
4J
W
o
u
X
IT.
4J
u
a
M
rH
10
f-
6
•H
4-1
a
CJ
a,
0
i
'.
JZ
4J
u
0
1-1
o
T3
QJ
o
3
T3
C
H
X
a*
c
c
c
10
rH
(X
-------
1. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Comment:
The Advisory Council notes that two properties included in
the National Register of Historic Places may be affected
by the proposed undertaking (cf. p.IV-38). These properties
are the Weirs Aquadoctan Archeological Site, Belknap County,
New Hampshire, and the Sulphite Railroad Bridge, Merrimack
County, New Hampshire. We suggest that the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) take immediate steps to deter-
mine whether the nature of the effect on these properties
requires EPA to obtain the comments of the Advisory Council.
The environmental statement must demonstrate that either of
the following conditions exist related to compliance with
Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971.
a. A property eligible for inclusion in the National Regis-
ter of Historic Places is not located within the area of
environmental impact, and the undertaking will not affect
any such property. In making this determination, the
Advisory Council requires evidence of consultation with
the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer and
evidence of an effort to ensure the identification of
such properties. The Advisory Council recommends that
comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer be
included in the final environmental statement.
b. A property eligible for inclusion in the National Regis-
ter is located within the area of environmental impact,
and the undertaking will or will not affect any such
property. In cases where there will be an effect, the
final environmental statement should contain evidence
of compliance with the Executive Order through the
Advisory Council's "Procedures for the Protection of
Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800) .
Response;
EcolSciences contacted the State Historic Preservation officer
in early October to initiate procedures for compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
and Executive Order 11593 in early October 1975. No response
was received. In a subsequent telephone conversation with
the State Historic Preservation Office, initiated by Ecol-
Sciences after the draft EIS was prepared, EcolSciences was
referred to local historians and archeologists for general
information and the determination of the effect of the pro-
posed project with respect to specific properties.
VI-4
-------
EPA is coordinating currently with the State in complying
with the required procedures set forth in the above-mentioned
laws. Specific steps which are being undertaking include:
a. A thorough review of published and unpublished sources
to determine the locations of important historic and
prehistoric sites;
b. A field survey directed by professional archaeologists
to determine the locations of important historic and
prehistoric sites;
c. A program of text excavations to recover adequate data
from these sites in order to evaluate them; and
d. An analysis of data recovered in surveying and text exca-
vations as well as examining private collections to deter-
mine the importance of these sites on a local, state,
regional and national level so that recommendations can
be made concerning the necessity of preservation of the
most important sites and excavation of others prior to
the beginning of construction of the wastewater collection
and treatment facilities.
It is the recommendation of this Final EIS that the construc-
tion grants covering the Winnipesaukee River Basin project be
conditioned that all necessary steps will be undertaken by
NHWSPCC to be in full compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order
11593 before construction activities are initiated.
2. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Comment:
In view of the proposed elimination of on-site sewage disposal
systems (p. 1-10 to 1-16, par. 3), measures for deactivation
of abandoned septic tank systems in the service area should be
discussed.
Response:
When house connections are made to municipal sewers, septic
tanks will be disconnected. As the abandoned septic tank
systems will no longer constitute a pollution source, and
will be situated below grade on private property, their dis-
position will be the responsibility of the individual property
owners, in accordance with local building codes.
VI-5
-------
Comment;
Declining water table conditions that must be anticipated
as a result of the project will have impacts on some of the
many wetlands, small lakes and ponds in the project area.
Decrease in volume of storage and perhaps a proportionate
increase in nutrients or pollutants would be logical effects
as ground water underflow and seepage into lakes and ponds
decreases. Such impacts should be evaluated in conjunction
with efforts to reduce eutrophication. (See pages IV-4, IV-5,
IV-11 through IV-20, for examples.)
Response;
In the year 2020, the net sewage withdrawal from the Lake
Winnipesaukee Basin, including sewage from the Peripheral
Area, will be less than 12 cfs, or about 2 percent of the
average discharge from the Lake. The effect on ground water
tables is expected to be minimal, as recharge will be reduced
by only several percent.
Septic tank effluent contains nutrients in conccnt.rnti.onM
several times that of natural ground water. The reduction
in ground water recharge, as explained above, will be on
the order of several percent. The overall result of removing
the septic tank effluent will thus be a lowering of nutrient
concentrations in ground water. (This does not include
additions from urban runoff.)
3. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINIS-
TRATION
Comment:
The New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways
has hired the consultant firm of Wilbur Smith and Associates
to perform engineering and environmental studies for a
proposed relocation of Routes U.S. 3 and N.H. 11 through the
Towns of Franklin, Tilton, Belmont and Laconia. We would
suggest that contact be made with Highway Design Engineer
Harland Roberts of the New Hampshire Department of Public
Works and Highways at AC 603/271-2310 and possibly with the
consultant at his 7 Perley Street, Concord, New Hampshire
field office to determine if any conflicts exist.
Response:
The Applicant has been requested to provide plans and speci-
fications of the proposed project for your review and comment
VI-6
-------
4. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY: CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Comment:
The pipelines and the outfall structure should be displayed dis-
tinctly in order to assess the extent of navigable waters and
wetlands to be crossed or disturbed.
Any construction in navigable waters or wetlands for the Winni-
squam, Laconia, or Franklin outfall' will require additional in-
formation in the final statement.
Response:
EPA has requested the applicant (NHWSPCC) to provide the Corps of
Engineers with plans and specifications of the proposed project.
These drawings identify areas of potential impact along navigable
waters and adjacent wetlands. EPA has concluded on the basis of
its investigations and evaluations of the project that the most
significant adverse impacts in those areas of interest to the Corps
would be associated with the potential blockage of boat traffic
to Pickeral Cove. Numerous alternatives were examined in Section
V.B.I. Subsequently, the applicant has modified the design of the
West Paugus interceptor to avoid these impacts. Other anticipated
impacts related to effects on water quality and wetland areas are
described in detail in Section IV of the Final EIS. It is expected
that these potential construction impacts will be largely miti-
gated through enforcement of local and State environmental regu-
lations, including the State's Dredge & Fill law. In addition,
one of the construction grant conditions required by EPA will be
the stipulation that the applicant require as part of its con-
struction grant contracts appropriate siltation and erosion con-
trol measures.
5. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Comment:
Our review suggests that the draft might have discussed alterna-
tive measures to reconcile apparent inconsistencies between land
use plans, goals, and objectives at the local, regional, and state
levels. Although we do not feel such a discussion is a mandatory
exercise, a statement of alternatives related to the subject of
land use control and development potential might have been useful
to local officials.
Response;
The 208 Winnipesaukee River Basin Plan is scheduled to be completed
in June, 1978. To avoid potential conflicts with this program,
which is specifically designed to consider and recommend appropri-
ate land use control measures to protect water quality, the EIS
chose to identify basic planning problems, i.e., the lack of
state, regional, and local comprehensive plans, fragmented and
disjointed land use controls, no short- or long-range capital
improvements programming, etc. In order to make a meaningful
contribution to local planning efforts, a detailed analysis of
local control measures in the context of local and regional plan-
ning goals and objectives is required. These endeavors are clear-
ly beyond the scope of this EIS.
VI-7
-------
6. NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
Comment;
Elimination of carbon at Laconia identified as due to budget
reductions. This is incorrect. Tests run during design
showed BOD reductions equal both with the without carbon.
Since no significant improvement in BOD removal capability
was indicated, carbon addition was eliminated.
Response;
The Applicant did not provide EcolSciences, inc. with a
detailed description of the above mentioned tests. It is
difficult to believe that a sufficient dose of carbon would
not improve BOD removals. We, therefore, assumed that the
Applicant's decision was ultimately based on cost factors.
The phrase "due to subsequent budget reductions" will be
changed to "due to cost-effectiveness considerations."
Comment:
It is not currently planned to truck sludge from Laconia
to Franklin. Disposal will continue through land application
Response;
The primary reference for sludge disposal at Laconia, (Rose,
1975, a memo written to the commenter) stated that the
maximum duration of the demonstration project would be two
and one-half years.
Comment:
Approval of septic systems is by Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission, not local health officials.
Response:
NHWSPCC Regulations 149-E:6, referring to inspection and
approval of septic systems, states "Upon certification by
the Commission, local officials are hereby authorized and
fully empowered to exercise concurrent jurisdiction in the
enforcement of this chapter."
Comment:
There is no project which we identify as "Laconia Connector"
Assumed that it should read "Tilton-Northfield Interceptor
Sewer."
VI-8
-------
Response:
Maguire (1972) is ambiguous in naming this particular line,
calling it part of the "Winnipesaukee Interceptor" and "the
interceptor from Tilton and Northfield." The term "Tilton-
Northfield Interceptor Sewer" could easily be taken to mean
the line from Franklin to Tilton. The Applicant did not
provide a consistent nomenclature.
EcolSciences, inc. named the subject sewer the "Laconia
Connector" because it is the final link in connecting Laconia
to Franklin. Both the narrative and Figure 1-6 clearly de-
lineate this segment of the project, and the nomenclature is
used consistently throughout the EIS.
Comment:
Statement of high coliform counts associates with discharge
from Meredith plant is incorrect. Discharge is effectively
disinfected and our records indicate satisfactory coliform
conditions in the area.
Response;
The text actually states, "High coliform counts in Meredith
Bay could be associated with a number of sources, including
the discharge of secondary treated wastes via Corliss Brook.1
The record of high coliform counts is referenced. We do not
believe the plant can be eliminated as a possible source of
coliform bacteria, based upon our experiences with plants
of this type and size.
Comment:
Anderson-Nichols report in 1972 recommended development of
ground water supplies before going to surface supplies, if
at all possible.
Response:
The Anderson-Nichols report states "the relatively high cost
of individual water supply projects suggests that expeditious
action to expand ground water exploration is warranted to
determine the least costly means for rural supply." We be-
lieve the comment misinterprets this statement.
Comment:
Table IV-1 - Continuation of discharge to Lake Winnisquam
as a mitigating measure is completely unacceptable.
VI-9
-------
Response:
NEPA and EPA Regulations require consideration of all reason-
able alternatives. This comment misreads the table, as
continuing the discharge was only considered, not recommended.
Comment:
D.O. deficit computations incorrect. Average flow during
summer period of dischage will not exceed 2.0 - 2.5 mgd.
During summer flow periods, BOD (is) anticipated to be 50 mg/1
Response;
The Applicant has not presented any evidence that, without
carbon absorption, the Laconia plant can meet the effluent
limits of Table 1-11. In fact, to meet the proposed limits,
the Laconia plant would have to perform considerably better
than plants of this type normally perform.
In calculating dissolved oxygen deficits, .it is ouHtom/iry lo
check the worst conditions likely to occur, i.e., low stream-
flow, full plant design flows, and poor plant performance.
Since the dissolved oxygen deficit resulting from the worst
conditions was not objectionable, it was unnecessary to cal-
culate D.O. sag under average or typical conditions.
Comment:
We contend there will be no chlorine residual after (the)
lengthy travel time.
Response:
We disagree with this comment. The long travel time may
actually make heavy chlorination at the plant, or chlorine
additions at intermediate points, necessary in order to cen-
tral septic conditions in the interceptor. As with our
response to comment Number 26, the worst case must be evalu-
ated to ensure adequate protection of the river.
Comment:
There will be no discharge of sewage from boats. State
law and enforcement preclude this activity.
Response:
As stated at the recent public hearing, a discussion of boat-
ing wastes was inadvertently omitted from the Draft EIS, but
is included in the Final EIS.
VI-10
-------
Our interviews with marina operators contradict this comment:
They indicate that, while the law is on the books, the enforce-
ment is so lax as to constitute voluntary compliance. Accord-
ing to the operators, the only real enforcement derives from
the rules they themselves impose upon boats using their
facilities. It is obvious that at least part of the boating
community is openly skeptical at the State's effectiveness in
enforcing its rules against boat discharges.
Comment;
BOD removals expected to exceed 50 percent when the coarse
media filters are in operation.
Response:
Fifty percent BOD removal was used as typical for plants like
Laconia. Given the low actual flows compared to design flows,
a higher efficiency might be achieved, but 50 percent repre-
sents a conservative case for dissolved oxygen calculations.
Comment:
Suggestion that outfall be extended 3000-7000 feet downstream
is not warranted.
Response:
NEPA and EPA regulations require that all reasonable alter-
natives be evaluated (though not necessarily recommended) in
the EIS. A downstream trout habitat and the presence of a
backwater area near the discharge point provide ample reason
for examining alternative discharge locations.
7. LAKES REGION. PLANNING COMMISSION
Comment;
The consultant applies figures for apparent failure in septic
systems, as received from Gilford Town Engineer, Joe April
(pg. 1-13), to the entire region using Table 1-5. The data
in that Table is utilized to justify failure rates at, or
above the Gilford experience.
Response:
Most of the populated areas of Gilford—where the septic
tanks are actually located—have "fair" to "good" soil suit-
ability for leaching fields. A large percentage of Gilford
is mountainous and rated "poor" for septic tanks, but the
septic tanks are generally not located in these areas.
VI-11
-------
It can thus be presumed that septic tank leaching fields in
Gilford were sited and constructed according to the same design
standards prevailing throughout the region regarding permeabi 1. 1 t.Y ,
depth to bedrock, etc. Lacking better data, it is reasonable to
assume failure rates of similarly designed ayHi.un.s rt.ru
some.
It would have been useful to know the failure rates for each com-
munity, but such records do not exist. Given a choice between
applying the Gilford failure rate or drawing no conclusions, it
is not "questionable" to use the Gilford data.
Comment;
Belmont is not sewered.
Response;
Belmont is sewered, with a 1970 served population of 890. The
raw sewage outfalls to the Tioga River can be seen from the road
as one enters the town.
Comment ;
"Oversizing of pipes is indicated as being 'insurance' for the
future of the Peripheral Area. How is this insurance going to be
maintained over 10, 20, 50 years?"
Response ;
At present, a sewer allocation program does not exist which re-
serves a specific amount of treatment capacity for individual com-
munities in the Primary and Pheripheral Areas. To assure that the
proposed project provide insurance against water quality degrada-
tion in the Pheripheral Area, it is recommended that these communi-
ties and the State (NHWSPCC) cooperatively work together in de-
veloping a plan of action.
Comment;
Why a public disclosure statement?
Response:
The anticipated project schedule shows that most interceptors will
begin construction in April or May and proceed through the summer.
Property owners will, of course, be reimbursed for easements,
but they are not precluded from renting the property during con-
struction.
Therefore, it is possible that a visitor may choose a rental
cottage in the early spring, only to find construction underway
in the front yard when he arrives to occupy the cottage
VI-12
-------
in the summer. To help prevent such unscrupulous rental
practices, a disclosure statement should be required ho
advise the renter of impending construction, since fow
visitors are expected to read this EIS.
This recommendation is made out of a concern for basic
fairness to visitors, and in the hope that by avoiding un-
fair practices in the first place, the Applicant and EPA
will not become parties to litigation.
Comment:
Is it likely that large sums of money will be spent within
the Region? Where do the contractors and suppliers do
business? Few, if any, purchase in the Region, therefore,
the entire "multiplier" effect is questionable.
Response;
The text was carefully qualified, which stated that,
"the relative magnitude of the multiplier effect
will be directly dependent upon the extent to which
money is recirculated within rather than outside the
Lakes Region." It is not the responsibility of the EIS to
provide the detailed economic analysis necessary to answer
the specific questions raised above. Rather, it is the
proper role of the Lakes Region Planning Commission, per-
haps in conjunction with the State, to conduct the research
and analysis necessary to adequately address these particulars
Furthermore, regardless of the proportion of total capital
investment which ultimately circulates within the Lakes
Region, the magnitude which is spent within the region is
likely to be sufficient to generate a regional economic im-
pact of considerable importance.
Comment:
This EIS in Appendix B (Draft) attempts to utilize the work of
Vollenweider and Dillon to come up with maximizing popula-
tion limits in the Basin. The data being utilized comes
from work undertaken as part of the National Eutrophication
Survey (NEW) and is rather loosely applied with some very
generalized (and hardly appropriate) assumptions. Utilized
in this manner, the discussion closely approximates the GI-GO
model.
It is the belief of the LRPC that this discussion is inappro-
priate; does not add anything of substantial value to the EIS;
is academic in manner of discussion; and will serve in the
VI-13
-------
long run to depreciate the value of more highly researched
and documented projects now underway in the Region by plac-
ing unsupported conclusions before the public.
Response;
EcolSciences does not concur with the opinion of the LRPC
concerning the utility of the Dillon/Vollenweider modeling
used in this report. As is discussed elsewhere (reply to
Dr. Widger), an error did in fact exist in the water budget
used in NES Working Paper 11. This error was easily corrected
and our discussion has been amended to reflect the change.
This, however, is a minor point relative to the total issue.
The fact of the matter is that no data superior to that
collected by EPA for inclusion in NES Working Paper 11 has
been generated to date, either by LRPC or anyone else. Hope-
fully, the proposed 208 Regional Plan will expand the existing
data base. Since such data is not currently available, how-
ever, much of the non-technical criticism of the EPA effort
seems inappropriate.
The purpose of Appendix B (Draft) was to indicate the potential
problems associated with non-point discharges, and to estimate
critical populations levels which should not be exceeded. It
was our goal to provide a starting point for future efforts
in planning for growth in the Basin. Certainly, the model
will be refined as more data becomes available, this is the
case with all research efforts. There would be little justi-
fication for ongoing research programs if the data generated
was not used to refine current data and improve initial con-
clusions. EcolSciences, is convinced that such a study is
fully justified since we have always recognized the prelimin-
ary nature of the data in NES Working Paper No. 11.
The only way this discussion can "depreciate" the future
studies by LRPC is if they are without merit in design or
implementation. The LRPC would be a better judge of this
than is EPA. Finally, the conclusions given in Appendix B
(draft) are not "unsupported", they are supported by the only
comprehensive tributary monitoring program undertaken to date
in the area, and utilize the best available analytical and
interpretive techniques.
Comment:
It is particularly distressing to note the lack of real under-
standing of the land use planning process in New Hampshire
embodied in this report. The extent of this lack of under-
standing is nowhere more clearly documented than on page 111-12,
paragraph 1.
VI-14
-------
Response:
EcolSciences' description of the state of land use planning
and growth management in the Study Area was directed to the
issue of the current ability of local and regional bodies
to protect present and future environmental quality. The
text of the EIS clearly documents that there are no local
or regional adopted comprehensive master plans in 1975.
The day-to-day decision-making process at the local govern-
ment level is not made in the context of a long-range planning
and financial programming framework, because they simply do
not exist. In their absence, planning represents a highly
fragmented and disjointed process of decision making.
The critical issue of this discussion centers not on how far
planning has advanced in recent years within the Study Area,
but how effectively have the municipalities coped with pro-
tecting the environment to date and how well prepared they are
to control future growth pressure. Based on extensive inter-
views with other planning officials and persons directly
associated with planning at all levels in New Hampshire, i.e.,
the director and members of the LRPC staff. Clean Waters
Association, director of planning in Laconia, and the State
Office of Comprehensive Planning, all evidence presented to
date, support the conclusions in this section of the EIS. Mr.
Flint is invited to document his opinions.
8. SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS
Comment:
The major decision to propose a secondary treatment process
(activated sludge) rather than a tertiary process (physical
chemical) receive very little notice in the draft. Since
this is a substantial reversal from earlier stages in the
planning, and since it represents a deterioration in the
quality of the effluent (at least in nutrient content), that
decision warrants a more thorough justification than it re-
ceives .
Response:
The activated sludge process is capable of meeting the
Franklin plant's effluent limits in the most cost-effective
manner. However, the point is well taken that tertiary
treatment may be needed now or in the future.
VI-15
-------
A major concern is whether it is less costly to build a physi-
cal chemical treatment initially or to add a tertiary process
to an activated sludge plant, and the EIS now addresses this
point. EcolSciences, inc. estimates that on the basis of
total annual costs, the two approaches would be nearly equal.
This construction of an activated sludge plant at Franklin
will not foreclose cost-effective tertiary treatment in the
future.
Comment:
The probable impacts of the effluent on the receiving waters
is not at all clear. With regard to the residual chlorine,
the reader is left to guess what assumptions underlie the
"worst possible" case (Table IV-6). What low flow regime
was used here? What is its frequency or probability of occur-
rence?
Response:
Section IV. A. 5, relating to residual chlorine discharges,
has been revised to clarify the assumptions, and a minor
error has been corrected for the Winnipesaukee River calcu-
lations .
Comment:
Another concern raised by the draft is the choice of a site
for the Franklin plant within flood hazard area. The draft
assures the reader that the plant must be protected from
waters of a 100-year flood, but gives no information about
the height of diking or elevation to accomplish this (11-68) .
Response;
The elevation of the 100-year flood is approximately 270 feet;
the exact elevation will need to be determined during final
design of the plant. Surface elevation at the Franklin site
is approximately 262 feet. Because of the hill north (up-
stream) of the plant, the plant will not be in the floodway
itself. Under these circumstances, a plant protected from
the 100-year flood can be located in the flood plain and con-
form to Federal regulations.
Comment:
An additional concern is the sludge disposal from the Franklin
plant. In this element of the proposal, the responsibility
for minimizing adverse effects seems to be shifted from the
sponsoring agency to the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control Commission.
VI-16
-------
Response;
The NHWSPCC has completed its report on sludge disposals;
this is included as Appendix A. EPA can review the proposed
plan and require changes, if necessary.
9. BIOSPHERIC CONSULTANTS
Comment;
The procedures of Dillon discussed here (Appendix C) require
an estimation of R, which Kirchner and Dillon (February 1975
Water Resources Research) first suggested could be done from
an empirical exponential equation, but later (December 1975 WRR)
revised to an equation of the form v/(v + qs). Widger and
Kimball (Commentary accepted for publication by WRR; Further
Commentary very recently submitted to WRR) have shown that
neither approach is adequate for the Lake Winnipesaukee regime
(q? = 2.5m yr"1) since (a) the absolute values of dR/dqs in
this range are extremely high, and (b) the actually observed
values in this range are widely scattered about either (or
any other reasonable) empirical or semi-empirical curve with
only 3s as an independent variable.
Further, the EPA NES Working Paper No. 11 (1974) presents
Winnipesaukee Basin flow values widely different, both as to
long-term means and the actual year of observation, from the
USGS Lakeport observations. It is not obvious what effects
these erroneous flows may have had on the nutrient concentra-
tion estimates in NES #11.
Response;
All criticism of the nutrient loading budget based on theoret-
ical methods of calculating R are irrelevant, since direct
field data was used. This fact could have been simply estab-
lished had the respondent contacted EcolSciences. However, in
the interest of clarity, correspondence between Dr. Aurand
(EcolSciences) and Dr. Dillon is presented in Appendix M.
In the second case, the discrepancy between the normalized
flows used by EPA and the long-term mean flows at the Lake-
port gaging station was extensively investigated. A review
of the data in EPA NES Working Paper No. 11 indicates that
there was an error in the water budget as presented in the
EPA report. Reviews of the problem have been conducted with
the staff of the USGA New England Field Office and the Special
Studies Branch of the EPA Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory.
VI-17
-------
Three factors appear to have contributed to the discrepancy
between the long-term mean flows at Lakeport and the nor-
malized flows given in the report. They are:
• Evaporation and precipitation on the lake surface
was not included in the water budget
• The area of the Lake was included in the immediate
drainage basin discharge calculations
• The mean annual areal flow figure used to estimate
stream discharge appears to have been high
The effect of each of these factors on the water budget pre-
sented in the report, and indirectly on the nutrient model,
is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
Lake Winnipesaukee has a surface of nearly 70 square miles,
and in NES Working Paper No. 11 direct rainfall and evapo-
ration on the Lake was ignored. This problem was compounded
by the fact that the Lake area was included in the immediate
drainage basin runoff calculations. A review of the summary
table presented in Appendix A of Work Paper No. 11 (Tributary
flow data) indicates that Tributary 3303ZZ "immediate drain-
age and minor tributaries" had an area of 184 square miles
of lake surface, to which the same areal discharge coefficient
was applied as was used for the other tributaries (1.76 cubic
feet per second per square mile (cfsm)). The corrected entry
for Tributary 3303ZZ would be 114.3 square miles and 201.2 CFS.
Evaporation and precipitation can be estimated for the lake
and are found to equate to 128 cfs and 209.4 cfs, respectively.
