ALTON ASHLAND BELMONT BROOKFIELD CENTER HARBOR FRANKLIN-GILFORD
FINAL PLAN/EIS
O
o
m
3D
m
to
to
o
o
m
3D
m
o
LAKES REGION
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN
OD
O
3D
O
c
o
m
TJ
O
SEPTEMBER 1978
m
WOLFEBORO WAKEFIELD TUFTONBORO-TILTON SANDWICH-SANBORNTON-OSSIPCE
-------
LAKES REGION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL PLAN/EIS
September 1978
Prepared For
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
Boston', Massachusetts
Submitted By
Lakes Region Planning Commission
Main Street
Meredith, N. H. 03253
Responsible Officials
William R. Adams, JrJ
Regional Administrator
EPA Region I
Warner M. Plummer
Chairman
Lakes Region Planning Commission
Prepared By
Michael-7?. Nolin
208 Project Director
M
-------
Acknowledgements
Grateful appreciation is extended to all those who assisted during the
course of this project and in the preparation of this report. A partial list
follows:
Lakes Region Planning Commission
Staff
Michael P. No!in 208 Project Director
John L. Dickey Regional Planner
Morton E. Young Environmental Planner
David 6. Scott - Executive Director
James H. Rollins - Assistant Director
Alice V. Johnson - Draftsman
James Klinger - Draftsman
Michael Coen Draftsman
Mary Lee Harvey - Secretary
Virginia M. Theriault Secretary
Patricia J. Moore Account Clerk
Mary C. Guariglia Community Planner
Richard A. Saunders - Community Planner
Lisa J. Sarasohn - Community Planner
Carolyn W. Baldwin Legal Intern
Russell Thibeault Economic Consultant
Committees
Lakes Region Planning Commission Representatives
208 Steering Committee
208 Citizen Concerns Committee
208 Technical Advisory Committee
Consultants
Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
Estimation Research Associates, Inc.
Biospheric Consultants International, Inc.
Technical Review and Comment
N.H.
Water Quality Sampling & Analysis
Point Source Investigation
Water Quality Modeling
Groundwater Investigation
Non-Point Source Investigation
Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission
William A. Healy, Executive Director
Robert A. Cruess, Associate Sanitary Engineer
Richard A. Flanders, Jr., Biologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
Walter M. Newman, Chief, Water Quality Branch
Ronald G. Manfredonia, Project Coordinator
Robert E. Mendoza, Environmental Policy Coordination
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Sidney A. L. Pilgrim, State Soil Scientist
Lloyd J. Porter, State Resource Conservationist
U.S. Geological Survey
John E. Cotton, Hydro!ogist/Geologist
North Country Resource Conservation & Development Project
William R. Hauck, Coordinator
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Final Lakes Region Water Quality Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement
Lakes Region Planning Commission
Main Street
Meredith, New Hampshire 03253
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
1. Action:
Administrative
2. Description of Proposed Action:
Comprehensive water quality management planning for twenty-one
communities in the Lakes Region of central New Hampshire.
Recommendations for action have been made in three categories:
land use controls
' methods of controlling non-point sources of water pollution
methods of controlling point sources of water pollution
3. Anticipated Impacts:
Principal beneficial impacts include:
a. maintenance and improvement of water quality throughout the
Lakes Region
b. protection of critical natural resource areas
c. protection of grqundwater sources
d. greater local control over development
-------
Principal adverse impacts include:
a. temporary environmental degradation from construction of
wastewater collection and treatment facilities
b. additional restrictions placed upon the development and
utilization of land
Alternatives Considered;
Three principal alternatives were considered: (1) no action - a
continuation of current trends; (2) construction of sewer lines -
direction of growth by providing public facilities; and (3) environ-
mental protection - adoption of strong ordinances to protect the
environment. These alternatives were considered in each of the
three categories of land use controls, non-point source controls and
point source controls as listed below:
a. Land Use Controls
no action
control land use through the construction of public facilities
adoption of local ordinances based upon a comprehensive
regional land use plan
b. Non-Point Sources
no action
eliminate those non-point sources (e.g., subsurface disposal
systems) which can be controlled by constructing sewer lines
adopt and enforce non-structural measures to control non-point
sources from:
subsurface disposal systems solid waste disposal
stormwater runoff septage disposal
erosion & sedimentation forest practices
boating road salt
c. Point Sources
no action (no construction other than that which has already
been planned)
construct sewer lines and treatment facilities to serve each
community
construct only those sewer lines which current conditions dictate
-------
5.. Agencies From Which Comments on the Draft Plan/EIS Were Requested:
750 copies of the Draft Plan/EIS were distributed to: local
officials and citizens in the 208 project area; New Hampshire
State Agencies; Federal Agencies. Comments were requested
from all recipients of the Draft Plan/EIS.
6. Public Comment:
Written and verbal comments on the Draft Plan were received from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Interior, Northeast Region
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning
New Hampshire Department of Public Works & Highways
New Hampshire Department of Resources & Economic Development
New Hampshire Air Pollution Control Commission
New Hampshire Department of Public Health, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management
Local officials ,and citizens in the 208 project area.
-------
PREFACE
The following Lakes Region Water Quality Management Plan/EIS has been
produced through the cooperative efforts of the Lakes Region Planning Commission
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region I, Boston.
It is part of a three-year, areawide waste treatment management planning process
funded by the EPA through Section 208 of the 1972 Federal Water Quality Act
Amendments (PL92-500).
The Plan does not satisfy the need for any future environmental assessments
required as part of any Section 201 facilities plans. The Plan was prepared prior
to the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL95-217) and therefore does not
fully comply with all provisions of that Act.
This document serves as a report to the Lakes Region Planning Commission,
as a guide to the protection of the Lakes Region's valuable water resources, and as
an environmental impact statement. It summarizes the technical and management
strategies that can be used to protect the area's natural resources. It indicates
the environmental, economic and social impacts of each alternative, both positive
and negative.
Recommendations for action have been grouped into three categories:
(1) Land Use Controls:
Adoption of Local Ordinances Based Upon a Comprehensive Regional
Land Use Plan
(2) Methods of Controlling Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution From:
Subsurface Disposal Systems
Stormwater Runoff
Erosion and Sedimentation
Boating
Solid Waste Disposal
Septage Disposal
Forest Practices
Road Salt
(3) Methods of Controlling Point Sources of Pollution:
Construction of Sewer Lines
Construction of Sewage Treatment Facilities
Designation of Areas for Future Study
Additional copies of this document can be reviewed at:
Lakes Region Planning Commission
Humiston Building, Main Street
Meredith, New Hampshire 03253
N.H. Water Supply & Pollution Control Commission
Prescott Park - 105 Loudon Road
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ^'
List of Figures
List of Reports Iv-vil
1- 4
Introduction T
Chapter 1 Sunroary Report 7 5
Alton '- y
Ashland 10-12
Belmont 13-15
Brookfield 16-18
Centre Harbor 19-21
Franklin 22-24
Gilford 25-27
Gilmanton 28-30
Holderness 31-33
Laconia 34-36
Meredith 37-39
Moultonborough 40-42
New Hampton 43-45
Northfield 46-48
Ossipee 49-51
Sanbornton 52-54
Sandwich 55-57
Til ton 58-60
Tuftonboro 61-63
Wdkefield 64-67
Wolfeboro 68-70
Chapter 2 Water Quality Sampling, Analysis and Modeling 71-80
Chapter 3 Non-Point Source Controls 81
Subsurface Disposal 83-96
Stormwater Runoff 96-97
Erosion & Sedimentation 98-101
Boating 101-106
Solid Waste 106-110
Septage Disposal 110-112
Forest Practices 112
Road Salt 112-114
Chapter 4 Point Source Controls
Existing Sewerage Facilities 115-117
Planned Sewerage Facilities 117-119
Recommended Sewerage Facilities 119-121
Future Study Areas 121-122
Industrial & Commercial Sources 123-124
Wastewater Control Systems 124
Costs to Homeowners 124-125
Chapter 5 Land Use Controls 133-143
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
5-1
General Trophic Status of Lakes Region Lakes
List of Lakes & Tributaries Sampled
Proposed Permissible & Critical Levels
for Standing Waters
Proposed Permissible & Critical Levels
for Freely Flowing Waters
Recommended Non-Point Source Pollution Controls
Water Bodies Where Power Boating Restrictions
are Recommended
Winnipesaukee River Basin Project Planned
and Recommended Components Cost Estimate
Winnipesaukee River Basin Project Town-by-Town
Apportionment of Costs
Planned & Recommended Municipal Sewerage- Cost
Estimate
Areas Deleted from Lakes Region 208 Point Source
Recommendations
Summary Table Estimated Costs for Selected Point
Source Control Plan
Recommended Land Use Controls-Lakes Region
Page
73
74
77
78
82
104
126
127
128
129
130-131
134
Figure Number
1-1
2-1
4-1
LIST OF FIGURES
208 Project Area
Use and Implementation of the Lakes Region
Water Quality Management Plan
Sampling Locations for both Modeling Data
Lakes & Tributaries and Phase II Lakes
and Tributaries
Winnipesaukee River Basin Project
Page
1
4
7?
132
-------
LIST OF REPORTS PREPARED BY TASK
AS PART OF THE 208 PROJECT
All the following reports are on file in the office of the Lakes Region Planning
Commission and are available for review:
Task 1 - Plan of Study
Lakes Region Planning Commission/Resource Planning Associates, Inc..
Summary of the Water Quality Modeling Seminar, August, 1975
Lakes Region Planning Commission:
Project Control Plan, 208 Waste Treatment Management Planning
Project, December 1975.
Task 2 - Public Participation
Lakes Region Planning Commission:
Public Participation in 208 Planning, April, 1976.
Education and Information Program, May, 1976.
Life & Taxes, May, 1976.
208 Public Participation Progress Reports
Report #1: March 1 May 12, 1976
Report #2: May 13 June 30, 1976
Report #3: July 1 September 19, 1976
Report #4: September 20 - December 31, 1976
Report #5: January 1 March 31, 1977
Report #6: April 1 June 30, 1977
Report #7: July 1 September 30, 1977
Report #8: October 1 December 31, 1977
Task 3 - Land Use Planning
Lakes Region Planning Commission:
208 Land Use Report, September, 1976.
Land Use Policies and Controls, November, 1976
Regional Land Use - Alternative Futures, April, 1977
Land Area Requirements for New Growth, May, 1977
Selected Land Use Control Techniques, July, 1977
Biospheric Consultants International, Inc.:
Water Resources Land Use Computer Mapping Pilot Project, November, 1976
-------
Task 4 - Water Quality Sampling
Normandeau Associates, Inc.:
Detailed Plan for Water Quality Sampling, February, 1976
Results of Water Quality Analysis including Statistical Evaluation,
February, 1976
Water Quality Sampling Lake Winnipesaukee, Waukewan, Winona and
Kanasatka and their Tributaries: Analysis of Data for the Water
Quality Model, March, 1976
Water Quality Sampling Identification of Problem Areas and Sources
of Pollution, November, 1976
Water Quality Standards and Goals for the Lakes Region, December, 1976
Water Quality of the Lakes Region Planning Area, July, 1977
Lake Winnipesaukee Trace Metal Survey Analysis of Surficial Sediment,
Rooted Vegetation and Fish for Mercury, Lead, Copper, Zinc and Cadmium
Content, August, 1977
Task 5 - Water Quality Modeling
Resource Planning Associates, Inc..
Program Design Evaluation for the Lakes Region Planning Commission's
Section 208 Planning Study, February, 1976
Development of Water Quality Modeling Approach for the Lakes Region
208 Study, September, 1976
Methodology for Land Use Correlations, September, 1976
Coefficients for Nutrient Loadings by Land Use, February, 1977
Model Applications and Nutrient Budget Calculations, February, 1977
Allowable Pollution Loadings and Allocation Strategies, June, 1977
Water Quality Impacts of 208 Plan Alternatives, June, 1977
Water Quality Modeling for the Lakes Region 208 Project, October, 1977
Task 6 - Non-Point Source Control ,
Biospheric Consultants International, Inc.:
Preliminary Report of Potential Non-Point Sources in the Lakes Region
208 Area, April, 1976
-------
Analysis Plan for Non-Point Source Investigation for the Lakes Region
208 Project, June, 1976
Preliminary Determination of Non-Point Sources of Water Pollution in
the Lakes Region, May, 1976
Preliminary Baseline Projections of Non-Point Source Water Pollution
Loadings in the Lakes Region, July, 1976
Preliminary Findings Relating to Alternative Techniques for Controlling
Non-Point Source Water Pollution in the Lakes Region, July, 1976
Lakes Region Planning Commission:
Policy Paper on Non-Point Source Pollution Control, January, 1977
Alternative Techniques for Meeting Non-Point Source Waste Load Allo-
cations in the Lakes Region, July, 1977
Control of Water Pollution From Non-Point Sources, August, 1977
Estimation Research Associates, Inc.;
Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges into Winona Lake, Lake
Winnipesaukee and Ossipee Lake, October, 1977
Groundwater Quality at the Study Areas, November, 1977
Task 7 - Point Source Control
Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.:
Preliminary List of Point Sources of Water Pollution in the Lakes
Region 208 Area, February, 1976
Analysis Plan for Point Source Investigation for the Lakes Region
208 Project, July, 1976
Characterize Existing and Planned Point Sources, October, 1976
Characterize Potential Point Sources, October, 1976
Identify and Screen Alternative Point Source Controls, September, 1976
Alternative Techniques for Controlling Point Source Water Pollution
in the Lakes Region, July, 1977
Control of Water Pollution from Point Sources, December, 1977
-------
Task 8 - Institutional Planning
Lakes Region Planning Commission:
Implementation Strategy for the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
Planning Project, December, 1976
208 Institutional Planning Task 8, June, 1977
Task 9 - Impact Assessment
Lakes Region Planning Commission:
Environmental and Socioeconomic Impact Matrices, April, 1977
Preliminary Assessment of Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of
Present Water Quality, April, 1977
Future Environmental and Socioeconomic Conditions in the Lakes Region,
July, 1977
Comparison and Evaluation of Water Quality Control Alternatives,
October, 1977
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
LOCATION MAP
LAKES REGION PLANNING COMMISSION
208
PROJECT AREA
v^° i
11AXsY' V y
PREPARED BY:
LAKES REGION PLANNING COMMISSION
HUMISTON BUILDING, MAIN STREET
MEREDITH, N. H. 03253
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Lakes Region 208 planning area is located in central New Hampshire
and consists of portions of four counties, including two cities and nineteen
towns. The area encompasses one-half of the State's inland waters and all but
a very small portion of the Lake Winnipesaukee watershed. The permanent
population of the region is expected to double by the year 2000, reflecting
the effects of ever increasing year-round recreational activity associated with
the lakes, particularly Lake Winnipesaukee. Of immediate concern is the fact
that in recent years the influx of transient and seasonal vacationers has
increased the summer population threefold. These numbers continue to increase
annually and are concentrated in fewer than a dozen communities bordering the
lake.
The growing number of second homes, as well as resorts, motels and sunnier
camps, attest to the popularity of the Region. Lake Winnipesaukee, New England's
second largest lake with a surface area of 44,586 acres and 240 miles of shore-
line, is now* experiencing signs of eutrophication. The rapid population growth,
particularly in the summer, has contributed heavily to the water quality problems.
Because the heavily recreation-based economy of the Lakes Region is so
dependent upon the quality of the lakes, maintenance of a high level of water
quality is important not only from an environmental standpoint, but from an
economic one as well.
Water quality has been a concern of the communities within the Lakes Region
since the first sewage treatment plant was built in Wolfeboro in 1936. Continuing
intensive development along Lake Winnisquam and along the western shoreline
of Lake Winnipesaukee has finally led to the planning and construction of the
Winnipesaukee River Basin Regional Sewage System. The System will pick up raw
sewage from eight communities and carry it to Franklin where it will be subject
to secondary treatment. Construction costs for the completed project are
estimated at $55,000,000. Added to the costs of this regional interceptor system
will be a comparable amount for the construction of local collection systems.
These costs are significant. It is the position of the Lakes Region Planning
Commission (LRPC) that there are options available to those municipalities which,
to date, have not been required to construct a municipal sewage disposal system.
It is further believed that these alternatives may provide residents with the
opportunity to control the direction in which their community is moving, as well
as saving them tax dollars in the long run.
With the exception of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Regional Sewage System,
the few existing sewage treatment facilities in the Lakes Region were designed
for a smaller population and failing older individual septic systems severely
strain the lakes' and streams' capacities to absorb increased nutrients (pre-
dominately phosphorus).
This has resulted in nutrient migration from shoreline subsurface sewage
\, / disposal systems through the groundwater and into the surface waters becoming
}\ one of the most significant water pollution problems in the Lakes Region. Some
v\ of the reasons are: the systems are not designed to retain nutrients, shoreline
development with septic systems is intense, the pollutant travel distance is
short and the loading rate is high.
-------
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of1972
(PL 92-500) has afforded the LRPC the opportunity to address these P^'f*:.. .
The Act provides for areawide wastewater management planning in 'ocat10"s "n^n
have substantial water quality problems. The Act calls for the designat on of
planning areas and responsible planning agencies. Through 208, the Commission
was provided funding by the Environmental Protection Agency to plan and develop
management alternatives for a comprehensive program involving municipal ana
industrial wastewater discharges, non-point sources of pollution and land use
as it relates to water quality. Specific components of the work program
included: public participation, land use planning, an environmental inventory,
water quality sampling and modeling, point and non-point source pollution control,
analysis of alternative pollution control techniques, alternative land use plans,
coordination of the work program with other public agencies, impact assessment
and plan selection. The work program recognized that the problem of controlling
non-point sources of pollution was the most critical aspect of the Commission s
efforts with respect to maintaining water quality in the Lakes Region. It was
with this in mind that the Commission, at their regular meeting on January 24,
4977, formally adopted a policy on non-point source pollution control and set up
the following order of priorities:
1. Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems
2. Stormwater Runoff
3. Erosion and Sedimentation
4. Boating
5. Solid Waste Disposal
6. Septage Disposal
7. Forest Practices
8. Road Salt
It has been and is the belief of the LRPC that land use controls provide
an effective, far less costly alternative to building sewage treatment plants
in major portions of the Lakes Region. Proper land use controls, locally
adopted and effectively enforced, can minimize pollution from non-point sources.
At the same time, responsibility for and control over such measures rests in the
hands of local government.
The Commission recognizes, however, that in the absence of strong local
initiatives, which implies strong local commitment and subsequent action, the
final responsibility for maintenance of New Hampshire's waters rests with the
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC). Local
municipalities have the option of applying preventative measures which will
assure that water pollution does not occur. Failure to adopt these measures
will inevitably result in overuse and pollution. In that event, the only solu-
tion will be the extension of existing or planned sewage disposal systems or the
construction of entirely new systems. This option will effectively remove one of
the reasons to limit and control the intensity of future development from local
qovernment and may have a devastating effect on local budgets.
The Lakes Region Planning Commission views 208 as an excellent opportunity »
for the twenty-one communities involved to meet the 1983 National Water Quality
Standards. Besides providing municipalities with the tools necessary to meet
this goal, the project provides the framework within which communities can act
collectively in dealing with water quality problems which transcend town
boundaries. Although the other eleven towns in the Lakes Region have not been
included in this study, many of the recommendations and conclusions contained in
the report are applicable and should be considered by those communities.
-------
The primary task at hand is the implementation of the Lakes Region Water
Quality Management Plan to achieve the 1983 National Water Quality Standards.
The key to this process is a meaningful and continuing program of public
involvement. The true success of the 208 Plan will be measured not in the
quality technical or otherwise of the plan itself, but in the degree to
which the plan is implemented and the resultant positive impacts on water
quality. The Lakes Region Planning Commission is dedicated to the implementa-
tion of its Water Quality Management Plan.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAKES REGION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
The LRPC Water Quality Management Plan: What it is... How it can be used.
Who may use it?
Setting the details and recommendations of the Plan aside for a moment;
just what is it, who should use it and what actions should they take?
What the Plan is
* It is a planning tool... a thoughtful discussion and des-
cription of the development capabilities and limitations
of the natural resources in New Hampshire's Lakes Region.
* It is a guide for future growth... a balanced and integrated
program of actions for developing, managing, protecting and
conserving our natural resources.
How to use the Plan
* To set priorities for action... by local, regional, State
and Federal institutions in their programs to improve the
management of our natural resources.
* To evaluate the projects, plans and actions of others...
by providing a framework of reference about Lakes Region
resources.
Who should use the Plan
* The Plan can be useful at many levels. The following matrix
suggests how institutions at various levels of government
might use the Plan and what action they might take.
-------
FIGURE 1-1
USE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAKES REGION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Level
Institution
Purpose
Implementation
City 8 Town Boards and
Commissions
Special Interest Groups
Interested Citizens
As a basis for instituting or revis-
ing zoning, subdivision regulations
or other land use-water quality
controls. To review development
proposals and for recommending land
for acquisition.
As a tool for gathering support and
as a basis for lobbying efforts.
As a basis for voicing concerns and
needs, as well as recommending
action.
Accept recommendations and adopt
the policies presented in the plan.
Use as a basis for local action.
Support adoption of recommendations;
use as an educational tool.
Support adoption of recommendations;
use as an educational tool.
x.
z
o
3
Regional Planning Agency
Inter-municipal Compacts
County Conservation D1sts.
As a planning guide and tool; guide
1n recommending policy; checklist
for the review of development pro-
posals.
To assist 1n bringing two or more
communities with common interests
and goals together in order to pro-
vide a need not attainable indivi-
dually.
Adopt as regional policy; use as a
reference source.
Accept recommendations and adopt
the policies presented in the plan.
Use as a basis for local action.
Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
Other State Agencies
Legislature
Governor
To Initiate and evaluate agency
programs relative to the Lakes
Region, to assist 1n developing
resource management programs and
set priorities.
To initiate and evaluate agency
programs relative to the Lakes
Region, to assist in developing
resource management programs and
set priorities.
As a basis for water quality-land
use legislation; reviewing funding
proposals, making appropriations
As guidance and support for deci-
sions relative to environr>ental
and economic policies.
Support the recommendations in the
plan.
Support the recommendations in the
plan.
Amend and/or enact laws and appro-
priate funds.
Certify HQM Plan; issue Executive
orders relative to implementation
of recommendations.
Environmental Protection
Agency
Other Federal Agencies
congress
As a guideline for assessing local
priorities, and as a basis for
awarding grants.
As a guideline for assessing local
priorities, and as a basis for
awarding grants.
For project evaluation and as a
framework for funding.
r
Base official action and setting
of policies and guidelines on the
Plan.
Base official action and setting
of policies and guidelines on the
Plan.
For reference in developing legis-
lation, making appropriations A
Lake Associations, Conservation Organizations, etc.
-------
CHAPTER 1
Summary Report
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
Introduction
The achievement of a level of water quality in the Lakes Region which will
meet or exceed the 1983 goal of fishable and swimmable waters mandated by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) can only be
accomplished by an affirmative course of action.
Basically, achievement means taking action at the local level (and in some
cases the Regional or State level) to place controls over land use and over point
and non-point sources of water pollution which contribute to water quality
degradation. In general, the current quality of the lakes and streams in the
Region is good. However, there are problems in some specific locations and signs
of deteriorating water quality in others. Since the heavily recreation-based
economy of the Lakes Region is so dependent upon the quality of the lakes and
streams, action must be taken now to preclude any further or future deterioration.
This summary does not include all the technical and background information
which is contained in the full text of the Draft Water Quality Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Lakes Region Planning Commission,
dated January, 1978, nor does it contain all the information in the various
reports which were issued during the course of the study. It presents only the
recommended actions for achieving water quality.
The town-by-town summary which follows lists in detail in the form of a
chart, map and narrative for each town, the recommended actions to achieve water
quality goals and the impacts that would result from their implementation.
Three basic options for action were presented in the Draft Plan/EIS. Each
option offered a subset of alternative techniques to be undertaken in the
primary areas which impact upon water quality: land use activities, point
sources of pollution and non-point sources. The three basic options which were
studied were:
1. no action - a continuation of the current trends: No action was listed
as an available alternative, although it was recognized as a course
which would not provide long-term benefit to the region, nor fully
achieve desired water quality goals. No action would result in no
additional land use controls other than those which already exist
being implemented. No new sewer construction would occur, except that
which has already been planned or is under construction. No new con-
trols governing non-point sources of pollution would be adopted.
2. construction of sewer lines - direction of growth through the provision
of public facilities:This option focused upon the construction of
sewer lines to eliminate present problems and to forestall any which
might otherwise occur in the future. The. only additional land use con-
trols which would be adopted would be those relating to the use of the
sewer lines, such as a sewer use ordinance and zoning amendments to
permit higher densities in sewered areas. Point source controls would
involve the construction of numerous sewer lines and treatment facilities.
-------
Controls would still be needed to minimize the contribution of
non-point sources of water pollution, and so numerous non-point
source control techniques were also listed.
3. environmental protection - adoption of ordinances to protect the
environment: The emphasis of this option was upon non-structural
alternatives to achieve water quality. Action would be required
in the adoption of land use and non-point source control measures
to preclude the need for the construction of extensive sewer lines
and treatment facilities. However, some structural measures would
be necessary to correct existing problem areas.
As a result of the review and comment process on the Draft Water Quality
Management Plan/EIS, which involved distribution of over 700 copies of the
report, subregional workshops, and individual meetings with each of the twenty-
one communities in the study area, the Lakes Region Planning Commission has
selected a single recommended course of action from among the three options.
The course selected is essentially the environmental protection alternative
presented in the Draft Plan, with modifications based upon comments.
The town-by-town summary follows. Priorities for adoption of the recommended
actions are listed on the matrices. For a more complete discussion of the actions
and their impacts, refer to the appropriate section in the text of the Water
Quality Management Plan.
There are a number of recommended actions which call for the adoption of local
controls or ordinances. The LRPC has prepared model ordinances upon which all
these actions could be based. The model ordinances appeared in the appendices of
tne Draft Water Quality Management Plan. Revised and updated versions are available
from the offices of the Lakes Region Planning Commission.
-------
Alton
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Hater Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
* 2. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
* 3. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
X 4. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
1. Future water supplies protected;
groundwater pollution avoided.
2. Wetlands protected from develop-
ment; wildlife habitat preserved;
natural flood protection capabi-
lities retained.
3. Erosion and construction problems
from development avoided - parti-
cularly along steep shorelines of
Alton Bay.
4. Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
Salary for
assistant
to Town
Engineer
who would
act as
full-time
Building
Inspector/
Code
Enforcement
Administrator
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
X Amend existing Health Regu-
lation.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
X Adopt uniform ordinance (recom-
mended under land use controls
above).
3. Boating
* Provide pump-out facilities at
Alton Bay.
+ Set maximum horsepower limit
on Hills Pond.
4. Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
Gllmanton; consider mandatory
separation for recycling.
5. Road Salt
* Minimize use of road salt,
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, installation and
more stringent provisions provide
better protection.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from improper development
avoided; protection measures result
in higher development costs.
3. Enforcement of no-discharge regu-
lations facilitated; easier for
boat owners to comply with regula-
tions.
Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
4. Potential cost savings to Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; inconvenience to
individuals for refuse separation;
longer hauling distances.
5 Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel time;
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
None
None
Construction
costs to marina
owners offset
by fee system.
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
X 1. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
+ 2. Construct an extension of the
Gilford Interceptor to serve
Alton Bay and part of Alton
Village (areas 1 & 2 on map).
(Construction to Alton Bay -
1990, to Peggey's Cove - 1995).
+ 3. Designate southern end of Alton
Village as a future study area
(area 3 on map).
+ 4. Designate the area from Peggey's
Cove around Black Point to
Chestnut Cove as a future study
area (area 4 on map).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
Pollution of Lake Winnipesaukee
from shoreline septic systems
along Route 11 side and Lakeshore
Drive to Peggey's Cove side of
the Lake eliminated; extension of
the sewer Hne will facilitate
additional growth; incentive for
additional strip development along
the area serviced by the sewer line.
No Immediate impact, keeps open
the option of securing funds in
the future for more detailed study
of potential problem areas.
None
i
Estimate
Required
None
None
Priority of
ecommendations:
* high priority
X Intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
8
Alton does already have in effect land use regulations which Pja"a certain
degree of control over development. Nonetheless, additional regulationsa£*
desirable. The long-range costs of no action could be very high, both terms
of dollars and in damage to the environment, from future problems that might
develop due to a lack of adequate and reasonable controls over growth.
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to
avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable res-
trictions and regulations. This course of action would minimize the necessity
for expenditures in the future to correct problems which might otherwise develop.
The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use regulations would be considerably
less.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems. Basing
lot sizes (in areas not to be served by public sewer) on soil and slope would
insure that each new lot has adequate area for on-site disposal. Revisions to the
existing Alton Health Regulation to make it more stringent would also help avoid
faulty or polluting systems. The adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and erosion
and sedimentation controls would minimize the problems associated with development
on steep areas, particularly on the steep shorelines of Alton Bay and the portion
of the Belknap Mountains which lies within Alton and would preclude excessive
sedimentation from degrading the quality of the lakes. A wetlands ordinance would
protect wetlands from development; especially significant in Alton are the sizeable
wetlands along the Merrymeeting River. Pump-out facilities for boats are currently
needed in Alton to handle the volume of summer recreational boating. Provision of
a facility at Alton Bay would help to alleviate this situation. The Town should
support legislative action to set maximum horsepower limits for power boats on
Hills Pond. This would reduce potential pollution from boat engines, would mini-
mize safety hazards and would serve aesthetic interests (reduction of noise pollu-
tion). In the area of solid waste disposal, the Town should investigate a long-
range cooperative arrangement with Gilmanton. Concentrated efforts to minimize
the use of road salt for winter road maintenance, especially on lesser travelled
Town roads, would help to reduce the problems associated with heavily salted roads.
Presently, there is no public sewer system in Alton. The Town has had
several engineering studies completed which have suggested solutions to existing
problems of wastewater collection and treatment, but nothing has been implemented.
The recommended extension of the Gilford Interceptor to service Alton Bay and part
of Alton Village would eliminate the pollution of Lake Hinnipesaukee from cottage
development along the West Alton shoreline, the shoreline of Alton Bay and correct
the waste disposal problems in Alton Village. The construction of this line would
also present an excellent opportunity to locate a recreational trail system along
the shoreline. However, additional shoreline construction and development along
the area served by the sewer line (particularly along Route 11) would be encouraged
(areas 1 and 2 on map).
Construction of sewers to serve the southern end of Alton Village would induce
additional development in the area of the traffic circle, particularly in the form
of strip development along Route 28 and Route 11 (area 3 on map). The construction
of an interceptor from Peggey's Cove to Chestnut Cove to service the eastern shore
of Alton Bay would eliminate water pollution from intensive shoreline development,
but at the same time promote additional shoreline and backlot construction. It is
recommended that both these areas be designated for future study, since no action
appears necessary before 1995.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Ashland I0
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Adopt Zoning Ordinance.
* 2. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
* 3. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
* 4. Amend the Private Sewage Dis-
posal section of the Sanitary
Department Rules & Regulations.
* 5. Adopt Erosion & Sedimentation
Ordinance.
X 6. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
X 7. Adopt Shoreland Ordinance.
8. Adopt Aquifer Protection
Ordinance.
1. Density of new growth controlled,
strip development and scattered
commercial development prevented.
2. Adequate lot size for on-site dis-
posal ensured - faulty septic
systems avoided.
3. Erosion and construction problems
resulting from development on
steep slopes avoided, particularly
in the Church Hill area and other
steep areas of Town.
4. Correct design, Installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems insured - faulty or pollut-
ing systems avoided.
5. Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6. Wetlands protected from development,
wildlife habitat preserved, natural
flood protection retained.
7. Density of development based on
natural capacity of the land -
adequate setbacks required.
8. Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Costs to Expand
part-time posi-
tion to full-
time salaried
Building
Inspector
or Code
Enforcement
Administrator
(possible
cooperati ve
arrangement
with Holderness)
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Designate the shoreline of
Little Squam Lake as future
study area (area 1 on map).
2. Designate the area around the
Squam River (areas 2A and 2B
on map) as future study area.
1&2. Continued degradation of lake water
quality brought about by on-site
systems.
No Immediate impact; keeps open the
option of securing funds in the
future for more detailed study of
potential problem areas.
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate more stringent
setback provisions, provi-
sions for mandatory
construction guarantee,
regular pump outs, basing of
leach field and lot sizes on
soil and slope into existing
regulations.
* Encourage use of non-water
toilets, especially for use
where existing near-shore
systems have failed.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
& Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
in land use controls above).
3. Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
Holderness and/or New Hampton;
consider mandatory separation
for recycling.
4. Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt;
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens effective life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper development
avoided; protection measures result
1n higher development costs.
3. Potential cost savings to the Town;
Inconvenience to individuals for
refuse separation.
Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel times,
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
Priority of Recommendations:
* high priority
X intermediate priority \
+ low priority \
None
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
-------
II
At present, Ashland has In effect the following land use controls: an
environmental ordinance, subdivision regulations, a building permit system, a
sewer use ordinance and flood insurance regulations. The Town has a major
investment in its sewage treatment facilities, which have very effectively
eliminated the serious water pollution problems which existed at one time. How-
ever, unless the Town adopts certain additional measures, particularly a zoning
ordinance, long-range land use problems, including further water pollution, may
develop.
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to
avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable res-
trictions and regulations. Directing growth toward those locations with the
natural capacity to accept it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would
avoid many problems.
Recommended as a top priority is the adoption of a zoning ordinance which
would control the density of new growth and prevent strip and scattered develop-
ment. The basing of lot sizes on soil and slope would insure that each new lot
has adequate area for on-site disposal. More stringent provisions in the
Sanitary Department Rules and Regulations governing subsurface disposal systems
would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems. The adoption of a steep
slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the pro-
blems associated with development on steep areas (particularly in the Church Hill
area and other steep areas of Town) and preclude excessive sedimentation from
degrading the quality of the lakes. A wetlands ordinance would protect Ashland's
valuable wetlands from development. In the area of solid waste disposal, Ashland
should consider the long-range possibility of a cooperative arrangement to include
Holderness and/or New Hampton. Concentrated efforts to minimize the use of road
salt for winter road maintenance, especially on lesser travelled Town roads,
would help alleviate the problems associated with heavily salted roads.
The construction of sewer lines to service the shoreline of Little Squam
Lake (1 on map) would eliminate any pollution derived from near-shore septic
systems and result in a direct improvement to water quality. However, the cost
of construction would be high and additional development, particularly along the
shoreline, would be encouraged. Constructing an interceptor to link Holderness
to the Ashland Treatment Plant along Route #3 (2A on map) or along River Street
(2B on map) would eliminate pollution problems from existing development along
the Squam River, but construction costs would be high and pressure for additional
development would result.
It is recommended that neither of these actions be taken, but that both
areas be designated for future study. This would result in no immediate impact
in terms of capital expenditures and would afford the Town a less costly long-
range approach to solving its pollution problems by adopting sound and effective
land use measures. Additionally, the option of securing funds in the future for
more detailed study of potential problem areas remains open.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Belmont l3
Ktcmmnitt local Actions to Protect inter \iillty
type of
uuo use
CONTDOLS
P01KT
soiffCE
CONTROLS
NOPJ-PnlBT
SMP.CE
CQPJTROLS
Action
1 Adapt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
2. 't.<;r and consolidate tllltlnq
Health Ordinances
. Adopt Bylldlng Coili ox) stronger
Building Permit SyStn.
4. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance
5. Adopt Zoning Ordinance
* 6. Adopt Shpnland Provision In
a Zoning Ordlnince.
1 7. Adopt Erosion ind Sedimentation
Ordinance
> a. Adopt Strip Slope frdlnance.
1. Construct .lnnllo.ua> By-Pltt (as
pert of the Mlnnlpeseykee River
Basin Project by HBO).
2. Contract Beleent Interceptor
to provide fewer service to
Belmont Village (as part of the
Ulnnlpesaukee River Basin Pro-
ject - by HOG).
2A. Consider use of the route of the
Interceptor sewer lines as a
recreational trail system.
3. Construct sewers to serve Belmont
Village - tie Into Belnont Inter-
ceptor by ItQ (A on map).
4. Construct sewers to serve IN
shoreline development on Stiver
Lake tie Into telemt Inter-
ceptor by UK (I on up).
* s. Construct sewer lines to service
the (reek's Snore area of Late
tUnnlsouaai by 1982 (C on MB).
6. Construct sewers to serve the
shoreline of Lake UlnnlsQuam by
US (0 on HP).
* 7. Construct sewers to serve Route
n fro the lelknap Hall to the
Mosquito Irldge by 1912 (£ on
IP).
1 Construct sewers to sent the
area at the junction of Route
MO and South Roads by 1M2
(F on HP).
* 9. Designate anas 1-13 on cap as
futun study anas - no construc-
tion of sewer linn. Construction
can be made unnecessary by the
adoption of land use regulations
to control growth.
1. Subsurface Disposal
Incorporate sure stringent set-
back provisions, provisions for
mandatory construction guaran-
tee, regular pump outs. Using
of leaci field and lot (lies
on soil and dope Into cilstlng
health ordlnince.
tncounoe use of non-water
toilets, especially for use
wfcere existing near-shore
system have failed.
2 Stormwater Runoff and [roslon
and Sedimentation
I Adopt I strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
In land use controls above)
3 Boating
Support legislative action to
eliminate the use of power
boats on ledger Pond ana dough
Pond. '
» Set HMlmum horsepower Units
on Sargent Late
4. Sol Id Haste
* Investigate 1ont]*rinoe coooera-
lion with Til ton, HorUiflild.
Sstnbornton, franklin; consider
mandatory separation for
"cycling.
5. Road Salt
* H.fltwtlt the UM Of read Ulti
'
Impact*
1. Wetland* protected fro* develop-
ment, wt.dllfe habitat preserved;
natural flood pro wet Ion re'alned.
2 Correct design, Installation ind
posal systems 1 mured - ftjity or
polluting system (voided
1 Etnurei i* fe *nd *denu*t8 con-
* true t ion )Und*rdt; ftcllUattt
better ctxrdlnitlort of Und utf
COntroU.
4 Future inner suppHet protected.
9roundMUr pollution avoided
5 Oenstty of new growth controlled.
itrlp dcvclopoent ind scattered
comrcUl drvclopivnt prevented
6 Density of development based on
natural capacity of the land -
adequate setbickt required.
7 .later pollution fro* erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
8 Development on steep slopes *<>
trolled; erosion and construction
problem avoided
1. Outfall of U con la Seuve Treat-
nt Plant to Lake Utnn1sQ.uan
ellMlnated: direct Improvement
to like water quality.
2. Sone wetland areu along the Tlooj
River disrupted by construction,
excellent potential for trail
*vste> along the old railroad bed
2A. Eipanded recreational facilities
provided, aukes Multiple use of
facility.
j. Serious pollution of the Ttoga
River eliminated; solves problem
fromi f a ill 119 septic systen.
«. Water pollution fro* ..ear-shore
septic system eliminated, addl-
tfontl develo?nent facilitated.
5. Water pollution fro> near-shore
septic system eliminated, addi-
tional development facilitated.
6. Uater pollution fro* near-shore
septic systems eliminated; addi-
tional development full luted;
potential Inducement for additional
filling of wetlands In the Sunset
Shores area.
/. Existing development on Route 3
served; potential for strip comer-
cla) development Increased.
B. Densely developed trailer park on
Route 'HO and new development at
140 and South ftoadt served; addi-
tional development Induced.
t. Density of new developnent con-
trolled so that on-site sewage dis-
posal U possible. Growth cart be
ore cone entn ted In areas that will
be served by public sewer lines.
Treavndous savings In cipltal
expenditures to the Town In the long
run.
I. Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens life, keeps systems from
becoming water pollution or health
hazards.
Reduction In land areas required for
me at leach fields; major source of
potential pollution eliminated.
2 Craslon and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper development
avoided; protection measures result
In higher developevnt costs.
3 Potential of pollution from boat
engines eliminated; noise, safety
and aesthetic problem! eliminated.
Potential of pollution from but
engines reduced; noise and safety
problem inlnfied.
4 Pot*r,ttal ecu savings to Town;
Inconvenience to Individuals for
refuse separation: longer hauling
distances.
a. ContA-tnatfon of groj*d.aler mini*
mixed; reduces automobile speed
during winter months thereby pro-
viding a safety and health factor;
a greater damand for sand and
gravel.
Cost
Salary for
full-tine
BulHIng
Inspector/
Code
Enforcement
Admin stra'Or
i
i
1
i-
C-J7. 700,000'
01H -124,900
C-S1.9SO.OOO'
QiH . JJ ,260
Mo acqulsltlor
costs - nego-
tiate easemen
Total cost of
construction
for J-8
M. 02 1,000
Hone
None
Hone
Hone
None
None
Deduced
Town Costs
Deduced
Town Costs
Does not include costs to hcm.iown.irs to connect to
sewer line. For casts, see text In Part ? - Point
Source Controls.
its for major components only and do not
Priority of Reconenutlons: * high prior it/
I Intermediate priority .
* low priority I
-------
The Town of Beln»nt has severe water quality problems in severa areas.
especially In Belmont Village and HW the J"""'^^!^ River Basin
Silver Lake. Construction p anned as part *^t}?$£t Belmont Facilities
Project and construction called for In J* ^^{jLr^iL construction of two
Plan will go a long way toward »1v1"9BJ^%£ft1SJ!jeet £ill greatly aid the
major components of the W1nn1pesaukee River Basin £«g£ "J'kfJSrt running
Town:
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Brookfield l6
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
* 2. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
* 3. Include more stringent Wetland
Conservation measures in the
Zoning Ordinance.
* 4. Amend and expand the existing
Health Code to include sub-
surface disposal provisions.
* 5. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
+ 6. Adopt Shoreland provisions in
the Zoning Ordinance.
+ 7. Adopt Aquifer Protection
Ordinance.
1. Adequate lot size for on-site
disposal insured - faulty
systems avoided.
2. Erosion and construction problems
from development avoided,
especially in the areas of Tumble-
down Dick Mountain, Copple Crown
Mountain and Moose Mountain.
3. Wetlands protected from development,
wildlife habitat preserved, natural
flood protection capabilities
retained.
4. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of subsurface dis-
posal systems insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
5. Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6. Density of development based on
the natural capacity of the land -
adequate setbacks required.
7. Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Partial
salary for
shared
Building
Inspector
or Code
Enforcement
Administrator
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
w/Wolfeboro,
Tuftonboro)
\/
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. No existing, planned or recom-
mended wastewater collection
or treatment facilities.
No cost to the Town for construc-
tion of wastewater collection or
treatment facilities; long-term
costs to correct future problems
could be high if adequate land use
controls are not enforced.
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction
guarantee, regular pumpouts,
basing of leach field and lot
sizes on soil and slope into
the existing Health Code (as
listed in land use controls
above).
* Encourage the use of non-water
toilets.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
in land use controls above).
3. Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
Wakefield; consider mandatory
separation for recycling.
4. Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt-,
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens effective life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from improper development
avoided; protection measures result
in higher development costs.
3. Potential cost savings to the Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; Inconvenience to
individuals for refuse separation;
longer hauling distances.
4. Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel times,
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
Priority of
None
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
tecommendatlons:
* high priority
X intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
17
Brookfield Is a sparsely developed town which desires to keep its rural
atmosphere. There is no need for sewage collection or treatment fac it es now
or in the near future. However, a review of the Town's !a!?d.use.re9ul**Pstn
should be undertaken to insure that future development will be light enough to
obviate a need for municipal collection and treatment facilities.
The Town does already have in effect land use regulations which place a
certain degree of control over development. Nonetheless, additional regulations
are desirable. The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source
controls is to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of
reasonable restrictions and regulations. This course of action would minimize
the need for expenditures in the future to correct problems which might otherwise
develop. The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use regulations would be
considerably less. Directing growth toward those locations with the natural
capacity to accept it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid
many problems. Amending subdivision regulations to base lot sizes on soil and
slope factors would insure adequate area for on-site disposal. Revising the
Health Code standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance to contain more stringent
provisions would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town
to enforce stronger controls than those now enforced by the State. Including
special shoreland provisions in the Zoning Ordinance would help control develop-
ment on those portions of Cooks Pond which are presently sparsely developed.
Including more stringent measure in the Zoning Ordinance concerning wetlands
would insure protection of Brookfield wetland areas. The adoption of a steep
slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the pro-
blems associated with any development that might occur on steep areas (especially
in the areas of Tumbledown Dick Mountain, Copple Crown Mountain and Moose Moun-
tain). An aquifer protection ordinance would conserve those areas in Brookfield
which are suitable as potential future water supply sources.
In the area of solid waste disposal, Brookfield should investigate a long-
term cooperative arrangement with Wakefield. Efforts to minimize the use of
salt for winter road maintenance, particularly on lesser travelled roads, would
help reduce the problems associated with runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Center Harbor l9
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot sizes on soil and
slope.
* 2. Adopt Steep Slopes Ordinance.
* 3. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
4. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
X 5. Adopt Erosion & Sedimentation
Ordinance.
+ 6. Adopt Aquifer Protection
Ordinance.
1. Adequate lot size for on-site
disposal Insured - faulty
systems avoided.