When these corrections are entered, the new predicted dis-
charge at Lakeport is 598 cfs. This is still above the long-
term discharge at Lakeport of 530 cfs (USGS, 1974). The
remaining discrepancy is related to the mean annual areal
discharge coefficient used in the flow estimations.
As was discussed in NES Working Paper No. 1 and in NES Work-
ing Paper No. 11, estimated flows were used on ungaged
streams. In the case of Lake Winnipesaukee, calculations
were based on flow records from two nearby gaging stations,
Cold Brook at South Tamworth, New Hampshire (USGS 01064800)
and Mohawk Brook near Center Stafford, New Hampshire (USGS
01072850). A mean annual areal discharge coefficient of 1.76
cfsm was calculated using the flow data from these two stations
This figure represents a weighted mean of the long-term
discharges at the two stations and was used to estimate
monthly discharges for the tributary streams. This is a
standard, and perfectly acceptable method of initial flow
estimation in ungaged streams. This value is higher than
VI-18
-------
that obtained using the Lakeport gage data, which is 1.53
cfsm, which is quite similar to the value obtained at the
Mohawk Brook gage (1.36 cfsm). The mean areal discharge
from the Cold Brook gage (2.34 cfsm) is considerably higher
suggesting that its use in the original calculations may
have been inappropriate. It appears that this is a better
estimate of streamflow into the lake than the 1.76 cfsm
used in Working Paper No. 11.
These corrections to the water budget have two effects on
the nutrient budget presented in Working Paper No. 11. First,
the decreased stream flows cause the nutrient contribution
from tributaries to be reduced proportionately, and secondly,
the mean hydraulic retention time increases from 4 years to
slightly over 5 years. If a further correction is applied
for the possible error in mean depth cited by the respondent,
then the mean hydraulic retention time is approximately
5.5 years. When these corrections are entered into the
Dillon model used by EPA, the critical loading rates for
oligotrophic and eutrophic conditions become 0.12 g/M^/yr
and 0.24 g/M^/yr, respectively. A similar decrease occurs
for the Vollenweider model. At the same time, current non-
point loading is decreased from 27,150 Ibs P/yr to approxi-
mately 25,000 Ibs P/yr. These changes, when entered into
calculations given in Appendix C change the population
necessary to exceed the oligotrophic phosphorus loading ratio
from non-point sources from 59,000 to 54,000 persons. The
population necessary to exceed the eutrophic rate changes
from 174,000 to 159,000. All of these changes have been
entered into Appendix C. Correspondence relating to this
problem is included for review.
As was discussed at the public hearing, and stated in the
EIS, EPA views this section as a preliminary discussion
of the problem of non-point pollution in the Basin. We
do not agree that it is inappropriate at this time,
since no better data appears likely for at least two
years. EPA certainly hopes that future projects will refine
the discussion presented here, in order to assure protec-
tion of the lakes. At the same time, EPA feels strongly
that the goal of presenting the best currently available data
for public scrutiny requires that these data be included.
Non-point nutrient loadings are a critical issue in the future
of Lake Winnipesaukee, and need to be addressed. The public
will not be well-served by ignoring the problem when more
data is collected, rather the conclusions presented here
should be refined and modified as more data becomes available.
VI-19
-------
10. MR. ARTHUR C. UNSWORTH
Comment:
Perhaps the invasion of Lake Winnipesaukee in Greens Basin,
Smith Cove and Alton Bay since 1970 by Water Milfoil
(myriophyllum Hterophyllum) should be mentioned in the EIS.
Response:
As suggested, Dr. Allen Baker of the University of New Hamp-
shire was contacted concerning the problem of water milfoil
in Lake Winnipesaukee. Dr. Baker has provided EcolSciences
with data, a summary of which has been inserted into the
report. It should be pointed out, however, that the problems
of milfoil growth, while locally important, are not critical
for the lake as a whole. EcolSciences at this time concurs
that the problem is of sufficient magnitude to warrant in-
clusion in the EIS.
11. MR. KENNETH D. KIMBALL
Comment:
The report makes little attempt to explain data discrepancies
in the trophic status of Lake Winnipesaukee. It bases its
conclusions and modeling on the questionable EPA (1974) data
which contains serious errors (e.g., the EPA mean outlet
flow used in nutrient calculations is calculated as 644.4 cfs,
but ignores the fact that USGS has a continuous flow meter at
this outlet and the actual recorded value is significantly
lower). Secondly, the EIS leads to the basic conclusions
that Lake Winnipesaukee is still quite pristine (i.e., p. 11-32,
paragraph 3; p. IV-28, paragraph 2; p. B-3, paragraph 2; etc.).
This assumption is based only on the EPA chemical data. Dis-
crepancies arise in the biological data. As the EIS mentions,
Yeo and Mathieson found the lake dominated by eutrophic
myxophycean phytoplankton. In late July 1975, moderate algal
blooms covered the northern end of Meredith Bay. The report
cites a lack of data on rooted aquatic plants (p. 11-47,
paragraph 2; p. 11-48, paragraph 1). The University of New
Hampshire's Botany Department has an active research program
investigating the problem aquatic week, milfoil. This aquatic
week problem is extensive and portions of Lake Winnipesaukee
are not being sprayed with chemical herbicides to eliminate
its growth.
VI-20
-------
This brings up a second proMem, the nillon nutrient modol i nq
approach used by the consultant. The Dillon model may bo
preferred foi its simplicity, but it has questionable appl.i-
cation to Lak<. Vinnipesaukee. First the model is extremely
sensitive to the area! water Joad (qg). The model's error
increases sign!leantly in lakes with a low qs, the case of
Lake Winnipesaukee. Dr. Widger and I have a paper in press
on this subject (Water Resources Research) and Dillon is in
agreement with our critique. Secondly, the model is insensi-
tive to nutrient capture and storage by aquatic weeds, a
situation occurring in Lake Winnipesaukee. The model assumes
that the total phosphorus test (which digests and measures
the phosphorus in phytoplankton) is an accurate representa-
tion of phosphorus levels in the lake. This assumption is
true in lakes with sparse rooted aquatic plants. However,
rooted aquatic plants effectively "filter out" nutrients,
which are then not measured in the water quality samples.
These nutrients accelerate the aquatic weed growth, and
create what is commonly known as an eutrophication problem.
Because the nutrients are being used by the aquatic weeds,
they are not available to be measured in the water samples.
Response:
The respondents criticism of EPA NES Working Paper No. 11
and of Appendix C of this report on the basis of discrepan-
cies in flow data and the calculation of R (phosphorus re-
tention coefficient) are essentailly those of Dr. Widger,
and have been dealt with elsewhere (reply to Dr. Widger).
Criticism of the use of the Dillon model due to extensive
growths of rooted aquatic plants in Lake Winnipesaukee
appear to be unsupported. The respondent implies that
large portions of the Lake are involved in such growths,
which does not appear to be the case. Dr. Allen Baker of
the University of New Hampshire indicates that while there
are several active sites of aquatic milfoil growth in the
Lake, it is not a problem in the Lake as a whole. Further,
there is currently no apparent correlation between areas of
milfoil growth and point source phosphorus loads. It would
have been instructive if the respondent had included these
facts in his discussion.
The respondent indicates, correctly, that Yeo and Mathieson
found myxophycean phytoplankton to dominate all of their
samples, but does not point out that their samples were
primarily inshore stations, not open lake stations, and
many were in areas known to have localized problems. This
issue was discussed in the EIS.
VI-21
-------
Further, the respondent cites that moderate algal blooms
in the northern end of Meredith Bay as evidence for tho
eutrophic condition of the Lake. Meredith Bay represents
only a small fraction of the surface area of the Lake, and
receives the single largest point discharge currently
entering the Lake at its northern end. Obviously conditions
in this area are not typical of the Lake as a whole.
It is the conclusion of the respondent that "the lake is
already suffering from a eutrophication problem." Ecol-
Sciences suggests that a more appropriate description of the
facts, including those presented by the respondent, is that
Lake Winnipesaukee is an oligotrphic lake, with localized
areas of eutrophy, primarily located in restricted bays and
associated in many cases with point source nutrient discharges.
This is in fact, the description we present in the EIS.
12. MR. N. ROBERT ARTHUR
Comment:
Also, the ambient air quality section, I think, should contain
some mention of the high photochemical oxidant concentrations
that are measured in adjoining areas. These concentrations
are not yet classed as serious problems, but this may be in
part because we are uncertain of their origin. It would seem
advisable to include mention of photochemical oxidants in the
environmental description so that everyone is aware of a
potential problem that could become serious if it is aggra-
vated by additional vehicular traffic.
Response;
The description of photochemical oxidant concentration was not
included in the EIS because no measured data is available for
the Study Area. Furthermore, the problem is compounded because
their concentrations are regional in nature due primarily to
transport. The reference to "adjoining areas" is unclear since
the nearest Ox readings are from Manchester and Nashua, some
45 miles distance from the Study Area. It is noted that the
photochemical oxidant standard was violated several times in
1974 at the three monitoring stations in New Hampshire. Be-
cause of the unique properties of photochemical oxidant con-
centrations, it is uncertain what the situation is in the
Franklin-Laconia area; however, this is another element the
State should review over time.
VI-22
-------
Comment:
The calculational model employed to project general overall-
air quality computes average yearly meteorological para-
meters and uses average area-wide emission factors, including
emissions from the non-existant incinerator, to conclude that
average ground level concentrations of particulates and
sulfur dioxide are well within allowable limits, a result
that might have been predicted, I think, with a much simpler
model and with comparable accuracy.
Response:
Based on the data available, it is believed that CDM is the
best analytical tool for analyzing regional TSP and sulfur
dioxide concentrations.
The simpler models usually have more built-in assumptions
and application limitations. For example, the roll-forward
technique largely depends on the existing air quality monitor-
ing data. Thus, it can be used to estimate future concentra-
tions only at the existing air quality sampling sites. Since
the sampling data in the Study Area is very limited, this
technique was not used. The other simple model—Miller-Holzworth
equation—was not applied as this model does not take into
consideration the geographical distribution of pollutant sources
and is very sensitive to the size of the study area used.
Comment:
Rather than averages, I believe maximum concentrations based
on worst case conditions are considerably more indicative of
potential air pollution problems. I would suggest, for
example, that possible increases in photochemical oxidant
and carbon monoxide concentrations be calculated assuming
worst possible meteorological conditions and maximum traffic
volumes. Maximum concentrations could then be calculated
for sensitive receptors like downtown Laconia.
Response:
The air quality impact analyses presented in the Final Draft
EIS are based on the "worst case" conditions.
According to EPA's guidelines, the CO concentration and HC
burden (photochemical oxidants) analyses are necessary for
Transportation Control Plan areas only. Since no transpor-
tation control strategy is required for the Study Area, no
CO or HC impacts were analyzed.
VI-23
-------
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.
Baker, A. L. 1975. Aquatic Macrophytes as Indicators of Nutrient
Sources in Lakes and As A Controlling Pool of Phosphorus
Within the Aquatic Ecosystem.Annual Report to the Water
Resources Center,University of New Hampshire, Durham. 4 p.
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. Center Harbor Historical Society. Personal
Communication, 1975.
Billings, M. P. The Geology of New Hampshire, Part II - Bedrock
Geology. New Hampshire Department otResources 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).Eutrophication: 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. Center Harbor, New Hampshire
1971 Comprehensive Plan. 1971.
R-l
-------
Dillon, P. J. .'he Phosphorus Budget of Cameron Lake, Ontario:
The importance of Flushing Rate to the Degree of Eutrophy
of Lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 20, lb»75, p. 28-39. ~~
Dunt-l , R. C. , Born, S. M. , Uttormark, P. D., Smith, S. A.,
Nichols, S. A., Peterson, J. O., 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, Workinq 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.
Foadriat, 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. 21-40. 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. The
Geology of New Hampshire Part 1 - Surficial Geology.
New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic
Development, Concord, NH, 1969.
Goldthwait, R. P. Surficial Geology of the Wolfeboro-Winnipe-
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, Laconia,
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. Economic Profile 1975.
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.
Mciqu.i.re, C. hi. fc Associates, Inc. !.in_3i_n St_udy on Wat .01 gua I i t y
R-tyor nafiln, Prov i»l«»m.-f , in,
- . _
T'9~22. ............. "
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. 1975.
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.
S.iwyor , C. N. l-Vrl I J.l/nt U.m o f UikoH hy AIJ i Irullm.-il ninl lii
ijo. Now Kng Canil WaLcr Work;: AMMOI-. I'll : 1 (")'> 1 .'7 ,
SEA, Consultants, Inc. "Environmental Assessment, Winnipesaukee
River Basin Pollution Abatement 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,
1973. 92 p.
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 Project. Executive 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: Winnipesaukee 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,
1975.
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.
Yeo, H. W. and Mathieson, A. C. Phytoplankton populations in
relation to different trophic 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
Hypolimnion
Metalimnion
Epilimnion
Eutrophic
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Allochthonous
Arithochthonous
Lake with spring and fall turnovers (temporaU>
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
PROPOSED SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FRANKLIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
-------
PROPOSED SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FRANKLIN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN PROGRAM
The Winnipesaukee River Basin Program consists of collection,
transmission, and treatment of all sewage and industrial wastes
from eight communities within the Basin. The Franklin Treatment Plant
is being designed as a secondary treatment plant with discharge to
the Merrimack River. The purpose of this report is to identify the
method of ultimate disposal of the sludge which will «be generated during
the treatment process.
It is intended that sludge from this secondary plant will be
anaerobically digested and then concentrated through the use of the
filter press. It is anticipated that the sludge cake discharge from
this press will have a solids content in the order of 45%. It is
estimated that during the first ten years of operation, the average
volume of sludge will be approximately 250 cubic feet per day, based
upon the anticipated 45% solids content.
A number of alternatives for ultimate sludge disposal have
been examined. These four alternate methods consist of:
1. Incineration
2. Soil Enrichment.
3. A landfill operation combined with solid waste, and,
4. A separate landfill facility adjacent to the proposed
treatment plant.
A-l
-------
Because of the high cost of fuel and possible adverse effects
on air quality, together with the high cost of construction,
incineration of ultimate disposal has been dropped from further
consideration.
While the soil enrichment method offers a viable alternative
to other methods, it is our opinion that further evaluation of sludge
which will be developed, is needed. We have examined and analyzed
the chemically-treated sludge from the Laconia Treatment Plant and
find it to be of acceptable quality for use in this method of disposal.
However, the sludge being generated at the Laconia Treatment Plant does
not represent the ultimate sludge which will result from the Franklin
operation. Until such time as the Franklin Plant is on line and firm
analyses of the sludge are available, this method of disposal will not
be proposed. When all sludge characteristics are available, this method
of disposal will be re-examined and if at all possible, this method of
disposal will be instituted. It is our intention to make full use of
this valuable resource if possible.
A third method, that of combining the sludge with solid waste
from the City of Franklin, has also been examined. This method of
disposal would involve two separate agencies and would result in higher
transportation costs than would be realized by the recommended method
of separate land disposal.
The proposed method of sludge disposal is spreading and covering
of the sludge in an area adjacent to the Treatment Plant. Except for
A-2
-------
the soil enrichment method, this offers the least expensive method
of disposal. It has the further advantage of being confined to the
Treatment Plant site and does not require trucking over the local
residential streets.
A laboratory analysis of the sludge from the presently operating
Laconia Treatment Plant has been undertaken. These results are shown
in Table 1. As you will note, while some of the total metals show a
relatively high concentration, the soluble portion of the constituents
is very low. A comparison of our most recent analyses with that reported
by Dr. Robert D. Harter, shows a substantially lower concentration
level of metals tested. It is our opinion that with the low solubility
of these metals, our proposed method of disposal will not result in
adverse groundwater conditions. A review of the findings reported by
Dr. Harter indicate his analyses were performed on a single grab
sample of digested sludge from the old Laconia Plant. The sludge at
that time would have reflected conditions preceeding a program of
pre-treatment of industrial wastes within the City. For these reasons,
we are of the opinion that his results, while perhaps valid at that
time, no longer represent the current condition of the sludge being
generated.
Table 2 sets forth the design criteria for sludge disposal. It
is proposed that a series of trenches measuring approximately 12' wide x 99'
long be developed. The bottom elevation would approximate existing
elevations in the area of 262.0. The sludge, after digestion and filter
pressing, would be deposited in 6" lifts. After this 6" layer of sludge
A-3
-------
has been deposited, a 6" layer of cover material will be added
daily. These alternating levels will be repeated until a deptli of
approximately 3' has been achieved. At that time an adjoining cell
of the same dimensions will be constructed. It is estimated that a
single 31 lift over a 5-acre plot will last approximately 2 years. At
the end of that 2-year period, additional lifts will be constructed,
including two feet of final cover, to bring the area up to an elevation
of 274 (100-year flood level). Through this method, an effective life
of the 5-acre plot would be approximately 10 years. In the event that
ultimate evaluation indicates that the idea of soil enrichment is not
feasible, additional acreage would be developed, as outlined above
for the 5 acres. The City of Franklin has under ownership approximately
220 acres in the Treatment Plant area. The City has indicated that
they will deed to the State as much of this area as the State will
need for the original Treatment Plant, together with any necessary future
expansion, and adequate land for sludge disposal.
It is proposed that any surface run-off be diverted around the
disposal area. A review of all sub-surface investigations taken in the
area indicates a slope of groundwater from the highland toward the River.
To insure that a minimum of 4' is maintained between high groundwater
and the bottom of the sludge cells, it is proposed that an intercepting
drain be provided at the high groundwater side of the property. We
anticipate that by lowering the groundwater at this point, that the
groundwater beneath the disposal area will always be maintained at a
minimum of 4'. The groundwater so intercepted will, in our opinion,
not receive any drainage from the sludge. The collected groundwater
A-4
-------
will be discharged by pipe through the Treatment Plant site to the River.
The water quality of this collected groundwater will be monitored so
that any change in v/ater quality can be determined. If the collected
groundwater indicates the presence of undesirable levels of metals,
we will treat this water as we would any waste entering the Plant.
In addition to monitoring the collected groundwater, a minimum of
two test wells will be installed between the sludge disposal site and
the River to determine any effects on groundwater generally.
Access to the site will be limited to operating personnel.
There will be only one access road to the disposal site and that will
be through the Treatment Plant. The closest private well is located
some 1,500' to the west of the site and is approximately 300' higher
in elevation than the sludge area. Because of the configuration of the
land, it is doubtful that any private dwelling would encroach closer
than the closest existing house, that being 1,500'.
Grease, scum, grit, and screenings will be handled separately
and buried separately adjacent to the Treatment Plant. It is
estimated that during the first 10 years of operation that about
40 cubic feet/day of this material will be collected and buried.
A plan indicating general lay-out and essential details of the
proposed sludge disposal facility are shown on the attached plan.
A-5
-------
TABLE 1
LACONIA TREATMENT PLANT
ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE
All Values in Parts Per Million
Silver Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Nickel Lead JJm
Jetals 15 3.5 15 5.5 2.5 85 15
Soluble ,. , ,n
Metals <2 0.5 <5 <3 <10 <1 <10
A-6
-------
TABLE 2
FRANKLIN WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
DESIGN CRITERIA
Proposed Treatment: Primary Sedimentation Activated Sludge
Proposed Sludge Process: Anaerobic Digestion
Design Period - Land Disposal: 10 Years
Design Flow - Average Over 10-Year Period = 6.75 MGD
Estimated Solids Production: 1,560#/MGD
Total Sludge to Digester = 1,560x6.75 = 10,5300 Dry Solids/Day
Total Sludge Reduction (Digestion) = 25%
Total Digested Sludge = 8,000? Dry Solids/Day
Digested Sludge Concentration = 5% Solids
Filter Press Cake Concentration = 45% Solids
Volume Filter Cake @ 45% Solids = 250cf/day
Trench Dimensions: 12' Wide x 99' Long
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
The January 1, 1970 "Recommended Use Classifications and
Water Quality Standards" reproduced in Table B-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
B-l.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
RECOMMENDED USE CLASSIFICATIONS '
AND
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
AS OF JANUARY I. 1970
BASED ON CHAPTER 149 REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED 2
NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY AND POLIUTI ON CONTROL COMMISSION
Dissolved Oxygen
Col 1 form Bacteria
per 100 ml
pH
Substances
potentially toxic
Sludge deposits
01 1 and Grease
Color
Turbidity
SI fck. 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 75t 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
value) .
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 comblnat ions .
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
NHFSGO, NEIWPCC, or
NTAC-OI -- whichever
provides most effective
control . *
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 combinations.
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-OI -- whichever
provides most effective
cont ro 1 . •*
Class D
Aesthetlcal ly
acceptable. Suitable
for certain Industrial
purposes, power and
navigation. (Lowest
allowable quality now
less than 1/2 ml le In
ent 1 re state) .
Not less than 2 p. p.m.
Not specified
Not specified
Not in toxic
concentrations or
comb i nal i ons .
Not objectionable
kl nds or amounts.
Not of unreasonable
kind, quant i ty or
durat ion .
Not of unreasonable
ki nd, quant i ty or
duration.
Not of unreasonable
k i nd , quant 1 1 y or
durat Ion.
Not of unreasonable
k i nd , quant 1 1 y or
durat Ion.
Shol 1 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 U9 RSA.
3 NHF&GD • New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
NEIWPCC ' New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
NTAC-OI - National Technical Advisory Committee, Department of the Interior
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2
COLIFORM STANDARDS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE STREAM CLASSICATIONS
(NHWSFCC, 1975)
to
i
OJ
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. )
No Limit
Fecal Foliform Bacteria
Count Per 100 ml
(1) No known man
produced pollution
(2) Known man produced
pollution
<2
(N.A.
<200
(N.A.) (N.A.) (N.A.)
(N.A.)
(N.A.)
No Limit
(N.A.)
(N.A.)
No Limit
-------
APPENDIX C
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.
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
C-l
-------
available) food. At higher levels, floral chmujt'st will Ir.id l<>
changes in the zooplankton. Many zooplanktors arc sonsilivr
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
senesance of lakes caused by man's activities. This is typically
a phenomena of the developed countries, ana is related to the
intensity of technological activities in the watershed. Exten-
sive research has indicated that the primary cause of cultural
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 primarily in oligotrophic
systems .
In order to correct cultural eutrophication under most cir-
cumstances, 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.
Sawyer (1947) suggested that concentrations at spring turnover
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. It involves the identification 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 loading rates
for lakes known to be eutrophic with others where no problems
were known to exist. On this basis, Vollenweider (1971) pro-
duced estimates of nutrient loading rates which could be sus-
tained 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 accordingly.
Dillon (1975) reviewed the available literature and concluded
that when a lake is in steady-state equilibrium the loading rate
and the total phosphorus concentration area related by the equation:
(z) P
where (P) = total phosphorus concentration (g/M3)
C-2
-------
L = loading rate
R = retention coefficient
z = mean depth (M)
and P = flushing rate (year -1)
Using this formulation (or that of Vollenweider, 1975) and
the work of Sawyer (1947) , 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 relation-
ship of phosphorus loading 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. This
discussion is based on the calculations of Dillon (1975) and
Vollenweider (1975). Once an estimation of the critical 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 calculations based on theoret-
ical land use, rather than actual measured values, introduce
uncertainty 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, municipal discharges,
septic tank seepage and rainfall). The goal of this study was
the identification and quantification of significant nutrient
sources for the lake, but it can also serve as the basis for a
preliminary evaluation of the effects of land use changes on the
lake.
C-3
-------
In order to facilitate this analysis, the following assump-
tions were made:
• All the data presented in the modified 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
formulation of Dillon (1975). The results of this analysis
show that the critical loading rate based on the work of Dillon
(1975) is slightly lower than that used by EPA. In order to
insure a conservative estimate of the future of the Lake, these
values were used in the remaining calculations (Table C-l).
TABLE C-l
"Permissible" and "Dangerous" Phosphorus Loading Rates
(Per Unit Area of Lake Surface)
For Lake Winnipesaukee
Oligotrophic Eutrophic
(Permissible) g/M2/yr (Dangerous)
Dillon, 1975 0.12 0.24
EPA (1974) calculated that the current phosphorus loading
rate for the Lake is below the permissible loading rate. Re-
moval of all current point source discharges, as is now antici-
pated, reduces this significantly, but does not include removal
of septic tank seepage from the Alton area, which will occur when
a treatment facility is constructed. This indicates that, given
*As is discussed in the correspondence section, the water budget used
in this paper has been found to be in error, for a detailed discussion see
the reply to Dr. Widger's comments. Appropriate corrections have been
applied to all calculations in this section.