2. Control development and avoid
construction problems in areas
as Sunset H111 and McGrillls
Hill.
3. Wetlands protected from develop-
ment - wildlife habitat preserved,
natural flood protection main-
tained.
4. Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems Insured; faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
5. Mater pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6. Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Salary for
shared full-
time Building
Inspector
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
with
Houltonborough)
\/
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1 Extend Meredith Interceptor
to the Bay District - pick up
discharge from Bay District
lagoon system (1 on map).
2. Expand the Bay District to
Include southern shoreline of
Lake Kanasatka - by 1990.
1. Discharge to Lake Hinnipesaukee
eliminated - direct Improvement to
water quality.
Potential for strip development
along Route 25 minimized through
controls on connection to Inter-
ceptor.
2. Eliminates pollution from shore-
line septic systems.
C-$l,870,000*
O&H -$12,136
N/A
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction
guarantee, regular pumpouts,
basing of leach field and
lot sizes on soil and slope
Into subsurface disposal/
health ordinance (as listed
in land use controls above).
* Encourage use of non-water
toilets, especially for
Islands and where existing
near-shore systems have
failed.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
X Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
in land use controls above).
3. Boating
+ Support elimination of power
boating on Bear and Otter
Ponds.
+ Support restriction of horse-
power on Hawkins Pond and Lake
Wlnona.
X Provide pumpout facilities at
Center Harbor Docks -
Incorporate in Bay District
Facilities Plan.
4. Solid Haste
* Cooperate with Meredith; con-
sider mandatory separation
for recycling.
5. Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt-,
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens effective life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result in higher development costs.
Potential for pollution from boat
engines eliminated or reduced;
noise and safety problems minimized
Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
Easier for boat owners to comply
with no discharge regulations;
enforcement facilitated.
4. Potential cost savings to the Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; inconvenience to indi-
viduals for refuse separation;
5 Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel times,
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
None
None
None
Costs of opera-
tion offset by
fee system.
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Priority of Recommendations:* high priority» Does not Include costs to homeowners to connect to
X intermediate priority sewer line. For costs, see text in Part 2 - Point
+ low priority ' Source Controls.
C - Construction Cost (the figures are total estimated construction costs for major components only and do not
Include any Federal or State assistance which may be available to the community).
0 s M - Operation 4 Maintenance Costs (1980) must be\borne entirely by the local users.
-------
20
With the exception of the portion of Center Harbor Village which is included
in the Bay Sewer District, there are no other areas served by public "wage
collection or treatment facilities. The Plan recomnends (as does the ""Ijr^s
Plan prepared by Rist-Frost Associates) that the Meredith Interceptor be extended
to the Bay District to pick up the discharge from the existing lagoon system.
This would solve the current problem which exists due to the discharge of the Bay
District lagoon system into Lake Winnipesaukee. Although this would eliminate
discharges to Lake Winnipesaukee and serve as a direct improvement to water
quality, a high potential for strip development along Route #25 would exist IT
many local connections were made along the length of the interceptor (1 on mapj.
The Town should ensure that its zoning ordinance will discourage strip develop-
ment on Route 25. The loss of prime agricultural areas and important open space
would be another impact. It is also recommended that the Bay District service
area be expanded to include the southern end of Lake Kanasatka. The southern
shoreline is heavily developed; linking this area to the sewage treatment facili-
ties would eliminate pollution of the Lake from the many near-shore septic systems.
However, additional development pressure would be exerted.
At present, there are no other areas in Town which need, or warrant study
for, sewer line construction. The intent of the recommended land use and non-
point source controls is to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the
adoption of reasonable restrictions and regulations. This course of action would
minimize the necessity for expenditures in the future to correct problems which
might otherwise develop. The cost to the Town for enforcement of land use regula-
tions would be considerably less.
Directing growth towards those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems. Basing
lot sizes (in areas not served by public sewer) on soil and slope would insure
adequate area for on-site disposal. A stringent local subsurface disposal ordi-
nance would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems. The adoption of a steep
slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the problems
associated with development on steep areas (areas like the Sunset Hill and
McGrillis Hill sections of Town) and preclude excessive sedimentation from degrad-
ing the quality of the lakes. A wetlands ordinance would help protect Center
Harbor's valuable wetlands from development. Additional pump-out facilities for
boats are currently needed in Center Harbor to handle the volume of summer recrea-
tional boating. Provision of a facility at the Center Harbor Docks would alleviate
this situation. The elimination of power boating on small ponds in Center Harbor
(Bear Pond and Otter Pond) would not only eliminate any pollution problems asso-
ciated with boat engines, but would also serve the interests of aesthetics and
safety. Additionally, by setting maximum horsepower limits for powerboats on
Hawkins Pond and Lake Winona, potential pollution from boat engines would be
reduced. The Town should support legislative action to accomplish these last two
objectives. The current cooperative arrangement that Center Harbor has with
Meredith for solid waste disposal is a good one and should be continued. Con-
centrated efforts to minimize the use of salt for winter road maintenance, *
especially on lesser travelled Town roads, would help alleviate the problems
associated with runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Recon»aided local Actions to Protect Utter Qmltty
Franklin 22
Type Of
Controls
LAND USE
CONTROLS
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Action
1. Annd Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
2. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
3. Adopt Floodplaln Controls to
limit development on the flood-
plain.
4. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
5. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
1 6. Adopt Special Shorelind Provi-
sions In Zoning Ordinance.
I 7. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
I 8. Adopt Erosion and Sed limitation
Ordinance.
1. Construct Franklin Interceptor
to eliminate existing outfalls
fron the City sewer system to
the Nlnnlpesaukee River; rehabi-
litate existing sewer system.
2. Construction Pemlgewasset Inter-
ceptors to eliminate existing
outfalls from the City sewer
system to the Pemlgewasset
River.
3. Construct Franklin Sewage Treat-
ment Plant.
(fl, 2 and 3 are planned as
components of the Ulnnlpesaukee
River Basin Project - by 1980)
3A. Consider use of Interceptor
sewer lines as recreational
trail systems; treatment plant
site for educational purposes.
4. Construct sewer lines to serve
the majority of the shoreline "
of Webster Lake (A on HP).
5. Designate Route '127 north of
the City (8 on map). Route '3
south to the Industrial park
ID on map), Salisbury Road
(C on HP) and Route »3A north
of the junction of Route ill
(F on HP) as future study areas.
1. Subsurface Disposal
Incorporate provisions for
basing lot size on soil and
slope, mandatory pump outs
and mandatory septic system
construction guarantee In
local subsurface disposal/
health ordinance (recomended
under land us controls above).
Encourage use of non-water
using toilets, especially
when near-shore system have
failed.
2 Stomater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
I Adopt unlfona ordinance (recom-
mended under land use controls
above).
3 Boating
« Support setting maximum horse-
power limits on Webster Lake.
4 Solid Haste
I Continue cooperation with
Til ton and Northfleld. Investi-
gate long-range cooperation
with Unbornton. telBnt. Hill.
Danbury and Andover.
5 Road Salt
Minimize the use of road salt.
fewer bare roads.
impacts
1. Adequate lot size for on-slte
disposal Insured - faulty system
avoided.
2 wetlands protected from develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved,
natural flood protection capabi-
lities retained.
3 Long-term costs due to flood damage
minimized; valuable agricultural
lands along the Pemlgewasset and
Herrlmack protected fron develop-
ment.
4 Correct design. Installation and
systems Insured - faulty or
polluting system avoided.
5 Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
6 Adequate setback from water mini-
mizes potential for pollution.
Insures that density of development
Is based on natural capacity:
Insures adequate control over yet
undeveloped sections of Webster
Lake.
7 Erosion and construction problem
from development avoided parti-
cularly In the hilly western and
northern portions of the City.
8 Ualer pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
1 Discharges of raw sewage to the
Uinnipesaukee River from the City's
existing collector systef IMnnterf,
Immediate Improvement to water
quality In the river.
i. Discharges of raw sewage to the
Pemlgewasset River from the 'City's
existing collection system elimi-
nated - Immediate Improvement to
water quality 1n the river.
3. ' All sewage from the Mlnnlpesaukee
River Basin System adequately
treated prior to discharge to the
Merrlmack River.
3A. Recreation opportunities enhanced.
multiple use made of facilities.
«. Contributions of pollution from
existing shoreline septic system
eliminated; pressure for addi-
tional development, particularly
along western shoreline; wetlands
along western shore protected by
wetlands ordinance.
9. No Immediate Impact; keeps open the
option of securing funds In the
future for more detailed study of
potential problem areas.
1. Correct design, installation and
Hlntenance of new subsurface dis-
posal system Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
Mlntenance of existing systems
lengthens life, keeps system from
becoming water pollution or health
hazards.
Reduction In land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2 Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper development
avoided; protection measures result
1n higher development costs.
3 Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise, safety and
aesthetic problem minimized.
4 Potential cost savings to the City.
^
S Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel time;
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
Cost
Addttlonil
City ad
tratlvc
taints-
costs
(Increase
part-time
position to
full-tlM
Code
Enforci
Admlnll
S
went
trator)
/
C-S 3,000,000'
01". -
C - S
S 5,000
150.000'
(rehabilitation)
C-S 3.100.000'
os* -
HO ,750
C-S10.750.OOOf
OtH -S
550.000
No acquisition
costs
tiate
- nego-
tasenent
C-S 2,300.000'
OtM -
(20,000
None
None
None
none
None
Reduced
Town Cost!
Reduced
Town Costs
I intermediate priority
low priority
sewer line. For costs, see text In Part 2 - Point
Source Contrail.
C - Construction Cost (the figures art total estimated construction costs and do not Include any Federal or State
assistance *Mch~may~b* aval lab.e to the comtmfty).
0 I N - Operation t Maintenance Costs (1980) must be born: entirely by the users for local sewers; costs for the
Ulnnlpesaukee R1var Sasln (System apportioned on the basis of percentage of use (see Table
6-2 In Chapter 6 of Draft Flan/E:S).
-------
23 Franklin's major water quality problem is the discharge of raw sewage to
the Winnipesaukee and Pemigewasset Rivers from the City sewer system. The
planned construction of three components of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project
will solve this problem and will be a direct improvement to water quality: (1)
the Franklin Interceptor will be very beneficial in that it will eliminate out-
falls of raw sewage to the Winnipesaukee River from the City's existing collection
system; (2) the Pemigewasset Interceptor will eliminate discharges of raw sewage
to the Pemigewasset River from the City's existing collection system; and (3) the
construction of the Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant will treat all sewage from
the Winnipesaukee River Basin System prior to discharge in the Merrimack River.
It is recommended that the City attach a high priority to providing sewerage for
the majority of the shoreline of Webster Lake (A on map). There is considerable
local support for this project which would eliminate pollution to the lake from
the considerable number of near-shore and backlot septic systems. However, it
would also exert pressure for additional development - particularly along the
western shoreline, perhaps involving a loss of wetland areas.
Several other areas are recommended for future study, with an eye toward
providing sewer service after 1995. The areas are: (1) Route #127 north of the
City (B on map). This would be a logical extension of the City's collection
system, but it would create an incentive for additional growth in an area which
presently is sparsely developed. (2) Route #3 south to the industrial park (D on
map). This would provide an opportunity for industrial expansion. (3) Route #3A
north of the junction of Route #11 (F on map). This would serve an area where
there is a fair amount of existing development. The area opposite the treatment
plant site (C on map) was considered in earlier studies as an area for possible
sewer service. The only positive factor here would be the proximity to the treat-
ment plant. Such a measure would serve some existing development, but would
probably facilitate strip development and result in the loss of very valuable
floodplains and agricultural areas to development. It is recommended that area
C not be sewered.
The long-range costs over and above the costs of sewer construction might
fnturP^nM^t! ln te??M0f d°11a,rs and 1n dama9e to the environment, from
future problems that could develop due to a lack of adequate and reasonable
controls over growth. The City does already have in effect land use regulations
which place a certain degree of control over development, but additional requ-
of «* ^conded land usd no1nt
avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption
r^°nS and re9"lations. This course of action would minimize
addltlon?l expenditures in the future to correct problems which
on^d^raK less! t0 *" "* *P ^"^ °f fa"d use %'
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accent
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many Stare Droblem
Amending the subdivision regulations to base lot sizes (in areas not served bv
public sewer) on soil and slope would insure adequate area for on-site disposal
"
r on-s
A local subsurface disposal ordinance would also help avoid faulty or DO
systems and allow the City to enforce more stringent controls ?han ?hose nov-
enforced by the State Wetlands and flood plain ordinances would pro?lct critical
areas from development. The recently completed flood insurance maps provide an
accurate delineation of flood hazard areas and could be used as abLis
^fu3"06^ An a
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Gilford
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
UNO USE
CONTROLS
> 1. Mend Subdivision Regulations
to (use lot size on soil and
slope.
' 2. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
1 3. Amend Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
4. Adopt Shoreland Ordinance
Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
1. Adequate lot slie for on-slte
disposal insured - faulty
systems avoided.
2 Development on steep slopes In
the BeUnap Range controlled -
erosion and other construction
problems avoided.
3 Correct deslqn. Installation
*nd maintenance of subsurface
disposal Insured - faulty or
polluting system avoided.
4 Additional development on Winnl-
pesaukee controlled - adequate
setbacks and lot sizes Insured.
5 Mater pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6 Future water supplies protected.
groundwater pollution avoided.
Salary for a
full-tine Code
Administrator.
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Construct Gilford Interceptor
to serve existing shoreline
development on lake Wlnnlpesaukee;
connect to Vinnlpesaukee River
Basin System (A on nap).
2. Construct local sewers to serve
Hlnnipesaukee shoreline.
3. Construct Black Brook Interceptor
to serve Route '11 from existing
sewer precinct to Laconla Airport
(B on gup).
4. Construct sower llnps to serve
Ridgewood Avenue - Sleeper Hill
area - link to Jewett Brook
InteYceptor (C on nap).
x 5. Provide sewerage for i portion
of Gilford Village via Gunstock
River Interceptor (1 on nap).
Provide sewerage for Pheasant
Ridge area (2 on Bap).
* 7. Construct sewer lines to serve
Governor's Island (3 on HP).
» 8. Construct a sever line to link
the Gunstock Recreation Area
treatment facility to the Gilford
Interceptor (4 on map).
» 9. Designate Gunstock Acres as future
study area (Son up); designate
Schoolhouse Hill and Gunstock Hill
Roads as future study area (1A on
Sewage from all shoreline develop-
ment picked up and treated In
regional treatment plant In
Franklin, degradation of lake
water quality eliminated.
Pollution from shoreline septic
systems eliminated.
Additional commercial and Indus-
trial developnent on Route '11
and adjacent to the Airport
facilitated (coordinate with
Airport Master Plan to Insure
that development Incompatible
with Airport operation or expan-
sion does not occur).
Sewer service provided to an area
of existing dense development;
health and water pollution pro-
blems avoided.
[listing growth area of the town
served, additional growth encour-
aged; possible septic Unk
contamination of Gunstock River
eliminated.
Additional growth facilitated in
an expanding area of the community;
potential loss of wetlands along
Jewett Brook.
Potential pollution from shoreline
dwellings eliminated; additional
growth and development encouraged.
Detrimental effects of facility on
Poorfam Brook eliminated; permits
greater expansion of recreation
area.
Sewerage not needed until after
1995; keeps open the option of
securing funds In the future for
more detailed study of potential
problem area.
C-J6.800.000'
OIM -S13.3H
C-S1,125,000'
OSM -S13.200
C - $550,000*
OIM - SI,600
C - 5160,000'
OIM - J2.400
Construction
S600.000
(for Inter-
ceptor only,
local sewers
additional)
C - $770,000*
OIH - $1,800
C-S1.100,000'
OIM - $8,500
N/A
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for man-
datory construction guarantee,
regular puap outs, basing of
leach field and lot sizes on
soil and slope Into subsurface
disposal/health ordinance (as
listed In land use controls
above).
Encourage use of non-water
toilets, especially for Islands
and where existing near-shore
systems have failed.
2 Stormier Runoff y fee system
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
lonty of Recommendations:"
high priority
X intermediate priority
* low priority
I Does not include costs to homeowners to connect to
sewer line. For costs, see text in Part 2 - Point
Source Controls.
C - Construction Cost (the fljures are total estimated construction costs and do not Include my Federal or State
n i y n~ .. . u i"1**"** whiclf5y~l>e available to the conunlty).
OIM- Operation a Maintenance Costs (1980) nist be borne ent1r«ly by the local users for local sewers; costs foi
the Minntpesaukee diver Mytn Syite* apportioned on the basis of percentage of use (see
Tabl« S-Z In Chapter 6 In (raft Plan/EIS).
-------
26 The construction of two components of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project
may eventually exert considerable pressure for development In Gilford: (l) ine
Gilford interceptor will be very beneficial In that It will eliminate pollution
1n Lake Winnipesaukee resulting from shoreline septic systems, but It may open
the same shoreline to more development. Additionally, a significant potential
for strip commercial development exists, particularly since Route 111 follows the
shoreline and is currently zoned for commercial usage. (2) The Jewett Brook inter-
ceptor will remove health and water pollution problems from existing dense
development 1n the Rldgewood Avenue - Sleeper H111 area. However, the potential
for additional development will be Intensified.
Also planned for construction is the Black Brook interceptor which will
serve Route 111 from Mclntyre Circle to the Lacon1a-Gi 1 ford Airport. This action
should have a high priority since the currently polluted water of Black Brook
threatens the intake of Laconia's public water supply. Construction will probably
promote additional commercial and Industrial development in an area of the Town
which represents the greatest potential for this type of development. Expansion
of the present commercial area (shopping center) and industrial development at
the Airport area would, however, pave the way for strip development and may
threaten adjacent areas which are currently open space and wetlands. Any new
development In this area should be carefully coordinated with long-range plans
for Airport expansion as set forth in the Airport Master Plan (now 1n preparation)
to insure that no incompatible development occurs.
It 1s recommended that sewer line construction be undertaken in four addi-
tional areas. The areas are: (1) Gilford Village (1 on map). Providing sewerage
for Gilford Village would remove any pollution resulting from subsurface systems,
particularly the possible septic tank contamination of the Gunstpck River. (2)
Pheasant Ridge (2 on map). Construction here would serve an area with a con-
siderable amount of existing development, but might jeopardize the wetlands along
Jewett Brook. (3) Governor's Island (3 on map). Provision of sewer lines would
eliminate pollution to Lake Winnipesaukee from septic systems along the shoreline,
but would be very costly for the number of houses served and might exert pressure
for future development. (4) Gunstock Recreation Area (4 on map). Constructing
an interceptor to link the existing treatment facility to the Gilford Interceptor
would eliminate the current discharge to Poorfarm Brook and result in a direct
improvement to water quality.
It is further reconmended that two areas be designated for future study to
determine more accurately the need for sewer line construction at a later point
in time. The two areas are: (1) Gunstock Acres, and (2) School house Hill and
Gunstock Hill Roads.
Gilford does already have in effect regulations which place a certain degree
of control over growth and development. Nonetheless, additional regulations are
desirable, especially if the Town is to be able to preclude the necessity for
sewer construction in any of the areas listed above. The intent of the recom-
mended land use and non-point source controls is to do just that - avoid the
occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable restrictions
and regulations. This course of action would minimize the necessity for addi-
tional expenditures in the future to correct further problems which might
otherwise develop. The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use regulations
would be considerably less.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas will avoid many problems.
Basing lot sizes (in areas not served by public sewer) on soil and slope would
insure adequate area for on-slte disposal. A local subsurface disposal ordinance
would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town to enforce
more stringent controls than now enforced by the State. The adoption of a steep
slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the pro-
blems associated with development on steep areas (particularly the Gunstock Acres
area and the Belknap Mountain side of the Village). Strong shoreland provisions
in the Zoning Ordinance would protect Gilford's extensive shoreline, which \
includes several of the larger islands 1n Lake Winnipesaukee. Adoption of an
aquifer protection ordinance would preserve those areas which might serve as
sources for future public water supply.
The hookup of the existing marina pump-out facilities to the Winnipesaukee
River Basin System would ensure proper handling and make it easier for boat owners
to comply with no-discharge, regulations. The elimination of power boating on
small ponds 1n Gilford (Lily and Round Ponds) would not only eliminate any pollu-
tion and noise problems associated with boat engines, but would also serve the
interests of aesthetics and safety. The Town should support legislative action
to accomplish this objective. In the area of solid waste disposal, Gilford should
continue to work with Laconia on a long-term cooperative solution Continulna
efforts to minimize the amount of salt used for winter road maintenance esoe
on lesser travelled Town roads, would greatly help to alleviate the problems
associated with runoff from heavily salted roads. prooiems
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Gilmanton 28
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Amend Subdivision Regulations to
base lot size on soil and slope.
* 2. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
3. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
4. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
X 5. Adopt Shoreland Provisions in
Zoning Ordinance.
X 6. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
+ 7. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
+ 8. Adopt Flood Plain Conservation
Ordinance.
1. Adequate lot size for on-site dis-
posal insured - faulty systems
avoided.
2 Wetlands protected from develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved,
natural flood protection capabi-
lities retained.
3. Erosion and construction problems
from development avoided,
especially since there are so
many hilly areas in Gilmanton.
4. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of subsurface dis-
posal systems insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
5. Density of development based on
natural capacity of the land -
adequate setbacks required.
6 Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
7 Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
8 Flood prone areas of Town pro-
tected from inappropriate develop-
ment; long-term costs attributable
to flood damage minimized.
Salary to
Increase
part-time
position to
full-time
Building
Inspector
or Code
Administrator
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
X 1. Designate Sawyer Lake, Gilmanton
Iron Works and Gilmanton Comers
as future study areas (Phase 1,
Z and 3 areas on map).
No immediate impact; keeps open
the option of securing funds In
the future for more detailed
study of these potential problem
areas.
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction guaran-
tee, regular pump outs, basing
of leach field and lot sizes
on soil and slope Into subsur-
face disposal/health ordinance
(as listed in land use controls
above).
* Encourage use of non-water
toilets, especially where exist-
ing near-shore systems have
failed.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as in
land use controls above).
3 Boating
+ Support setting maximum horse-
power limits on Loon Pond,
Rocky Pond, Sawyer Lake and
Shell camp Pond.
4 Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
PUtsfield, Alton or Laconia as
a long-term solution; consider
mandatory separation for recyc-
ling.
5 Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt;
fewer bare roads.
Correct design, installation and
maintenance of new subsurface
disposal systems insured - faulty
or polluting systems avoided;
proper maintenance of existing
systems lengthens life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion or health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result in higher development costs.
3. Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
4. Potential cost savings to the Town;
inconvenience to Individuals for
refuse separation; longer hauling
distances.
Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; reduces automobile speed
during winter months thereby
providing a safety and health
factor; a greater demand for sand
and gravel.
None
None
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Priority of
tecommendatlons:
* high priority
X intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
29
At present, Gilmanton remains relatively rural and has only recently been
faced with the prospects of significant population growth and development. The
Town does have land use regulations in effect, but they place only minimal
control over development. Additional regulations are necessary if the Town is
to retain its rural character.
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to
avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable res-
trictions and regulations. The costs to enforce land use regulations would, in
the long run, be considerably less than the costs for sewer construction, school
construction, provision of public water supply, and all the other expenditures
which accompany rapid growth.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Adoption of a wetland conservation ordinance to protect valuable wetland areas
from inappropriate development would be an important first step in this effort.
Basing lot sizes on soil and slope would insure adequate area for on-site dis-
posal. A local subsurface disposal/health ordinance would also help avoid faulty
or polluting systems and allow the Town to enforce more stringent controls than
those now enforced by the State. The adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and
erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the problems associated with
any development that might occur on steep areas, particularly in light of the
many hilly and steep areas in Gilmanton.
Setting maximum horsepower limits for power boats on Loon Pond, Rocky Pond,
Sawyer Lake and Shell camp Pond would reduce potential pollution from boat engines
and would also serve the interests of aesthetics and safety. The Town should
support legislative action to accomplish this objective. In the area of solid
waste disposal, Gilmanton should investigate a long-range solution that would
involve cooperation with Pittsfield, Alton or Laconia. A concentrated effort to
minimize the use of salt for winter road maintenance would help alleviate the
problems associated with runoff from heavily salted roads.
It is recommended that three locations be designated as areas where future
study may be needed to determine the necessity for sewer construction If the
Town takes the actions recommended above, this could be avoided. The'areas ar*-
(1) Sawyer Lake (Phase 1 on map), (2) Gilmanton Iron Works and Crystal Lake
(Phase 2 on map) and (3) Gilmanton Corners. The construction of sewer lines to
serve the shoreline of Sawyer Lake would eliminate the threat of pollution to
the lake from near-shore septic systems and permit building on lots currently not
capable of being built upon because their small size poses severe limitaliSns fSr
on-site disposal. However, construction would be very costly and wou d oien UD
the area for further development. Constructing sewer lines to service GilrantSn
Iron Works and the western shoreline of Crystal Lake would meet a ootent a^f^L
need in the Village District and would eliminate Pollu?ion to Crystal Lakl from
from near-shore development; however, additional pressure for increased dlJinn
ment in and around the Iron Works and on the lake shoreline woulSbe exerted PThe
construction of a sewage treatment plant which would either discharge to the
Suncook River or discharge via spray irrigation would necessitate costly land
acquisition, as well as place a continuing financial burden for operat on and
maintenance upon the Town. Constructing sewers to serve Gilmanton rnrn^ IA
promote additional development at higher densities andlncoSe She lols o?
prime agricultural lands to housing. wurage tne loss of
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Holderness 3I
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Adopt Zoning Ordinance.
* 2. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
* 3. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
* 4. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
* 5. Amend Sewage Disposal Ordinance
to contain more stringent pro-
visions.
* 6. Adopt Shoreland Ordinance.
X 7. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
X 8. Adopt Aquifer Protection
Ordinance.
1. Density of new growth controlled,
strip development and scattered
commercial development prevented.
2. Adequate lot size for on-site dis-
posal ensured - faulty septic
systems avoided.
3. Wetlands protected from develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved,
natural flood protection retained.
4. Erosion and construction problems
resulting from development on
steep slopes avoided, particularly
in the Squam Mountains and in the
steep area to the south of Little
Squam Lake.
5. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
6. Density of development based on
natural capacity of the land -
adequate setbacks required.
7. Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
8. Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Shared salary
for full-time
Building
Inspector
(possible
cooperati ve
arrangement
with Ashland)
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Designate the northern shoreline,
along Route 3 and part of the
southern shoreline of Little
Squam Lake; and the northern
shoreline, along Route 113, and
southern shoreline, along Route
3 of Squam Lake for future study
(area #1 on map).
1. Continued degradation of lake
water quality brought about by
on-site systems.
No immediate impact; keeps open
the option of securing funds in
the future for more detailed study
of potential problem areas.
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate more stringent
setback provisions, provisions
for mandatory construction
guarantee, regular pump outs,
basing of leach field and lot
sizes on soil and slope into
existing ordinance (as listed
1n land use controls above).
* Encourage use of non-water
toilets, especially on islands
and where existing .near-shore
systems have failed.
2. Stonnwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
1n land use controls above).
3. Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
Ashland or Plymouth; consider
separation for recycling
4. Road Salt
* Minimize use of road salt;
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, Installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens effective life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from improper development
avoided; protection measures result
in higher development costs.
3. Potential cost savings to the Town;
Inconvenience to individuals for
refuse separation; longer hauling
distances.
4. Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel times,
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
None
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Prlorlty of Recommendations:
* high priority ;.
X Intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
32
At present, Holderness does not have any land use controls other than
subdivision regulations, a waste disposal ordinance, a limited building permit
system and flood plain regulations as part of the Flood Insurance Program.
Unless the Town adopts certain additional controls, particularly a zoning
ordinance, the potential for serious land use and water pollution problems will
continue to exist.
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to
avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable
restrictions and regulations.
This proposed course of action would minimize the necessity for future
expenditures to correct problems which might otherwise develop. The costs to
the Town for enforcement of land use and non-point source controls would be
considerably less. Directing growth toward those locations with the natural
capacity to accept it and away from environmentally sensitive areas will avoid
many problems. Recommended as a top priority is the adoption of a zoning
ordinance which would control the density of new growth and prevent strip and
scattered development. Ideally, the ordinance should contain special shoreland
provisions. Amending the subdivision regulations to base lot sizes on soil and
slope factors would insure adequate area for on-site disposal. Amending the
existing waste disposal ordinance to incorporate more stringent provisions would
also help avoid faulty or polluting systems. A wetland ordinance would protect
Holderness1 valuable wetlands from development. The adoption of a steep slopes
ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the problems
associated with development on steep areas (particularly in locations such as
the Squam Mountains and in the steep area to the south of Little Squam Lake)
and preclude excessive sedimentation from degrading the quality of the lakes.
An aquifer protection ordinance would conserve those areas which might serve as
sources of future water supply. In the area of solid waste disposal, Holderness
should investigate the long-range feasibility of cooperating with Ashland in the
use of their facility. A concentrated effort to minimize the use of salt for
winter road maintenance, particularly on lesser travelled roads, would help to
reduce the problems associated with runoff from heavily salted roads.
With the exception of the upper Holderness Village Sewer District which is
connected to the Plymouth Treatment Facility, there is no other public waste-
water collection or treatment in the Town. " It is recommended that the northern
shoreline along Route #3 and southern shoreline of Little Squam Lake, and the
northern shoreline along Route #113 and southern shoreline along Route #3 of
Squam Lake (area 1 on map) be designated for future study. Construction would
eliminate the threat of pollution resulting from near-shore subsurface systems
and be a direct improvement to water quality. However, construction costs would
be very high and additional development, particularly strip development alonq
Route #3, would be encouraged. If the Town adopts the measures recommended
above, it may well be possible to avoid the need for any sewer lines.
V
The costs to individuals for the provision of sewer service would be sub
stantial since homeowners would be required to pay the entire cost of connectina
from their dwelling to the lines on the street, as well as be responsible for
yearly operation and maintenance charges. If the existing Ashland treatment
plant were to be used to handle sewage from Holderness, it also is orobablp
Holderness would be responsible for whatever costs were attributable to ei
^additional operation. This would further increase costs for Holderness
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Laconia 34
Beconumded Locll Actions to Protect Water Quilltr
Type of
LAND USC
CONTROLS
POINT
SOURCE
COKT80C.S
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Priority or
Action
1. Amend Subdlvlllon Regulations to
base lot size on soil And slope
In areas not covered by public
sewer.
2. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/Health
Ordinance.
). Adopt Wetland Conservation Ordi-
nance.
X 4. Adopt frallon and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
K 5. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
1. Construct II* South End Inter-
ceptor to serve Route '107 fron
existing systtn to the Reliant
line (A on nap and presently
under construction).
2A. Consider use of the routes of
the Ulnnlsquam By-Pass, Uest
Paugus and Gilford Interceptors
as recreational trail locations.
2 Construct sewer lines to serve
the section of Lake Opechee
shoreline which at present 1s
not being served (B on MP).
} Construct sever lines to serve
the lakeport-Sherldan Street
area (C on MP).
4 Construct sever lines to serve
existing development at Pendle-
ton Beach (0 on Mp).
5 Construct sewer lines to serve
the Channel lane-Birch Haven and
Pickerel Cove areas (E on map).
6 Construct local severs to serve
the EastMn Shore-lalghton
Avenue shoreline area of Lake
Hlrailsquem (! on «ap).
7. Construct sever lines to serve
the Cotton Hill Road-Perkins
Drive area (2 on wp).
8. Construct sever lines to serve
the Ulnnlpesaukn Shore Road
section of Pendleton Beach (1 on
MP).
». Construct sever lines to serve
only the lower southern end of
Unite Oaks Road (4A on Mp).
10. Designate the central section
of White Oaks Road as future
study area (4B on Mp).
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
Mndatory construction
guarantee, regular pump outs.
basing of leach field and lot
sizes on soli and slope Into
subsurface disposal/health
ordinance (as listed In land
use controls above).
Encourage usr of non-water
toilets, especially on Islands
and vhere existing near-shore
system have failed.
2 Stom>ater Runoff and Erosion
and SedlMntatlon
* Adopt a strong erosion and
SedlMntatlon ordinance (as
In land use controls above).
3. Boating
Connor t existing Mrlna pu«p-
out facilities to the Ulnnl-
peuukee R1«r Balln Syiun:
construct pump-out facilities
at Mrlnas where none exist.
4 Solid Haste
x Continue cooperation vlth
Gilford-, consider separation
for recycling.
S Road Salt _
» Minimize the use of road salt.
fever bare roads.
Eliminate practice of dumping
plow) snow Into the Vlmi-
petaukee 'River - dispose away
fra vater bodies.
Impacts
1. Adequate lot site for on-slte
disposal Insured - faulty system
avoided.
2 Correct design. Installation and
Mlntenance of subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting system avoided.
3 Wetlands protected fron develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved.
natural flood protection capabi-
lities retained.
4 Water pollution fron erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
5 Erosion and construction problem
fran development avoided.
1. Sev»r service provided to an area
of existing dense development;
health and water pollution problem
avoided.
1A. expanded recreational opportunities
provided; makes multiple use of
facilities; links the Weirs to
dovntovn.
2 Pollution from shoreline septic
system eliminated.
3 Sewage fron shoreline development
picked up and treated In Regional
TreatMnt Plant In Franklin;
degradation of lake water quality
eliminated.
4 Additional growth facilitated;
existing development served.
S Potential pollution from shoreline
dwellings eliminated, additional
growth and development encouraged.
o. Pollution from shoreline septic
system eliminated, particularly
along Lake Utnnlsquam.
7. Sever service to an area of exist-
ing dense developMnt.
a. Additional growth and development
facilitated.
9. Area of existing development
served.
10. Development pressure minimized In
prime agricultural area; keeps open
the option of securing funds In
the future for more detailed study.
1. Correct design. Installation and
Mlntenance of new subsurface dis-
posal system Insured - faulty or
polluting system avoided; proper
Mlntenance of existing system
lengthens effective life, keeps
system fron becoming water pollu-
tion and health hazards.
Reduction In land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2 Erosion and sedimentation problem
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection natures
result 1n higher development costs.
3 Ensures proper handling of wastes;
Mies It easier for boat owners to
conply vlth no-discharge regula-
tions.
4 Potential cost savings to the City:
Inconvenience for refuse recycling.
S. Contamination of groundvaUr mini-
mized; slower winter travel time.
Contamination of the river from
extraneous Mterlal Included In
plowed snow eliminated.
Reconemdatlom: * high prlorltr IDoes not include costs to hoMOvnen
I Interred! lU priority sever line. For costs, see text In P
Cost
Additional
Admlntstritlve
costs to
expand enforce-
tent capability
\ /
C - S900.0CO"
OIK - 12,400
Negotiate
Easement
C - W20.000*
OIX - 11.600
C - $170,000'
OtH - 12,800
C - S2S5.0M'
MH - S 700
C-H. 100,000'
OtM- $6,400
C-S1.3SS.OOO'
OtM - J9.700
H/A
C - $170,000'
OIK - S 500
C - 1450,000'
OUt - 11,400
None
None
None
Costs to
Mrlna owners
offset bv
fee system.
Reduced
City Costs
Reduced
City Costs
to connect to
art 2 - Point
* 1o» priority " Source Controls.
r low priority Mu
C - Construction Cast (tin figures art total preliminary planning costs for Mjor components only and do not
Include any Federal or State assistance wfitch nay be available to the coeounlty).
0 t N - Operation I Maintenance Costs (USD) must be borne entirely by the local users for local severs; costs for
tin Hlimlpesaukte River Basin System apportioned on the basis of percentage of use (set
Table 6-2 In Chapter ( 1i Draft Plan/EISj.
-------
35
The City of Laconla has the most extensive sewer system of any of the
municipalities 1n the Lakes Region, servicing 85 percent of Its permanent
population and 54 percent of Its seasonal/transient population. The three
major centers of development In the City (the downtown area, Lakeport and the
Weirs) are presently sewered. The original sewage treatment plant, built in
1952, was a primary plant. During 1974-75, this plant was upgraded to a
physical-chemical plant providing secondary treatment. The plant currently
discharges to Lake Winnlsquam.
Several major components of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project will
have a direct Impact upon the City: (1) Completion of the Winnisquam By-Pass
(now 1n progress) will eliminate the discharge from the treatment plant to Lake
Winnlsquam. (2) Construction of the West Paugus Interceptor (also 1n Progress)
will provide a major link 1n the overall Basin collection system and will allow
for the provision of sewerage to sections of Lake Opechee not now served. 13)
The Gilford Interceptor (which begins at the Weirs) will not only serve Gilford,
but will also provide service to the Laconia shoreline of Winnipesaukee in the
Pendleton Beach area. Construction of these three interceptors will provide the
City with excellent opportunities to develop recreational trail systems along the
route of the lines. Also planned for construction is the South End Interceptor
which will serve Route #107 from the existing system to the Belmont line (A on
map and presently under construction). This will relieve an area with dense
development and avoid future health and pollution problems. Sewer lines are
planned for the remaining section of the Lake Opechee shoreline which at present
1s not being served and will eliminate pollution to the lake from nearshore
septic systems (B on map). The construction of sewers to serve the Lakeport-
Sheridan Street area will eliminate pollution from shoreline development (C on
map). Providing sewerage to serve existing development at Pendleton Beach will
facilitate additional growth, but improve lake water quality (D on map). Con-
structing sewer lines to serve the Channel Lane-Birch Haven and Pickerel Cove
areas will eliminate pollution to Paugus Bay, but will also encourage new growth
(E on map).
In addition to the construction just described above in relation to the
Winnipesaukee River Basin Project and planned municipal sewering, additional
sewer construction 1n the future is called for by the Laconla Facilities Plan
and 1s recommended by this Plan: (1) Construct sewers to serve the Eastman Shore-
Laighton Avenue shoreline of Lake Winnlsquam. This would eliminate pollution to
the lake from shoreline dwellings, but would also encourage additional growth and
development (1 on map). (2) Construct sewer lines to serve the Cotton Hill Road-
Perkins Drive area. This would provide sewer service to an area of existing
dense development, but would also encourage increased growth (2 on map).
(3) Provide sewerage for the Winnipesaukee Shore Road section of Pendleton Beach.
This would facilitate high density development (3 on map). (4) Construct sewer
lines to serve only the southern end of White Oaks Road (4A on map). The Laconla
Facilities Plan recommends serving the entire length of White Oaks Road (4A and
4B on map). This would eventually result in the loss of valuable prime agri-
cultural lands and open space to encouraged growth. This Plan recommends that
the northern end of White Oaks Road be designated for future study (4B on map).
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to
avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable
restrictions and regulations. This course of action would minimize the necessity
for additional expenditures in the future to correct further problems which might
otherwise develop. In the long run, the costs to the City for enforcement of
land use regulations would be considerably less.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Amending subdivision regulations to base lot sizes (in areas not served by public
sewer) on soil and slope would insure adequate area for on-site disposal. A
local subsurface disposal ordinance would also help avoid faulty or polluting
systems and allow the City to enforce more stringent controls than those now
required by the State. A wetland conservation ordinance would protect Laconla's v
wetlands from development pressures. The adoption of a steep slopes ordinance
and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the problems associated
with development on steep areas. The hookup of existing marina pump-out facili-
ties to the Winnipesaukee River Basin System, and the provision of new pump-out
facilities at marinas where they do not exist, would ensure proper handling of
wastes from boat holding tanks and make it easier for boat owners to comply with
no-discharge regulations. In the area of solid waste disposal, Laconla should
continue to work with Gilford for a long-term cooperative solution. Continued
efforts to minimize the use of road salt for winter road maintenance, particularly
on lesser travelled City streets, would help reduce the problems associated with
runoff from heavily salted roads. The practice of dumping snow from olowed
streets into the Winnipesaukee River should be stopped. f>«»eu
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Meredith 3T
Recommended local Actions to Protect Utter Qmilty
Type of
Controls
L*HO USE
CONTROLS
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Action
* 1. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
1. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
}. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
4. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
x 5. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
1 6. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
* I. Construct Meredith Interceptor
to link town center service area
to Wlnnlpesaukee River Basin
System (A on nap) by 1980.
2. Construct Sanbornton Interceptor
to pick up development on western
shoreline of Lake Hlnnlsquam In
Meredith - link to vlnnlpesaukee
River Basin System (8 on up) by
1930.
?V Consider use of the mutes of
the Interceptor se«r lines a:
recreational trail locations.
3. Provide sewerage for areas
adjacent to southern end of
Like wauxewan (1 and 2 on nap)
by 1990.
4. Extend Meredith Interceptor to
Center Harbor - no local connec-
tions peraltted along the length
of the Interceptor - designate
this area for future study (0 on
«p) by 1985.
5. Extend town center service area
along Route *3 only as far as
Parade Road (area 4 on nap) by
1990.
X i. Extend northern Unit of town
center service area to Include
Boynton Road and more of Route
125 (3 on up).
7. Designate Meredith Center.
Including the Chemunfl Road shore-
line of Lake Mlcwas (E on up);
the shoreline of Meredith Neck
(F an up): Route »J from Parade
Road to the Laconla City Line
(C on map): and the western
shoreline of Lake Kaukewan (G on
nap) as future study areas.
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provision for
basing lot size on soil and
slope, mandatory pump out and
aandatory septic system con-
struction guarantee In local
subsurface disposal/health
ordinance (recommended under
land use controls above)
Encourage use of non-water
using toilets, especially on
Islands and where existing,
near-shore system have failed.
2 Stop-water Ounoff and Erosto"
and Sedimentation
I Adopt un< fora ordinance (recom-
mended under land use controls
above).
3, Boating
* Support actions to eliminate
power boating on Forest Pond.
Randlett Pond and Spectacle
Pond.
Provide additional pump-out
facilities at the Meredith Town
Docks and on Meredith Neck/
Bear Island.
4. Road Salt
Mlntnln use of road salt,
fewer bare roads.
Inoacts
1. Adequate lot size for on-slte
disposal Insured - faulty systems
avoided.
2 Wetlands protected from develop-
ment; wildlife habitat preserved;
natural flood protection capabi-
lities retained.
3 Correct design. Installation and
Maintenance of subsurface disposal
systeas Insured - faulty or
polluting system avoided.
«. Erosion and construction problem
avoided from development - parti-
cularly along steep western shore-
line of Meredith Bay and hilly
southwestern portion of Town.
5. Water pollution froa erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6 Future water supplies protected;
groundwater pollution avoided.
1. Discharge of sewage treatment
plant to Meredith Bay eliminated;
direct Improvement to water quality;
may exert pressure for additional
development along western shore of
Meredith Bay.
2 Pollution of Lake Ulnnlsquaa from
shoreline septic systems along
lower Bay Road eliminated; exist-
ence of the sewer lines will facili-
tate additional development.
_-n. Sioanded recreational opportunities
provided; makes multiple use of
facilities.
J. Potential pollution problems from
existing shoreline development
eliminated; public water supply
source protected.
4 Blscharge from Bay District elimi-
nated; limitation on local connec-
tions Insures that strip development
on Route '25 will not be encouraged.
5 Existing commercial development on
Route '3 added to service area; no
Incentive for additional development.
6. Area of existing dense development
provided with sewer service.
7 No lemdlate Impact: keeps open the
option of securing funds In the
future for more detailed study of
potential problem areas.
1. Correct design. Installation and
Maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal system Insured - faulty or
polluting system avoided; proper
maintenance of existing system
lengthens life, keeps systems from
becoming water pollution or health
'
Reduction In land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
1 Eroslnn and sedimentation problem
resulting from Improper development
avoided; protection measures result
In higher development costs.
3 Potential of pollution from boat
engines eliminated; noise, safety
and aesthetic problem eliminated.
enforcement of no-discharge regula-
tions facilitated; easier for boat
owners to comply with regulations.
4. Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized: slower winter travel time;
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
Cost
Salary for
full-time
Building
Inspector
Administrator
N/
C-S2.300.000'
OiN - S7.SOO
C-J2.XIO.OOO'
OIM - 58.750
negotiate
Easement
C-S1. 200,000'
OS* - S6.700
C-Jl.B70.OOOf
OS* -{12,000
N/A
N/A
Hone
None
None
None
Hone
Construction
Costs to Town
and Harlna
Owners
Reduced
Town Costs
sever line. For costs, see text In Part 2 - Point
Source Controls.
. _. high priority
X Intermediate priority
t low priority *>"*« «*!...».»
C - Construction Cost (tht figures are total estimated construction costs for major components only and do not Include
any Federal or State assistance which mi be available to the community).
0 * M - Operation I Maintenance Coats (1980) most be borne entirely By the local users for local sewers; costs for the
WlmlpesautM Hlvsv Basin iystem apportioned en the basis of percentage of use (see Tibia 6-2
In Chapter 6 of tht Draft Plan/CIS).