C-4
-------
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 disturbanros,
since the assumption of complete homogeneity in the Lake j r> an
obvious, but necessary, over-simplificication.
Increased future development will effect the overall quality
of the Lake. In order to evaluate the magnitude of the effect,
further calcualtions were made. The current total phosphorus
load to Lake Winnipesaukee from all sources is 47,074 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 25,014 Ibs. P/yr for the entire basin. In
order to exceed the oligotrophic rate of 0.13 gp/M2/yr a total
input of 51,210 Ibs. p/yr is needed. This represents an in-
crease (after point-source removal) of 26,196 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 pro-
jected 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 18,000 homes would provide the
necessary phosphorus to exceed the oligotrophic loading r;iLo.
Using a figure of three persons per dwelling unit, this corre-
sponds to a basin-wide population increase of approximately 54,000
persons. Using a similar procedure, it would require 53,000
homes or an additional 160,000 population to exceed the eutrophic
loading rate. If development were allowed to proceed without
sewers, the calculations would not accurately reflect the contri-
bution per unit.
These calculations suggest that the critical population level
in the basin lies somewhere between 50 and 150 thousand persons.
This does not preclude the development of localized problems
within the lake, since many of its embayments have only restricted
interchange with the main body of the lake. At the present time
most of these problems appear associated with point sources, but
intense urban development near the lake could also produce
problems in restricted areas. Populations estimates available
to EcolSciences, inc. indicate that the population calculated
here will not be exceeded by the year 2000. It appears, there-
fore, that the Lake's water quality will not be impaired by the
anticipated future development in the basin, provided it occurs
on sewers or low densities.
C-5
-------
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 significant
short-term nutrient source and should be controlled. In addi-
tion, careful siting of development is required to prevent
continuing erosion problems.
Lake Winnisquam
A phosphorus budget for Lake Winnisquam has been developed
by the NHWSPPC (1975). Using the techniques given in Vollen-
weider (1975), NHWSPCC calculated oligotrophic and eutrophic
loading rates of 0.44 and 0.87 g/m2/yr, 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
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/M /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.
C-6
-------
Discussion
In any attempt; ot this type of rondo Unrj It itt e.Hm-Mil I n I i..
k.oop in mind the limitations of the data. Throughout t lif 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 well 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 problom.
TABLE C-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,
et al.(1974)
Uttormark,
et al.(1974)
Location
Cincinnati
Ann Arbor
Durham
Madison
"high" urban
"low" urban
Remarks
Storm water
runoff
Theoretical
values
Theoretical
values
C-7
-------
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 .
C-8
-------
APPENDIX D
Summary of Biological and Physical
Data on Major Lakes and Ponds in
the Study Area.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-l
A SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA ON MAJOR LAKES AND PONDS IN THE STUDY AREA
Name
Badger Pond
Batson Pond
Bear Pond
Bear Pond
Berry Pond
Caw ley Pond
Clough Pond
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth Algae and Rooted
Town Area (acres) (ft) (ft) Aquatic Vegetation
Belmont 12 10 15 Scant submerged
vegetation
Wolfeboro 15
Alton 13 8 15 Submerged vege-
tation present.
Center Harbor 13 18 34 Emergent vege-
tation common.
Moultonboro 47
Sanbornton 25 ~ 15 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
abundant.
Belmont 11 14 18 Emergent vegeta-
tion scant, sub-
Fish Species Present
Hornpout
Hornpout, pickerel,
yellow perch, (warm
water species) .
Hornpout, chain pickerel
yellow perch, large-
mouth bass (warm water
species) .
Chain pickerel, hornpout,
yellow perch.
(warm water species)
chain pickerel, hornpout,
yellow perch.
Hornpout, chain pickerel,
yellow perch.
Hornpout, redfish shiners,
sunfish.
Remarks
An old mill pond, drained
dry periodically.
Shallow, swampy pond.
Shallow, warm pond. Stocked
once with brown trout (1945) .
Low dissolved oxygen in
deep water makes it un-
suitable for salmon ids.
Suitable for warm water fish
only.
Brook trout reported by
Hoover, 1938. Spring fed
References
Hoover,
Newell,
Hoover,
Hoover,
Newell,
Newell,
Hoover,
Hoover,
Newell,
Newell,
Hoover ,
1938,
1963.
1938.
1938,
1963.
1963.
193S
1938,
1963.
1963,
1938.
Crescent Lake
merged vegetation por.d.
common.
Wolfeboro 148
Submerged vegeta- Pickerel, hornpout,
tion coxmon. smallmouth bass, yellow
perch.
Artificial pond, warm water. Hoover, 1938.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-l. Continued.
Name
Garland Pond
Giles Pond
Gillman Pond
Ha If moon Lake
Hawkins Pond
Hermit LaXe
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth Algae and Rooted
Town Area(acres) (ft) (ft) Aquatic Vegetation
Moultonboro 80 — 10
Franklin 43 6 23 Rooted aquatics
Sanbornton scant.
Alton 32 9 14 Submergent vege-
tation abundant.
Alton 280 — 29 Emergent vegeta-
tion commor.,
submerged vege-
tation scant.
Center Harbor 93 -- 27 Emergent vegeta-
tion common,
submerged vege-
tation common.
Sanbornton 200 — 50 Emergent vegeta-
tion abundant,
submerged vege-
Fish Soecies 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.
pickerel, yellow perch,
Refere.-.res
Kccver, 1525.
Hoover, 1525.
Hocver, 152c,
Sevell, 1563
Sevell, 1963.
Hocver, 152S,
Keveli, 1563.
Newell, 1563,
Hoover, 1525.
Hills Pond
Alton
tation common.
85 17 40 Emergent and
submerged vegeta-
tion common.
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.
Sevell, 15£3.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-l. Continued.
D
I
U)
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth Algae and Rooted
Name Town Area(acres) (ft) (ft) Aquatic Vegetation
Hunk ins Pond Sanbornton IS
Kanataska LaXe Moultonboro 371
Knights Pond Alton 31
Knowles Pond Northfield 59
Lees Pond Moultonboro 179
Lily Pond Gilford 51
16 22 Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
common .
— __ _
9 12 Submerged vege-
tation common.
Emergent and
submergent vege-
tation scant.
Emergent vegeta-
tion abundant.
5 • — Emergent vegeta-
tion abondant,
submerged vege-
tation abundant.
Fish Species Present
Brook trout, rainbow trout
Hornpout, pickerel, white
perch, yellow perch,
smallmouth bass.
Warm water fish, hornpout,
pickerel, yellow perch,
largemouth bass.
Smallmouth bass, hornpout,
pickerel, yellow perch.
Pickerel, bass, yellow
perch, hornpout.
Pickerel, yellow perch,
hornpout, largemouth
bass.
Remarks
Salmonids have been stocked
(around turn of century)
without success.
Well oxygenated hypo-
limnion. Reservoir - closed
to fishing. Salmonid water.
Marshy, very low D.O. in
hypolimnion.
Marshy, trout stocked in
1930s - did not last.
Warm water fish.
References
Newell, 1963.
Hoover, 1938.
Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963.
Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963.
Hoover, 1938.
Hoover, 1938.
Mirror Lake
Mountain Pond
Tuftonboro ' 377
Wolfeboro
Sanbornton 22
404
Pickerel, yellow perch,
hornpout, white perch,
brook trout, Chinook ^
salmon, landlocked salmon,) stocked
smallmouth bass. J
Low D.O. below 20 feet.
53
Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
common.
Chain pickerel, hornpout,
yellow perch.
Water supply reservoir -
salmonid water,none stocked
since it is a reservoir.
Hoover, 1938.
Hoover, 1938.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-l. Continued.
C
I
Otter Por.d
Pemigewasset
Lake
Pickerel Pond
Pout Pond
Randlett Pond
Round Pond
•Center
Harbor
Meredith
New Hampton
Laconia
Meredith
Belmont
Meredith
Gilford
Surface Depth
Area (acres) (ft)
427
12 10
241
75
14 38
25
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 Species Present Remarks
Smallmouth bass, chain Zero D.O. in bottom 10 ft
pickerel^ falifish.
yellow perch, lake trout,
sajmon.
Chain pickerel, yellow Low D.O. in hypolimnion
perch, hornpout, falifish,
common sucker.
S.-nallmouth 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-
References
Hoover, 1938,
Sewell, 1962.
Newell,
Hoover,
Newell,
Hoover ,
Newell,
Newell,
Hoover,
Newell,
Hoover ,
Newell,
1963.
1938,
1963.
1933,
1963.
1963.
1933,
1963.
1938,
1963.
ently without success.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-l. Continued.
O
I
Nane
Rust Pond
Saltaiarsh
Pond
Sargent
Reservoir
Mean
Surface Depth
Town Area (acres) (ft)
Wolfeboro 210
Gilford 31
Belmont 30 7
Maximum
Depth
(ft)
39
23
10
Algae and Rooted
Aauatic Vegetation
Emergent vegeta-
tion scant, sub-
merged vegetation
common .
Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
scant.
Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
Fish Soecies Present Remarks
Pickerel, hornpout, small- Low D.O. near bottom.
mouth bass .
Brook trout, rainbow trout. High D.O. , spring-fed
Salmonid water.
Hornpout. Artificial - Mill Reser-
voir. ron«? idprahl** watpr
References
Hoover,
Hoover,
Newell.
Newell,
1938.
1928.
!Sc3.
1963.
Silver Lake
Bclrr.cr.t
Northfield
Tilton
11
Sondogardy Pond Northfield 41
Spectacle Pond Meredith
31
10
13
15
34
scant.
Emergent vegeta-
tion scant, sub-
merged vegetation
abundant.
Emergent vegeta-
tion common, sub-
merged vegetation
scant.
Chair, pickerel, yellow
perch, horr.pout, rainbow
trout, brook trout,
smallmouth b£ss, sunfish,
smelt, suckers.
Chain pickerel, yellow
perch, horr.pout, golden
shiner, sur.fish.
level fluctuation.
Expansion of Winnipesaukee Hoover, 1938,
River. Warm water fish Newell, 1S63
habitat.
Emergent vegeta- Horr.pout, chain pickerel,
tion common, sub- yellow perch, eels, sun-
merged vegetation fish.
scant.
Salmonid water.
Warm water fish habitat.
Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963.
Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-l. Continued.
Name
Squam Lake
Town
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth
Area(acres) (ft) (ft)
Center Harbor 6,765
Holderness
Moultonboro
Sandwich
36
98
D
I
cn
inset Lake Alton 206 25
Wakondah Pond Moultonboro 93
Waukewan Lake Meredith 665
New Hampton
Webster Lake FranXlin
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,
smelt, eastern common
sucker, fallfish, bridled
shiner, redfin shiner,
golden shiner, common
sunfish, redbreastad
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,
largest I'ake. Very pro- Newell,
ductive. Low D.O. in
some areas of hypolinr.ion.
Extensive stockir.g history.
1938,
1963.
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-
tion scant, sub-
merged vegetation
common.
Smallmouth bass, hornpout. Low D.O. in hypolir-iion.
yellow perch, golden Warm water fish habitat.
shiners, smelt, fallfish. Brook trout stockir.g
white perch, chain pickerel, attempted in 1930s, but
was a failure.
Newell, 1963.
Hoover, 1938.
Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963.
Hoover, 1938,
Newell, 1963.
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D-l. Continued.
Name
Wentworth Pond
Wickwas Lake
Lake
Winnipesaukee
D
I
Lake
Winnisquam
Town
Wolfeboro
Meredith
Mean Maximum
Surface Depth Depth
Area (acres) (ft) (ft)
148
326
25
Alton 44,586
Center Harbor
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Moultonboro
Tuftonboro
Wolfeboro
43
50
30
168
Belmont
Laconia
Meredith
Sanbornton •
Tilton
4,264
50
154
Algae and Rooted
Aquatic Vegetation
Emergent and sub-
merged vegetation
scant.
Fish Species Present
Hornpout, pickerel, small-
mcuth bass, whitefish,
yellow perch.
Emergent and sub- Hornpout, yellow perch,
merged vegetation 'chain pickerel.
Brook trout, hornpout,
lake trout, landlocked
salmon, pickerel, small-
mouth bass, whitefish,
yellow perch, sunfish,
smelt.
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.
Emergent and sub- Brook trout, lake trout,
mergent vegeta- landlocked salmon, smelt,
tion scant. Blue- whitefish, smallnouth bass,
green algae blooms yellow perch, fallfish,
excessive in many sunfish, hornpout, suckers,
areas of the lake, chain pickerel.
especially southern
Remarks References
Low D.O. in areas of Hoover, 1938.
hypolimnion. Trout
stocking attempted prior
to 1930 but unsuccessful.
Low D.O. in hypolinr.ion. Hoover, 1939,
Marginal salmonid water. Newell, 1963.
Salmonid water, very high Hoover, 1938,
dissolved oxygen. Exten- Newell, 1963,
sive sport fishery. Ex- EPA, 1974,
ter.sive data base on algae Yeo £ .".athie-
and nutrients. No data son, 1973.
on zooplankton. Local
problems with eutrophica-
tion in enclosed bays near
population centers, over-
all water quality good.
Salmonid water. Extensive NHWPCC, 1975
eutrophication problem
causing low dissolved
oxygen in hypolimnion
threatens the fishery.
Extensive data on algae
and nutrients.
NKWPCC, 1974
KHV.7CC, 1973
Newell, 1963
Hoover. 1938.
-------
APPENDIX E
FISH SPECIES
-------
TABLE E-l
CHECKLIST OF FISH SPECIES IN
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN
Sea Lamprey
Petronyzon marinus
American Eel
Anquilla rostrata
*Lake Whitefish
Coregonus clupeaformis
*Round Whitefish Tab
Prosopiwn cylindraceum
*Landlocked Salmon
Salmo salar
Brown Trout
Salmo trutta
Rainbow Trout
Salmo gairdeni
Brook Trout
Salvelinus fontinalis
*Lake Trout
Salvelinus namayoush
*Rainbow Smelt
Osmerus mordax
Chain Pickerel
Esox niger
Golden Shiner
Noterrrigonus crysoleucas
Common Shiner
Notropis oornutus
Blacknose Dace
Rhinichthys catratulus
Longnose Dace
Rhinichthys ataractae
Fallfish
'Semotilus oorporalis
White Sucker
Catostomus commersoni
Creek Chubsucker
Erimyson oblongus
Brown Bullhead
Ictalurus nebulosus
Margined Madtom
Noturus insignis
*Burbot
Lota lota
Killifish
Fundulus diaphanus
White Perch
Morone americana
*Preferred habitat is cold water lakes.
Smallmouth Bass
Micropterus dolornieui
Largemouth Bass
Micropterus salmoides
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
Redbreast Sunfish
Lepomis auritus
Yellow Perch
Perca flavescens
Slimy Sculpin
Cottus oognatus
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F
ALGAL SPECIES
-------
TABLE F-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
Polycystis incerta
Coelosphaeriwn naegelianum
Oscillatoria angustissima
Coelosphaeriwn pallidum
Gomj'hosphaeria Incustr-v'r;
Aphfinoaapsa fi lachi.'s La
Gomphosphaeria Luau:;Lrif; vu.r.
Aphonothece niduUimj
Gloeocystis vesiculosa
Botryococcus braunii
Actinastrum hantzschii var. fluviatile
Ulothr-ix variabilis
D-ictyosphaeriwn pulchellum
Botryococcus protuberans var. minor1
Crucigenia truncata
Chrysosphaerella longispina
Dinobryon divergens
Phizochrysis lirnnetica
Uroglenopsis americana
Dinobryon sertularia var. protuberans
Melosira ambigua
Tabellaria fenestrata
Asterionella formosa
Fragillaria crotonensis
Cyolotella comta
Dinobryon bavaricum
F-l
-------
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
Genera
Gloeotrichia.
Anabaena
Aphanizomenon
Ulothrix
Coelosphaeriim
Pleodorina
Sphaerocystis
Dictyosphaerium
Pandorina
Chrysophyta
Asbr.r-Lonella
Tab* • Ilaria
Mallomonas
Dinobryon
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G
COMMON TREES AND SHRUBS
-------
TABLE G-l
COMMON TREES AND SHRUBS
OF MERRIMACK, BELKNAP AND CARROLL COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE
American Yew
'I'axus canadansis
Balsam Fir
Abies balsamea
*Hemlock
Tsufja canadensis
Larch
Larix larcina
*White Pine
Pinus strobus
Red Pine
Pinus resinosa
Juniper
Juniperus communis
Red Cedar
Juniper-us 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
Myrica gale
Sweet Fern
Comptonia perigrina
Butternut
Juglans cinerea
Shagbark Hickory
Gary a ovata
American Hazelnut
Corylus americana
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Hop Hornbeam
Ostrya virginiana
Black Birch
Be tula lenta
*Yellow Birch
Betula lutea
*Gray Birch
Betula popul.ij'olia
*White Birch
Betula papyrifera
Alder
Alnus rugosa
Alder
Alnus serrulata
Beech
Fagus grandi folia
White Oak
Quercus alba
Chestnut Oak
Quercus prinus
*Red Oak
Quercus rubra
Scarlet Oak
Quercus coccinea
*Black Oak
Quercus velutina
Scrub Oak
Quercus ilicifolia
Slippery Elm
Ulmus rubra
American Elm
Ulmus americana
White Mulberry
Moms alba
Barberry
Berberis vulgaris
Moonseed
Menispermum canadensis
Sassafras
Sassafras albidum
Witch Hazel
Hammamelis virginiana
Meadow Sweet
Spiraea latafolia
Hardhack
Spirea tomentosa
Apple
Pyrus malus
Chokeberry
Pyrus floribunda
Mountain Ash
Sorbus americana
G-l
-------
Shadbush
Amelanchier spp.
Hawthorn
Crataegus spp.
Shrubby cinquefoil
Potentilla fruiticosa
Rose
Rosa spp.
Pin Cherry
Primus pensylvanica
Black Cherry
Prunus serotina
Choke Cherry
Primus virginiana .
Black Locust
Robinia pseudo-acacia
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
Rharmus cathartica
Virginia Creeper
Parthenocissus inserta
Fox Grape
Vitis labrusca
Wild Grape
Vitis riparia
Basswood
Tilia americana
Black Gum
Nyssa sylvatica
Red Osier Dogwood
Cornus stolonifera
Round-leaved Dogwood
Cornus rugosa
Swamp Dogwood
Cornus amomum
Alternate-leaved Dogwood
Cornus alternifolia
White Alder
Clethra alnifolia
Rhodora
Rhodora canadense
Sheep Laurel
Kalmia angustifolia
Huckleberry
Gaylussacia baccata
Blueberry
Vaccinium spp.
*White Ash
Fraxinus americanum
Black Ash
Fraxinus nigra
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
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
Sambucus canadensis
Red-berried Elder
Sambucus pubens
G-2
-------
APPENDIX H
MAMMALS, AMPHIBIANS, AND REPTILES
-------
TABLE H-l
A PARTIAL CHECK LIST OF THE MAMMALS
OF BELKNAP, MERRIMACK AND CARROLL COUNTIES
Hairy-tailed Mole
Parascalops breweri
Star-nosed Mole
Condylura cristata
Common Shrew
Sorex cinereus cinereus
Smoky Shrew
Sorex fumeus fwneus
White-lipped Water Shrew
Sorex palustris albibarbis
Short-tailed Shrew
Blarina brevicauda brevicauda
Little Brown Bat
Myotis lucifugus
Say's Bat
Myotis keenii septentrionalis
Silver-haired Bat
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus subflavus obsourus
Big Brown Bat
Eptesicus fuscus fuscus
Red Bat
Lasiurus borealis borealis
Bear, American Black
Evarctos americanus americanus
Raccoon, Eastern
Procyon lotor lotor
Fisher
Martes pennanti pennanti
Bonaparte's Weasel
Mustela cicognanii cicognanii
New York Weasel
Mustela frenata noveboraaensis
Northeastern Mink
Mustela vison
Otter, Northeastern
Lutra canadensis canadensis
Skunk
Mephitis mephitis nigra
Red Fox
Vulpes fulva
Bobcat
Lynx rufus rufus
New England Woodchuck
Marmota monax preblorum
Chipmunk, Northeastern
Tamias striatus lysteri
Southern Red Squirrel
Tamiasoirurus hudsonicus loquax
Northern Gray Squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis leuootis
Small Eastern Flying Squirrel
Glauaomys volans volans
Mearn's Flying Squirrel
Glaucomys sabrinus macrotis
Beaver, Canadian
Castor canadensis candensis
Muskrat, Common
Ondatra zibethioa zibethica
Northern White-footed Mouse
Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis
Cooper's Lemming Mouse
Synaptomys cooperi cooperi
Pallid Red-backed Mouse
Clethrionomys gapperi ochraceous
Field Mouse
Miarotus pennsylvanious pennsylvanicus
Northern Pine Mouse
Pity my s pinetorum pinetorum
House Mouse
Mus musculus musculus
Meadow Jumping Mouse
Zapus hudsonious hudsonicus
Woodland Jumping Mouse
Napaeozapus insignis insignis
Norway Rat
Rattus norvegicus
Porcupine, Canada
Erethizon dorsatum dorsatum
Virginia Varying Hare
Lepus americanus virginianus
New England Cottontail
Sylvilagus transitionalis
White-tailed Deer
Odocoileus virginianus borealis
H-l
-------
TABLE H-2
A PARTIAL CHECK LIST OF THE AMPHIBIANS
OF BELKNAP, MERRIMACK AND CARROLL COUNTIES
Rod- Spotted Newt
Tviturua v. viridescens
Spotted Salamander
Ambystoma maoulatwn
Red-Backed Salamander
Plethodon cinereus
Eastern Purple Salamander
Gyrinophilus porphyriticus porphyr-it-icus
Two-Lined Salamander
Eurycea bislineata bislineata
Dusky Salamander
Desmognathus fusous fuscus
American Toad
Bufo americanus
Fowler's Toad
Bufo fcwleri
Spring-Peeper
Hyla crucifer
Common Tree-Toad
Hyla versicolor versicolor
Bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana
Green Frog
Rana alamitans
Pickerel Frog
Rana palustris
Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens
Wood Frog
Rana sylvatica
H-2
-------
TABLE H-3
A PARTIAL CHECK LIST OF THE REPTILES
OF BELKNAP, MERRIMACK AND CARROLL COUNTIES
Eastern Ring-Necked Snnkc
Uiadophis punctatus edwarduii
Smooth Green Snake
Opheodrys vernalis
Black Racer
Coluber constrictor constrictor
House Snake, Spotted Adder
Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum
Banded Water Snake
Natrix sipedon sipedon
De Kay's Snake
Storeria dekayi
Red-Bellied Snake
Storeria occipito-maculata
Ribbon Snake
Tharmophis sauritus sauritus
Eastern Garter Snake
Tharmophis 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
H-3
-------
APPENDIX I
BIRDS
-------
TABLE 1-1
BIRDS OF CENTRAL NEW HAMPSIIJ UI-:
R
U
c
A
Hare
Uncommon
Common
Abundant
Common Loon R/S
Gavia immer
Red Throated Loon R/M
Gavia stellata
Red-necked Grebe R/M
Podiceps grisegena
Horned Grebe C/M
Colymbus auritus
Pied Billed Grebe R/S
Podilymbus podiceps podiceps
Great Blue Heron C/S
Ardea herodias
Green Heron R/S
Butorides virescens
Black Crowned Night Heron R/S
Nycticorax nycticorax
Least Bittern R/S
Ixobrychus exi Us
American Bittern C/S
Botaurus lentiginosus
Canada Goose C/M
Branta canadensis
Brant R/M
Branta bemicla
Snow Goose A/M
Chen hyperborea
Blue Goose R/M
Chen caerulescens
Mallard U/M
Anas platyrhynchos
Black Duck A/M
Anas rubripes
Pintail R/M
Anas acuta
Green Winged Teal U/M
Anas carolinensis
Blue Winged Teal U/M
Anas discors
American Widgeon R/M
Mareca americana
Wood Duck C/S
/4ix sponsa
W
S
M
Y
I
UinLcr
Summer
Migrant
Year-round
Introduced
Ring-necked Duck C/M
Ay thya collaris
Canvasback R/M
Ay thya valisineria
Common Goldeneye C/W
Bucephala clangula
Barrow's Goldeneye R/W
Bucephala islandica
Bufflehead U/M
Bucephala albeola
Oldsquaw R/M
Clangula hyemalis
White-winged Scooter R/M
Melanitta deglandi
Surf Scooter R/M
Melanitta perspicillata
Common Scooter C/M
Oidemia nigra
Ruddy Duck R/M
Oxyura jamaicensis
Hooded Merganser R/S
Lophodytes cucullatus
Common Merganser A/M
Mergus merganser
Red-breasted Merganser R/M
Mergus serrator
Goshawk R/Y
Accipiter gentilis
Red-tailed Hawk R/S
Buteo jamaicensis
Red Shouldered Hawk U/S
Buteo lineatus
Broad Winged Hawk C/S
Buteo platypteris
Rough Legged Hawk R/W
Buteo lagopus
Marsh Hawk U/S
Circus cyaneus
Osprey U/M
Pandion haliaetus
Sparrow Hawk C/S
Falco sparverius
1-1
-------
Table 1-1. Continued.