-------
38
The construction of two planned components, and a third recommended
component of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project in Meredith may eventually
exert considerable pressure for development: (1) The Meredith Interceptor (A on
map) will be very beneficial in that it will eliminate the discharge to Lake
Winnipesaukee from the existing municipal sewage treatment plant, but it may
open up the western shore of Meredith Bay to more development. This would be
particularly true, if for some unforeseen reason, the railroad which now
parallels the shoreline of Meredith Bay for most of its length were to be aban-
doned. The mere existence of the railroad now precludes development. If the
service area of the interceptor were expanded to include Route 3, a significant
potential for strip commercial development would exist, particularly since the
length of Route 3 is currently zoned for commercial usage. (2) The Sanbornton
Interceptor (B on map), which will eventually extend into Meredith, will remove
the threat of pollution from existing shoreline development along Lake Hinni-
squam. It will, however, make it possible for additional development to occur
on backlots. (3) The recommended extension of the Meredith Interceptor to Center
Harbor (D on map) to pick up the discharge from the Bay District has the potential
for the most significant Impact of the three. A portion of the Interceptor route
will follow Route 25. If connections were permitted along its length, some prime
agricultural land and wetlands could be lost to development. Since Route 25 is
a major transportation route, the potential for strip development also exists.
Expansion of the present commercial area (shopping center) would not only elimi-
nate some valuable open space, but would very detrimentally affect the central
business area. However, the construction of each of these three Interceptors
will present an excellent opportunity for developing a recreational trail system
along the routes of the lines. The Town should give serious consideration to this
idea.
In addition to the three components of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project,
two areas are also recommended for sewer construction. They are: (1) the
southern end of Lake Waukewan (areas 1 and 2 on map). Providing sewerage would
remove any pollution now resulting from shoreline septic systems and would protect
the Town's current water supply source (although this may not continue to be the
future source). (2) Boynton Road and more of Route 25 north of the existing
service area (3 on map). This extension would serve an area of existing develop-
ment.
It is further reconnended that several areas be designated for future study
to determine the nsed for sewer line construction. These areas are: (1) Meredith
Center, including the Chemung Road shoreline of Lake Hicwas (E on map); (2) the
shoreline of Meredith Neck (F on map); (3) Route 3 from Parade Road to the Laconla
City Line (C on map); and (4) the western shoreline of Lake Waukewan (6 on map).
It was not possible to study these areas in sufficient detail within the constraints
of the 208 Project. Including them as recommendations for future study keeps open
the option of securing 201 funds for more detailed examination.
Meredith does already have in effect land use regulations which place a
certain degree of control over development. Nonetheless, additional regulations
are desirable, especially if the Town is to preclude the necessity for sewer line
construction in the areas suggested above for future study. The intent of recom-
mended land use and non-point source controls is to avoid the occurrence of future
problems through the adoption of reasonable restrictions and regulations. This
course of action would minimize the necessity for expenditures in the future to
correct problems which might otherwise develop. The costs to the Town for
enforcement of regulations would be considerably less.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
1t and away from environmentally sensitive areas will avoid many problems.
Amending the subdivision regulations to base lot sizes (in areas not served by
public sewer) on soil and slope would Insure adequate area for on-site disposal.
A stringent local subsurface disposal ordinance would also help avoid faulty or*
polluting systems. The adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and erosion and
sedimentation controls would minimize the problems associated with development
that might occur on steep areas (particularly the western shoreline of Meredith
Bay and the hilly southwestern section of Town) and preclude excessive sedimenta-
tion from degrading the quality of the lakes. A wetlands ordinance would orotect
Meredith's valuable wetlands from development. v
Additional pump-out facilities for boats are currently needed in Meredith to
handle the volume of summer recreational boating. Provision of facilities at the
Meredith Town Docks and on Meredith Neck near Bear Island would alleviate this
situation. The elimination of power boating on small ponds In Meredith (Forest
Randlett and Spectacle Ponds) would not only remove any pollution problems asso-
ciated with boat engines, but would also serve the Interests of aesthetics and
safety. The Town should support legislative action to accomplish this last
recommendation. Meredith's current arrangement for solid waste disposal Is an
excellent one. In the future, In addition to cooperating with Center Harbor t-h*
Town should investigate the possibility of including Houltonborough 1n a coooera
tive arrangement. Concentrated efforts to minimize the use of salt for winter
road maintenance, particularly on secondary Town roads, would greatly helo to
reduce the problems associated with runoff from heavily salted roads
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Reconmended local Actions to Protect Mater Quality
Moultonborough
40
Type of
Controls
LAND USE
CONTROLS
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Action
* 1. Adopt Zoning Ordinance.
* 2. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
* 3. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
* 4. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
* S. Adopt Shoreland Ordinance.
* 6. Adopt Erosion and Sedimenta-
tion Ordinance.
* 7. Adopt Building Permit System.
X 8. Adopt Aquifer Protection
Ordinance.
* 1. Extend Mlnnlpesaukee River
Basin Interceptor from
Meredith to the Bay District -
by 1985.
* Z. Extend Bay District service
area to Include southern half
of Lake Kanasatka (area I on
map) - by 1990
X 3. Utilize small municipally owned
community wastewater systems to
serve clusters of existing houses
(outside sewer service areas
where problems with subsurface
disposal are present).
X 4. Designate shorelines of Lake
Wlnntpesaukee and Squam Lake,
Houltonborough Falls and
Houltonbo rough Village as
future study areas (areas A
through G on map).
1 Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction
guarantee, regular pump outs,
basing of leach field and
lot sizes on soil and slope
Into existing subsurface dis-
posal/health ordinance.
* Encourage use of non-water
toilets, especially for use
on Islands and where existing
near-shore systems have failed.
2 Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
In land use controls above).
3 Boating
X Provide additional pump-out
facilities on Long Island and
Houltonborough Bay.
* Support restriction of horse-
power on Sari and and Uakonda
Ponds.
4 Solid Waste
X Investigate long-range
cooperation with Meredith and
Center Harbor; consider manda-
tory separation for recycling.
5 Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt.
fewer bare roads.
Impacts
1 Density of new growth controlled.
strip development and scattered
commercial development prevented.
2. Adequate lot size for on-s1te dis-
posal ensured - faulty septic
systems avoided.
4. Development on Osslpee Mountains,
Red H111 controlled; erosion and
construction problems avoided.
4. Wetlands protected from develop-
ment; wildlife habitat preserved;
natural flood protection retained.
S Density of development based on
natural capacity of the land -
adequate setbacks required.
6 Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
7. Facilitates coordination of land
use controls.
8 Future water supplies protected;
groundwater pollution avoided.
1 Discharge to Lake W1nn1pesaukee
eliminated; direct Improvement to
water quality.
2 Would alleviate water quality
problems from developed shoreline;
could encourage additional develop-
ment on Route 25 along the sewer
line.
3. Cost equal to or more than for
construction of sewer lines; size-
able area of suitable land must be
conmltted for disposal.
4. No Immediate Impact; keeps open
the option of securing funds In
the future for more detailed
study of potential problem areas.
1 Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of new subsurface
disposal systems Insured - faulty
or polluting systems avoided;
proper maintenance of existing
systems lengthens effective life,
keeps systems from becoming water
pollution and health hazards.
Reduction In land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper development
avoided; protection measures result
In higher development costs.
3 Easier for boat owners to comply
with no-discharge regulations;
enforcement facilitated.
Potential for pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
4 Potential cost savings to the Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; Inconvenience to Indivi-
duals, for refuse separation; longer
hauling distances.
5 Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel times,
depletion of sand and gravel supplies
supplies.
Cost
Shared salary
for full -time
Building
Inspector
__ T*\/IA
or tooe
Enforcement
Administrator
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
with Center
Uavhnr I
nsroor J
\S
C-S1.870.000*
OSM -$12,136
C-$l,600,000*
OSM - $8.000
Yearly OS): Co
to Homeowner:
None
None
None
None
Construction
costs to
marina owners
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Priority of Recomendatlons: * high priority ' U»es not Include eosls to MOMOjiiai* w cui.neti w
X Intermediate priority sewer line. For costs, see text In Part 2 - Point
+ low priority Source Controls.
v. - Construction Cost (the figures are total estimated construction costs for major components only and do
not Include any Federal or State assistance which may be available to the community).
0 S H - Operation S Maintenance Costs (1980) must be borne entirely by the local users.
-------
41
Moultonborough has the longest shoreline of any of the towns which front on
Lake Winnipesaukee and has experienced a great deal of lakefront development.
At present, the Town does not have any land use controls other than subdivision
regulations, a local health ordinance and minimal flood insurance regulations.
With the exception of the Moultonborough section of the Bay Sewer District,
there is no other public sewerage in the Town. This plan recommends extending
the Winnipesaukee River Basin Interceptor from Meredith to the Bay District (see
Meredith map), thereby eliminating discharges from the lagoon system to Lake
Winnipesaukee. This would serve as a direct improvement to water quality. It is
also recommended that the service area of the Bay District be expanded to include
the southern half of Lake Kanasatka (area 1 on map) and that this expansion be
reflected in the Bay District Facilities Plan being prepared by Rist-Frost
Associates. Extending the service area to include Lake Kanasatka would eliminate
the water quality problems attributable to a considerable amount of shoreline
development. It might, however, encourage some additional development, especially
along Route 25 following the location of the sewer line.
The data collected during the planning process has shown that it would not
be cost effective to construct sewers to service the remaining shoreline areas in
Moultonborough. It is recommended that all the shoreline areas be designated for
future study to determine in more detail the need for and the costs of sewer line
construction. Also Included as future study areas should be Moultonborough Falls
and Moultonborough Village (areas A through 6 on map). It 1s further recommended
that Moultonborough consider using small community wastewater systems to serve
clusters of existing dwellings where subsurface disposal problems are present.
Unless the Town adopts certain safeguards, particularly a zoning ordinance,
growth related land use problems and water pollution from non-point sources will
continue. The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls
is to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable
restrictions and regulations. If the Town adopts such measures, it may well be
possible to preclude the need for any wastewater collection systems in the areas
mentioned above as needing future study.
This course of action would minimize the necessity for additional capital
expenditures in the future to correct problems which might otherwise develop.
The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use regulations would be considerably
less. Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems. Recom-
mended as a top priority is the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance which would assist
in controlling the density of new growth and preventing strip and scattered
development. Amending the subdivision regulations to base lot sizes, in areas not
served by public sewer, on sot! and slope would insure adequate area for on-site
disposal.
The adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation con-
trols would minimize the problems associated wfth development on steep areas,
particularly the Os si pee Mountains and Red Hill area, and preclude excessive
sedimentation from degrading the quality of the lakes. A wetlands ordinance would
protect Moultonborough*s valuable wetlands from development. Additional pump-out
facilities for boats are currently needed in Moultonborough to handle the volume
of summer recreational boating. Provision of facilities on Long Island and at
Moultonborough Bay would alleviate this situation. An aquifer protection ordinance
would conserve those areas which may be needed as future water supply sources.
Additionally, by setting maximum horsepower limits for power boats on
Garland Pond and Wakonda Pond, potential pollution from boat engines would be
reduced; the Town should support legislative action to accomplish this objective.
In the area of solid waste disposal, the Town should look into long-range
cooperation with Meredith in the use of their facilities. A concentrated effort
to minimize the use of salt for winter road maintenance would help alleviate the
water quality problems attributable to runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
New Hampton 43
NEW HAMPTON
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
1. Adopt Zoning Ordinance.
* 2. Adopt Steep Slopes Ordinance.
3. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
* 4. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
* 5. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
X 6. Adopt Shore!and Ordinance.
X 7. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
1. Density of new growth controlled;
strip development and scattered
commercial development prevented.
2. Control development and avoid con-
struction problems in areas as
Mersey Mountain and Beech Hill.
3. Wetlands protected from development;
wildlife habitat preserved; natural
flood protection maintained.
4. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems insured; faulty or pollut-
ing systems avoided.
5. Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6. Density of development based on
natural capacity of land - adequate
setback required.
7. Future water supplies protected;
groundwater pollution avoided.
Shared salary
for full-time
Building
Inspector
or Code
Administrator
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
with Bristol)
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. No planned or recommended expan-
sion of sewer service.
1. No immediate costs to the Town for
construction of waster water
facilities.'
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for man-
datory construction guarantee,
regular pump outs, basing of
Teach field and lot sizes on
soil and slope into subsurface
disposal/health ordinance (as
listed in land use controls
above.
* Encourage the use of non-water
toilets, especially for use
where existing near-shore
systems have failed.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
in land use controls above).
3. Boating
+ Support restriction of horse-
power on Lake Wlnona.
4. Solid Waste
* Investigate cooperation with
Bristol and BHdgewater; con-
sider mandatory separation
for recycling.
5. Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt,
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens effective life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for leach fields; major source of
potential pollution eliminated.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result in higher development costs.
3. Potential for pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
4. Potential cost savings to the Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; Inconvenience to
individuals for refuse separation;
longer hauling distances.
5. Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel times;
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
(rlorlty of
None
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Recommendations:
* high priority
X Intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
44
At present, New Hampton does not have in effect any land use controls
other than subdivision regulations and a limited building permit system. Up
to this point, the Town has not had to face any severe growth pressures. There
is certainly no guarantee that this situation will continue unchanged in the
future. Unless the Town adopts certain ordinances, particularly a zoning ordi-
nance, growth related problems, such as water pollution from non-point sources
may present difficulty in the future.
With the exception of New Hampton Village, which is already served by a
sewer system, there is no present need for public wastewater collection or
treatment facilities in the Town. Although the study recommends no sewer
construction, the Town should review the need for land use regulations with an
eye toward the adoption of certain ordinances which would insure that development
will remain light enough to obviate any future sewer construction.
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is
simply to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reason-
able restrictions and regulations. This course of action would minimize the
possibility of the need for expenditures in the future to correct problems which
might otherwise develop. The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use
regulations would be considerably less.
Directing growth towards those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Recommended as a top priority is the adoption of a zoning ordinance which would
control the density of new growth and prevent strip and scattered development.
Another important step would be the adoption of a wetland conservation ordinance
to protect valuable wetland areas from development. A local subsurface disposal/
health ordinance would help avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town
to enforce more stringent controls than those now required by the State. The
adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would
minimize the problems associated with any development that might occur on steep
areas (particularly areas like Hersey Mountain and Beech Hill).
By setting maximum horsepower limits for power boats on Lake Winona, poten-
tial pollution from boat engines would be reduced. The Town should support
legislative action to accomplish this last objective.
New Hampton should look towards a future cooperative arrangement with
either Bristol or Ashland to solve its long-range solid waste disposal problems
A concentrated effort to minimize the use of salt for winter road maintenance
particularly on secondary Town roads, would help reduce the water quality pro-
blems associated with runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Northfield
Recommended local ftctlons to Protect Water Quality
Type or
Controls
UNO USE
CONTROLS
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Action
1. Revise and strengthen existing
Zoning Ordinance.
2. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
* 3. Adopt Floodplaln Controls to
limit development on the
floodplaln.
4. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
X 5. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
X 6. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
7. Adopt Special Shoreland Provi-
sions In Zoning Ordinance.
» 8. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
* 1. Construct T1lton-Horthf1eld
Interceptor
lA. Consider use of the roite of
the Interceptor line as *
location for a recreational
trail system.
' 2. Construct local Interceptors
and make changes In local
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Priority of
collection system (Park St.
Interceptor. Elm St. Inter-
ceptor. Granite St. pumping
station).
3. Construct sewer line to serve
new Forest Road (3 on up).
X 4. Construct sewer lines to extend
Town service area along Sumner
Street (1A on np).
X S. Designate Dearborn Road and
Route 3B as future study areas
(1 on up).
X 6. Designate western shoreline of
Sondogardy Pond as future study
area (2 on up).
1. Subsurface Disposal
Incorporate provisions for
undatory construction
guarantee, regular pump outs,
basing of leach field and lot
sizes on soil and slope Into
subsurface disposal/health
ordinance (as listed In land
use controls above).
Encourage use of non-water
toilets.
2 Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
In land use controls above).
3 Boating
X Support legislation to elimi-
nate the use of power boats
on Sondogardy Pond.
4 Solid Waste
* Continue long-nnoe coopera-
tion with Franklin; consider
undatory separation for
recycling.
S Road Salt
Mini ml xe use of road salt.
fewer bare roads.
Impacts
1. Afford the Town greater control
In preventing land use and
jter quality problems.
2 Wetlands protected fron develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved.
natural flood protection
capabilities retained.
3 long-tem costs due to flood
damage minimized; valuable agri-
cultural lands along the
Kerrlmack protected from develop*
nent.
4 Correct design. Installation and
posal systems Insured - faulty
or polluting systems avoided.
5 Hater pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6 Erosion and construction problems
from development avoided -
particularly In the hilly area
south of Bean Hill Road.
7 Adenuate setback from water mini-
mizes potential for pollution.
Insures that density of develop-
8 Future water supplies protected.
groundwater pollution avoided.
1 Existing outfalls of raw sewage
to the Mlnnlpesaukee River elimi-
nated; direct Improvement to water
quality.
IA. Expanded recreatlonll opportuni-
ties provided; rakes nultlple
use of facility.
2 Existing outfalls of raw sewage
to the Wlnnlpcsaukce River elimi-
nated; direct Improvement to
water quality.
3 Facilitates Industrial develop-
ment 1n an area well-suited for
Industrial growth.
4 Existing development on Summer
Street served.
S No Immediate Impact; keeps open
the option of securing funds In
the future for more detailed
study.
6 No Immediate Impact, keeps open
the option of securing funds In
the future for more detailed
study.
1. Correct design. Installation and
ulntenance of new subsurface
disposal systems Insured - faulty
or polluting systems avoided;
proper maintenance of existing
systems lengthens effective life.
keeps systems from becoming water
pollution and health hazards.
Reduction In land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2 Erosion and sedimentation problem
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result In higher development costs
3 Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
4. Potential cost savings to the
Town; Inconvenience to Individuals
for refuse separation; longer
hauling distances.
S Contamination of groundwater
minimized; slower winter travel
time; depletion of sand 1 gravel
suppl Its.
Cost
Shared
for fu
Bulldli
In spec
or Cod
salary
1-tlre
9
or
n*nt>
Administrator
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
with lllton)
N,
/
C-S2.500.000'
OiM - 55,000
lloootlatc
Fasercnt
C - S540.000«
0!H - $1,900
N/A
N/A
None
None
None
K
one
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
t-cot-endattonT? * high priority ~~~~T~ » Don not Ineludo eoits to nomtowiin to eoraeci w
wconmnoninn. ». j.^ * r)8>.|ty ftwer line. For costs, see text In Pirt 2 - Point
» lew priority Source Controls.
C - Construction Cost (the figures are total estluted construction costs for «Jor components only and do not
C construction um *£*^ federaTor SUM assistance which uy be available to the con-unity).
DIN- Ooeratlon 1 Maintenance Costs (1980) must be borne entirely by the local users local sewers; costs
0 1 H Operation I "-'£%^n1p,Jtuk,£ ,,wr *, system apportioned on the basis of percentage of use
(see Table 6-2 In Chapter 6 In Draft Plan/EIS).
\
-------
47
The major water quality problem in the Town of North-field is the discharge
of raw untreated sewage from the Town sewer system to the Winnipesaukee River
via a number of outfalls. The planned construction of several components of the
Winnipesaukee River Basin Project will eliminate this problem: (1) constructing
the Tilton-Northfield Interceptor will be very beneficial in that it will
eliminate the discharge of raw sewage to the Winnipesaukee River. It will also
provide the Town with an opportunity to locate a recreational trail system along
the route of the sewer line; (2) the construction of the Park Street and Elm
Street Interceptors and the Granite Street pumping station will eliminate outfalls
of raw sewage to the Winnipesaukee River and be a direct improvement to water
quality. However, this construction may eventually exert considerable pressure
for additional development.
In addition, it is recommended that the Town extend local collector sewer
lines in two areas: (1) south along Summer Street (1A on map), and (2) along
New Forest Road (3 on map). The first would provide service to existing develop-
ment and would tie into the present collector system. The second would be made
possible by the construction of the Park Street Interceptor (which would extend
along Sargent Street) and would facilitate industrial development in an area that
is well suited for the purpose.
The Plan further recommends that two areas be designated as locations where
future study may be necessary to determine the need for sewer line construction.
They are: (1) Dearborn Road and Route 3B (1 on map), and (2) the western shore-
line of Sondogardy Pond.
Northfield does already have in effect land use regulations which place a
certain degree of control over development. Nonetheless, additional regulations
are desirable, especially if the Town is to preclude the need for additional
future sewer line construction. The intent of the recommended land use and non-
point source controls is to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the
adoption of reasonable restrictions and regulations.
A high priority has been attached to the revision and strengthening of the
existing Zoning Ordinance. Directing growth toward those locations with the
natural capacity to accept it and away from environmentally sensitive areas
would avoid many problems. In this regard, other high priority items are the
adoption of a wetland conservation ordinance (or wetland provisions in the Zoninq
Ordinance) and regulations to limit development on floodplain areas. A local
subsurface disposal ordinance would help avoid faulty or polluting systems and
allow the Town to enforce more stringent controls than those now required by the
State. The adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation
controls would minimize the problems associated with development on steep areas
particularly in hilly areas such as south of Bean Hill Road. An aquifer protec-
tion-ordinance would conserve those areas that are potentially suitable as future
water supply sources. By prohibiting power boats on Sondogardy Pond, pollution
from boat engines would be eliminated and the interess of safety and aesthetics
(noise pollution) would also be served. The Town should support legislative
action to accomplish this last objective. In the area of solid waste disposal
Northfield should continue its cooperative arrangement with Franklin Considera
tion should be given to requiring mandatory separation for recycling' In the
area of winter road maintenance, concentrated efforts should be made to minimi
the use of road salt, particularly on lesser travelled Town roads to reduce
problems associated with runoff from heavily salted roads '«««.e
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Viler Quality
Ossipee 49
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
1. Adopt Zoning Ordinance.
1 2. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
3. Adopt Ste«p Slope Ordinance.
' 4. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
' 5. Adopt Shoreland Ordinance.
6. Adopt Erosion and Sedimenta-
tion Ordinance.
7. Adopt Aquifer Protection
Ordinance.
8. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
X 1. Adopt Building Permit Systen.
Density of new growth con*
trolled, strip development and
scattered coimerclal develop-
ment prevented.
Adequate lot size for on-slte
disposal ensured - faulty
septic system avoided.
Erosion and construction pro*
blems resulting from development
on Ossipee Mountains avoided.
Wetlands protected fron develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved,
natural flood protection retained.
Density of development based on
natural capacity of the land -
adequate setbacks required.
Hater pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
Facilitates coordination of land
use controls.
Shared salary
for full-time
Building
Inspector
or Code
Enforcement
Administrator
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
K/Efflngham-
Freedom)
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Expand existing Center Osstpee
service area to Include a
portion of Houltonvllle Road
and Old Route Id; construct new
aerated lagoon system with dis-
charge via force main to Ossipee
River In Efflngham (1 and 2 on
nap) by !«*).
i«. Consider use of the route of the
force main as a recreational
trail.
X 2. Construct sewer extension along
Houltonvllle Road from Precinct
A (areas A. B and C on map) by
1985.
* 3. Construct sewerage on the Nest
side of Ossipee Lake Including
the shoreline along Deer Cove
(area 0 on up) by 1990.
4. Designate the shoreline along
Broad Bay and Leavltt Bay as
future study area (area E on
map).
1 Discharge of septic tank effluent
Indirectly to the Pine River
eliminated; direct improvement to
water quality; no sludge by-
product to be treated and disposed.
However, pressure for additional
devclopnent may come fron other
portions of Town.
i«. Expanded recreational opportunities
provided; makes Multiple use of
facility.
2 Incentive for additional strip
connerclal development along
Houltonvllle Road from Precinct A.
3 Pollution of Ossipee Lake fron
shoreline septic system along the
western side of the Lake, Includ-
ing Deer Cove, eliminated;
existence of the sewer line will
facilitate additional development.
« Ho Immediate Impact; keeps open
the option of securing funds in
the future for more detailed study
of potential problem areas.
C-S1,780,000'
04H -SIB,100
Negotiate
Easement
C - 1250,000'
OIM - N/A
C-S1.900.000'
OIM - N/A
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction guaran-
tee, regular pump outs, basing
of leach field and lot sizes
on soil and slope Into sub-
surface disposal/health
ordinance (is listed In land
use controls above).
Encourage non-water toilets,
especially for use where
existing near-shore system
have failed.
2 Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
Adopt strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
In land us* controls above).
3 Boating
Provide pumpout on Ossipee lake
for boat holding tank discharge.
* Eliminate tie use of power
boats on the following ponds;
Archers. Bean, Garland, Little
Dan Hole and Moody.
* Set maximum horsepower 1 loit
on Big Dan Hole Pond.
4 Solid Haste
X Investigate cooperation with -
Efflngham and Freedom; con-
sider mandatory separation
for recycling.
5 Road Slit
Minimize the use of road salt.
fewer bare roads. .
Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of new subsurface
disposal system Insured - faulty
or polluting systems avoided;
proper maintenance of existing
systems lengthens effective life,
keeps systems from becoming water
pollution and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result In higher development costs.
Enforcement of no-discharge regu-
lations facilitated.
Potential of pollution from boat
engines eliminated; noise, safety
and aesthetic problems eliminated.
Potential of pollution from but
engines reduced; noise and *afety
problems minimized.
: Potential cost savings to the
.Town; problem with current dis-
posal site eliminated;
inconvenience to individuals for
refuse separation; longer
hauling distances.
i Contamination of groundwater
minimized; slower winter travel
timesr depletion of sand and
gravel supplies.
None
Construction
costs to
arina owners
offset by
user fee.
None
None
Reduced
Toon Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Priority of Recommendations: * high priority I Does not include costs to homeowners to connect to
x Intermdiite priority sewer line. For costs, see text In Part 2 - Point
» low priority Source Controls.
C - Construction Cost (the figures are totaj^estluted construction costs for major components only and do not
Include any Federal of State tsslstance which ny be available to the comunlty).
0 1 N - Operation 1 Maintenance Costs (1980) tost be borne entirely by the local users.
\
-------
50
The LRPC concurs with the recently completed Ossipee Facilities Plan which
calls for the expansion of the existing Center Ossipee sewer precinct to include
a portion of Mountonville Road and old Route #16 (1 and 2 on map). This will
involve construction of a new aerated lagoon treatment facility with discharge
via a force main to the Ossipee River in Effingham. This will eliminate the
indirect discharge of septic tank effluent to the Pine River, which is a tributary
to Ossipee Lake. However, pressure for additional development might come from
other portions of the Town. Construction of the force main will provide the Town
with an excellent opportunity to develop a recreational trail system along the
route of the sewer line. Some areas of existing dense development, particularly
the shoreline of Ossipee Lake (Deer Cove, Broad Bay and Leavitt Bay) will continue
to represent potential pollution threats.
The Facilities Plan also recommends that other areas be provided with sewer
service in the near future. The LRPC concurs with the following areas: (1)
further expansion of the Precinct A service area in Center Ossipee (A, B and C on
map), and (2) constructing sewer lines to serve the Deer Cove area on the western
side of Ossipee Lake (D on map). The LRPC recommends that the Broad and Leavitt
Bay areas (E on map) be designated for more detailed future study to determine the
need for sewer construction.
At present the Town does not have any land use controls other than subdi-
vision regulations and minimal flood insurance regulations. Unless the Town
adopts additional controls, particularly a zoning ordinance, growth related land
use problems and water pollution from non-point sources will continue. The intent
of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to insure that future
development will be light enough to obviate a need for additional municipal
collection and treatment facilities and to avoid the occurrence of future problems
through the adoption of reasonable restrictions and regulations. This course of
action would minimize the necessity for additional capital expenditures in the
future to correct problems which might other wise develop. The costs to the Town
for enforcement of land use regulations would be considerably less. Adoption of
the proper control measures might make it possible to preclude the need for con-
struction of any of the sewer lines around Ossipee Lake mentioned above.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Recommended as a top priority is the adoption of a zoning ordinance which would
assist in controlling the density of new growth and preventing strip and scattered
development. A wetland conservation ordinance is also recommended as a high
priority, especially since there are many extensive wetlands in Ossipee. Amending
subdivision regulations to base lot sizes on soil and slope would insure adequate
area for on-site disposal. A local subsurface disposal/health ordinance would
also help avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town to enforce more
stringent controls than those now required by the State. The adoption of a steep
slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the problems
associated with any development that might occur on steep areas, particularly in
the Ossipee Mountains. An aquifer protection ordinance would help conserve those
areas which might provide sources of future public water supply. The provision
of a pump-out facility for boat holding tanks on Ossipee Lake would assist boat
oWners in complying with "no-discharge" regulations.
The elimination of power boating on several small ponds in Ossipee (Archer
Bean, Garland, Little Dan Hole, Melvin and Moody Ponds) would not only eliminate
any pollution and noise problems associated with boat engines, but would also
serve the interests of aesthetics and safety. Additionally, by setting a
maximum horsepower limit for power boats on Big Dan Hole Pond potential pollution
from boat engines would be reduced. The Town should support legislative action
to accomplish these two objectives.
In the area of solid waste disposal, Ossipee should seek a cooperative
arrangement with the Towns of Effingham and Freedom. One further action which
would be a positive step toward reducing water pollution would be to minimize
the use of salt for winter road maintenance. This would significantly reduce
the problems associated with runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Sanbornton 52
Recorcnended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
1. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
2. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance.
2.
Correct design, Installation and
maintenance of subsurface dis-
posal systems insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; allows
Town to enforce more stringent
standards than State.
Mater pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided; proper
development practices mandated.
Enforcement
may require
salary for
full-time
Building
Inspector/
Code
Enforcement
Officer
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Construct Sanbornton Interceptor
to serve the immediate shoreline
of Lake Winnisquam (planned as a
part of the Winnipesaukee River
Basin Project - see area A on
map).
X 2. Designate area along Lower and
Upper Bay Roads as future study
area - potential future link to
Sanbornton Interceptor (B on
map).
2.
High density seasonal development
along the shoreline served -
contributions to water pollution
from near-shore septic systems
eliminated; direct Improvement to
water quality in the lake; possible
pressure for additional development
because of the presence of the
sewer line.
No immediate impact - keeps open
the option of securing funds in
the future for more detailed study.
C=$2,300,000*
O&M - $8,750
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction
guarantee, regular pump outs,
basing of leach field and lot
sizes on soil and slope into
subsurface disposal/health
ordinance (as listed in land
use controls above).
* Encourage use of non-water
toilets, for use particularly
where existing near-shore
systems have failed.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
in land use controls above).
3. Boating
X Support legislative action
to eliminate power boats on
Giles, Rollins and Hunkins
Ponds.
X Support restriction of horse-
power on Hermit Lake.
4. Solid Waste
X Investigate long-range coopera-
tion with Belmont, Tilton,
Northfleld and Franklin; con-
sider mandatory separation for
recycling.
5. Road Salt
* Continue "no road salt" policy.
1. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens effective life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
c. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result in higher development costs.
3. Potential of pollution from boat
engines eliminated; noise and
safety problems eliminated.
4. Potential cost savings to the Town;
inconvenience to individuals for
refuse separation; longer hauling
distances required.
5. Contamination of groundwater mini-
* m'zed; slower winter travel times.
None
None
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
friorlty of Recommendations:
I Does not Include costs to homeowners to connect to
sewer line. For costs, see text 1n Part 2 - Point
Source Controls.
* high priority
X intermediate priority
+ low priority
C_- Construction Cost (the figures are total estimated consfuctlon costs for major components only and do not
Include any Federal or State assistance which may be available to the comnunlty).
0 » M - Operation & Maintenance Costs (1980) must be borne entirely by the local users for local sewers; costs
for the Winnipesaukee River Basin System apportioned on the basis of percentage of use
(see Table 6-2 in Chapter 6 1n Draft Plan/ElS).
-------
53
Presently there is no need for any public sewer system or treatment
facility in the Town of Sandwich. In addition, the Town desires to remain
relatively unpopulated and rural and has been interpreting its land use regu-
lations rather strictly. Although there is no plan or recommendation for sewer
construction, a study of the Town land use regulations should be undertaken
with an eye to improving them to insure that development will remain light
enough to obviate the need for public wastewater treatment.
The Town does already have in effect land use regulations which place a
certain degree of control over development. Nonetheless, additional regulations
are desirable. The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source
controls is to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of
reasonable restrictions and regulations.
This course of action would minimize the necessity for expenditures in the
future to correct problems which might otherwise develop. The costs to the Town
for enforcement of land use regulations would be considerably less.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Amending the subdivision regulations to base lot sizes on soil and slope would
insure adequate area for on-site disposal. A local subsurface disposal/health
ordinance would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town
to enforce more stringent controls than those now required by the State. The
adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would
minimize the problems associated with any development that might occur on steep
areas (particularly the Red Hill, Ossipee and Squam Mountains areas and the area
bordering the National Forest). Adoption of a wetland conservation ordinance
would protect the many valuable wetland areas in Sandwich from development. An
aquifer protection ordinance would conserve those areas which might be utilized
as future water supply sources.
The elimination of power boating on small ponds in Sandwich (Barville Pond,
Dinsmore Pond and Intervale Pond) would not only eliminate any pollution and
noise problems associated with boat engines, but would also serve the interests
of aesthetics and safety. Additionally, by setting maximum horsepower limits
for power boats on Red Hill Pond, potential pollution from boat engines would be
reduced. The Town should support legislative action to accomplish these objec-
tives. In the area of solid waste disposal, Sandwich should investigate a long-
range cooperative arrangement with Tamworth or Moultonboro. Efforts aimed at
minimizing the use of road salt for winter road maintenance should be continued.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Sandwich 55
Recommended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
Actions
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
1. Amend Subdivision Regulations to
base lot size on soil and slope.
2. Adopt Subsurface Disposal/Health
Ordinance.
3. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
4. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
* 5. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
+ 6. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
1. Adequate lot size for on-site
disposal Insured - faulty systems
avoided.
2. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
3. Erosion and construction problems
from development avoided, parti-
cularly in the Red Hill, Ossi pee
and Squam Mountains areas and the
area bordering the National Forest.
4 Wetlands protected from development,
wildlife habitat preserved, natural
flood protection capabilities
retained.
S Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6. Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Shared salary
for full-time
Building
Inspector
or Code
Administrator
(possible
cooperation
with Tamworth)
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
i. No existing, planned or
recommended wastewater collec-
tion or treatment facilities.
No Imnediate cost to the Town for
construction of wastewater collec-
tion or treatment facilities; long-
term costs to correct future pro-
blems could be high if adequate
land use and non-point source
controls are not adopted.
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction
guarantee, regular pump outs,
basing of leach field and lot
sizes on soil and slope into
subsurface di sposal/health
ordinance (as listed in land
use controls above).
* Encourage use of non-water
toilets, particularly on
Islands and where existing
near-shore systems have
failed.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation.
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
In land use controls above).
j. Boating
+ Support elimination of power
boats on Barville Pond,
Dinsmore Pond and Intervale
Pond.
+ Set maximum horsepower limit
for power boats on Red Hill
Pond.
4. Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
Tamworth/Moultonborough;
consider mandatory separation
for recycling.
5. Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt,
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of pew subsurface
disposal systems Insured - faulty
or polluting systems avoided;
proper maintenance of existing
systems lengthens effective life,
keeps systems from becoming water
pollution and health hazards.
Reduction in land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from improper development
avoided; protection measures result
In higher development costs.
Potential of pollution from boat
engines eliminated; noise and
safety problems eliminated.
Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
4. Potential cost savings to the Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; Inconvenience to
Individuals for refuse separation;
longer hauling distances.
5. Contamination of groundwater
minimized; slower winter travel
times, depletion of sand and
gravel supplies.
None
None
None
None
Reduced'
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Priority of Recommendations:
* high priority
X Intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
56
Sanbornton's major water quality problem involves pollution of Lake
Winnisquam. Construction of the Sanbornton Interceptor has already been
planned as a part of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project. The interceptor
will serve the Lake Winnisquam shoreline, most of which is presently committed
to high density seasonal development. Contributions to water pollution from
near-shore septic systems will be eliminated, resulting in a direct improve-
ment to lake water quality. However, pressure for additional development,
particularly along the shoreline and backlot areas, will exist (A on map).
It is recommended that future study be given to the possibility of expand-
ing the service area of the Sanbornton Interceptor to include all the area
along Lower and Upper Bay Roads (B on map). Such expansion could mean the loss
of significant areas of prime agricultural soils, wetlands and valuable open
space to development pressures. The need for sewer construction could be
obviated through careful control over development.
The Town does already have in effect land use regulations which place a
considerable degree of control over development. Several additional regulations
would be desirable to insure that the long-term effects of non-point sources of
water pollution are minimized. The intent of the recommended land use and non-
point source controls is to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the
adoption of reasonable restrictions and regulations. This course of action would
minimize the necessity for expenditures in the future to correct problems which
might otherwise develop. The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use
regulations would be considerably less. Directing growth toward those locations
with the natural capacity to accept it and away from environmentally sensitive
areas would avoid many problems.
A local subsurface disposal ordinance would help avoid faulty or polluting
systems and allow the Town to enforce more stringent controls than those now
required by the State. An erosion and sedimentation ordinance would complement
the existing steep slopes ordinance and would also allow the Town to enforce
"°Uld »1»"1f1«"t" 'educe ^ *« «* erosion
D A The Prohlb1tjon °f Power boating on Rollins Pond, Giles Pond and Hunkins
Pond would not only e iminate any pollution and noise problems associated with
boat engines, but would also serve the interests of aesthetics and safety Like
wise, restricting the horsepower of boats on Hermit Lake would accomplish "water
Sjectives " TOWn Sh°Uld SUPP°rt Ieg1slat1ve actl*on to accomplish these
Sanbornton should investigate cooperation with Franklin (which already has
a cooperative arrangement with Tilton and Northfield) to solve its long-tern
solid waste disposal needs. Also, a requirement for mandatory separation for
recycling should be considered. Continuation of the Town's policy of mi Si mi zirtt
the use of road salt for winter road maintenance is highly recommended ^
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Recomnended local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Tilton 58
Type or
Controls
Actions
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Amend Subdivision Regulations to
base lot size on sotl and slope.
* 2. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
3.
Adopt Subsurface Disposal/Health
Ordinance.
X 4. Adopt Shoreland Provisions In
Zoning Ordinance.
X 5. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
+ 6. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate lot size for cm-site
disposal Insured - faulty systems
avoided.
Wetlands protected from develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved,
natural flood protection capabi-
lities retained.
Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
Density of shoreline development
based on natural capacity of the
land - adequate setbacks required.
Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Shared salary
for full-time
Building
Inspector
or Code
Enforcement
Administrator
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
w/Northfield
\/
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
2.
Construct the Tilton-Nnrthfield
Interceptor.
Construct the Tilton Interceptor
along West Main Street.
2A. Consider use of the routes if
the interceptor lines as part of
a recreational trail system.
* 3. Construct local interceptors and
make changes to existing collec-
tion system (Morrison Avenue
Interceptor, replacement of
Packer Brook sewer, elimination
of all outfalls).
X 4. Construct local connectors along
the route of the Tilton Inter-
ceptor on West Main Street (1 on
map).
+ S. Construct sewer lines to serve
the Tilton shoreline of Hinnl-
squam and Silver Lakes (2A-f1rst
priority, 2B-second priority,
2C-th1rd priority).
b. Sewer construction not recom-
mended along Route 138 to
Sanbornton Square.
1 Important link 1n the Hinnlpesaukee
River Basin System; carries sewage
to the Franklin Treatment Plant.
2. Raw sewage discharges to the Hinnl-
pesaukee River eliminated; direct
improvement to water quality.
?A. Fxnanderi recreation opportunities
provided; makes multiple use of
facilities.
3. Raw sewage discharges to the
Winnipesaukee River eliminated;
direct Improvement to water quality.
Additional strip conmercial
development facilitated.
5. Considerable existing development;
pollution from near-shore septic
systems eliminated; Improvement to
water quality of the lakes.
6 Agricultural land and open space
protected from accelerated develop-
ment.
C-«2,500,00?*
01H - $5,000
C-$1.450.000»
O&h - $1,000
Negotiate
Easement
N/A
N/A
N/A
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction guaran-
tee, regular pump outs, basing
of leach field and lot sizes
on soil and slope Into sub-
surface disposal/health
ordinance (as listed In land
use controls above).
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
X Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
In land use controls above).
3. Solid Waste
X Continue long-range cooperation
with Northfleld and Franklin;
consider mandatory separation
for recycling.
4. Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt,
fewer bare roads.
1. Correct design, installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens effective life, keeps
systems from becoming water
pollution and health hazards.
2. Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result in higher development costs.
Potential cost savings to the Town;
Inconvenience to Individuals for
refuse separation; longer hauling
distances.
Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel times,
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Table 6-2 in Chapter 6 1n the-Draft Plan/EIS.
I Does not Include costs to homeowners to connect to sewer line. For costs, see text in Part 2 - Point Source Controls.
-------
59
Tilton's two major water quality problems are the discharge of raw sewage
to the Winnipesaukee River and high density development along the Lake Winni-
squam and Silver Lake shorelines. The construction of three planned components
of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project will solve the first problem and will
provide a direct improvement to water quality: (1) the Tilton-Northfield Inter-
ceptor, a key link in the Winnipesaukee River Basin System, will carry sewage to
the Franklin Treatment Plant; (2) constructing the Tilton Interceptor along West
Main Street will eliminate discharges of raw sewage to the Winnipesaukee River;
and (3) the construction of the Morrison Avenue Interceptor, replacement of the
Packer Brook sewer and the elimination of all outfalls will remove discharges
of raw sewage from the Winnipesaukee River. Construction of the Tilton-Northfield
Interceptor provides the Town with an excellent opportunity to develop a recrea-
tinal trail system along its length.
To solve the second problem, it is recommended that sewer lines be con-
structed to serve the Tilton shorelines of Lake Winnisquam and Silver Lake (2 on
map). Since the area is so extensive and since some portions would be more
easily sewered than others, it is suggested that the following order of priority
be established: (1) first priority - area 2A, Lochmere; (2) second priority -
area 2B, Andrews Road; and (3] third priority area 2C, along Route #3 from
Lancaster Hill Road to Mosquito Bridge. It is further recommended that local
connectors be provided along the route of the Tilton Interceptor on West Main
Street (1 on map). This would serve a considerable amount of existing develop-
ment, but would also facilitate strip commercial development, especially since
all of West Main Street is zoned for commercial use.
Although the cost of constructing these sewerage facilities will be high,
the long-range costs to the Town might be even higher, both in terms of dollars
and in damage to the environment, from future problems that might develop due to
a lack of adequate and reasonable controls over growth. The Town does already
have in effect land use regulations which place a certain degree of control over
development, but additional regulations are desirable.
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to
avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable
restrictions and regulations. This course of action would minimize the necessity
for expenditures in the future to correct further problems which might otherwise
develop. The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use regulations would be
considerably less.
Directing new growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to
accept it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
A high priority is attached to the revision and strengthening of the existing
Zoning Ordinance. Amending the subdivision regulations to base lot sizes (in
areas not served by public sewer) on soil and slope would insure adequate area
for on-site disposal. A local subsurface disposal ordinance would also help
avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town to enforce more stringent
controls than those now required by the State. Also receiving a high priority
recommendation is the adoption of a wetland conservation ordinance to protect
valuable wetland areas from development. Special shoreland provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance would help protect those portions of Tilton's shoreline on Lake
Winnisquam and Silver Lake which are not already heavily developed.
Tilton should continue cooperation with Franklin to serve its solid waste
disposal needs. Mandatory separation for recycling should be required. In the
area of winter road maintenance, efforts to minimize the use of salt, particularly
on lesser travelled Town roads, would reduce the water quality problems associated
with runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Recomnended Local Actions to Protect Hater Quality
Tuftonboro 6I
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
..Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
* 1. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
* 2. Adopt a local Subsurface
Disposal/Health Ordinance.
X 3. Strengthen Steep Slope Provi-
sions in Zoning Ordinance.
X 4. Strengthen Wetland Provisions
In Zoning Ordinance.
X 5. Strengthen Shoreland Provisions
1n Zoning Ordinance.
X 6. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
X 7. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
1. Adequate lot size for on-site
disposal Insured - faulty systems
avoided.
2. Correct desiqn, installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
3. Afford the town greater protection
from erosion and construction pro-
blems resulting from development,
particularly in the Ossipee Moun-
tains or other steep areas in Town.
4. Greater protection of wetlands,
wildlife habitat. Natural flood
protection capabilities retained.
5. Affords the Town greater protection
of Its valuable shoreline, including
density of development based on
natural capacity of the land;
adequate setbacks.
o. Hater pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
/ Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Shared salary
for full-time
Enforcement
Administrator
(possible
cooperative
arrangement
w/Wolfeboro)
\/
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
X 2.
No planned or recommended sewer-
Ing.
Designate the entire Lake
Hinnlpesaukee shoreline, all of
Tuftonboro Neck and the shore-
line of Mirror Lake as future
study areas (as Indicated on
Tuftonboro Hap).
2.
No 1 mediate costs to the Town for
construction of wastewater facilities
facilities - long-term costs to
correct existing and future problems
could be high if land use controls
are not enforced.
No litmediate Impact; keeps open the
option of securing funds in the
future for more detailed study of
potential problem areas.
None
None
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1. Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction guaran-
tee, regular pump outs, basing
of leach field and lot sizes
on soil and slope Into sub-
surface disposal/health
ordinance (as listed 1n land
use controls above).