Ruffed Grouse C/Y
RonaRu uinhe 7. /. m;
Bobwhi to I/Y
Co Linux Virginianun
Ring Necked Pheasant I/Y
Phasianus oolchious
American Coot R/M
Fulica americana
Semipalmated Plover R/M
Charadrius senripalmatus
Killdeer R/S
Charadrius vociferus
American Golden Plover R/M
Plurialis dominica
Black-bellied Plover R/M
Squatarola squatarola
American Woodcock C/S
Philohela minor
Spotted Sandpiper C/S
Actitis maaularia
Solitary Sandpiper C/M
Tringa solitaria
Greater Yellowlegs R/M
Totanus melanoleucus
Pectoral Sandpiper R/M
Erolia melanotos
White-rumped Sandpiper R/M
Erolia fuscioollis
Least Sandpiper R/M
Erolia minutilla
Dunlin R/M
Erolia alpina
Short-billed Dowicher R/M
Lirmodromus griseus
Semipalmated Sandpiper R/M
Ereunetes pusillus
Sanderling R/M
Crocethia alba
Northern Phalarope R/M
Lobipes lobatus
Glaucous Gull R/W
Larus hyperboreus
Iceland Gull R/W
Larus glaucoides
Great Black-backed Gull C/W
Larus marinus
Herring Gull C/Y
Larus argentatus
Bonaparte's Gull R/M
Larus Philadelphia
Common Tern R/M
Sbfifna hiruntto
Black Torn
Chliduni.tw
Rock Dove A/Y
Columba livia
Mourning Dove C/S
Zenaidura macroura
Yellow-billed Cuckoo R/S
Cooayzus americanus
Black-billed Cuckoo C/S
Coccyzus erythropthalmus
Barn Owl R/S
Strix vaira
Screech Owl R/Y
<9tts asio
Great Horned Owl u/Y
Bubo virginianus
Snowy Owl R/W
Nyctea scandiaca
Barred Owl C/Y
Tyto alba
Whip-poor-will U/S
Caprimulgus vociferus
Common Nighthawk C/M
Chordeiles minor
Chimney Swift C/S
Chaetura pelagica
Ruby-throated hummingbird U/S
Arahilochus oolubris
Belted Kingfisher C/S
Megaoeryle aloyon
Yellow-shafted Flicker C/S
Colaptes auratus
Pileated Woodpecker U/Y
Dryooopus pileatus
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker U/S
Sphyrapicus varius
Hairy Woodpecker C/Y
Dendrooopos villosus
Downy Woodpecker C/Y
Dendroaopos pubescens
Black-backed three-toed R/W
Woodpecker
Piooides arotious
Eastern Kingbird C/S
Tyrannus tyrannus
Great Crested Flycatcher U/S
Myiarohus crinitis
1-2
-------
T.iblr 1-1. Continued.
Kastern Phoebe C/S
.'•'(///( ')'nin ]'ki.'i'ibt:
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher C/S
/',';;;/'/<•/< v/aa: J'/.nt'i.Vfiiti1/*;
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 rustica
Cliff Swallow A/S
PcLrochelidon pyrrhonota
Purple Martin R/S
Prcxjne subis
Blue'Jay A/Y
Cyanocyta cristata
Conunon Crow A/W
Coruus brachyrhynchos
Black-capped Chickadee C/Y
Parus atricapillus
Boreal Chickadee R/W
Parus hudsonicus
Tufted Titmouse R/Y
Parus bicolor
White-breasted Nuthatch C/Y
Sitta carolinensis
Red-breasted Nuthatch R/Y
Sitta canadensis
Brown Creeper C/Y
Certhia familiaris
House Wren C/S
Troglodytes aedon
Winter Wren R/S
Trog £ody tes troglodytes
Long-billed Marsh Wren C/S
Telmatodytes patustris
Shoro'-billecl M.irsh Wron
C.1/-;; / a I. h< >ru:> /'/•;// •//.•;/';:
Mockinqbird
Miinw ! i >(•> l.iffj Lot- l.i >: ;
Catbird ' '
Dumebetla carolinensis
Brown Thrasher
Toxostoma rufum
Robin
Turdus migratorius
Wood Thrush
Hylocichla mustelina
Hermit Thrush
Hylocichla guttata
Swainson's Thrush
Hylocichla ustulata
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Hylocichla minima.
Veery
% locich la 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 excubitor
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Starling
Sturmus vulgaris
Yellov;-throated Vireo
Vireo flavifrons
Solitary Vireo
yireo solitarius
Red-eyed Vireo
Vireo olivaceus
Warbling Vireo
yireo gilvus
Black and White Warbler
Mniotilta varia
A/S
C/S
A/S
C/S
C/S
A/M
U.M
A/S
U/S
C/Y
U/M
U/M
R/W
C/W
R/W
R/M
C/Y
R/S
C/S
A/S
U/S
C/S
1-3
-------
Con t i nuod.
Tennessee Warbler R/S
Vermivora perigrina
Nashville Warbler C/S
Vermivora ruficapilla
Parula Warbler R/S
Parula americana
Yellow Warbler C/S
Dendroioa peteohia
Magnolia Warbler C/M
Dendroioa magnolia
Black-throated Blue Warbler C/M
Dendroioa oaerulesoens
Myrtle Warbler C/M
Dendroioa coronata
Black-throated Green Warbler A/S
Dendroioa virens
Blackburnian Warbler A/S
Dendroioa fusca
Chestnut-sided Warbler A/S
Dendroioa pensylvanica
Bay-breasted Warbler U/M
Dendroioa oastanea
Blackpoll Warbler C/M
Dendroioa 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
Oporomis Philadelphia
Yellowthroat A/S
Geothlypis triohas
Wilson's Warbler U/M
Wileonia pus ilia
Canada Warbler C/S
Wilsonia oanadensis
American Redstart A/S
Setophaga rutioilla
House Sparrow C/Y
Passer domesticus
Bobolink C/S
Doliahonyx oryzivorus
Eastern Meadowlark C/S
Sturnella magna
Redwinged Blackbird A/S
Agelaius phoenioeus
Baltimore Oriole C/S
Icterus galbula
Rusty Blackbird C/M
E'uf >ha
-------
Table 1-1. Continued
l-'ox Sparrow U/M
/'
-------
APPENDIX J
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF WINNIPESAUKEE
RIVER BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
-------
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF WHTOIFESAUKEE
RIVER BASIN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
bys Charles E. Bolian
Billee M. Hoornbeek
Department of Sociology
and Anthropology
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire
-------
The following is, at best, an understatement of the archaeological resources
of the Winnipesaukee River Basin. Three days of research were the maximum
possible because of the small amount of time available to complete this report.
Further research would have certainly revealed additional site locations as
well as other important background information. Most of the archaeological
site locations were obtained from published resources which are to be easily
found in most local libraries. A few of the site locations were furnished
by archaeologists who have conducted field work in the Winnipesaukee region,
however, there has never been a systematic archaeological survey which covered
the entire area to be affected by the planned wastewater collection and treat-
ment facilities. The maps furnished by the Environmental Protection Agency
in "Draft Environmental Impact Statement: .Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities, Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire" are not sufficiently
large to allow the accurate plotting of archaeological resources relative to
the proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Therefore, site
locations and areas of site concentrations are indicated on the attached
United States Geological Survey Topographic Maps. Since these sites and
areas could not be visited in the field by the researchers, the locations as
indicated on the attached maps should be considered approximate.
The bibliography indicates the literature that was consulted for this
r'jjjrrt, however, we realize that there are other resources which should be
consulted in order to complete a background study of archaeology in the
vJinnipesaukee River Basin. These include newspaper archives, additional town
uo.stories, unpublished manuscripts of town histories, Publications of the
New Hampshire Historical Society, manuscripts in the State archives, WPA
archives on historical resources and tour guides of the region from the
J-l
-------
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which indicate the location of important
historic and prehistoric sites. The lists of forts, garrison houses and early
Euro-American industrial sites is considered to "be especially incomplete.
Because of the time pressure, none of the artifact collections that exist
for the area have been examined. Based upon various references consulted (for
example: Moorehead 1931; Proctor 1930), at least 25 sizeable collections of
Indian artifacts are believed to exist for the Winnipesaukee region. One of the
most important is at the Carnegie Institute. If there had been time to
examine these collections, it might be possible to estimate the value of
particular sites.
The following is a listing of some of the archaeological sites, historic
and prehistoric, for the Winnipesaukee River Basin along with comments on
their contents. This should not be accepted as a complete list of all sites,
but only those which are mentioned in the published sources cited in the
bibliography and which are reported by archaeologists who have worked in the
area. No attempt has been made to organize this into good prose. The work(s)
of each author is cited along with the pertinent information that it contains
in .a quote or paraphrase.
A summary section ties together the fragmented accounts of the various
authors to present a wholistic picture of the archaeological resources of
the Winnipesaukee Basin.
J-2
-------
AMERICAN INDIAN SITES
DoHl(.L; (1939) The presence of the "Red Paint People" (archaic porioil) In ol.tod
for the Lake Winnipesaukee and Lake Ossipee region based on burials. Specific
reference is made to the Weirs site. Bowles also mentions traces of permanent
Indian settlements on the peninsula in Franklin where the Winnipesaukee and
Pera igawasset Rivers unite to form the Merrimack. Many Indian relics were
also found at Oxbow Point on the Winnipesaukee River. At Proctor's Point
(on the oxbow) an old fish weir is visible when the water is low.
Indians are also reported to have occupied the valley of the Winnipesaukee
River above Franklin. Laconia and Tilton were also the sites of encampments.
The great village of the Winnipesaukee Indians at the Weirs is believed
to be the largest in all New England. The Indians called it Aquedocton.
This is presently the part of Laconia known as "The Weirs". The settlement
extended along the north bank of the stream for more than one-half mile.
(it probably represents a series of occupations at different points in the
past).
When the Lake Shore Road was built between the Weirs and Lakeport and
summer houses were built, ^0 to 50 Indian graves were uncovered across the
narrows opposite the village. The Weirs Indian village was still occupied
in 1695.
Brown (ND) The great Indian Trail between Canada and the Plimouth Plantation
passed along the north shore of Squam Lake, near the route of the present
Holderness Road thus through Center Sandwich to Bearcamp Valley. (Campsites
should exist along the trail.)
Gallup (ND) At the foot of Brickyard Mountain, Indians mined good clay for
J-3
-------
pottery production. A communal mortar is located on the hillside above
the Weirs beach. A council rock was located at the top of the hill.
A boulder on Stonedam Island has a concave spot used to heat pitch for
birchbark canoe building, and repair.
A "mystery stone" was found along the Indian trail between Lake
Winnipesaukee and Lake Waukewian - a polished silecous sandstone "egg" about
3 3/4 inches in diameter with 10 figures carved on it.
Moorehead (1931) On Governors Island a heavy deposit of ashes and burnt
earth 4 feet deep was excavated. 80 knives, celts, drills, projectile points
and rejects were recovered. At several places on the island, test pits
revealed flakes, etc.
In Melvin Village more pottery was found than at any other point on the
lake.
In Wolfeboro fragments of pottery were found along the lake front, "a
favorable area".
A large, important village was located on Newfound Lake.
At Bristol where the outlet of Newfound Lake enters the Pemmigewasset
is located a natural salmon trap used by the Indians.
A number of Indian skeletons were found not far from Draper and Aikens
reservoirs.
Four large blades of chert-like stone were found at the foot of Saugus
Bay on the clam flat.
An old mortar was found on Willow Hill.
Governor's Island merits careful excavation, not to mention other sites.
At Beaver Brook in Alton - a strange find, perhaps a Shaman's bundle
was recovered.
J-4
-------
Proctor (1930) In Odell Park charms and inscribed stonou havu UMMI J'otind. Th.-
town of Sanbornton was once the residence of an Indian Tribe. At the head of
Little Bay (now Silver Lake) there are the remains of an ancient fortification.
On a small island (Atkinson's) in the bay were found bones and remains. It
was a "burying ground".
At Mohawk Point - a point of land in Great Bay up in Gilmanton, the
Pequawkets were massacred by the Mohawks.
Where the Belmont branch of the railroad crosses the river in East Tilton
was a favorite relic hunting area of Mr. Proctor. Incribed stones were found
there.
On Meadowbrook which runs into Winnipesaukee was found a boulder wi.th a
shad inscribed on it.
Relics were found at Cross's Dam.
Colby's Indian History (1975) Concerning the Winnipesaukee tribe - There were
villages and campsites at Alton Bay, Melvin Village, Wolfeboro Falls,
Moultonboro Neck, Lochmere, Laconia and the Weirs. Most of the islands in
Lake Winnipesaukee have produced Indian artifacts.
The site of Moore's Hotel (in Meredith?) produced 50 stone gouges when
the cellar was dug.
Griffin-History of Alton (ND) The area surrounding the southernmost tip of
Lake Winnipesaukee was a favorite meeting place for the tribes of the vicinity.
The trail beginning at Portsmouth enters Alton behind the Bennett residence
and culminates at the lake (Winnipesaukee). The river is called Merrymeeting
because of the fact that at its mouth, the six tribes held an annual powwow..
....A marker at Alton Bay commemorates the spot where they camped
Forts were erected around the waters by the Indians. Only two of them
J-5
-------
are in evidence today remnants of others may "be found at Franklin, Tilton
and Ossipee.
Blaisdell (1975) The land of Bidicott Park and the hills to the north and
west nearly mark an Indian Village,
On the south shore of Lake Wentworth (formerly Smith's Pond) were found
a stone hearth and numerous artifacts.
On Stamp Act Island in Lake Wentworth two tomahawks were found.
On the beach west of Hershey Point in Lake Wentworth several arrowheads
were found.
Runnels (1882) On Lake Winnipesaukee at the head of Little Bay as late as
18^1 Indian fortifications were still visible. Within the fort were found
Indian relics. This is purported to be one of a string of forts against the
Mohawks. They were Pequaket or Penacook, One at Ossipee was built by the
whites and paid for by the Indians. Relics were also found on Atkinson's
Island.
On the right bank of the Winnipesaukee River near the head of Little
Bay large numbers of Indian lived. Penacooks continued to use the lake and
pitch their wigwams at the "Crotch".
Sylvester (1910) Colonel Walton struck out for Ossipee and Lake Winnipesaukee
where the Indians resorted for much of their fish and game. Indians attacking
Piscataqua towns came by way of Lake Winnipesaukee.
Wilbraham (ND) (Speaking of Indians) "One of their favorite haunts was about
the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee where many of their traces may still
be found.
J-6
-------
MorrA'Q (lHBn) Thu.ro are indications of Indian occupation in Moid ton borough.
Indian cellars occur alon,.'; :-,l.n;aina and ar<> :;l.m v.l:i.1"h'l.«! In "IMW. '\'\\«n,, Wi:n-
;il |, iM,.;lil. l'i:<>!-. :;(|ii.-in: and <:an.'l.'ii"i:i.v :;l.nrmd. Tlm.y am I'onnd on ;i rld^n ..I'
land on James Smith's farm. A number are located on Dr. W.H.H. Macon'".
farm near Red Hill Pond. In 181? a "giant" human skeleton (? feet long) was
found near the Tuftonboro line.
Winnipisseogees were situated south and west of the lake of that name.
Ossipees were situated around the lake of that name and the north shore of
Winnipisseogee.
Captain Lowell found a wigwam on Lake Winnipisseogee on his first
expedition and killed the three Indians.
Link Adams (ND) Conducted productive archaeological excavations on Rattlesnake
Island. However his publication was not available for use.
W. Dennis Chesley (personal communication) Investigated Round Island and
reports that it has an important archaeological site on it. The results of
his investigation have not been published.
Sargent, Howard (personal communication 19?6) Mohawk Island is essentially
one large archaeological site. All of the island was occupied.
The general area around Sleeper's Island has turned up Iroquois-like
pottery. South point is the location of a campsite.
A campsite has been found on the point on Little Bear Island. Bear
Island is a known portage site and sites are likely to be there.
Sites have been reported at Pickerel Cove.
Late Woodland and artifacts have been recovered along the Pemigewasset
River near Green Grove Cemetery.
J-7
-------
1 1 1 r : '.Tonrc/u.. SITES
Brown (NU) A fort was built near Sanbornton \n 17'4<> ar. u |>1r.k<:l. |>o::l. .•u/.-ilii:-.
Indian forays (exact location unknown).
Cross (1910) In Northfield, Canterbury Fort was built for defense against
the Indians. The Indians built their wigwams along the banks of both the
Winnipesaukee and Merrimack (exact location unknown).
Griffin (ND) Forts were erected around the lake in Alton by the whites.
Atkinson and his men spent the winter of 1?^? near Little Bay which is
now Silver Lake. They erected a blockhouse and stayed until the fall of
A fort was reported to be atop Levy Park Hill near Alton Bay.
There is evidence of a stone landing on the riverbank directly behind
this location.
Blaisdell (1975) The site of Governor Wentworth's original mansion is near
Lake Went worth.
Governor Wentworth's house was the most majestic mansion in all of New
England.
Cutter and Sewall's mill was on the Smith River across the lake from the
Wentworth mansion.
Cal vert's Map of Lakes Region (1896)
Lee's Mills at head of Moul ton borough Bay
Roxmont on Long Island (off Moul ton borough)
Lakeshore Inn - Lake Shore Park - south of Belknap Point
J-8
-------
Governor's Island - Stilson Hutchins Mansion
Lakeview Stock Farm between Meredith and Center Harbor
C. Mutis Camp on Cow Island
Havley (1923) Mills
Grist Mills
Melvin Village
Water Village
Near outlet of Lower Beach Pond - then moved to Water Village
Sawmill at outlet of Mirror Lake
Bradley Burleigh had a fine shingle mill at outlet of meadow a little
to the east of Henry S. Burleigh residence.
Scales (191^) In 1?22 a road was cut of on the east shore of Lake Winnipesaukee
and a block house erected.
J-9
-------
SUMMARY
The above listing of archaeological sitos may appear disjoin-led b<;o;ui::i;
of the style in which is was written, either excerpting quotes or paraphrasing
selected sections of pertinent publications. However, we believe that the
data cited indicate that the Winnipesaukee River Basin is extremely rich in
archaeological resources. The kinds of prehistoric sites that are known
rftpresent campsites, village areas, weirs, clay quarries, canoe repair
facilities, burial grounds and "powwow" areac. That is, there are sitec
representing a wide variety of specialized cultural activities.
Although most of the published references concerning the Indians of the
Winnipesaukee Basin refer to historic American Indians, many of the artifacts
illustrated in various publications (Moorehead 1931, Proctor 1930) are
clearly related to a much older archaic horizon. Howard Sargent (personal
communication) reports that fluted points representing Paleo-indians have also
been recovered from this general area.
Forts, garrisons, homes of prominent officials (i.e., Wentworth mansion)
and early industrial sites are abundant for the historic period.
The number of archaeological sites plotted on the attached maps probably
represents only a small percentage of those that actually exist. Based on the
results of field work by Moorehead (1931) and Sargent (personal communication)
it is probably safe to estimate that there may be hundreds of archaeological
sites in the area.
Moorehead (1931) clearly states the archaeological potential of the
Winnipesaukee Basin, (p. ^1 on Winnipesaukee)....This lake in our opinion
marks one of the strategic locations in American archaeology.
J-10
-------
(|>. '•'/) Wliml posaukoo ho.ld;-. llio key to :iovi:ru.L Now Hi/r'l arid Indljin I'rold <>m:t.
The; area l.s clearly one of the richest archaeological region:; in Now
tiigland in terms of site density and the wealth of information that It con ho
expected to yield on history and prehistory. This is a unique archaeological
region in New Hampshire. It is an area that was occupied primarily during
the winter by historic and prehistoric Indians. Therefore, the archaeological
remains represent one aspect of a yearly round of activities. The destruction
of the remaining archaeological sites in this area will result in the loss of
information needed to understand the complete round of yearly activities of
the New Hampshire Indians. Since large groups of Indians gathered here
during the* winter, it was in this region that "powwows" were held between
groups that might be geographically isolated from each other during other
seasons (Griffin ND). This probably resulted in trade as well as the exchange
of ideas. Brown (ND) reports that the great trail from Canada to Plymouth
Plantation, Massachusetts went through the Winnipesaukee Basin and Griffin
reports groups from as far away as Portsmouth, New Hampshire wintering in the
Winnipesaukee Basin.
The archaeological sites of the Winnipesaukee Basin are, therefore,
important on a regional level since the populations that gathered there came
from all over New England and parts of Canada. The destruction of archaeo-
logical sites in the Winnipesaukee River Basin will, therefore, result in
the loss of data which are needed to understand the prehistory of areas as
far away as Canada and Massachusetts.
J-ll
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Many archaeological sites which existed in the Winnipesalikee Basin have
already been destroyed "by unplanned development. The remaining sites are the
only resource that can be used to reconstruct the total history of that
important area. Therefore, the destruction of additional sites should be
avoided at all costs. If a site must be destroyed, it should first be
properly excavated in order to gather sufficient data for an accurate recon-
struction of the history and prehistory of the area.
Specific information regarding the location of archaeological resources is
given above. The known archaeological sites are usually found within a short
distance of a lake shore or the bank of a stream. Unfortunately, these are
the areas that will be most affected by the proposed wastewater collection
and treatment project. Our conclusion is that the implementation of this
project as currently planned will result in the destruction of a major part
of the historic and prehistoric cultural heritage of New England. The loss
of this information will leave a blank page in the history and prehistory of
New England.
Although we believe that it is desirable that the waters of the
Winnipesaukee region be cleaned, it is our opinion that the cost in terms of
a non-renewable cultural resources will be too high as the project is
currently designed. An assessment such as that outlined in the cover letter
could serve to protect cultural resources and allow prompt implementation of
your project.
We strongly recommend that you comply with Federal requirements for the
protection of cultural resources in executing this project.
J-12
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Hon. Mary Senior. Sandwich, New Hampshire Be-centennial
Bowles. New Hampshire, 1939
Galverts Map of Lakes Region, 1896
Cross, Lucy. History of Northfield, 1910
Colby. Colby's Indian History, 1975
Gallup. Lake Winnipesaukee
Griffin. History of Alton
Hayley, History of Tuftonboro, 1923
Merrill. History of Carroll County, 1889
Moorehead, Warren. Merrimack Archeological Survey, 1931
Proctor, Mary. Indians of the Winnipesaukee and Pemmigewasset Valleys, 1930
Runnels. History of Sanbornton, 1882
Scales, History of Strafford County, 191^
Sylvester. Indian Wars of New England, 1910
Wilbraham. History of New Hampshire
Blaisdell. Three Centuries on Winnipesaukee
J-13
-------
MAP KEY
A
Indian sites - historic and prehistoric
Colonial sites - forts, houses, garrisons
Industrial sites (18th & 19th century)
Areas of villages and concentration
Burials
Howard Sargent sites
J-14
-------
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
-•• Indian Sites (Historic & Prehistoric)
if. Howard Sargent sites
A Burial Grounds
Jk. Colonial Sites (forts, houses, garrisons)
(5) Industrial Sites (18th e 19th century)
£ Areas of villages I concentration
-------
APPENDIX K
AIR QUALITY IMPACT
-------
APPENDIX K
AIR QUALITY IMPACT
OF WASTEWATER DISPOSAL NEEDS PLAN
FOR THE
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN
Prepared for
ECOLSCIENCES, INC
Prepared by
PLANNING ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
A Division of
ALAN M. VOORHEES & ASSOCIATES, INC,
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
October 1975
-------
APPENDIX K
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 Easin. The
general analysis approach is as follows:
1. Determine existing air quality — compare ambient air
quality and maximum air quality to National and State
Ambient Air Quality Standards and other criteria de-
fined 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 proj-
ect.
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 National and State ambient air quality
standards.
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 (SO2> were estimated with and without the
project. The methodology and results are as follows.
Study Area Regional Emissions
The existing (1971, 1972) and projected regional emissions
for TSP and SO2 were calculated using the techniques described
in the EPA Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and
Analysis Development - Vol. 1, Designation of Air Quality Mainte-
nance Areas, 1974. Baseline area source and point source emis-
sions 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 1.
K-l
-------
The TSP and SC»2 emissions were projected to 1975, 1985 and
2000 using the methodology given in the Guidelines, as summarized
below .
Projection of 1975 Emission 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 2 and as follows:
1. Using emissions summaries in Table 1, group emissions
into fuel combustion, industrial process, solid waste,
and miscellaneous sources as in Table 2.
2. Determine 1975 emissions from sources other than power
plants .
• Determine allowable emissions by source category
using reduction factors given in Table 3.
• Adjust allowable emissions by growth from 1970 to
1975 using EPA projections in Table 4 and the growth
factors by category in Table 5 .
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:
FI = Ci(l +
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 2 and 3
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 6 summarizes the results of these emissions projections
K-2
-------
FIGURE 1
GRID SYSTEM AND LOCATION OP RECEPTORS
0,48
| Receptor Location and Number
56.48
56.0
-------
TABLE 1
BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY (1970)
Grams Per Second
Area Sources
Point Sources
Fuel
Township Pollutant Combustion
Primary Area
TSP
Belmont
Gilford
1
•*> . TSP
Laconia
j- u TSP
Meredith
SO 2
,- w TSP
^anbornton
Tilton TSP
SO 2
TSP
Franklin
TSP
.'lorthfield
.015
.0338
.025
.1407
.063
.3567
.032
.1848
.010
.058
.011
.0623
.056
.2052
.017
.0603
Solid Waste
.603
.0025
.004
.0042
.011
.0107
.006
.0056
.002
.0017
.002
.0019
.009
.0063
.003
.0018
Transportation
.029
.0174
.048
.0291
.123
.0739
.064
.0383
.020
.012
.021
.0129
.094
.0582
.028
.0171
Miscellaneous
.001
.0
.002
.0
.005
.0
.002
.0
.001
.0
.001
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Minor Major
(included as area (Greater than
Total sources in COM) 25 tons/year)
.048
.1037
.079
.174
.202
.4413
.104
.2287
.033
.0717
.035
.0771
.159
.2697
.048
.0792
.0518
.0029
.0834
.0058
.1060 .159
.332 .5048
.0834
.0058
.2175 .159
.1115 .3848
.0028 .1439
.0307 .0086
.0806
.0058
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Area Sources
Point Sources
Township
Pollutant
Fuel
Combustion
Solid Waste
Transportation
Miscellaneous
Total
Minor
(included as area
sources in COM)
Peripheral Area
Alton
Tuf tonboro
Wolf eboro
X
Ul
Centre Harbor
Moul tonboro
TSP
SO2
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
TSP
S02
.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
Major
(Greater than
25 tons/year)
-------
TABLE 2
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
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. L'PA Air Quality Maintenance Plan Guidelines, Vol. I, Guidelines for Designation of AQMA's
-------
TABLE 3
EMISSION REDUCTION FACTORS*
(Ratio of 1975 Allowable Emissions to 1970 Emissions)
Source Category
Fuel combustion
Point sources less power
generation
Area sources
Power generation sources
Industrial processes
Solid Waste
Point sources
Area sources
ransportation
Miscellaneous
Point sources
Area sources
Particulate
Matter
0.43
0.29
0.28
1.0
1.0
1.0
SO
0.37
1.0
0.82
1.0
1.0
1.0
HC
0.47
1.0
0.88
0.48
1.0
CO
0.10
.52
0.88
1.0
1.0
NO
0.44
0.48
0.50
0.43
0.57
0.43
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Calculated by different method—see source
a. These emission reduction factors for 1975 as compared to 1970 are based on a composite
of expected and existing conditions and emission control regulations in St Louis
Denver, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Indianapolis, and Boston.
Source: U.S. EPA Air Quality Maintenance Plan Guidelines, Vol. I
K-7
-------
Non.S.MSA porllon of Wnlcr Rcjuurctj Siiharco 0105 Mcrrlmoek
TABLE 4
OBERS PROJECTION
J97M-: oiii;i(s
i uuic i — i-opuiauun, i-nipiuymcnl, rersoi
Population, midyear
Per caT'la litcwne (l%7 1) _. _
Per capita income rchuvc (U.S.- 1 JOB). ...._...._._....
Total employment ....
EmpJoirraeni/oopubuon n.tio „.._
TuUI penmal Inwrat....
ToUl c.rnloci
Acrifulturc. (wctiry uid Cuterlci .
Atriiqlturc .. •
f'orctlry and fiihfrici
1 Uiainj
00 Mela)
Coil ' •
Grade petroleum iml natural |n ~.~
Nonmctalliv-. c»:on (ucU . . _
Contract continiciion ..
Manufacturing ..
l-ood and kindred product!
Teitile mi:i projucii l'L_°!!
Apparel ind other fjtuie produeli.
l.urohcrprodtcu ind (urn.tutc.
l"npcr and allied prudiKti-
Piiniina and pulilMiinj _
Chcmw Jt and allied product! .
Petroleum refining
Pnmury mrljli .. .
f-'ahricjtcJ inelai* and ftiil-.i.mcc, . «
Aljtluniry. eiilujmf i-li.^'rinl
lileclrcM m.ictitn:ix :ind ^Itppticl
Motor veSii'tct and c:juiimcnt ..
. Traniponjtion cnuip.. ocL mlr. vebi... _.'.
Oibcrmnnti/ictunni -...._.__
Ti«ni.,camm. ind public uUu'tloi ^,
Wholfin!* and relnil lTJdo..u .._. _.
Hnance. inturuncc nnd real cM.ite -..._._..„...
Xrfi Icei .
Cotcrnmcnl _
l-'cdcral {ovemmtnl
5utc nnd liK:J government „
Armed furvc*
1950 |962>
«9.4lJ 10J.MI
1.631 2J79
.82 .92
JJ.7IB J7.979
I30J20 244J02
M7.C7I U9.j6j
5. 71 Si 3.947.
l?7i 662b
5.110 I2JJ9
W.789 65^.12
S2JQ9 J9J72
4^1 10.699
15.020 21.072
I6.W9 31,072
2,493 4.759
13.194 24 837
960 I.42T
mi Income, anil J
I9J9
1IIJ35
3,165
.92
152.131
264.470
2,009b
c
21.911
78.811
11.141
J9.797
19.951
40.0-13
-•R.143
7.061
19.6HO
1.601
Zurnlngiby Induslry, IllslorJenl anil I'rojcclcd,
1970
111.956
1.23]
.91
46.172
.41
168.199
272.499
1.033b
e
U.I II
75.178
20.JEK
41.107
52.KM
7.3f.S
I!MI
1971
1930
115.900 111.600
J.lll 4,300
.94 .96
59,100
.45
In Thouiiiuli of 1967 Doihn
33S.OS9 604.100
1X4.052 443,100
l.943b 1400
1.109
(S)
e 700
700
14X77 43,700
74.671 101.500
2.600
5.000
2.700
8JOO
3JOO
16.100
(SJ
(S)
5.500
7.600
II.HUO
17.600
1.600
16.600
I2J44 • 19.000
45.164 63.800
21,46] 13.100
45.019 83.300
5M03 SS.200
(.276 IO.KW
«.'I92 75.500
1.0)) 1.700
Selected Years,
1)8.600
5.2CO
.96
67.600
Ai
724.800
510.700
1.700
1.400
(S)
' 800
800
51.100
115.200
1,100
4.990
1.000
9.100
1.900
19,200
(S)
(S)
5.700
9.600
12.300
20.100
(S)
4.000
18.700
21.500
89.400
4l.5flO
103.700
109.000
94.'200
i.vno
1950-20:0
1759
146.000
5.'AX>
.97
66.100
.45
869.500
633.500
1.800
1.600
(S)
900
900
61X00
129.400
3.700
4. COO
1JOO
10,100
4.500
21.500
(S)
(S)
3. WO
II. COO
I3.XO
"(S)
4,400
31.100
26.U10
94.COO
52.100
134.700
15. IW
II7.5LV)
2,00V
MM
159.2(0
7. 000
.97
74,100
.47
I.U9.300
9I7.-WO
4.)'.1
4.UUL-
(S)
1.000
1.000
• IU.JM
5.0JO
5.200
4.200
12.300
6.400
31.000
(SJ
(S)
6/.UO
17. 2»
15.110
30.700
(i)
5.400
17.100
37.300
DI.StM
SI.MJ
I93,
-------
TABLE 5
GROWTH FACTORS FOR TSP AND SO,
Category
Fuel Combustion (excluding pp)
Industrial processes
Solid waste
Transportation
Miscellaneous
Recommended BRA
Projection Parameter*
Total earnings
Manufacturing earnings
Population
Population
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.
K-9
-------
TABLE 6
EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS (grams/second)
1975
1895
2000
Tovnshlp
Prlaary Area
Deljoont
Gilford
Laconic
Meredith
1 Sanbornton
O
Tilton
Franklin
NorthfUld
Peripheral Area
Alton
Tuftonboro
Nolfeboro
Centre Babor
Houltonboro
Pollutant
TSP
so2
TSP
S°2
TSP
*>2
TSP
S°2
TSP
S°2
TSP
S°2
TSP
602
TSP
so2
TSP
SO,
TSP
TSP
602
TSP
S02
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
Source*
___
.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 Project
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
.2604
.7261
.0821
.2229
.4009
.48
.3827
1.0187
.0212
.1208
.3098
.7513
.0974
.2375
.2671
.5152
.0366
.0654
.1848
.4336
Project
Point
Sources
.0569
.0034
.1084
.2962
.0569
.0034
.1084
.2831
.0981
.0051
.0549
.0034
—
With Project
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
---
.108;
.2831
.0981
.0051
.0549
.0034
-------
Projected Air Quality
The projected air quality (TSP and 802) at the selected
receptor sites in the Study Area were estimated usinq the follow-
ing procedures:
Annual Average TSP and SO2 for the Study Area. The Clima-
tological Dispersion Model (COM), developed by EPA, was used to
project annual average TSP and SO2, The CDM 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 increase in wind speed with height that depends on
stability.1
Figure 2 defines the concentration formulas for the CDM
Model. The emission rates for the area and point sources for
the Study Area as described above, and the frequency distribution
of wind data in Table 7 were input to the Model to estimate annual
average concentrations of TSP and S02• The Model was not cali-
brated due to inadequate ambient data.
The receptor points for calculation of concentrations are
shown in Figure 1. The points were selected to be representa-
tive of the maximum growth impact areas.
A sample Model output is given in Table 8. The Table lists
the annual average concentration of each receptor point selected.
The total concentration at each point is the sum of the point
source and area source contribution.
Table 9 through 12 present the ground level TSP and SO2 con-
centrations with and without the project in the projection years
1985 and 2000. The concentrations presented do not include the
background concentrations.
Short-Term TSP and SO2 Concentrations for the Study Area.
The maximum 24-hour TSP concentrations at the selected receptor
sites are estimated by applying Larsen's method using the ob-
served geometric standard deviation.2 Since there are no
observed sulfur oxides data in the entire Study Area, no short-
term sulfur oxide concentrations are estimated. The estimated
24-hour TSP concentrations are shown in Table 13.
U.S. EPA, Climatological Dispersion Model User's Guide, 1974
2Larsen, R.I., EPA publication AP-89, "A Mathematical Model
for Relating Air Quality Measurements to Air Quality Standards,"
U.S. EPA, November, 1971.
K-ll
-------
TABLE 7
WIND STAR FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE
(/)
(/)
*"O
1 —
*"*
CZ >j
0 -(->
•r— -i—
•4-> i —
o -a Wind Speed Class
S— *vi
5 £ 1 23 456
N "a 6.0300.U.3O303.1.000OaS,Oi30n30.00rtOOO.OOaO«
>— •« A olojOOOJ.OJOOOO. 300000. 300030. GOWOO. 03000
'HE a 0. OOOOOO. 039900. ISO'IOO. 000030. 000000.00930
£>fc A 0.030000-J030J3. 000030. 33000P. 030OOO. QOOOO
S v" o..i .TO oca. oaooo.i. oooooo. onoooo.onoono. ooooo
ES£ A o.O30iia3-030000 .0(10010. 0.10300. OOOOOO. OOOOO
' se A oloooiioa.couaoo. oooooo. ouoaoo.oooooo.oaooa
5S£ A 0 .OOO-103. C J0000.30OOO1- OJ0030. 003000. OOOOO
S A n . OOOOOO. OOOO 00. 000 O 00. OOJOOfl. 303000.03000
55W A 0 .000 110. 0003-»O. QOOOOO.O0300r). C033HO. 00003
5« A 0. OO0723-3O>J3:-a. 300330. OGOOO*. 000300. C3I10O
VS» A O-OO'jSOO.GOOOOO. 30300O.OOOOa«J. OOOOOO. 00300
v A o .20 : si -i .onu/o .oooooo. oooooo. oooooo .noooo
fei<* jk O . 0 0 0 1 *?i* . 0 0 0 3 '*0 • 0 *1 0 0 0 0 . OO'JOOO. 03 00 03 . C C 003
NX A 0 . OflOOOO.OOOnOO. 000040. OOOOO'l .COOOOO. 00030
h»<« A o .000190 .0003*0.000000.003000.003003 .ooooo
H ? 0.3305A.J.G01370. 0003*0. 000000.033000. OOOOO
NVi ft 0.0315^0.^31 370. QOOOOO. 003000. 033003. OJOOd
HZ f> o.ocu 7oo.gajs<'b.ooonoo. aooooo. oooooo. ooooo
£.s£ 3 O.OOCo?').a003-«. OOOOOO. OOO003-. 000310. OOOOO
(. 8 C .000-2S .OiH330. OOOOOO, OOOOOO . 000300. OOOOO
E5i R 0. 001540. 0003-0. 001030. OOOOOO. OOOOOO. OOOOO
. SE H 0.3031QO. 031710. C3969-1.00OJOI1. OOOOOO. OOOC3
SSi B 0.0010*4.001379.0003*0.000000.030000.00000
3 n 0.002910.03*794.003630.000000.030000.00000
551 » 0 .OOISPO. 001370. 051370. OOOOOO. 030000. OOOOO
S> f; ; .C311C3.3Q03*0. 001710. 030000. 003000. OOOOO
.•US* ri •' -005330. 001370. 001370. OOOOOO. 000030. OOOOO
-• ti i: - ^o*i4o.on3o»o, 001030. onoooa. ooaono. ooooo
H*iv 0 . )*.}&•». £G*1 10. 0.01370. OOOtJOO. OOOOOO. OOOOO
. N* A •: . •; ) 1100.031710. 001370.000000.000000. 00000
>»** n o . : ::-:*>?«-aol7io.33O3*a»ooJ904.ooooao.ooooa
- r» c 0..0-. . 330,0000*3.001030.000009.000000.00000
K>< c o.aj al^o. aaLaaa_ooo3*J3-oooooo. oooooo. ooooo-
- f*€ C 0-00 J3A9. OOl37O.O»03»-». OOOOOO. OOOOOO. 00003
£>€• c o.o3oi30.oooj>4*.oaoooo.oaaoo».o1io3:)C, 03000 .
';; £ c o. onoooo _oaoooo. 0003*0. oooooo. ooooo. ?. ;oooo ,
C&£ C 0. aOalja. C-OaA-»0. 301030. OOOOOO. OOOOoO .J,;.100 1
5< C 0 • 0 0 053^* 0 3Q6^t4 • OO 3*20 . OOQ0.01.G 300 00 . 0 ^3 00
SS£ C 0. QOO53>T. COOt^-9. 00*l 10,001370. OOOJOO-COOOO :
3 c. *. sc23i3_iiaos«_a3vimiae»9*.ooo»** .**>» O O.GOb*7O.007sa>^0. 0116*0. 017120. 037330. 009400. 00137
fr*t» 0 0.00*100. 008220- 001*900. 0116-M1. 002^00. OOOOO
CT
OJ
OO
S-.- . C
,
i- -M
C -r- -r-
o a f—
•1 — 'r-
-i-> -a jo
03 C: f3
co 3 oo
t*7*S 1J1770
1*7*»5 2A1 770
1 *7 *5 3A I 770
1*7*5 *A1770
1 *7*5 5 A 1 7 7O
1 ^/-vb /SA1773
1*7*5 7.1177O
1*7>5 SIA1770
1*7 »ci OA177O
1 Vi'*blOAl 7 /O
l*7-lv5UJl77n
1*7'.S12A1770
1 *7-vr«l 3A 1 7 /(J
I*/-'i5l'. A177n
1 47*515* 1 77O
i 1 *7*S16M 77O
r 1*7'.5 131770
1*745 2:11770
1*7*5-331770
147*5 431770
1*7*5 531770
1*7*5 681770
1*7*5 7bl770
147*5 8B1770
147*5 991770
1*7451031770
1*7*51 1H17/0
147451231770
1*7*51331770
I474SI-.3177O
I*745l5'dl770
1*7451631770
1*7*5 1C177«>
1*745 2C1770
14745 3C1770
147*5 *C1770
1*745 5C1770
1*7*S /.C1770
1*7*5 7C1770
'l»7*5 ,OC1770
I*7V> OCX.770
147»S10C17Ta
147*51101770
1*7*512C1770
I*7*S13C1770
1*7451*01770
1*7*515C177O
j47*516C177a
1*7*5 101770
1*7*5 201770
1*7*5 3O177O
1«7*5 4D1770
1*7*5 501770
1*7*S 601770
1*7*5 701770
147*5 801770
1*7*5 9D17TO
1*7*51001770
1*7*51101770
1*7*51201770
1*7*51301770
147*51*01770
1*7*51501770
1*7*51601770
O
^^
-~^
CM
f
0
1 >
0
•**^
r—
o
£
17012 1
17312 i
1 7012
17012
17011;
17012
17012
17012 .
1 '1 0 12
17012
1 /O'. 2 \
1/012 |
1/012 |
\ f)\'?. .
I 7012 .
17012
17012
17012
I 70 12 i
17012:
17012,1
17012!
17012 j
17012-1
17012 !
17012:
17012:
17012-
17012'
17012!
17012J
17012
17012!
17012|
17012J
17012
17012,
17012
170131
17012'
l7OLi
17012
17012
17012:
170 12
170 12i
17012!
170!2|
17012!
17012
17012!
17012;
17012:
17012J
17012'
170121
17012;
1 7012
173121
17012
17012J
17012
17012
17012
K-12
-------
Table I , Continued
03
Wind Speed Class
234
c:
o
C3
in
o- o
0) r«.
co \
CXi
C i—
o
••- o
^J -(->
o
OJ >, CD
TD JO E
c ra o
N
NM£
we
ENf
E
esa
S£
ss£
. s
WMW
f»t»
H
UN-
He
EN£
E
E5c
«
SSE
5
55>
Sw
>»SW
v
MVtf
M»
HNy
e
E
c
£
F
£
C
€
E
E
£
If
F
F
F
r
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
0.000000. GO 13/0. 00 1370.000000. DO. lOOO. 00000
o. oooooo. 0003*3. nooooo. ouoooo.Oiijuoo. ooooo
O. OOOOOO. OO 10 10. OOOOOO. 003301. OOOOOO. OOOOO
o.oono no. 0003*3. ononoo.ouoooo.oooono. ooooo
o . ooo-ioo . on 1030. oooooo. oooooo. oo onoo. ooooo
o.oooon 'i. ool/io. oo[7io. ooonoo. oooooo. oo ooo
O.COOOOO.0030dO.OJ1030.OOOOOrt. OOOOOO. OOOOO
0.000000.011300.001710.000000.000000.00000
0- OOOOOO. 033 V29.OO 171 0.000 1»00. OOOOO >». OOOOO-
o. oooooo. 000*^0. 0003 w>. coo no o.o oooo o.oaooo
o.onoooo. oo a-.oo. 0003*0,000000. oooooo. ''jj oo
0. 0 0081O. 00 13 70. 003*30. OOOOOO. 00 00 00. S JOO 0
c.oooono.03 3*20. oo5**o,o ooooo. a oooo o.o oo oo
0. OOOOOO-.0030BO.OOS320 . OOOOOO. OOnono. 03000
o. on 0000.00*1 1 o.o fft'Joo. oooooo . oooooo. ooooo
0.000000.003*40
0.012070
0.010»?0
0.012030
0.01 3f>6O
O.OOSOOO
0.011170
o.oi ie>?o
0.016*OO
0.0??f"»o
o-on»>oio
0 .005010
n.ouo'io
0.01*120
0.0 1 sb^O
0.020^00
0.013670
.003*20
.001030
.ooo*ao
.00 10JO
.onlo33
.onot-HO
.002250
.on5»90
.007 190
.oojnao
.001370
• 0 0 ^ •• ^ 0
• o n/>*i 3 0
.007190
.006050
.005»PO
.003*20.000000
.oooooo.
.000000.
.000000,
.oooooo.
.nooooo.
.000000.
.000000.
.000000.
.nooooo.
oooooo
oooooo
OAOOOO
OO0004
oooooo
oooooo
900003
oooooo
OOOOOO
.00 onoo. oooooo
.cooooo.
.000000.
.000000.
.nooooo.
.nooooo.
.000000.
oooooo
oooooo
oooooo
oooooo
ooonon
oooooo
.000000
.000009
.030000
.on.oooo
.oooooo
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.oonooo
.000000
.onnooo
.000000
.OOOJOO
.ooooon
.onnooo
.000000
l*/*5 ULl f ro
1*7*0 PC17/0
1*7»S tit I /7n
1*7*5 6E1770
1*7*5 7E17/0
1*7*.S q£I77a
M7*5 9E1770
147V512E1770
.00040 1*7*51«E1770
.oonoo
•
.
.
.
.
.
»
.
.
.
.
»
.
.
oonoo
ooooo
00330
ooooo
03000
00000
onnoo
ooooo
oonoo
oonoo
onono
ooooo
ooooo
oonoo
onono
1*7*5
1*7*5
1*7*5
1*7*5
1*T*5
1*7*5
1*7'.5
1*7*5
1*7*5
I»7*51
1*7*51
1*7*51
1*7*51
1*7*51
1*7*51
1F1770
2^1770
3F1770
*F1770
5P1770
6F 1770
7F1770
Pfrj 77.-)
*>? 1770
0^1770
1F1770
y.fnir.
3f I77n
'.F1770
5^ 1 770
i /o li;
7012
701.!-
IO\ ?. .
7012'
7012
7012 :
7012
17012
17012
17012
17012
17012 :
17012 !
17012
17012
17012 !
17012 '
17012 .
17012
17012
17012
170)2
17012
17012
17012
17012.
17012
,7013
1*7*5I6FI 77n |70l?l
Source: U.S. EPA, Region I
K-13
-------
FIGURE 2
COM CONCENTRATION FORMULAS
The average concentration C~. due to area sources at a particular receptor is given
by - 16 1 f16 •* 6 1
CA = 2~ I \ * ^'^ r Z *Ck.l .m)S{P.=:Ufc.Pm) dp (1)
/ Lk=a * t.=l m^-1 -• J
o
where k = Index identifying wind direction sector
q. (p) = / Q(i'.fl) d8(cr the k sector
Q(p.9) = emission rate of the area source per unit area and unit
time
P = distance from the receptor to an infinitesimal area source
8 - angle relative to polar coordinates centered on the receptor
t = index identifying the wind speed class
m = index identifying the clas-j of the Pasquill stability category
^(k. t ,m) = joint frequency function
S(p.z;U fc.Pjjj) = dispersion function defined in Equations 3 and 4
z = height of r*v..-ptor above ground level
Uj = representative wind speed
Pm = Pasquill stability category
For point sources, the average concentration C due to n point sources is given by
~ P
16" J ' »(kn.t.m)CnS(pn.«;Ut.Pm)
^p ~ 2, r ._, __, ; (2)
n- ll-lm-1 r n
where kn = wind sector appropriate to the n point source
Gn = emission rate of the nf" point source
pn = distance from the receptor to the n " point source
If the re- - .• :or is presumed to be at ground level, that is. z = 0. then the functional
form of S(p.z;Ut,P ) will be
if "Z(P) < 0.8L and
if "jCp) > 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 concer.Ji .ition in tht vertical plane
b = effective stack height of source distribution , i.e., the
average height of aj-ea source emissions in the k*" wind
direction sector at radial distance g from the receptor
L= the afternoon mixing height
T,= asauBed half life of pollutant, hours
The possibility of pollutant removal by physical or chenical processes is included in
the program by the deoay s.xpression e-xp (-0. 692p /UjT, ) .