* Encourage the use of non-water
toilets, especially on islands
and where existing near-shore
systems have failed.
2. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as
1n land use controls above).
3. Boating
+ Set maximum horsepower limit
on Dan Hole Pond.
X Provide pump-out facility In
Helvln Village.
4. Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
Wolfeboro; consider mandatory
separation for recycling.
5. Road Salt
* Continue to use only sand for
winter maintenance of Town
roads.
1. Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of new subsurface
disposal systems Insured - faulty
or polluting systems avoided;
proper maintenance of existing
systems lengthens life, keeps
systems from becoming water pollu-
tion or health hazards.
Reduction In land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result In higher development costs.
j. Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
Assist boat owners 1n complying
with "no-discharge" regulations;
enforcement facilitated.
Potential cost savings to Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; Inconvenience to
Individuals for refuse separation;
longer hauling distances.
Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; reduces automobile speed
during winter months thereby pro-
viding a safety and health factor;
3 greater demand for sand and gravel
None
None
None
None
Cost for
Construction
to Marina
Owner Offset
by User Fee
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Priority of Recommendations:
* high priority
X Intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
Presently, there are no public wastewater collection or treatment facilities
in the Town of Tuftonboro, nor does a need for such facilities exist. In addi-
tion, the Town desires to remain relatively unpopulated and rural and has been
interpreting its land use regulations rather strictly. Although there is no plan
or recommendation for sewer construction, the extensive shoreline on Lake Winni-
pesaukee and Mirror Lake is designated as a future study area since it represents
the area where problems might develop. This action will have no immediate impact
and leaves open the option of securing funds in the future for more detailed
study (should it become necessary).
The Town does already have in effect land use regulations which place a
certain degree of control over development. However, additional measures are
desirable to insure that future development will be light enough to obviate a
need for municipal collection and treatment facilities. The intent of the
recommended land use and non-point source controls is to avoid the occurrence
of future problems through the adoption of reasonable restrictions and regulations.
This course of action would minimize the probability of large expenditures being
needed in the future to correct problems which might otherwise develop. The costs
to the Town for enforcement of land use regulations would be considerably less.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Tuftonboro already has steep slope, wetland and shoreland provisions in their
Zoning Ordinance which do much to accomplish this objective. Although all these
provisions are good ones, each could be strengthened somewhat to make it more
effective. (Refer to the model ordinances contained in the Appendix of the
Draft Plan.) Amending subdivision regulations to base lot sizes on soil and
slope would insure adequate area for on-site disposal. A local subsurface dis-
posal/health ordinance would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems and
allow the Town to enforce more stringent controls than those now required by the
State. The adoption of an erosion and sedimentation ordinance would minimize
the problems associated with any development that might occur on steep areas,
particularly in the Ossipee Mountains.
The provision of a marina pump-out facility in Melvin Village would assist
boat owners in complying with "no-discharge" regulations. The cost for such a
facility would be offset by user fees. Additionally, the Town should support
legislative action to set a maximum horsepower limit for power boats on Dan Hole
Pond. This would minimize potential pollution from boat engines. In the area
of solid waste disposal, the Town should look into long-range cooperation with
Wolfeboro in the use of their facilities. Tuftonboro should continue its policy
of using no salt and only sand for winter road maintenance as this eliminates the
presence of one further source of water pollution.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Recommended local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Wakefield 64
Type of
Controls
Action
Impacts
Cost
LAND USE
CONTROLS
1. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
* Z. Adopt local Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
3. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
x 4. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
X S. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Ordinance.
X 6. Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
Adequate lot size for on-slte
disposal Insured - faulty
systems avoided.
Correct design. Installation
and maintenance of subsurface
disposal systems Insured -
faulty or polluting systems
avoided.
Wetland protected from development,
wildlife habitat preserved, natural
flood protection capabilities
-etalned.
Erosion and construction problems
resulting from development avoided,
particularly In areas of Ballard
Ridge. Pray Hill. Cooks Hill. Oak
Hill, Davis Hill and other hilly
sections of Town.
Hater pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
Future water supplies protected,
groundwater pollution avoided.
Salary for
full-time
Building
Inspector
or Code
Enforcement
Administrator
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1 Designate the Sanbornvtlle area
as future study area (Phase 1
area on Plan B).
2 Designate the Village of Wakefield
as future study area (Phase 2 area
on Plan B).
j. Designate the Village of Union as
future study area (area 3 on
on Plan 8).
1. Designate the entire shoreline
of P1ne River Pond as future
study area (area 4 on Plan A).
s. Designate the eastern shoreline
along Route '153 of Belleau Lake
as future study area (area 5 on
Plan A).
6. Designate the southern tip along
Bonnynan Road of Province Lake
as future study area (area 6 on
Plan A).
Note: A Step I Facilities Plan for
the Town of Wakefield was
officially started the 16th
of June, 1978.
1-6. Potential degradation of lake water
quality brought about by on-slte
systems.
No Immediate Impact; keeps open the
option of securing funds 1n the
future for more detailed study of
potential problem areas.
None
N/A
NON-POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
1 Subsurface Disposal
* Incorporate provisions for
mandatory construction
guarantee, regular pump outs,
basing of leach field and lot
sizes on soil and slope Into
subsurface disposal/health
ordinance (as listed 1n land
use controls above).
* Encourage the use of non-water
toilets, especially on Islands
and where existing near-shore
systems have failed.
i. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
* Adopt a strong erosion and
sedimentation ordinance (as 1n
land use controls above).
3 Boating
* Set maximum horsepower 11n>1ts
for power boats on Little
Round Pond (Ivanhoe Pond) and
Union Meadows.
+ Support actions to eliminate
power boating on Sand Pond.
4 Solid Waste
X Investigate cooperation with
Brookfleld; consider mandatory
separation for recycling.
5. Road Salt
Minimize the use of road salt.
fewer bare roads.
Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of new subsurface
disposal systems Insured - faulty
or polluting systens avoided;
proper maintenance of existing
systems lengthens effective life,
keeps systems from becoming water
pollution and health hazards.
Reduction 1n land areas required
for use as leach fields; major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting from Improper development
avoided; protection measures result
1n higher development costs.
Potential of pollution from boat
engines reduced; noise and safety
problems minimized.
. Potential of pollution from boat
engines eliminated; noise and
safety problem minimized.
Potential cost savings to the Town;
problem with current disposal site
eliminated; Inconvenience to
Individuals for refuse separation;
longer hauling distances.
Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel tines,
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
None
None
None
None
Reduced
Town Costs
Reduced
Town Costs
Priority of Recommendations:
* high pHorUy "
X Intermediate priority
+ low priority
-------
65
Presently, there are no public wastewater collection or treatment facilities
in the Town of Wakefield. There are, however, several existing and potential
problem areas. In response to this and as required by the N.H. Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission a Step 1 Facilities Plan, designed to study in
detail the need for a public sewer system, was started for Wakefield in June,
1978. Currently, Sanbornville and Union are under study. The following areas
are recommended for future study: (1) Wakefield Village, (2) the shoreline of
Pine River Pond, (3) the eastern shoreline of Belleau Lake along Route #153, and
(4) the southern shoreline of Province Lake along Bonnyman Road.
Wakefield does already have in effect land use controls which place a
certain degree of control over development. Nonetheless, additional measures
are desirable, especially if the Town is going to avoid the need for sewer con-
struction in all of the areas mentioned above.
The intent of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is to
do just that avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of
reasonable restrictions and regulations.
This course of action would minimize the necessity for expenditures in the
future to correct problems which might otherwise develop. The costs to the Town
for enforcement of land use regulations would be considerably less.
Directing growth toward those locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Amending the subdivision regulations to base lot sizes on soil and slope would
insure adequate area for on-site disposal. A local subsurface disposal/health
ordinance would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town
to enforce more stringent controls than those now required by the State. A
wetland conservation ordinance would insure that Wakefield's many valuable wet-
land areas are protected from development. The adoption of a steep slopes ordi-
nance and erosion and sedimentation controls would minimize the problems associated
with any development that might occur on steep areas, particularly in the area
of Ballard Ridge, Pray Hill, Cooks Hill, Oak Hill, Davis Hill and other hilly
sections of Wakefield.
The elimination of power boating on Sand Pond would not only eliminate any
pollution and noise problems associated with boat engines, but would also serve
the interests of aesthetics and safety. Additionally, by setting maximum horse-
power limits for power boats on Little Round Pond (Ivanhoe Pond) and Union
Meadows, potential pollution from boat engines would be reduced. The Town should
support legislative action to accomplish thesTe two objectives. In the area of
solid waste disposal, Wakefield should look toward a cooperative arrangement with
Brookfield. Efforts to minimize the use of salt for winter road maintenance,
particularly on lesser travelled Town roads, would help reduce the problems
associated with runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Wolfeboro «8
Reconmended Local Actions to Protect Water Quality
Type of
Controls
LAND USE
CONTROLS
POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
NON- POINT
SOURCE
CONTROLS
Priority of
Action
* 1. Amend Subdivision Regulations
to base lot size on soil and
slope.
2. Adopt local Subsurface Disposal/
Health Ordinance.
3. Adopt Wetland Conservation
Ordinance.
* 4. Adopt Steep Slope Ordinance.
X 5. Adopt Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance.
X 6 Adopt Aquifer Protection Ordi-
nance.
X 1. Extend the existing service
area to sewer the Lakcview
Drive, Forest Road and Sewall
Road area (area 1 on map) by
1965.
X 2. Extend the existing service
area to sewer the Clark Road
area (area 2 on nap) by 1985.
X 3. Extend the existing service
area to sewer the Pine Hill
Road area (area 3 on nap).
+ 4. Designate the Klngswood Road
to Titter Lane area for future
study area (area A on map).
+ 5. Designate the area along the
northwestern shoreline of Lake
Wentworth to Hentworth State
Park as future study area
(area B on map).
* 6. Designate the Keewaydin Road
and western shoreline of Winter
Harbor as future study area
(area C on nap).
» 7. Designate Wolfeboro Neck as
future study area (area D on
map).
1. Subsurface Disposal
Incorporate provisions for
basing lot size on soil and
slope, mandatory pump out and
mandatory septic system con-
struction guarantee 1n local
subsurface disposal/health
ordinance (recomnended under
land use controls above).
Encourage use of non-water
toilets, especially for use
on Islands and where existing
near-shore systems have
failed.
i. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion
and Sedimentation
X Adopt uniform ordinance (recom-
unded under land use controls
above).
3 Boating
« Provide pmp-out facilities
at Wolfeboro Bay.
4 Solid Haste
X Investigate cooperation with
Tuftonboro; consider nundatory
separation for recycling.
5. Road Salt
* Minimize the use of road salt.
fewer bare roads.
Irpacts
1 Adequate lot size for on -site
disposal Insured - faulty systems
avoided.
2 Correct design. Installation and
maintenance of subsurface disposal
systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided.
3 Wetlands protected from develop-
ment, wildlife habitat preserved,
natural flood protection capabi-
lities retained.
4 Erosion and construction problems
avoided from development - parti-
cularly along the shorelines of
Wolfeboro Bay. Lake Wentworth and
the steep sections of Town (for
example. Cotton Mountain, White-
face Mountain, Moody Mountain,
Batson/Trask Hills!.
5 Water pollution from erosion and
sedimentation avoided.
6 Future water supplies protected.
groundwater pollution avoided.
1-2. Pollution of Lake Wlnnlpesaukee
from shoreline septic systems
along Jockey Cove and the portion
of Holfeboro Bay that Is not pre-
sently being serviced eliminated;
extension of the sever line will
facilitate additional growth;
incentive for scattered commercial
development within the area ser-
viced by the sewer line.
3 Existing area of dense development
Immediately adjacent to service
area provided with sewer lines;
potential problems avoided.
4-7. Some areas of existing dense
development - particularly the
shoreline around Wolfeboro Neck
and the northwestern shoreline of
Lake Wentworth will continue to
represent potential pollution
threats. No Immediate Impact,
keeps open the option of securing
funds In the future for more
detailed study of potential pro-
blem areas.
1 Correct design, Installation and
maintenance of new subsurface dis-
posal systems Insured - faulty or
polluting systems avoided; proper
maintenance of existing systems
lengthens life, keeps systems from
becoming water pollution or health
hazards.
Reduction 1n land areas required
for use as leach fields: major
source of potential pollution
eliminated.
2 Erosion and sedimentation problems
resulting front Improper develop-
ment avoided; protection measures
result In higher development costs.
3 Enforcement of no-discharge regu-
lations facilitated; easier for
boat owners to comply with regu-
lations.
4. Potential cost savings to Town;
Inconvenience to Individuals for
refuse separation; lonqer hauling
distances.
5 Contamination of groundwater mini-
mized; slower winter travel tine;
depletion of sand and gravel
supplies.
Cost
The Town
currently has
a full -time
Code Enforce-
Enforcement
Administrator.
However, a
cooperative
arrangement
w/Tuftonburo
would result
In cost
sharing.
X /
C-S1. 700,000'
04H - $9,700
N/A
None
None
None
None
Construction
Cost to Karin
Owners Offset
by User Fee
Reduced
Town Costs
4ecomen».«»
-------
69
Wolfeboro has recently completed the construction of a spray irrigation
facility to dispose of the effluent from its sewage treatment plant. This has
resulted in a direct improvement to water quality by eliminating the effluent
discharge which previously entered Wolfeboro Bay. The sewage treatment plant
serves the majority of the area immediately adjacent to the Town Center.
It is recommended that three additional areas be served by the treatment
facility by extending sewer lines. The areas are: (1) Lakeview Drive, Forest
Road and Sewall Road (area 1 on map), (2) Clark Road (area 2 on map), and (3)
Pine Hill Road (area 3 on map). The first extension would serve an area with
considerable existing development and would eliminate pollution to Lake Winni-
pesaukee from shoreline septic systems, but it would also facilitate additional
development. Serving Clark Road would eliminate pollution to Lake Winnipesaukee
from shoreline development, but would encourage new shoreline growth. Sewering
the Pine Hill Road would serve an area of existing dense development immediately
adjacent to the present service area.
It is further recommended that several locations be designated for future
study to determine in detail the long-range need for sewer line construction.
The locations are: (1) the Kingswood Road to Timberlane Road section of South
Main Street, (2) Keewaydin Road and the western shoreline of Winter Harbor, and
(3) Wolfeboro Neck. All these areas presently have some existing development,
but there are no real problems and density at this point in time is not high
enough to warrant construction.
The intention of the recommended land use and non-point source controls is
to avoid the occurrence of future problems through the adoption of reasonable
restrictions and regulations. This should be especially desirable from the
Town's point of view since it may well make it possible to preclude the necessity
for sewer construction in any of the areas recommended for future study above.
The costs to the Town for enforcement of land use regulations would be considerably
less.
Directing growth towards these locations with the natural capacity to accept
it and away from environmentally sensitive areas would avoid many problems.
Basing lot sizes on soil and slope in areas not served by public sewer would
insure adequate area for on-site disposal. A local subsurface disposal/health
ordinance would also help avoid faulty or polluting systems and allow the Town
to enforce more stringent controls than those now required by the State.
Assigned a high priority fs the adoption of a wetland conservation ordinance
which would protect Wolfeboro's many valuable wetlands from development. The
adoption of a steep slopes ordinance and erosion and sedimentation controls would
minimize the problems associated with any development that might occur on steep
areas, particularly along the shorelines of Wolfeboro Bay and Lake Wentworth and
in the Cotton Mountain, Whiteface Mountain, Moody Mountain and other steep areas
of Wolfeboro. An aquifer protection ordinance would conserve those areas which
may be suitable as future public water supply sources.
The provision of an additional marine pump-out facility at Wolfeboro Bay
would assist boat owners in complying with "no-discharge" regulations. For the
long range, the Town should investigate a cooperative solid waste disposal effort
with Tuftonboro. Efforts to minimize the use of salt for winter road maintenance,
particularly on secondary roads, would help reduce the water quality problems
attributable to runoff from heavily salted roads.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
CHAPTER 2
Water Quality
Sampling, Analysis
& Modeling
-------
71
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING. ANALYSIS AND MODELING
The Water Quality Sampling, Analysis and Modeling portion of the 208
Project was designed to provide baseline data on present water quality and
potential future problems. There were two distinct programs in terms of
sampling frequency, one intensive (Modeling Data) and one diagnostic (Phase
II), but the sampling parameters in each program were the same.
Lakes and ponds are possibly the most vulnerable of all natural systems,
and are certainly an extremely important, yet limited resource. Less than 2%
of the earth's liquid fresh water (not in the ocean or frozen in ice caps) is
found in lakes, streams and similar aquatic systems; the rest of the fresh
water is underground. Because of human activities, an ever-growing worldwide
number of these waters are experiencing problems. Excessive growth of aquatic
weeds is one of the problems caused by excessive inputs into water bodies of
plant nutrients, notably biologically active compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus.
One result of these inputs is late summer blooms of algae, notably of a rather
primitive group known as the blue-greens. These detract from aesthetic qualities
by forming surface slicks and scums, and by greatly reducing the clarity (trans-
parency) of the water. Obnoxious odors or tastes may also result. Another
result of excessive nutrient inputs can be abundant rooted plant growth. As
these various plants settle to the lake bottom and decay, precious supplies of
dissolved oxygen are expended, often producing fish kills.
These are all symptoms of an ongoing process called eutrophication, by
which the lake system ages. Eventually, vegetation will crowd the lake surface.
The end result is characteristically the creation of a wet meadow or low moist
woodland. Although this is the natural long-term fate of all lakes and ponds,
it is now generally accepted that the impact of human habitation can greatly
accelerate the natural process, so hastening the demise of many lakes and ponds
that they may die in a matter of decades rather than thousands of years.
The Lakes Region of New Hampshire has a large number of lakes which are
used for recreation by residents and tourists alike. One of the primary goals
of the LRPC 208 Project is the implementation of various actions which will
improve water quality in the few lakes which are starting to exhibit problem
conditions while maintaining the excellent water quality in the remainder of
the lakes.
A. Water Quality Sampling and Analysis
A total of 15 lakes and 27 tributary streams, leading into and out of
these various lakes, were investigated (see Figure 2-1). One of the primary
study results was a determination of the stage of each lake in the eutrophica-
tion process (Table 2-1). Several criteria, or indicators, of eutrophication
status were monitored: concentration of plant nutrients (nitrogen and phos-
phorus compounds), concentration of chlorophyll a_ (the primary pigment of algae;
indirect means of determining the density of algae in the water), transparency
(maximum depth at which a submerged painted metal disk was still visible),
amount of dissolved oxygen, and species composition of the algae. These
eutrophication criteria are each related to one another in a somewhat complex
way, but one that can be given mathematical expression. Thus, the data can be
utilized, with the aid of a computer, to estimate or model the effects of
present and future nutrient loading on the eutrophication process. Results of
this modeling effort are contained in Chapter 3 of the Draft Plan/EIS.
-------
LAKE SAMPLING SITES
A TRIBUTARY SAMPLING SITES
Copps Pond
TAMVy
White Oak Pond
HEBRON
V
,DERNESS
^Vx-
l V*
***r us,
('"^O
MOL\IONBOROUGH
fc » v^^" I O. .
kT8
T9,IO
ITDF
t\
ORTH
Ossipee Lake
FREEDOM
-."M
ALEXANDRIA
\ £$
'^^
,v.
-^
0* CV» A.L1
<$^&g*
:2^",U1TV rs^-
V /^'^ED1TH V^^TioV50,
BRISTOL f vvV- " \f\ ^VvCStlO
« ^ ^y vti-^.w;v, in
^
-------
73
TABLE 2-1
GENERAL TROPHIC STATUS OF LAKES REGION LAKES
MODELING DATA LAKES
Winnipesaukee
Waukewan
Winona
Kanasatka
TROPHIC STATE*
Oligo+
Oli go
Meso
Oli go
PHASE II LAKES
Lee's Pond
Copp's Pond
Ossipee Lake-North
Ossipee Lake-South
Wentworth Lake-East of
Stamp Act Island
Wentworth Lake-West of
Stamp Act Island
Crescent Lake
Crystal Lake
Sawyer Lake
Hermit Lake
Webster Lake
White Oak Pond
Lovell Lake
TROPHIC STATE*
Meso
Meso
Oligo/Meso
Oligo/Meso
Oligo/Meso
Oli go
Oli go
Oli go
Oligo/Meso
Oli go
Meso
Meso
Oli go
* Trophic State
Oligo Oligotrophic
Meso Mesotrophic
Oligo/Meso
nutrient poor, without water quality problems.
intermediate between oligotrophic and eutrophic.
(Eutrophic lakes are nutrient rich, with a
greater potential for water quality problems).
Transitional = Lakes displaying both oligotrophic and meso-
trophic characteristics.
+ One station, Green's Basin, was determined to be mesotrophic; two stations,
Suissevale and Moultonboro Bay were determined to be Oligo/Meso.
See text of report for more detailed discussion of trophic status of lakes.
-------
74
Lake Winnipesaukee:
TABLE 2-2
LIST OF LAKES AND TRIBUTARIES SAMPLED
STATION
Modeling Data Lake and Designation
Lake Waukewan:
Green's Basin
Suissevale
Moultonboro Bay
Wawbeek
Wolfeboro Bay
Alton Bay Mouth
Alton Bay
Broads
Center Harbor
Governors Island
Meredith Bay
Weirs Bridge
Paugus Bay
LI
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
L10
Lll
L12
L13
Southeast of Chapman
Island
West of Chapman
Island
Winona Lake
Lake Kanasatka
FREQUENCY OF SAMPLING
L14
L15
L16
L17
9 times
(2 winter, 2 spring, 4 summer
every month, 1 fall)
Model ing Data Tributary Designation
Winona Lake Inlet
Lake Waukewan Inlet
Lake Waukewan Outlet
Lake Kanasatka Inlet
Lake Kanasatka Outlet
Lee's Pond Outlet
Halfway Brook
Shannon River
Tl
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
Melvin River
Wingate Brook
Front Bay Inlet
Merrymeeting River
Poorfarm Brook
Gunstock River
Lake Winnipesaukee Outlet
T9
T10
Til
T12
T13
T14
T15
FREQUENCY OF SAMPLING
40 times
(Monthly: January, February, November, December;
Weekly: MarchOctober)
Phase II Lake and Associated Tributaries
Lee's Pond
Copps Pond
Ossipee Lake (2 lake stations
Wentworth Lake (2 lake stations)
Crescent Lake
Crystal Lake
Sawyer Lake
Hermit Lake
Webster Lake
White Oak Pond
Lovell Lake
Red Hill River (Garland Pond Outlet)
Wingate Brook
Bearcamp River, Lovell River, Pine River
Wiley Brook, Heath Brook
Wentworth Lake Outlet
Manning Lake Outlet, Sunset Lake Outlet
Sucker Brook
Inlet from Marsh
Below Outlet in Branch River
FREQUENCY OF SAMPLING
3 times
(late winter, spring, late summer)
-------
75
A number of other chemical and bacteriological criteria were also
monitored at critical times during the study. These provided a more
complete understanding of water quality conditions in the lakes, and the
water quality relationships between the lakes and their entering and exit-
ing streams.