The total concentration for the averaging period is the sum of concentrations of the
point and area sources for that averaging period.
.C-14
-------
TABLE 8
SAMPLE OUTPUT OF COM Pl-TSP, P2 - SO,
••J 7} 302, FUN 19,
MS rM:k CUt I.. NET
)• n
60
Co
7 „
60
to
Vo
* 7°
1 :, o
ui 1 2 o
200
22o
'70
2 'i0
1 Co
41o
CRDINATF:S
30 40
70 60
A 0 f • „
CO
fO
10
50
SO
CO
20
40
I'O
9C
£0
JO
Co
60
70
9o
Oo
90
90
1 2 Pi P2 PI P2
OoM33E 00 Oo512E-Oi 00201E-01 Oo231E 00 Oo8bfaE 00
Co9^2F 00 OoLjiJE 00 00^6BF-Ol Oo3bOE 00 Oo990E 00
CoSC^F CC Oo211c 00 00922F.-01 00^36E 00 OolOOt 01
Go^Ut UO J086lt-0i 002S.it-01 00307i:
OoO'j^F. 00 0.177E 00 0.71AE-01 0»411L;
Oo947K 00 0»237E 00 0.533F-01 0«511E
OoSOlE 00 OolBOt 00 0.293E-01 00655E
OoOiiSE 00 0.48t.t-0i Ool56E-01 u«25Br:
Oo'j68h 00 Ooll5t OU 00222L 00 Ool>29d
00432E-; 00 Oo296E-01 Ool^'jE-Oi Oo24GE
Co 1HO:; 01 Ool37E 00 Ool09EF 00 00701C
Ool72E 00 Oo205E-01 Ooll36-01 OolO-Vb
Oo781E 00 0.300E-01 Ool23£-01 00320E
0.839E 00 O.Y83E-01 0012^E-01 0039SF
Ool07c 01 Oo057t-0k Oob>07E-02 00449t
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Oo
0.
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oa
Oo
Oo
Oo
Oo
970't;
1036
100F
031E
86 9 £
7 9 Of:
4<+7E
161E
1B3E
793E
8J>1E
107E
00
01
01
00
00
00
00
01
00
00
00
01
On
o.,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
0,,
Oo
0,,
CuL ILWATlu)
PI P 2
231 E 00 i)«H!5.:U: :)d
3'30i; 00 0«99f.}'" .,0
•=. 3 9 1:
0790»:
. 'r -, 1 '. :
.16 It
o ib K:
. 7 r> "i \'
o^^l *:
3 i 0 7 > •
'JO
Jl
Jl
00
AJ
00
•)()
01
00
00
JO
o i
-------
TABLE 9
COM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTOR POINTS
PROJECTION YEAR 1985 WITHOUT PROJECT
Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Area Sources
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
Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
*See Figure 1 for location of receptors
K-16
-------
TABLE 10
COM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTOR POINTS
PROJECTION YEAR 1985 WITH PROJECT
Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Area Sources
Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TSP
0.111
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
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 Sources
TSP
0.036
0.098
0.157
0.061
0.130
0.164
0.140
0.034
0.092
0.024
0.113
0.017
0.024
0.064
0.007
so2
0.014
0.043
0.071
0.022
0.055
0.039
0.020
0.011
0.182
0.012
0.089
0.009
0.010
0.010
0.004
Total
Area and Point
TSP
0.147
0.233
0.296
0.198
0.275
0.334
0.434
0.163
0.370
0.165
0.525
0.069
0.206
0.260
0.275
so2
0.506
0.596
0.605
0.574
0.616
0.597
0.498
0.512
0.529
0.270
1.008
0.113
0.481
0.506
0.633
See Figure 1 for location of receptors
K-17
-------
TABLE 11
COM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTOR POINTS
PROJECTION YEAR 2000 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
0.165
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
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 Sources
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
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
Total
Area and Point
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
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
K-18
-------
TABLE 12
COM GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS AT RECEPTOR POINTS
PROJECTION YEAR 2000 WITH PROJECT
Micrograms Per Cubic Meter
Area Sources
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
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 Sources
TSP
0.042
0.110
0.175
0.071
0.147
0.197
0.169
0.040
0.115
0.029
0.137
0.020
0.030
0.078
0.009
so2
0.018
0.052
0.083
0.026
0.064
0.048
0.026
0.013
0.222
0.014
0.109
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.050
Total
Area and Point
TSP
0.222
0.327
0.400
0.292
0.381
0.471
0.644
0.249
0.529
0.248
0.781
0.104
0.320
0.399
0.499
so2
0.856
0.994
0.992
0.966
1.018
0.995
0.827
0.866
0.790
0.447
1.610
0.183
0.793
0.851
1.070
Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
See Figure 1 for location of receptors
K-19
-------
Table 13
THE ESTIMATED 24-HOUR TSP CONCENTRATIONS
(MAN-MADE SOURCES ONLY)
(Concentrations in ug/m3)
Receptor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1985
Without
Project
0.709
0.936
1.069
0.931
1.090
1.645
2.222
0.815
1.900
0.841
2.667
0.349
1.031
1.328
1.455
With
Project
0.777
1.233
1.566
1.047
1.455
1.767
2.296
0. 862
1.957
0.873
2.777
0.365
1.090
1.375
1.455
2000
Without
Project
1.058
1.370
1.540
1.370
1.576
2.296
3.222
1.217
2.645
1.228
3.846
0.502
1.561
1.973
2.354
With
Project
1.174
1.730
2.116
1.545
2.015
2.492
3.407
1.317
2.798
1.312
4.131
0.550
1.693
2.111
2.640
NOTE: Based on the geometric standard deviation of 1.89
observed at the Laconia Station, the ratio of annual
maximum concentration to mean concentration for the
averaging time of 24 hours is 5.29. This ratio is
used for all receptor sites.
K-20
-------
Air Quality Impact
The concentrations resulting from man-made pollutant sources
are analyzed in the previous section. The man-made concentra-
tions are added to the natural background concentrations to ob-
tain the total ambient TSP concentration. From this, the air
quality impact can be assessed in terms of whether or not the
promulgated air quality standards will be met.
AS no appropriate measured air quality data was available
to estimate the natural background concentrations for TSP, it
was assumed that the natural background TSP concentrations are
40 p g/m3 and 16 Mg/m3 for the 24-hour and annual averages, re-
spectively.1 The total ambient TSP concentrations at the
selected 15 receptor sites include man-made concentrations (as
shown in Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12) and the natural background
concentrations. The results are presented in Table IV-4.
These figures were recommended by Mr. W. Peters of EPA,
Region 1.
K-21
-------
APPENDIX L
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
-------
On January 27, 1976 EPA held a public hearing on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the Winnipesaukee River Basin
project at Gilford Middle High School in Gilford, New Hampshire.
Copies of the complete transcript are available for the public's
reviev; at the offices of EPA and the New Hampshire Water Supply
and Pollution Control Commission.
The following represents a summary of the major issues
raised by the participants during the public hearing. Because
most had submitted their comments in writing, EPA's responses
to substantive comments are set forth in Section VI of the EIS.
Mr. Lindsey Collins, New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission.
The Commission is in substantial agreement with the basic
findings of the EIS that the long-term benefits of the
project far outweigh short-term adverse impacts resulting
from the project's construction. He indicated that there
were numerous revisions to the Draft EIS in technical areas
which the Commission would prepare and present to EPA.
Mr. Harold Geary, Owner of a cottage on Pickeral Cove.
Expressed concern about the potential blockage of Pickeral
Cove to boat traffic by the proposed West Paugus interceptor.
Mr. George Colby, resident on Pickeral Cove.
Requested the estimated cost of constructing an inverted
siphon under Pickeral Cove as an alternative to the
applicant's proposed action. The cost of the alternative
is estimated to be $649,000.
Mr. Don Fudreault, resident of Sanbornton.
Sought clarification of the potential population growth
inducement effects of the proposed project (Table III-4)
on the communities of Belmont and Sanbornton. The table
indicated that the zoning regulations of these communities
was not sensitive to the presence of public sewer as in
many other. A second comment was directed to the findings
of the EIS that it was probable that the population density
in the Lake Winnisquam watershed had reached an allowable
peak in terms of phosphate loading.
Mr. James M. Sweeney, City Manager of Franklin
Expressed criticism of the way in which the EIS had been
prepared and suggested that more "person to person contact"
and municipal involvement should have been solicited.
L-l
-------
Mr. James Peabody, resident of Pickeral Cove.
Described the extensive and lengthy efforts of Pickeral
Cove residents to secure a larger opening of the culvert
linking Pickeral Cove and Paugus Bay.
Mr. Francis Rich.
Asked a question regarding how far the Gilford interceptor
would be extended towards Alton Bay.
Mr. James Walker, President of the Clear Waters Association.
Indicated that the EIS had anticipated most of his questions
and that it was quite complete. Clarification was sought
regarding the classification of water quality in tributary
streams shown in Figure II-7.
Mr. Ken Kimball, resident.
Two areas of principal concern focused on secondary impacts
from increased population levels and the spin-off effects
this might have on the number of boat users and secondly,
he questioned the appropriateness of using Dillon's model
because of its insensitivity to low loading rates.
Mr. Dave Scott, Director of the Lakes Region Planning
Commission.
He indicated that the Commission has supported the
Winnipesaukee River Basin project since its inception.
However, he took issue with the EIS in general because it
represented a compilation of existing data and did not
represent an extensive original research effort. Specific
issues that he raised questions about concerned the use of
composite population projections, the findings of the
project's growth inducement effects, the reservation of
sewer capacity for the Peripheral Area, and the practical
application of the modeling effort set forth in Appendix
B (Draft).
Mr. Widger, Biospherics, Inc.
He concurred with Mr. Kimball's comments about the retention
rate problem associated with the use of Dillon's model.
L-2
-------
As a result of the comments received at the public hearing,
a number of specific actions were initiated by EPA to address
substantive issues raised at this meeting. These actions
included: (1) an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed
location of the West Paugus interceptor across Pickeral Cove;
(2) a reexamination of EPA's flow data for Lake Winnipesaukee
and the appropriateness of using Dillon's model in determining
the potential impacts of future development on the Lake's water
quality; (3) conduct an evaluation of the project's design ser-
vice area population through the assistance of the LRPC; and
(4) revisions to the EIS text.
L-3
-------
APPENDIX M
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS
-------
Advisory Council
On Historic Preservation
I 522 K Street N.W.
Wn9limRinn. D.C. 20005 March 4, 1976
Mr. John A. S. McGlennon
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston. Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. McGlennon:
Thank you for your request of December 30, 1975, for comments on the
environmental statement for the proposed wastewater treatment facili-
ties, Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire.
Pursuant to our responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Advisory Council's
"Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"
(36 C.F.R. Part 800), we have determined that your draft environ-
mental statement mentions properties of archeological and historical
significance; however, we need more information in order to evaluate
the effects of the undertaking on these resources. Please furnish
additional data indicating:
1. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (89 Stat. 915).
a. The Advisory Council notes that two properties included
in the National Register of Historic Places may be
affected by the proposed undertaking (cf. p.IV-38).
These properties are the Weirs Aquadoctan Archeological
Site, Belknap County, New Hampshire, and the Sulphite
Railroad Bridge, Merrimack County, New Hampshire. We
suggest that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) take immediate steps to determine whether the
nature of the effect on these properties requires EPA
to obtain the comments of the Advisory Council. Steps
to determine this responsibility are set forth in
Section 800.4 of the Advisory Council's "Procedures
for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"
(36 C.F.R. Part 800). The final environmental state-
ment should contain evidence of compliance with Section
106.
The Council it an independent unit of the Executive Branch of the federal Government charged by the Act of
October 15, 1966 to advhe the President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation.
-------
2. Compliance with Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971. (16 U.S.C.
470). The environmental statement must demonstrate that either of the
following conditions exists:
a. A property eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places is not located within the area of
environmental impact, and the undertaking will not affect
any such property. In making this determination, the
Advisory Council requires evidence of consultation with
the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer and
evidence of an effort to ensure the identification of
such properties. The Advisory Council recommends that
comments of the State Historic Preservation Officer be
included in the final environmental statement.
b. A property eligible for inclusion in the National Register
is located within the area of environmental impact, and
the undertaking will or will not affect any such property.
In cases where there will be an effect, the final environ-
mental statement should contain evidence of compliance
with the Executive Order through the Advisory Council's
"Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800).
3. To ensure a comprehensive review of cultural and historical resources,
the Advisory Council recommends that the environmental statement contain
evidence of contact with the appropriate State Historic Preservation
Officer. A copy of his comments concerning the effects of the undertaking
upon these resources should be included in the environmental statement.
The State Historic Preservation Officer for New Hampshire is George
Oilman, Commissioner, Department of Resources and Economic Development,
P.O. Box 856, Concord, New Hampshire 63301.
Should you have any questions on these comments or require any additional
assistance, please contact Jordan Tannenbaum of the Advisory Council
staff 202 254-3380.
erely yours,
S\
John D. McDermott
Director, Office of Review
and Compliance
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
NORTHEAST REGION
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING
ROOM 2003 M & N
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
March 8, 1976
In Reply Refer To:
EGS-ER-76/22-MS760
Dear Mr. McGlennon:
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement on Wastewater Collection
and Treatment Facilities, Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire.
In view of the proposed elimination of on-site sewage disposal systems
(p. 1-10 to 1-16, par. 3), measures for deactivation of abandoned septic
tank systems in the service area should be discussed.
Since the environmental statement recognizes that increased erosion and
sedimentation in lakes and streams will result from both primary and
secondary construction activities (p. IV-14, par. 3), measures to minimize
adverse effects should be discussed.
In general we find that the draft statement is thorough and accurate in
its consideration of ground-water resources, and we believe, as suggested
in the document, that net impacts on ground water should be beneficial.
We agree with the impact assessments presented, but we suggest that the
following should also be considered:
1. Reduction of ground-water recharge will result not only as a
secondary impact of the removal of septic tank effluents and run-off
from increased impervious areas (p. IV-21) but also from downstream
export of ground water in sewage effluent. The latter will probably
increase considerably as a result of more trouble free use of sanitary
facilities and of the increased use of garbage disposers, dishwashers
and laundering equipment. Because high water table conditions now seem
to exist, we would anticipate that net effects would be beneficial; but
this impact should be considered.
-------
Page 2
2. Declining water table conditions that must be anticipated as a
result of the project will have impacts on some of the many wetlands,
small lakes and ponds in the project area. Decrease in volume of storage
and perhaps a proportionate increase in nutrients or pollutants would be
logical effects as ground water underflow and seepage into lakes and ponds
decreases. Such impacts should be evaluated in conjunction with efforts
to reduce eutrophication. (See pages IV-4, IV-5, IV-11 through IV-20,
for example.)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
S '!
Sincerely youj?s, /
<~-
*r--\
r Sumafer Fabb N J
Special Assistant to
the Secretary
Mr. John A. S. McGlennon
Regional Administrator, Region I
Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 2203
Government Center
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
-------
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION , , -, ] Q
REGION ONE
ROOM 720. LEO W. O'BRIEN FEDERAL BUILDINO
ALBANY. NEW YORK 12207
February 6, 1970
IN RKK.Y REFER TOi
01-00.4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Implementation Office
Region One-JFK Building, Room 2303
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Sir:
Subject: DEIS-Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities
Wlnnipesauke River Basin, New Hampshire
Enclosed is a letter directed to the DOT Secretarial Representative
which comments on the subject DEIS. As there were no comments from
other agencies within DOT on this project, the letter was returned
to this office and we are in turn sending it to you as our response.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this document.
Sincerely yours,
^
\
Fory'Robert E. Kirby, Regional
Federal Highway Administrator
Enclosure
-------
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION ONE
Federal Building, Rm. 219
Concord, NH 03301
__. IN REPLY HEFtR TO:
January 16, 1976
Mr. David W. Hays
Regional Representative
U.S. Dept. of Transportation
Transportation Systems Center
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142
Dear Mr. Hays:
Subject: DEIS - Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities
Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire
We have been requested by Regional Federal Highway Administrator Kirby
to review and comment on the subject DEIS for an EPA-funded action.
Our review has been directed only towards the transportation aspects
of the proposed action and our comments are as follows:
1. It is difficult to determine, from Figure 1-6 and from
the limited discussion in the EIS of the existing highway
system and its relationship to the proposal, whether
serious disruptions will occur and what actions EPA will
take to mitigate such impacts. However, Page IV-43 does
indicate that extensive problems may be caused by con-
struction of the Tilton interceptor, which proceeds along
the main thoroughfare, and Page IV-7 states that sewers
will be routed along public right-of-way as much as
possible. We would recommend that a more detailed project
area map, showing the New Hampshire highway system be
included along with more extensive discussion of highway-
related problems and their mitigation.
2. The New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways
has hired the consultant firm of Wilbur Smith and
Associates to perform engineering and environmental studies
for a proposed relocation of Routes U.S. 3 and N.H. 11
-more-
-------
-2
through the Towns of Franklin, Tilton, Belmont and Laconia.
Attached is a map of the study area for your use; however,
we would suggest that contact be made with Highway Design
Engineer Harland Roberts of the New Hampshire Department of
Public Works and Highways at AC 603-271-2310 and possibly with
the consultant at his 7 Perley Street, Concord, New Hampshire
field office to determine if any conflicts exist. From
Figure I-& and llie description of the interceptors it appears
that the only crossing of the proposed relocation would be in
the vicinity of Lochmere.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this document and hope that our
comments will be of assistance to you.
Sincerely yours,
F. T. Cotasrock, Jr., P/ E.
Attachment Division Administrate^
cc: Region
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
424 TRAPELO ROAD
WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS O2154
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
NEDPL-R 23 February 1976
Mr. John A.S. McGlennon
Regional Administrator
Region I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
J. F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. McGlennon:
A review has been made of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities, Winnipesaukee River
Basin, New Hampshire. Please find our comments below concerning this
DEIS.
1. Please note that any structure or sewer line crossing a
navigable water and any wetland adjacent or contiguous to navigable
waters, will require a Corps of Engineers permit. Since this work
will be completed after 1 July 1977, a permit will be required for all
fill activities in streams over 5cfs and wetlands associated with
these streams.
2. The need for a permit for the fill of streams and wetlands,
and for structures in navigable waters, should be presented in the
final statement since it is not presented in section III-D of the
DEIS, (pg. 111-34-35).
3. The pipelines and the outfall structure should be displayed
distinctly in order to assess the extent of navigable waters and
wetlands to be crossed or disturbed. (Fig. 1-6, pages 1-22 thru I,
Fig. 11-10).
4. Any construction in navigable waters or wetlands for the
Winnisquam, Laconia, or Franklin outfall will require additional
information in the final statement. This information should detail
the area to be disturbed and the impacts to those areas. In addition,
any such construction will require a Corps of Engineers permit as
stated in #1 above. (Pages 1-22 and 24, 1-27 thru 1-29).
5. The final statement should address the extent of dredging
needed for the proposed work. It should also address the discharge
of dredged or fill material in the waters and adjacent wetlands.
-------
NEDPL-R
Mr. John A.S. McGlennon
23 February 1976
6. Please note that we would favor mitigating measures that
would minimize any adverse environmental impact through appropriate
scheduling of construction phases.
In the final EIS please include any further information detailing
the impacts to navigable waters and wetlands. Review of this
information and its inclusion into an Environmental Impact Statement
is necessary prior to any action on a Corps of Engineers permit
application.
Please contact Mr. William McCarthy of my staff so that the Final
Environmental Impact Statement includes all the necessary information
required for Corps of Engineers actions on the entire project. Other-
wise, it may be necessary for us to prepare a separate Environmental
Impact Statement for the omitted portions and this is not In accord-
ance with CEQ guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this Impact nL;iLriwiii.
Sincerely yours,,'
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MANCHESTER AREA OFFICE
DAVISON BUILDING, 1230 ELM STREET
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03101
REGION I
»hn F. Kennedy™F8°,?erBi Bunding February 25, 1976
Boston, MnasartiuiKMls 02203
IN ni£pLv nerirr* TO:
1.3SS
Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Environmental Impact Office
Room 2203
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Gentlemen:
We have reviewed the draft
to the Winnipesaukee River
ment Facilities.
ssr ' ss:."ut-
no objections
Sincerely, "^
Creeley7 S. Buchanan
Area Director
-------
1 M'HCF OF ('.OMI'KKIIK.NSIV I- I'l-
STATF. OF NLW II \M I'M ! I" I".
•H'A I'K IHMiSF ANNi.X. CON'''1)*!!
February 10, 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Environmental Impact Office
Region I
J.F.K. Federal Building, Room 2203
lioston, Massachusetts 02203
Gentlemen:
Our office has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Winni-
pcsaukec River Basin Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities. In accordance:
with your transmittal notice of December 30, 1975, our comments are summarized
below referenced to the applicable section of the EIS.
Section II. A. Natural Environment
Page 11-70, second paragraph - Reference is made to OCP Guide Plan
recommendations concerning certain activities on slopes greater
than 25%. Because relevant portions of the Guide Plan have not yet
been published in draft form and thereby subject to technical and
policy review, we do not at this time consider these recommendations
appropriate for citation, particularly in a section of the EIS which
generally presents an inventory of factual information.
Section III. C. Population Projections and Distribution
Page 11-74. Table 11-16 - Under column 2 (1974 OCP adjusted figures),
a spot check did not verify that the adjusted figures reflect only
the addition of group quarters' population counts. It should be
noted that these adjusted figures were also included in Table III-5
(page IH-20), Table III-6 (page 111-21), and in Table 111-12
(page 111-30) without an explanation as to how they were adjusted.
Page 111-33. Table III-14 - The choice of the Guide Plan NED seasonal
projections as "most appropriate for purposes of this report" should
be further explained. At least sonvi of the "arbitrary assumptions"
referred to at the bottom of page ICI-26 should be made explicit and
the use of these projections should be appropriately qualified.
-------
-2-
Scction III. C. (General) - Since the completion of the data
gathering for the E1S, the OCP has completed projections of local
population to the year 2000. We have enclosed a copy of this report
for your reference.
Section IV. A, Environmental Evaluation - Natural Environment
^Page IV-36, Subsection 7. Recreation - Section 201(f) of P.L. 92-500
'directs the EPA Administrator to "...encourage waste treatment manage-
; ment which combines 'open space1 and recreational considerations with
such management." We believe that the EIS should address in some
detail the potential benefits associated with "multi-use" possibilities
between proposed waste treatment facilities and recreation opportunities.
More specifically, investigations undertaken as part of the 1975 N.H.
Outdoor Recreation Plan indicated high priority needs in trails and
public beach facilities in the Lakes Region. The general location and
extent of the interceptor system would appear to offer unique opportunities
for multi-use which should be addressed in the EIS. Recognition of
multi-use potential in the EIS would foster consideration during sub-
sequent planning and design of wastewater collection and treatment
:acilities.
We hope
EIS,
mation.
that the preceding comments will be helpful in the preparation of the final
Shbuld you have questions, we would be pleased to supply additional infor-
Sincerely,
James E. Minnoch
Director of State Planning
JEM:ms
End.
-------
frtatr of Nrut $amjiiil|irr
COMMISSIONERS
'OKI Ml .1. HILL. Chairman Ou'iS«\ WILLIAM A. MI.AI.Y. I'. I .
<\LO C. CALDERWOOD. P. E. **R' Exerutlvii
hi-r(NAMD W. CORSON
• •IRBEm A.FINCHER THOMAS A. LA CAVA. I'.
UK-HARD M. FLYNN Deputy Exucutivi. Dirocini
neoRGET. HAMILTON Slater 9upplg an& foUuttnn (dontrol Qlommidfiiou """ Clii<" e»rt»>»»
r. i ME* , L.JOHNSON
9«BrflttPark L.NDSAY M. COLL.NS. P. E.
H. MIRES. M. o.. M. p. H. (Hiittrnrh 03301
WAYNF L. PATENAUDK
HOB6RT M. SNOW
J/\:F.«; \AROTSIS February 5, 1976
Mr. Wallace E. Stickney, P.E.
Director, Environmental Impact Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement -
Winnipesaukee River Basin Program
Dear Mr. Stickney:
As stated by Commission Chairman Robert J. Hill in his
statement read at the recent public hearing on the Draft EIS for
the Winnipesaukee River Basin Program, the staff has made a critical
and extensive review of the Draft EIS. The comments contained on
the enclosed five pages are presented for your consideration.
Some of the comments address what we feel to be technical
errors, while others are of an editorial nature.
After review of the staff's comments, should you wish to
discuss these matters with us, we will gladly make ourselves available
as necessary.
Very truly yours,
Daniel Collins, P.E.
Assistant Chief Engineer-
Administrator
DC:dgk
Enclosures
-------
- STAFF COMMENTS RE:
= /o>0
^ DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Page xii (3) The Laconia State School should be added as an
existing treatment plant discharge.
2. Page xii D It is unclear as to how construction activities
will increase nutrient loadings.
3. Page 1-1 The term "Townships" should read ei
Cities or Towns.
4. Page 1-7 Elimination of carbon at Laconia identified
-------
STAFF COMMENTS RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PAGE 2
12. Page 1-16 Table 1-6 should be corrected to reflect Franklin
load-ings to agres with tables on Pages 1-20 and 1-21.
13. Page 1-25 There is no project which we identify as "Laconia
Connector". Assumed that it should read "Tilton-Northfield Inter-
ceptor Sewer".
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
14. Page 1-30 Land area should be changed to read "220 acres"
rather than "22 acres".
15. Page 1-31 Cost estimate should be changed to agree wilh
$55,000,000 shown on Page X.
16. Page 11-26 Table II-8 - the column reading "Future Classification"
should read "Existing Classification". Column reading "Existing
Classification" should read "Existing Water Quality".
17. Page 11-34 Statement of high coliform counts associated with
discharge from Meredith plant is incorrect. Discharge is effectively
disinfected and our records indicate satisfactory coliform conditions
in the area.
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
18. Page 11-39 The Weirs water supply in Laconia should be added
to Table 11-13. Treatment consists of filtration and hypochlorination.
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
19. Page 11-41 All Towns are identified as having public water
supplies. Sanbornton has none. See Table 11-13.
20. Page 11-42 Anderson-Nichols report in 1972 recommended develop-
ment of groundwater supplies before going to surface supplies if
at all possible.
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
21. Page 11-43 &
Page 1-29 Minimum discharge figures from Lake Winnipesaukee
should be consistent.
-------
STAFF COMMENTS RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATI.MI.Nl
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PAGE 3
22. Page 11-45 Statement on cause of fish kills should be
corrected as suggested in letter of October 3, 1975.
23. Page 11-51 See previous Comment #13 relating to "Laconia
Connector".
24. Page 11-120 "Five" treatment plants are identified. Should
read "four".
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
25. Page IV-4 Table IV-1 - Continuation of discharge to
Lake Winnisquam as a mitigating measure is completely unacceptable.
26. Page IV-12 D.O. deficit computations incorrect. Average flow
during period of discharge will not exceed 2.0 - 2.5 MGD. During
summer flow periods BOD anticipated to be 50 mg/1.
27. Page IV-23 Sludge incineration has not been proposed at
Franklin.
28. Page IV-29 We contend there will be no chlorine residual after
lengthy travel time.
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
29. Page IV-29 There will be no discharge to Winnipesaukee
River in 1980.
30. Page IV^32 Table IV-7 - see previous comments re:
"Laconia Connector".
31. Page IV-36 There will be no exit of trucks from plant
site except along level land adjacent to the river.
32. Page IV-42 There will be no discharge of sewage from boats,
State law and enforcement preclude this activity.
-------
STAFF COMMENTS RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PAGE 4
33. Page IV-42 No chlorine residual at temporary discharge
point. See comment above.
34. Page IV-43 The estimated cost of the program should agree
with that shown on Page X.
35. Page IV-45 The reference to access along the "Pemigewasset
River" should read "Merrimack River".
36. Page IV-51 The reference to dechlorination of water withdrawn
from the river for water supplies is not clear.
37. Page IV-54 The reference of "sand for filters" is unclear.
There will be no sand filtration.
38. Page IV-57 Question raised concerning "effective" boat inspection
program. In reality, the Commission has long had very stringent
rules and regulations prohibiting discharge of boat wastes together
with an effective inspection program.
39. Page V-8 BOD removals expected to exceed 50% when the coarse
media filters are in operation.
40. Page V-10 Alternate site contains only 10 - 12 acres of usable
space.
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
41. Page V-11 Suggestion that outfall be extended 3,000' - 7,000'
downstream is not warranted.
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
42. Page V-23 The State School pumping station and force main which
are discharging to the existing system, are currently under construction.
43. Pages R-l through R-8 References incomplete.
(See letter of October 3, 1975)
-------
STAFF COMMENTS RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATTMENT
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PAGE 5
44. Spelling and typing errors were noted on the following pages-
1-4, 1-24, 1-25, 11-17, 11-21, 11-46 (Squam Lake), 11-50, 11-74,
IV-11, IV-27, IV-47 (Durkee Brook), V-5, V-6, V-7, V-10, V-15
V-23a, R-4 (Maguire Study 1972).
-------
PLANNING
COMMISSION
Humiston Building - Meredith, New Hampshire 03753
Telephone ?79 8171
rebruary 20, 1976
Wallace E. Stickney, Director
Environmental Impact Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
J. F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. Stickney:
The Lakes Region Planning Commission has reviewed the draft Environmental
Impact Statement for wastewater collection and treatment facilities in New
Hampshire's Winnipesaukee River Basin. A verbal statement was presented by
Mr. David G. Scott, Executive Director of the Lakes Region Planning Commission
(LRPC), at the public hearing held on January 27th at the Gilford Middle High
School. This written statement will provide more detailed comments and will
summarize major concerns.
It should be emphasized that the LRPC has supported the Winnipesaukee River
Basin Project since its inception. The program is needed to eliminate existing
and rather obvious threats to the maintenance of high water quality to the
Basin's lakes and rivers. The comments that follow are intended to strengthen
the EIS by calling attention to areas in which the LRPC believes the document is
weak in fact or analysis.
The basic concerns of the Commission cover Population Projections, Septic
Tanks, Land Use Planning, Secondary Impacts, and Appendix B on Future Growth.
A specific discussion of each point follows. In addition, a second part comprised
of a list of detailed corrections and questions is included following the general
discussion to assist in finalizing the document.
A. General Comments:
1. Population Projections.
Population projections utilized by the Consultant to evaluate the project
are greater by over 60% than the next highest set of projections. Section III,
Table 111-14.
-------
Mr. Wallace E. Stickney
Page 2
February 20, 1976
1'hfi next highest set. which happen to luwc been proposed by the I we
(pg. 111-28, Paragraph 2), are Included with the following comment by the
Consultant: "The sustained high level of growth suggested above may be unreason-
able in light of current and expected future economic and energy limitations".
This statement is not consistent with the final decision unless the Consultant
believes that great increases in seasonal population should not be included as
anticipated growth. It might also be useful to document the "current and expected
economic limitations" to which reference is made.
2. Septic Tanks.
The Consultant applies figures for apparent failure in septic systems,
as received from Gilford Town Engineer, Joe April (pg. 1-13), to the entire
Region using Table 1-5. The data in that Table is utilized to justify failure
rates at or above the Gilford experience.
The Lakes Region Planning Commission, based on its own analysis of natural
conditions developed a considerably different Table for natural conditions. That
data shows that the natural conditions in Gilford are the most severe of any of
the towns listed. The information is contained in the EIS referenced Maguire,
C. E., Inc., Water Quality Management Plan for the Lakes Region (pg. R-4).The
specific Table in the Maguire report is found in Table 1-2, page 1-8. Based on this
the major portion of the analysis of septic tank impacts is questionable. It
should be noted that the methodology utilized by the State in its work on natural
characteristics was generalized, whereas, that utilized by the Region is specific
to each town.
3. Land Use Planning.
It is particularly distressing to note the lack of real understanding of
the Land Use Planning process in New Hampshire embodied in this report. The
extent of this lack of understanding is nowhere more clearly documented than on
Page 111-12, Paragraph 1.
The accelerated recognition of the importance of Land Use Planning renders
most of these comments inappropriate, i.e. most of this planning activity in New
Hampshire has occurred since 1960. The fact that there is not a complex and
complicated set of developmental controls does not mean that planning is not
becoming more effective. In the judgment of the LRPC, the growing awareness of
environmental quality, which has resulted in (a) the Clean Waters Association,
(b) the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project, (c) the Lakes Region Planning Commission,
(d) the designation of the Lakes Region under 208, and (e) implementation of the
three-year 208 Project is a very real recognition by the Region that the old tools
may not be as effective as some planners may like to suggest. The measures evolving
in the Lakes Region represent concrete, effective, and even on the National Scale,
innovative planning measures.
-------
Mr. Wallace E. Stickney
Page 3
February 20, 1976
The discussion on Page 111-10, last paragraph, even goes so far ds to
distort the traditional relationship between a Zoning Ordinance and a Land Use
Plan. It should be clearly understood that Chapin did not even imply that
Zoning, a Land Use Plan and a Comprehensive Plan are one and the same.
4. Secondary impacts.
It is the opinion of the Lakes Region Planning Commission that nowhere
is this EIS weaker than in its evalution of potential Secondary Impacts of this
Project. Page IV-10 (Table IV-I continued) indicates that:
a. increasing land utilization by removing the development
constraint of poor soils;
b. increase in allowable development densities; and
c. reinforcement of the Region's existing growth pattern;
are all beneficial secondary long-term impacts. (These items are discussed in
detail on Pages IV-44-49.)
The LRPC would question those conclusions for several reasons.
a. Removal of development constraints for sanitary sewage does not
remove constraints for other parameters, (i.e. storm water, road
construction, erosion and sedimentation, home building, and last
but not least, the local economic ability to fully serve such
growth).
b. Increases in allowable densities are not necessarily beneficial,
particularly if the social and economic fabric of the community
is destroyed in the process.
c. Reinforcement of the existing growth pattern is neither appropriate
nor desirable. The existing pattern was established over the past
one hundred years. Recent efforts have been directed at changing
that pattern, i.e. more open space, public shorefront, lower densi-
ties and environmental protection. There is a very real interest in
protecting village centers and encouraging cluster or nodal develop-
ment.
d. Land costs within this Region are presently a function of outside
demands. As a result, it is more and more difficult for local resi-
dents to find a house at a reasonable cost. According to this EIS,
land costs will increase dramatically. The logical extension of
these comments is that local landowners will be forced out of the
Region. Housing for low-income families and middle-income as well
is almost unavailable. This is a severe negative impact.
-------
Mr. Wallace E. Stickney
Page 4
February 20, 1976
e. The EIS implies in that same section that the preceding is consistent
with Regional Goals and Objectives. In fact, one of the major concerns of the
Region is the strengthening of the existing social fabric. This goes hand-in-hand
with the recognition that housing must be provided at costs which are within the
economic means of the present residents. To this extent the EIS is incorrect. It
is our concern that these comments be addressed in the EIS.
5. Appendix B: Future Growth.
The EIS in Appendix B attempts to utilize the work of Vollenweider and
Dillon to come up with maximizing population limits in the Basin. The data being
utilized comes from work undertaken as part of the National Eutrophication Survey
(NES) and is rather loosely applied with some very generalized (and hardly appro-
priate) assumptions. Utilized in this manner, the discussion closely approximates
the GI-GO model.
It is the belief of the LRPC that this discussion is inappropriate; does
not add anything of substantial value to the EIS; is academic in manner of dis-
cussion; and will serve in the long run to depreciate the value of more highly
researched and documented projects now underway in the Region by placing unsupported
conclusions before the public.
The entire Appendix should be deleted as should all reference to it,
(i.e. Pages IV-19, Paragraphs 4 and 5 and IV-28, Paragraph 1).
B. Detailed Comments:
Page xi - 4 Belmont is not sewered.
Page xiii P. 1 Oversizing of pipes is indicated as being "insurance" for
the future of the pereferal area. How is this insurance
going to be maintained over 10, 20, 50 years?
P. 6 Why a public disclosure statement? What types of legal
liability or responsibilities are implied?
Page 1-1 P. 4 Cities of Franklin and Laconia and the remaining commu-
nities are towns.
Page 1-3 Map Route 106 in Belmont extends southerly to Town Line and
beyond.
Page 1-11 Table 1-1 Why is seasonal data for Northfield and Franklin not
included if the source is, in fact, the U.S. Census?
-------
Mr. Wallace E. Stickney
Page 5
February 20,,1976
Page 1-19 P. 3 The Airport area 1n Gilford 1s presently zoned and avail-
able for Industrial growth and will be.more desirable when
the Interceptor 1s constructed.
Page 1-29 Sludge Handling. What type of heavy metals may be present?
The implications of this serious source of pollution should
be more fully discussed.
Page 11-21 P. 3 "minimum storage" should be "maximum" storage.
Page 11-42 P. 2 New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning (OCP)
Page 11-60 Numbers are not identified in a manner consistent with
noted tables.
Page 11-62 Wetlands Lacking - i.e. in Gilford area along Route 11
adjacent to Lake.
Page 11-64 Last word should be Board.
Page 11-70 Last P. Next to last sentence "sitings" should be "sightings".
Page 11-75 Footnote does not make sense.
Page 11-76 Table 11-17 Changes in methodology or source of this data from
year to year may indicate percentage differences. These
are not intended to document year-to-year changes.
Page 11-102 F1g. 11-13 Laconia Country Club incorrectly located.
Page 11-122 Table 11-32 Gilford and Laconia both have schools.
Page 11-127 Last P. Meredith is a town.
Page III-4 P. 4 Completion of 208 Program is June, 1978.
Page III-5 Table III-l *Footnote: LRPC is updating the Plan.
Page III-8 P. 7 Alton's Plan was completed in
Sanbornton's was completed in 1962-3.
Page 111-13 F1g. III-2 Northfield now has Zoning Ordinance.
Gilford has Historic Preservation District.
Page 111-18 Last Sentence Something left out.
Page 111-29 Table 111-13 By interpolating LRPC figures from sources cited
in Table 111-11, the following LRPC seasonal
totals can be inserted.
-------
Mr. Wallace E. Stlckney
Page 6
February 20, 1976
1985 2000
Primary
Preferal
Seasonal
30,800
23,320
Total
80,850
35,620
Seasonal
45,320
34,340
Total
108,920
53,940
54,120 116,470 79,660 162,860
Page 111-14 Summary - Last Sentence: "Mountonborough" should be "Moulton-
borough."
Page IV-14 P. 2 Statement on responsibilities under Dredge
and Fill is inaccurate regarding administra-
tion of the Act.
Page IV-11-20 This discussion believes the "no signifies^j
secondary impact theory".
Page IV-19 P. 4 & 5 Refers to Appendix B and Dillon work to
justify comments. LRPC does not agree with
Appendix.
Page IV-28 P. 1 Another reference to Appendix B which leads
to conclusions based on a very marginal if
not inaccurate analysis.
Page IV-34 P. 4 The wetlands lie southerly of the Airport •«>:•'
are presently designated in a protective Vo*.-
lands Conservation District.
Page IV-39 First Sentence What does this add? Cast iron pipe and con-
crete are hardly "natural resources" in any
real sense of the words.
Page IV-44 P. 1 .. .secondary benefits p_f major...
Is it likely that large sums of money will b"
spent within the Region? Where do the contrdt,
tors and suppliers do business? Few, if any,
purchase in the Region, therefore, the entirr-
"multiplier" effect is questionable.
Page IV-44 P. 3 Where has increased residential development
resulted in lower public service costs? The
"may" should be "will".
-------
Mr. Wallace E. Stlckney
Page 7
February 20, 1976
Page V-12 Section 4
Page V-13 & 14 P. 3
Page V-14
P. 2 & 3
Page V-15 P. 2
Page V-20
DOS/mlh
This section apparently loses sight of the fact
that a major portion of the Region will not be
sewered even by 2000. (See Figure 1-2). For this
project to be effective, strong local controls
must also be adopted.
This discussion is somewhat unrealistic. In fact,
zoning lot sizes in areas where public sewer is
not available are governed by the ability of the
soils to handle sanitary wastes. The effect of
the public sewer system will be increased growth
and will, in fact, encourage high densities.
Quite honestly, there was no Regional Sewage Struc-
ture just a few years ago. This discussion is
subject to rather rapid and radical change. The
low growth implications are not adequately discussed,
Why could not most of the Region adopt a low growth
approach except where the interceptor is available?
Last sentence "life" not "like".
Discussion of sludge disposal overlooks potentially
serious implications of heavy metals and groundwater
pollution. Once pollution occurs - what next?
Cordially,
LAKES REGION PLANNING COMMISSION
ff /} r V /
wUbdm w. iM/l/
r ' t ^ wr
Laurence B. Flint
Chairman
cc:
Dan Collins, N.H. Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission
Dave Neville, Office of Comprehensive Planning
Jim Walker, Clean Waters Association
-------
SOCIETY
FOR THE
PROTECTION
OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE
FORESTS
b SOUTH STATE STREET
CONCORD. N. H. 03301
,1603>224 9945
•^
J
/
vr
February 24, 1976
Mr. John A. S. McGlennon
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 2230 Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Mr. McGlennon:
My staff has completed a review of the "Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities,
Wlnnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire" promulgated by your
office.
Although we wholeheartedly endorse both the need for a
method of mitigating the rapid eutrophication of the lakes
within the basin, and the scheme of a regional collection
and treatment system, we nonetheless have some concerns
about the proposal.
The major decision to propose a secondary treatment process
(activated sludge) rather than a tertiary process (physical
chemical) receive very little notice in the draft. Since
this is a substantial reversal from earlier stages in the
planning, and since it represents a deterioration in the
quality of the effluent (at least in nutrient content),
that decision warrants a more thorough justification than it
receives.
The decision to be satisfied with secondary rather than
tertiary treatment appears to rest heavily on the concept of
"exporting" the nutrients.
We would agree that exporting the nutrients is likely to
be beneficial to the lakes. Further, we would assume that
..Jtheir negative impact would most likely be considerably less
Yin a river than in a lake. However, transporting the nutrients
y beyond the lakes does not solve the total problem, it merely
changes its scale and its locus.
A concern for the lakes should not mean a lack of concern
for the rivers. The draft briefly alludes to the possibility
of needing to provide phosphorus removal "...in the future if
conditions warrant" (IV-29). These vague conditions presumably
refer to the nearly equally vague promotion of "...aquatic
plant growth" (IV-29).
-------
Mr. John A. S. McGlennon Page 2 February 24, 1976
The probable impacts of the effluent on the receiving waters is not
at all clear. With regard to the residual chlorine, the reader is left &jw^^i /)
to guess what assumptions underlie the "Worst Possible" case (Table IV-6). jj<
What low flow regieme was used here? What is its frequency or probability ^
of occurance?
The reader is left to guess what the biologic effects are likely to
be of .05 mg/1 residual chlorine since Table IV-5 skips from .02 mg/1 to .25 mg/1.
Nor is the text helpful. "At low river, flow problems could occur" (IV-30).
If fish kills are certain, likely, or unlikely, the report should so state,
and it should refer to species most likely to be affected.
Another concern raised by the draft is the choice of a site for the
Franklin plant within flood hazard area. The draft assures the reader that
the plant must be protected from waters of a 100-year flood, but gives no
information about the height of diking or elevation to accomplish this (11-68).
An attempt to site in Franklin is dismissed as perhaps not being large
enough if advanced waste treatment is subsequently needed (V-ll). A key
question which isn't addressed is whether that site would be large enough
for a physical chemical plant rather than an activated sludge with AWT
subsequenily^addedT]^ • - " " '
.^--_
In essence we find it ironic that a federal agency, which is usually (7a * v^^
sensitive/to the .proper uses of special categories of land, should find " eciate
having had this opportunity.
Cordj^ll'
POBrLM
-------
National Wildlife Federation
ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, O.C 2(K)'K> Phone. 202—797-6800 i
February 12, 197
Mr. John A. S. McGlennon
Regional Administrator
EPA - Region 1
J. F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Re: Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities—Winnlpesaukee River Basin,
New Hampshire
Dear Mr. McGlennon:
We are in receipt of the draft environmental impact
statement for the captioned project. Unfortunately, we
did not receive it in time either to attend the public
meeting in Gilford on January 27th, or to prepare thought-
ful comments prior to the February 14th deadline.
We note from the impact statement (p. IV-51) that
the project—
will induce growth and allow greater development
density in areas where sewer service is pro-
vided. * * Increased development creates the
potential for significant adverse impacts upon
both the natural and man-made environments.
We're concerned that, in making the grant, EPA take
measures to ensure against destruction of valuable wetland areas
and -to preclude unnecessary, uneconomic, or hazardous
use of the floodplain. In short, we have the concerns we
had in your Block Island wastewater treatment grant.
We also note that sludge incineration is planned, and
in a quick perusal we find no mention of the possible al-
ternative of land application.
We have sent the impact statement to our New Hampshire
affiliate, and have suggested they might want to take a
-------
National Wildlife Federation
Mr. John A. S. McGlennon
February 12, 1976
Page Two
hard look at the land use Implications of this.grant.
Accordingly,.,! would appreciate it if you could hold open
the comment period for an additional two weeks to give
them an opportunity to review and comment..
Thanks in advance.
Very fepuly yours,
.T. Ool1;on
oc: New-Hamprihlro Wildlife
Federation, Inc.
-------
JAN 2 U 197b
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE ARCHEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, Inc.
_ January 27, 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn. : Environmental Impact Office
Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Rm. 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Re: Archaeological and Historic Resources in the Winnipesaukee River Basin
Dear Sir:
As Director of Research for the New Hampshire Archeological Society, I
have reviewed relevant sections in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement;
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities Winnipesaukee River Basin,
New Hampshire. The insufficiency of information in the report is appalling.
Town histories and local artifact collections attest to the richness of
cultural remains in the entire area. To our knowledge, however, no
adequate archeological survey of the Winnipesaukee River Basin has ever
been made.
I would anticipate there are many sites yet to be discovered in such an
environ, both historic and prehistoric, that would adversely be affected
by further intensive land use.
It would seem that field surveys conducted by professional archeologists
are in order, particularly about the area known as the Weirs Aquadoctan
Site. Amateur archeologists should be contacted and ethnohistorical
research commenced at once.
j
Until such steps are taken, the environmental assessment must by any
standards be considered an improper one.
Sincerely,
W. Dennis Chesley
Director of Research
WDCremc
cc: Linda Ray Wilson
-------
MAN IN THE NORTHEAST
Man In Tlie Northeast, Inc.
P.O. Box 425
Georges Mills. N. H. 03751
February 23, 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Environmental Impact Office
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Rm. 2203
Boston MA 02203
Gentlemen: RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire
In terms of available documentary sources, the brief reference to archeologic
and historic resources in the Winnipesaukee River Basin is essentially accurate.
However, in terms of the cultural resources which are otherwise known or
suspected within this area, the statement is inadequate. The Lakes Region
of New Hampshire has long been recognized as an archeological district of
extraordinary significance. Its importance lies not only within the interests
of the people of New Hampshire and their cultural heritage, but also within the
sphere of scientific research into the prehistory of northeastern North America.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that investigations into the archeology of
this basin will contribute signally to the continuing study of northeastern
North American anthropology.
There has never been an official effort by the State of New Hampshire to
inventory and assess the vast resources within this basin. All that has been
accomplished has resulted from limited surveys by private individuals or
agencies such as the New Hampshire Archeological Society and the Peabody
Museum of Salem, Massachusetts. Therefore, the volume of information which
is available is miniscule in proportion to that which remains. It is
essential, therefore, that a preliminary reconnaissance be made of the
entire route of proposed construction as set forth in the statement referenced
above. This reconnaissance will lead to intensive survey and resource
assessment in certain areas, and selected sites may be found to qualify for
inclusion in the National Historic Register. Finally, salvage excavation
may be required on some of these sites.
Yours truly,
Tel
^^/T/gfe^>
toward R. Sargent <|
Archeological Consultant
General Editor, MAN IN THE NORTHEAST
Wilson, HPO, DRED
-------
BIOSPHERIC CONSULTANTS
INTERNATIONAL. INC.
P.O. BOX 529 • LACONIA, N.H. 03246
TELEPHONE 603/279-6554
January 20, 1976
Region I
Environmental
Protection
Agency
JFK Federal
Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Sirs:
Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire
Prepared by: Ecolsciences, Inc.
Vienna, VA 22180
December 1975
While reviewing this EIS, I have noted a number of significant errors,
omissions, etc., in areas of my own professional and personal expertise,
which are detailed below.
The number and types of these errors are of sufficient significance, at
least in these areas, to lead me to question whether the EIS may be equally
poor in areas outside those of my own significant competence. If so, questions
may well be raised as to the validity of many of the conclusions reached and
recommendations made therein.
Many of these errors and omissions cited below seem particularly unfor-
tunate and unnecessary since, immediately following my attendance at the
May 23, 1975 Lakes Region Clean Waters Association Meeting (cf. p. IV-56 of
the EIS), I talked with several of the staff of Ecolsciences, and informed them
that I, as a principal of a local firm, Biospheric Consultants International,
Inc., had developed considerable information of the local climatology, and on
the hydrology and physical limnology of Lake Winnipesaukee. I told them that
we would be most pleased to discuss equitable arrangements by which such infor-
mation (some aspects of which we considered proprietary due to company time and
effort devoted to them) could be available to them. I was not contacted by
:Ecolsciences after that meeting.
JAN 21 197.
-------
Environmental
Protection Agency -2- January 20, 1976
The specific errors I have noted are listed below:
p. II-l, 3rd paragraph: NOAA actually operates no climatological stations
in the Winnipesaukee basin. All such stations are operated by Cooperative
Climatological Observers under NOAA sponsorship, as is the Lakeport station.
In addition to the Lakeport station, however, there are a number of others in
the Basin:
Lakeport 2 - Precipitation and evaporation
Wolfeboro - Temperature and precipitation
Moultonboro (formerly Centre Harbor) - Precipitation
New Durham - Hourly precipitation
Franklin - Temperature and precipitation
Franklin Falls - Precipitation
P- }l~]: Tne specific patterns of the variations of precipitation with
topography in the local area have been mapped by Knox and Nordensen (USGS
Hydrographic Investigations Atlas HA-7. 1955).
p. II-2. Table II-l:
(a) The arithmetic means alone are grossly inadequate to depict the local
climatology. Some measure of the expected variation, e.g., the standard devia-
tions, should also have been included as a minimum.
(b) The arithmetic mean alone is especially misleading as regards preci-
pitation, since precipitation equal to, or greater than, the mean has only
about a 45 percentile occurrence.
pp. 11-18 ff, and 11-42, and References: One would expect an adequate sci-
entific investigation to have reviewed and cited the Full Report of BCI/LRPC's
Lake Winnipesaukee as a^ Quantitative Water Resource, rather than merely the
Layman's SummaryT
p. 11-18. 1st paragraph: The third sentence should read: "Surface area
of the lake varies about 6 percent: from about 2,010 million square feet at
4.50 ft. gage level to 1,910 million square feet at 0.50 ft. gage level."
(As written, it implies a 6 percent variation is of the order of 2,010 million
square feet).
p. 11-18. 4th paragraph; and p. 11-19. Figure II-5: Although the daily
values have been deleted from the original version of this figure, the text
and title say they are still there.
P- H-20, bottom; p. 11-21. top: There is no stream gaging station at the
Weirs; only lake level is measured there.
p. 11-21. paragraphs 4 and 5: As written, it would appear that the lake
referred to in paragraph 5 is the reservoir discussed in paragraph 4. Actually,
paragraph 5 refers to Lake Winnipesaukee, and to the rates of change of its levels
BIOSPHERIC CONSULTANTS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES
-------
Environmental
Protection Agency -3- January 20, 1976
p. 11-21, 6th paragraph: The last sentence (re units of CFS/month) has no
meaning here, since the material following in the original report has been
omitted.
p. 11-23. Flood Flows: There is no mention of flash floods, such as those
that occurred in June and July 1973 (cf. Widger, 1973, Mount Washington Observa- >
torv News Bulletin. 14(3), pp. 66-68). Such floods could be very significant ,/
(a) as regards sediment input during construction, and (b) as regards system
capacity and overload to the degree storm drain inputs occur.
p. 11-32. last paragraph: LRPC Reports 1947a, 1947b, and 1975 are not
1isted in the References?
p. 11-43, 1st full paragraph: Sentence four is a serious misrepresentation
as it applies to the BCI/LRPC report, which was directly addressed to estimating
the sustainable yield and its frequency distribution variations, as the last full
paragraph on p. 11-42 makes obvious. A review of the Full Report of BCI/LRPC by
a professional technical group would clarify that fact.
p. 11-44, bottom paragraph: The actual mean hydraulic retention time of
Lake Winnipesaukee Is over 5 years, as the data in that very paragraph, plus the
average 520 cfs discharge (p. 11-18), makes clear with a simple calculation.
Further, since a subsequent BCI bathymetric analysis from the N. H. Fish and Game
depth contour map leads to an actual average depth of about 47 feet, the true re-
tention time is greater than 5.5 years. This error also introduces errors into
the calculations as to steady state phosphorus concentrations (pp. B2-B3), where
1 is used directly, and the related q was almost certainly used to determine R,
(Even so, the validity of any such R is highly questionable, as will be discussed
separately below.)
p.11-56 ff. Table 11-14: Historic sites in Meredith could have easily been
included, since they are provided in the ElS-cited Hans Klunder 1969: A Compre-
hensive Plan - Meredith, New Hampshire.
pp. B-2 ff: The procedures of Dillon discussed here require an estimation of
R, which Kirchner and Dillon (February 1975 Water Resources Research) first sug-
gested could be done from an empirical exponential equation, but later (December
1975 WRR) revised to an equation of the form v/(v + qj. Widger and Kimball
(Commentary accepted for publication by WRR; Further Commentary very recently
submitted to WRR) have shown that neither approach is adequate for the Lake
Winnipesaukee regime (qs = 2.5 m yr'1) since (a) the absolute values of dR/dqs
in this range are extremely high and (b) the actually observed values in this
range are widely scattered about either (or any other reasonable)empirical or
semi-empirical curve with only qs as an independent variable.
Further, the EPA NES Working Paper No. 11 (1974) presents Winnipesaukee
Basin flow values widely different, both as to long-term means and the actual
year of observation, from the USGS Lakeport observations (such as those dis-^
cussed on pp. 11-18 ff). It is not obvious what effects these erroneous flows
may have had on the nutrient concentration estimates in NES #11.
BIOSPHERIC CONSULTANTS
INTERNATIONAL. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES
-------
Environmental
Protection Agency -4- January 20, 1976
Appendix J, especially pp. J-14 ff, and Table 10: Since the Concord, New
Hampshire wind observations are taken at a relatively sheltered valley station,
it is far from apparent that they are representative of Lakes Region winds,
except in similar valleys of the region. Outside such valleys, it is roughly
estimated that the Lakes Region winds will in general have speeds of the order
of 150 percent of those observed at Concord. This would considerable alter
the frequency distributions among the Wind Speed Classes in Table 10^
Finally, I would like to state that, in spite of my above cited technical
reservations as regards the EIS, I have no doubt as to the overall desirability,
and in fact necessity, of the proposed project.
Perhaps my chief concern is as regards the additional secondary seasonal
homes development it will almost certainly lead to - through the possibilities
of increased residential densities, and of development on now inadequately
drained lands. While this may be economically beneficial, it is not likely to
be beneficial to the aesthetic and recreational quality of life and the environ-
ment, natural resources, etc. I would question that the EIS hits this point hard
enough, nor does it adequately emphasize the necessity of strong and prompt local
land use planning, zoning, and other appropriate actions if it is desired that
such effects be minimized.
Sincerely,
(Dr.) William K. Widger, Jr.
Director, Geophysical Services
(Certified Consulting Meteorologist)
dfh
BIOSPHERIC CONSULTANTS
INTERNATIONAL. INC. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES
-------
115 Newbury Street
Lawrence, MA 018U1
30 January 1976
Mr. Wallace E. Stickney, Director
Environmental Impact Study, Region I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John P. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Mr. Stickney,
The residents of Pickerel Cove appreciate having the oppor-
tunity to be heard afforded them at the hearing of the E.P.A.
on the Winnepesaukee river basin sewerage program, Tuesday.
Unfortunately, it appeared that our efforts to seek enlarge-
ment of the present culvert, or construction of a larger
opening have been ignored in the pursuance of the proposed
plan for the construction of the sewer interceptor line
along Paugus Bay, but to our greater dismay, the present
plan would also deny us access from Pickerell Cove to Paugus
Bay, limited as it is, it is now enjoyed by small boat owners.
We were also disappointed that the engineers at Whitman &
Howard were not informed of the fact that the culvert was
in use at the time the plans were drawn, but we were appalled
to find out at the hearing, that the E.P.A. personnel working
on the project and the consultants at EcolSclences had no know-
ledge of the use the residents of Pickerel Cove make of this
very limited although enjoyable navigation way.
Once again thank you for the opportunity to voice our ques-
tions and remarks last Tuesday evening. We hope to hear of
the efforts to be made on our behalf. In order to facilitate
and clarify our situation, we enclose a chronology of our en-
deavours along with copies of related correspondence.
Kindly notify us of any future meetings relevant to Pickerel
COVP, every effort will be made to attend. Thank you for your
consideration of our travail.
Sincerely,
ames H. Peabody rf
for Pickerel Cove A^/ociation
' ou Messrs. Collins, DeNormandie, Lanfearp Pickerel Cove Residents
-------
C-
BOULDER COVE
sox \ai£jCC?
CENTER HARBOR. NEW HAMPSHIRE
03226 22.
/
Vl^^J'' A^W/ ^C.. iT<.
£o~-u^ c'l^L <>*~<^~
-------
BOULDER COVE
BOX W) L C 4
CENTER HARBOR. NEW HAMPSHIRE
03226
-&. "">-<_<
>
(
^
^j^c^r^eVA- -^
'
L cJ>nic
N/
>-o '
7-
-------
&
j^ "t&j^ V
BOULDER COVE
BOX *•»£><: £
CENTER HARBOR. NEW HAMPSHIRE
O3226
:^^a k/l^^s^J2
l/lu^vJ^^^^
I/
<£+»xX_
/ £r* h ~lT.- c'/
-------
UniUERSlTl] OF TIEU? HAITIPSHIRE
DURHAm. OEIL> HAmPSHIRE 03824
o. IIBERAL ARii January 20, 1976
Deportment of Sociology and Anthropology
Social Science Center
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn.: Environmental Impact Office
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Rm. 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Re: Archaeological and Historic Resources in the Winnipesaukee River Basin
New Hampshire '
Dear Sir:
I have reviewed the section concerning archaeological and historic resources
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities Winnipesaukee River Basin, New Hampshire. The statement is so brief
and vague that it is evident that a thorough assessment of the archaeological
resources has not been conducted. The Winnipesaukee River Basin is potentially
one of the richest archaeological areas in the state of New Hampshire. The are
has never been the subject of an intensive archaeological survey however numerous
archaeological sites in addition to the Weirs Aquadoctan site have been reported
in the area by collectors and amateur archaeologists. The ethnohistoric record
also contains abundant references to Native American populations in the area.
It is virtually certain that your proposed project will adversely affect other
archaeological sites as well as the Weirs Aquadocton Site resulting in the de-
struction and loss of valuable archaeological data.
I strongly urge you to have an adequate archaeological assessment conducted in
the area prior to any construction activities. This study should include a
literature survey, consultations with professional and amateur archaeologists
and a field survey to determine the limits of th6 Weirs Aquadocton site and
the locations of other archaeological sites in your project area. I believe
that any archaeologist will consider your "statement" incomplete and inadequate
until a proper assessment has been made.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Bolian
Assistant Professor
cc. Linda Wilson
. , ... ..
"> ••\if-r,.
-------
Aux. Route 3
Meredith, NH 03253
January 20. 1976
Region I
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dear Sirs:
As a concerned citizen of the Lakes Region, I reviewed the draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement, "Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities Winnipesaukee
River Basin, New Hampshire." I will preface my critique with the comment that
the necessity of the proposed project is obvious. However, the EIS fails to
properly address the important impact of secondary development and the review
of limnological data is shoddy. It is quite apparent that this out-of-state
firm only conducted a partial literature review, was not familiar with the study
area and spent little time during their investigation in the study area. I base
the following criticisms on my professional training as a 1imnologist, familiarity
with the Lakes Region as a citizen and knowledge of the existing data.
p. 1-9. paragraph 4 - The screen at the outlet only prevents floating weeds
from entering Lake Winmpesuakee. Upon the death and decomposition of these
weeds, they pass under the screen and then enter the lake.
p. 1-16, paragraph 1 - Meredith disposes septic tank cleaning wastes into
an open pit, which is adjacent to a Lake Winnipesaukee tributary. This waste is
not treated.
The report makes little attempt to explain data discrepencies in the trophic
status of Lake Winnipesaukee. It bases its conclusions and modeling on the ques-
tionable EPA (1974) data which contains serious errors (e.g., the EPA mean outlet
flow used in nutrient calculations is calculated as 644.4 cfs, but ignores the fact
that USGS has a continuous flow meter at this outlet and the actual recorded value
is significantly lower). Secondly the EIS leads to the basic conclusion that Lake
Winnipesaukee is still quite pristine (i.e., p. 11-32, paragraph 3; p. IV-28,
paragraph 2; p. B-3, paragraph 2; etc.). This assumption is based only on the EPA
chemical data. Discrepancies arise in the biological data. As the EIS mentions,
Yeo and Mathieson found the lake dominated by eutrophic myxophycean phytoplankton.
In late July 1975, moderate algal blooms covered the northern end of Meredith Bay.
The report cites a lack of data on rooted aquatic plants (p. 11-47, paragraph 2;
p. 11-48, paragraph 1). The University of New Hampshire's Botany Department has
an active research program investigating the problem aquatic weed, milfoil. This
aquatic weed problem is extensive and portions of Lake Winnipesaukee are now beino
sprayed with chemical herbicides to eliminate its growth.
-------
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency -2- January 20, 1976
This brings up a second problem, the Dillon nutrient modeling approach used
by the consultant. The Dillon model may be preferred for its simplicity, but it
has questionable application to Lake Winnipesaukee. First the model is extremely
sensitive to the areal water load (q ). The model's error increases significantly
in lakes with a low qs, the case of Lake Winnipesaukee. Dr. Widger and I have a
paper in press on this subject (Water Resources Research) and Dillon is in agree-
ment with our critique. Secondly, the model is insensitive to nutrient capture
and storage by aquatic weeds, a situation occurring in Lake Winnipesaukee. The
model assumes that the total phosphorus test (which digests and measures the
phosphorus in phytoplankton) is an accurate representation of phosphorus levels
in the lake. This assumption is true in lakes with sparse rooted aquatic plants.
However, rooted aquatic plants effectively "filter out" nutrients, which are then
not measured in the water quality samples. These nutrients accelerate the aquatic
weed growth, and create what is commonly known as an eutrophication problem.
Because the nutrients are being used by the aquatic weeds, they are not available
to be measured in the water samples.
The consultant, even after lightly warning the reader of problems in modeling,
proceeds to calculate and conclude that Lake Winnipesaukee could assimilate an
additional 174,000 people before exceeding the eutrophic loading rate (p, B-5,
paragraph 1). It is difficult to understand this, considering the lake i_s already
suffering from a eutrophication problem.
My final concern is the secondary implications of the interceptor system.
At an EPA workshop, I heard Dr. Rabe of EPA discuss the serious problems in
secondary development, which tend to follow the construction of sewage inter-
ceptors. That is the carrying capacity, location, etc., of the interceptor
tend to become a dominant factor in future growth, partly because the inter-
ceptor's presence breaks down the previous zoning regulations based on septic
tanks. This EIS pays but lip service to this problem, probably the most signi-
ficant impact of the project.
In conclusion this EIS, whose cost I understand exceeded $100,000, (a) con-
sists of poor data extraction, interpretation and understanding and (b) fails to
properly address itself to the most significant impact, secondary development
allowed because of the interceptor's presence. In summary, it is a waste of the
taxpayers' money on an EIS which could have been of significant value to the
Lakes Region.
Sincerely,
.,, ,'A'v "^ K^.-W , y
Kenneth D. Kimball
dfh
-------
Mowbray
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904
January 13, 1976
Mr. Robert E. Mendoza, Environmental Planner
Environmental and Economic Impact Office
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Dear Bob,
Thank you for sending me a copy of the Winnipesaukee
River Basin EIS, and for giving me a chance to review.it. I
think I would characterize the document as an excellant piece
of research marred by numerous typographical errors, sometimes
sophomoric syntax, and an impact analysis that at least in
two places appears to be incomplete, and, therefore, misleading.
All of these factors detract from the authority of the docu-
ment by casting doubt on its credibility.
The research upon which the environmental description
is based appears to be complete, comprehensive, and mostly
professional. But the evironmental description itself is
marred by over 30 typographical and grammatical errors. Now
I know that the competance of EcolSciences is greater than
this display of sloppy editing would indicate, but others
might equate the two.
Also the ambient air quality section, I think,
should contain some mention of the high photochemical exidant
concentrations that are measured in adjoining areas. ihese
concentrations are not yet classed as serious problems, but
this may be in part because we are uncertain of their origin.
It would seem advisable to include merition of photochemical
oxidants in the environmental description so that everyone:.ie
aware of a potential problem thit could become .serious if it
is aggravated by additional vehicular traffic.
Similarly, the air quality projections appear to be
somewhat deficient. Considerable emphasis is placed on the
particulate concentrations that might result from a sludge
incinerator which will not be built. An excellent sophis-
ticated calculation, therefore is completely
7 Q
19 1976
-------
The calculational model employed to project general
overall air quqlity computes average yearly meteorological
parameters and uses average area-wide emission factors, in-
cluding emissions from the non-existant incinerator, to con-
clude that average ground level concentrations of particulates
and sulfur dioxide are well within allowable limits, a result
that might have been predictedv". I think, with a ouch simpler
model and with comparable accuracy.
Rather than averages, I believe maximum concentrations
based on worst case conditions are considerably more indicative
Of potential air pollution problems. I would suggest, for ex-
ample, that possible increases in photochemical oxidant and
carbon monoxide concentrations be calculated assuming worst
possible meteorological conditions and maximum traffic volumes*
Maximum concentrations could then be calculated for sensitive
receptors like downtown Laconia.
Thus, because it emphasizes the wrong things I find
the air quality analysis deficient and possibly misleading.
I am also concerned about the socio-economic analysis.
Admittedly the arguments in the document are a bit obscure
because of the excessive use*'of arcane and obfuscating language,
but as nearly as I can tell they go something like this. The
population in the area is expected to grow whether the project
is completed of not. .With the sewer system development will
be permitted on smaller size lots which in turn will allow
more people. Table III-^ tells us that the potential pop-
ulation with off-site water and sewer is 62,^51- (I marvel '
at the temerity of the demographer who cites a population
projection to five significant figures. That implies an acc-
uracy of 0.00256!) This appears to be at variance with Table
III-l^. The descrepancy may be more apparant than real, how-
ever, in which case it requires an explanation. In any event,
it appears that the population in the area will be greater
with the project than without it, and this, according to
Table XV-1, will be mostly beneficial. But to whom? Land
developers, perhaps, because they should realize increased
profits both on the sale of land and on the construction of
new homes. Will the present residents benefit'. In order to
answer this I think it will be necessary to determine the
effect on the local tax rates so that the economic benefit
of possible tax reductions can be balanced against the possible
long term adverse effects of increased crowding. This sort of
-------
analysis, I believe, is of par-amount importance not .only • to
those people who will be affected b" the project, but olao to
EPA, one of whose functions, as I understand it, is to spot-
light possible secondary impacts such as this.
In retrospect, Bob, I find I have ambivalent feelings
about the document* On the one hand •*• recognize the urgent
need for this project and the overwhelming desire of the local
officials to see it completed. The EIS, on the other hand,
leaves something to be desired as an objective assessment of
the beneficial and adverse impacts of the project.
•I present these comments as a private citizen, not
as a representative of my company, and I have tried to make
them as objective as possible, realizing, of course, the
futility of attaining complete objectivety. I hope you will
interpret them in this light, Bob, and I hereby leave, the
disposition of them up to you.
Finally, may * request a copy of the Final EIS.
Sincerely,
N. Robert Arthur
-------
February 2, 1976
Dr. P.J. Dillon
Limnology and Toxicity Section
Water Resources Branch
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Rexdale, Ontario
Canada
Dear Dr. Dillon:
I would like to summarize our telephone conversation of
January 29, 1976, for your concurrence.
As I told you, we have been involved in the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Statement in the region of Lake Winni-
pesaukee, New Hampshire. As a portion of that statement we
used existing EPA data to calculate a permissible phosphorus
loading rate for the Lake.
During a recent public hearing our calculations were chal-
lenged on the grounds that the exponential relationships you
and your colleagues have developed to estimate R (phosphorus re-
tention rate) did not apply accurately to Lake Winnipesaukee.
I called you to confirm that there were two methods of esti-
mating R: (1) direct calculation using field measurements of
phosphorus input and export; and (2) the exponential equation
relating R to qs, which would be used in the absence of actual
data.
You agreed, and asked what field data was available. I
told you that samples were taken approximately monthly as part
of the National Eutrophication Survey conducted by EPA. You
indicated that this was a minimal data base since monthly sam-
ples may not give an accurate estimate of phosphorus loading.
I agree, but to date no better data is available for Lake
Winnipesaukee.
-------
Dr. P.J, Dillon
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Page 2
I would appreciate your comment on the above summary. If
you have any questions please call me collect and I will try to
arisweir them.
Sincerely,
DON AURAND, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
DA:np
-------
Ontario
Ministry of the
Environment
Water Resources Branch
Limnology & Toxicity Section
P.O. Box 213
Rexdale, Ontario
February 10, 1976
Dr. Don Aurand
Ecol Sciences Inc.,
133 Park St. N.E.
Vienna, Virginia 22180
U.S.A.
Dear Dr. Aurand:
Your summary written on February 2, 1976 of our prior
telephone conversation was accurate.
Our formula for prediction of the phosphorus retention
coefficient of a lake was never intended to supplant real data,
but rather was meant to provide an estimate for modelling
purposes in cases where no data existed. As has been pointed
out, it is not accurate for low areal water loads (qs), but in
our situation in Ontario, these low water loads are uncommon.
In summary, data collected once a month should provide a
more reasonable estimate of the phosphorus retention coefficient
than our model, especially for cases with low areal water load.
Sincerely,
PJD/jk
P. Dillon, Head
Limnology Unit
Limnology and Toxicity Section
-------
United States Department or the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Division
150 Causeway Street, Suite 100)
Boston, Massachusetts 021U
February 2*4, 1976
Don Aurand, Senior Scientist
EcolSciences , Inc.
Mid-Atlantic Region
133 Park Street, N.E.
Vienna, VA 22180
Dear Dr. Aurand:
In reply to your inquiry with respect to flow data for Lake Winnipesaukee
and tributaries from EPA's National Eutrophication Survey, the original
calculations are based on estimated inflow to the Lake from the tributaries.
The estimates are based on one or two measurements on each tributary and
correlation with records from the gaging station on Cold Brook at South
Tamworth, NH, (01061*800) for tributaries on the north, and the gaging
station on Mohawk Brook near Center Strafford, NH, (01072850) for
tributaries on the south.
The apparent discrepancy between the long-term recorded flows at Lakeport
and the normalized flow data used in the report can be explained, at
least in part, by the fact that the Lakeport flow data does not account
for evaporation from the Lake.
I hope the information is useful for preparing the EIS, and if further
information is needed, feel free to call.
Sincerely yours,
A. Baker ^
District Chief
cc J F Bailey, NR
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
REGION I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING
GOVERNMENT CENTER
BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02203 Olili'l ."
THF RIG I ON AL l< I Kf I :OH
March 25, 1976
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
ATT: Environmental Impact Office
Dear Sir:
HEWs Regional Environmental Council has reviewed the draft
Environmental Impact Statement for: the Wastewater Collec-
tion and Treatment Facilities, Winnipesaukee River Basin,
New Hampshire.
On the basis of our review, we have determined that the impacts
of the proposed action have been adequately addressed within
the scope of this Department's responsibility.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this draft
statement.
Sincerely yours,
Donald Branum
Regional Environmental Officer
------- |