Winnipesaukee, Waukewan, Winona, and Kanasatka, the four lakes in the
Modeling Data Study, were sampled far more intensively than the remaining
eleven in the Phase II Study (nine samplings vs. three). Similarly, the
fifteen Modeling Data tributary stations were sampled more frequently than
the four lakes (40 times vs. 9 times), and on a much more intensive schedule
than the Phase II tributaries (40 times vs. 3 times) (see Table 2-2). The
reason for the more intensive sampling of these four lakes and their tribu-
taries was to ensure a sufficient data base to satisfy the exacting data
demands of the computer model.
Most of the lakes that were investigated are not being adversely affected
by the impact of human activity, but in some there were signs of possible
trouble ahead. The largest lake, Lake Winnipesaukee, had at least one area
(known as Green's Basin) where water quality has markedly deteriorated compared
with the other parts of Winnipesaukee, as well as most other lakes in the study.
Lake Winona, Webster Lake and Copp's, Lee's and White Oak Ponds were also
further advanced in the eutrophication stage than other lakes investigated.
These designated lakes were generally in an intermediate stage of eutrophication
and are not yet dead or beyond recovery.
Most of the lakes studied had at least one characteristic which indicated
some degree of water quality impairment, the most commonly encountered problem
being less than normal dissolved oxygen levels just above the bottom at deep
stations. During the late summer, one blue-green alga was abundant in a few
lakes, but it was a colonial form, not the kind that forms scums. Its appear-
ance, however, is reason enough to be concerned about further degradation of
water quality.
The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Lakes Region Planning Commission had
previously collected data for a few of the studied lakes, including several
sampling stations in Lake Winnipesaukee. These data showed many of the problem
conditions to be of long standing, having already occurred in the 1930 s in some
cases. Ossipee and Sawyer Lakes and Moultonborough Bay on Lake Winmpesaukee.
appear to have degraded somewhat in quality over the years, although conditions
in each are still relatively good compared to truly eutrophic lakes.
Certain of the tributaries feeding into the investigated lakes were found
to be carrying much higher concentrations of plant growth stimulating nutrients
than were found in their receiving waters. This indicates utilization of the
nutrients by lake plant populations (including algae) and/or accumulation in
the lake bottom. These nutrient additions could be very unfavorable for a lake
during a future prolonged summer drought. In particular, Wingate and Poorfarm
Brooks, and the Gunstock and Merrymeeting Rivers, entering Lake Winmpesaukee
were carrying high nutrient loads. So also were the Bearcamp and Lovell Rivers
entering Ossipee Lake and Sucker Brook entering Webster Lake.
-------
76
Although this study was not designed to provide direct evidence of septic
system influence, the overall water quality characteristics of some of the
above-mentioned streams (especially the Gunstock River and Poorfarm Brook)
strongly suggests that individual, on-lot waste treatment systems are plausible
contributors. Differences in tributary water quality were also observed imme-
diately after rainstorms, which suggests that nutrients on the land surface or
washing out through the soil are entering the streams in quantity.
The current investigation was only intended to be the first step in a long
term monitoring program, which will be required if the results of any future
pollution control activities (or lack thereof) are to be compared with the
present. Assessment of the present data was that perhaps the sampling frequency
for the four intensively studied Modeling Data lakes (Winnipesaukee, Waukewan,
Winona and Kanasatka) could be decreased in future monitoring studies, yet still
provide a reasonably precise description of lake conditions. This reduction
would hopefully still provide enough data to verify the initial computer model
and the reliability of its mathematical projections. The intensively sampled
tributaries should continue to be sampled at the same frequency as in the pre-
sent study, but a few of the tributaries could be deleted since they had
characteristics similar to the larger, more important tributaries. The Phase II
diagnostic sampling should continue at its initial frequency.
As a part of the Water Quality Sampling and Analysis Program, a set of water
Quality guidelines were proposed for each water quality parameter consisting of:
(1) a desirable and generally attainable "goal" defined as the permissible level
and (2) a "standard", defined as the critical level, delimiting the threshold to
more severely degraded conditions. These proposed permissible levels and
critical levels are intended primarily to be guidelines for the interpretation
of past, present and future water quality data. They were recommended specifi-
cally for the Lakes Region, based on values available in the scientific literature
and on current water quality in the Lakes Region. The permissible levels and
critical levels which were proposed for standing waters (see Table 2-4) reflect
the presently good water quality which exists in the Lakes Region. Because of
the interrelationships among the various water quality parameters, the LRPC
recommends that these criteria be viewed collectively, not as only a single or
pair of criteria which, if taken out of context, might distort the true water
quality picture.
These goals and standards are primarily1 chemical parameters, Jwt the
various levels proposed were intended to maintain conditions suitable for
water-contact recreation (swimming) and to protect the existing biological
ecosystems. The proposed nutrient levels were selected to minimize the
proliferation of aquatic weeds and algae. The proposed dissolved oxygen
levels were selected to support cold-water fisheries (salmon and trout).
While there are some fishermen who may prefer a warm-water fishery (perch,
pickerel, bass), there are already some small lakes and ponds in the LRPC
208 area which are naturally warm-water fisheries, and a cold-water fishery
is difficult to reclaim once it is lost.
It was the intended purpose of these guidelines to be more stringent than
generally observed water quality criteria in other parts of the country. When
the lake and tributary water quality data collected in this study were compared
with the respective proposed goals and standards, it became apparent that LRPC
208 area waters were generally in excellent condition, both when compared to
the rest of the country and when compared to the stringent proposed guidelines.
Certain water bodies occasionally had water quality parameters which exceeded
a permissible level, but only in a few individual extreme instances was a
critical level exceeded. In a very few lake and tributary stations, some water
quality parameters exceeded permissible levels, but these stations were also
-------
TABLE 2-3
PROPOSED PERMISSIBLE LEVELS AND CRITICAL LEVELS FOR STANDING WATERS
CRITERION
Total Phosphorus (mgP/1)
Orthophosphate (mgP/1)
Organic Nitrogen (mgN/1)
Ammonia (mgN/1)
Nitrate (mgN/1)
Nitrite (mgN/1)
Inorganic Nitrogen (mgN/1)
Chloride (mg/1)
Bottom dissolved oxygen
(mg/1) in hypolimnion
Chlorophyll a (mg/m3)
Seechi disc depth of
visibility
PERMISSIBLE CRITICAL
LEVELS LEVELS
0.025
0.004
0.20
0.02
0.10
0.001
0.12
5.0
75% of
saturation
2.5
0.040
0.010
0.40
0.05
0.25
0.002
0.30
15.0
5.0
5.0
3.7 m 2m
(=12.1 ft) (=6.6 ft)
RECOMMENDED PERIOD
OF SAMPLING
Especially spring overturn,
but also during summer.
Especially spring overturn,
but also during summer.
Spring (or Fall) overturn.
Winter, under ice cover, but
also during summer.
Winter, under ice cover, but
also during summer.
Winter, under ice cover, but
also during summer.
Winter, under ice cover, but
also during summer.
Winter and spring preferred
During summer or winter stra-
tification
Summer, multiple samplings
Summer, multiple sampling
Source: Water Quality Standards and Goals for the Lakes Region. Normandeau
Associates, Inc., Bedford, N. H., December, 1976.
-------
78
TABLE 2-4
PROPOSED PERMISSIBLE LEVELS AND CRITICAL LEVELS
FOR FREELY FLOWING WATERS
CRITERION
Total Phosphorus (mgP/1)
Orthophosphate Phosphorus
Organic Nitrogen
Ammonia
Nitrate
Nitrite
Total Inorganic Nitrogen
Chloride
Dissolved Oxygen
PERMISSIBLE CRITICAL
LEVEL LEVEL
0.025
0.004
0.30
0.02
0.10
0.001
0.12
5.0
0.040
0.010
0.60
0.05
0.25
0.002
0.30
15.0
90% of 75% of
saturation saturation
RECOMMENDED PERIOD
OF SAMPLING
Anytime, multiple sampling
preferred to include times
of heavy runoff.
Anytime, multiple samplings
preferred to include times
of heavy runoff.
Anytime, multiple samplings
preferred to include times
of heavy runoff.
Anytime, multiple samplings
preferred to include times
of heavy runoff.
Anytime, multiple samplings
preferred to include times
of heavy runoff.
Anytime, multiple samplings
preferred to include times
of heavy runoff.
Anytime, multiple samplings
preferred to include times
of heavy runoff.
During extremes of runoff and
drought.
Source: Water Quality Standards and Goals for the Lakes Region. Normandeau
Associates, Inc., Bedford, N. H., December, 1976.
-------
79
identified by other means as having problems. None of the sampled LRPC 208
area lakes are seriously eutrophic and none of the sampled tributaries are
seriously polluted. One of the intended purposes of these "goals and standards"
guidelines was that this excellent water quality be maintained.
One concern, however, is expressed in the special trace metal report
prepared for the Lakes Region Planning Commission. A survey was made of trace
metals (mercury, lead, copper, cadmium and zinc) in Lake Winnipesaukee fish,
rooted plants and bottom sediments. Levels of mercury in .several fish samples
came close to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration maximum allowable limits.
Concentrations of trace metals (with the exception of cadmium) were higher in
bottom sediments from Smith Cove than from Green's Basin or from lower Alton
Bay. Boating and marina activities may be responsible for the inputs of lead
(from leaded gasoline) and zinc. High levels of lead are also found in deep-
water sediments north of Rattlesnake indicating the problem was not confined to
near-shore marina areas. The LRPC recognizes the need for further work.
Another very important convern involves aquatic weed growth, particularly
water milfoil, in a number of lakes. While there are several species of milfoil,
it is the species myriophyl1urn^heterophyl1urn (water milfoil) that causes the
serious problems locally. It is a rooted plant that grows very rapidly forming
huge mats in water depths of about three to ten feet and sends flowering scapes
above the surface. A single plant can spread by runners over an area of one
hundred square feet or more in a season. Broken pieces can, and often do, drift
and start new colonies.
Milfoil can be controlled in a number of ways. However, at this time any
large area, from a practical point of view, can only be treated in one of two
ways, neither of which is completely satisfactory. The first is by the use of
herbicides or chemical application and the second is by mechanical harvesting.
The effects of herbicide use, both in the short and long-term, have yet to
be determined. It is known, however, that swimming, fishing and drinking the
water is banned in an area where herbicides are used for sometime thereafter.
This is very difficult to enforce and presents not only a potential pollution
problem, but a health hazard as well. A serious by-product of herbicide use is
the excess nutrients that remain in the form of dead decaying plants. They can
create a further problem by producing a bloom of free floating scummy algae.
Mechanical harvesting is just that. A machine cuts and loads aboard a
vessel all water plants in its way. The cut plants are then dumped ashore to
rot or to be used as fertilizer. In time, unfortunately, regrowth occurs and
cutting is again necessary. On the other hand, each crop tends to reduce the
nutrient supply and slow the rate of growth.
Until more is known about the effects of chemical application, the Lakes
Region Planning Commission recommends mechanical harvesting as a means of
aquatic weed growth control.
-------
80
Conclusions and Recommendations
t
1. None of the sampled lakes are seriously eutrophic and none of
the sampled tributaries are seriously polluted.
2. A continued sampling program should be carried out to
document changes in water quality.
3. Recommended permissible and .critical levels for water quality
parameters should be viewed collectively to set goals and
standards for Lakes Region waters.
4. More work should be done in the area of trace metals.
5. Water milfoil should be controlled by mechanical harvesting.
B. Mater Quality Modeling
As previously stated, one of the primary purposes of the 208 Project was
to establish water quality control measures for lakes and streams within the
Lakes Region. Lake management models were developed to help the LRPC:
Quantify the effect of phosphorus loading on lakes within the
study region
* Assess the effect of current phosphorus loads on the lakes
Evaluate future lake conditions for different lake management
control plans.
Phosphorus is the nutrient which controls algal growth, aquatic weed growth,
and long-term lake water quality: too much phosphorus loading in a lake impairs
its water quality. Lakes differ in their natural phosphorus concentrations and
in their ability to process additional phosphorus loads. General characteristics
of the lakes such as depth, the rate at which the lake is flushed (inflow and
outflow of water), and watershed features, influence lake phosphorus processing
abilities. Man-made alterations in developing watersheds and lakefronts
generally increase phosphorus loads on lakes. The increase in phosphorus and
the corresponding increase in algae and weed growth is referred to as eutrophica-
tion or lake aging.
The models were developed to describe the relationship between nutrient
phosphorus loads and the concentrations of phosphorus in lake water resulting
from those loads. Knowledge of the load concentration response for a lake was
a key element in developing the management control recommendations which follow
in the sections on non-point source controls, point source controls and land
use controls. In practice, lake management involves tracking down the major
sources of nutrient loads, proposing controls for the sources, and evaluating
the resulting lake conditions. Since the model described the total load asso-
ciated with a given level of phosphorus, it provided a convenient tool for
comparing the relative effects of different phosphorus sources. The model also
provided a planning tool which compared sources and control alternatives over
several different lakes.
-------
CHAPTER 3
Non-Point Source
Controls
-------
81
NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Introduction
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500) provides for areawide wastewater management planning to
include not only point sources of pollution and the impacts of land use on
water quality, but also the impacts of non-point sources of pollution. Non-
point sources are defined as diffuse sources of pollution which do not
originate from any one identifiable location or point.
The following non-point sources of pollution have been identified as having
the greatest significance in the Lakes Region and are listed in relative order
of importance.
1. Subsurface sewage disposal systems
2. Stormwater runoff
3. Erosion and sedimentation
4. Boating
5. Solid waste disposal
6. Septage disposal
7. Forest practices
8. Road salt
Other potential non-point sources are minimal in the Lakes Region and do not
present significant water quality problems: agricultural runoff and surface
mining.
The purpose of this section is to recommend specific alternative techniques
or combinations of techniques that are considered feasible for controlling the
non-point sources of pollution prevalent in the Lakes Region. Also included is
an assessment of costs associated with each alternative control technique, the
efficacy of the technique in reducing pollution loadings and an assessment of
its impacts.
Since the techniques for controlling water pollution from non-point sources
are so inter-related with the topic of land use control, reference is made to
the Land Use Controls section of this report, which presents and analyzes land
use controls available to communities to prevent degradation of water quality.
This section identifies strategies and presents recommendations for possible
intermunicipal arrangements for solutions to common problems. Many of the
recommendations for land use controls also serve as non-point source controls.
Recommended non-point source controls are summarized in Table 3-1.
-------
82
TABLE 3-1
RECOKHENDED NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROLS
Category
Subsurface
Disposal
Stonnwater
Runoff
Erosion and
Sedimentation
Boating
Solid Waste
Disposal
Septage
Disposal
Forest
Practices
Road Salt
Level of Implementation
Local
adopt strong local
subsurface disposal
ordinance (la)
require regular
pumping and main-
tenance (la)
amend subdivision
regulations to base
lot sizes on soil
and slope (Ib)
enact phosphate
detergent ban (id)
appoint Health
Officer (la)
adopt best manage-
ment practices (Id)
adopt uniform
ordinance (Id)
require soil
retention plans (Ib)
support restric-
tion of horsepower/
elimination of power
boats on small lakes
(lc)
consider separation
for recycling (la)
monitor groundwater
at landfills (la)
cooperate on
regional disposal
systems (13)
cooperate in multi-
jurisdlctlonal
disposal (13)
provide and develop
municipal sites (la)
minimize use of road
salt; fewer bare
roads (la)
use of sand with
settling basins (la)
no dumping of plowed
snow Into water
bodies (la)
Regional
provide Information
on non-water toilets
and flow reducing '
devices (2)
provide information
on value of wetlands
(2)
cooperate with RC&O
Project and Soil
Conservation Dis-
tricts (2)
provide Information
and technical
assistance (2).
use solid waste as
energy source (13)
develop regional
septage plan (2)
cooperate in loca-
tion of new sites (2)
*mult1jurisd1ct1onal
hauling (13)
publicize existing
statutes (2)
State
revise criteria for
approval (3)
use septic leachate
detector to test
for pollution (3)
provide funding for
community systems (3)
more stringent
enforcement of regs.(3
revise or replace the
percolation test (3)
revise the definition
of pollution to
include nutrients (3)
expand 208 storm-
water runoff
analysis (3)
unified enforcement
of existing laws (3)
enforce existing
statutes (3) (5)
restrict horsepower/
eliminate power boats
on snail lakes (5) (6)
eliminate oil & gas
discharges (3)
require groundwater
monitoring at new
landfill sites (4)
require more strin-
gent licensing
provisions for
pumpers/haulers (4)
stringent enforce-
ment of existing
statutes (7)
minimize use of road
salt; fewer bare
roads (8)
use of sand with
settling basins (8)
identify health
hazards (8)
Federal
support continued
funding for corwu-
nity systems (9)
provide tax Incen-
tives for alterna-
tive systems (10)
Continue research
on alternatives to
the septic system
(9)
revise criteria for
cormunity systems
to make seasonal
hones eligible (9)
prcvide funding for
gtrundwater monitor
Inc (9)
Other
mandatory guarantee
from builder of
septic systems (12)
voluntary reduction
in water use within
each household (12)
marinas provide
pump-out facilities
(12)
monitor Ashland
landfill (11)
(1) Municipalities
sector most directly responsible
la Board of Selectmen lc Conservation Comu.
Ib Planning Board Id Town Meeting
Lakes Region Planning Commission
N.H. Hater Supply & Pollution Control Commission
(4) N.H. Bureau of Solid Waste Management
(5) N.H. Department of Safety, Division of Safety
Serlvces
(6) N.H. Legislature
(2)
(3)
(7) N.H. Department of Resources and Economic Development.
Resources Development Division
N.H. Department of Public Works S Highways
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Congress
North Country RC4D Project
Private Action
Inter-municipal Agreement-
iS!
IB
ill
-------
83
Part 1. Non-Point Source Control Techniques
A. Subsurface Disposal
Effluent from subsurface systems of sewage disposal may, in total,
be the most significant single contribution to pollution of water
in the Lakes Region.
Recommendations:
1. Adopt a Local Health Ordinance
New Hampshire statutes give the primary responsibility for regu-
lating the installation of subsurface disposal systems to the New
Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC).
The WSPCC has promulgated rules and regulations which govern all
systems. However, individual communities may adopt local health
ordinances which set standards for subsurface disposal which are
more restrictive than WSPCC standards. The adoption of such local
ordinances is recommended as a high priority. Local ordinances
should contain more stringent provisions, especially in the area of
setbacks from surface water. Other provisions which should be
included are mentioned in the recommendations that follow.
2. Improved Monitoring and Pumping Methods
Discussion: The present method of pumping most septic tanks is
difficult and can be quite expensive due simply to poor septic
tank design. The tank must be located and the soils disturbed
for removal of the tank's coyer. The problem of locating septic
tanks should be made easier in the future by the passage of an
amendment to RSA 149-E:3 which requires the seller to transmit a
copy of approved plans to the buyer for all systems constructed
after the passage of the amendment. However, because of the
bother and expense in locating existing systems, most people
ignore their septic tanks until they are a blatant problem. The
use of a tank cover which has a simple, sturdy tube or cone to
the ground surface to facilitate pumping is recommended. The
"port-hole" would also facilitate the monitoring of sludge levels
in the tank. This eliminates overflow problems by allowing the
owner to be aware of the problem easily and to rectify it.
In conjunction with the provision of easier access to septic tanks,
a regular schedule of maintenance pumping is recommended. It is
recommended that tanks be pumped on a regular basis at least once
every three years. Both these recommendations could be accomplished
through towns adopting a strong local subsurface disposal/health
ordinance incorporating provisions for septic tank design and a
mandatory pump-out program. Such a program could be enforced through
the issuance of pump-out notices which would be required to be
returned to the town by the septic tank pumper certifying that the
work has been completed.
-------
84
Estimated Costs: The estimated costs would be $50 - $200 per
septic tank cover, if designed into the initial construction.
Average costs for septic tank pumping are $50 per pumping.
Efficacy: The efficacy would be dependent on the owner's willing-
ness to check his tank periodically or upon the enforcement of a
mandatory pump-out program. With an improved ability to monitor
and pump the septic tank and the decreased costs involved, there
is a reduced probability, of septic tank failure and the inherent
costs of repairing it.
3. Subdivision Regulation Amendments Relating Lot Sizes and Soil and
Slope
Discussion: Adoption of subdivision regulation amendments basing
lot sizes on soil and slope characteristics to ensure protection of
water supplies, water quality and the public health would provide
towns with a method of controlling residential growth in an environ-
mentally sound fashion. Many towns now regulate density in sub-
divisions by applying a blanket lot-size requirement throughout the
town, often in the form of one or two-acre minimum lot sizes. This
system does not take into consideration the actual capabilities of
the soil-slope complex in which the lot is to be located. The
result is equally sized lots with little or no consideration for
those areas that can accommodate higher densities or those that
require lower densities. This type of control can often result in
public health problems, excessive runoff and other environmental
problems, plus the misuse of a limited resource land.
Some towns follow a better system for establishing density in sub-
divisions, using minimum lot size guidelines that have been
established by the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission for the approval of subdivisions under RSA 149-E. These
lot sizes are based on the capacity of a soil to accept wastewater.
Certain inadequacies exist in this system, however, as the soils
are mostly rated for their hydraulic capacity (how fast they will
percolate water) and not on their wastewater purification capacity.
Thus, very small lots are allowed on soils that percolate water
very quickly, but such soils,are often inadequate in terms of
removing wastewater impurities such as bacteria, phosphorus and
nitrogen. These impurities can cause potential ground and surface
water pollution problems.
Model regulations available from the LRPC attempt to alleviate the
problems associated with the above two methods of determining lot
sizes. Lot sizes in the model regulations are determined by the
actual soil type of which the lot is comprised and that size (listed
in the Table) is determined by consideration of the soil's hydraulic
capabilities, purification capabilities and physical constraints.
For some soils, the Table calls for 40,000 sq. ft. (less than one
acre) per lot. Many soils, however, require lot sizes greater than
two acres and others, such as wetland soils, cannot be built upon
at all.
-------
85
For example, soils that are excessively well drained require
slightly larger lot sizes than the State guidelines because of
their lack of purification capacity. This larger lot size allows
the distance between absorption field and wells or surface water
to be greater than previously required which, in turn, gives better
assurance of maintaining good ground and surface water quality.
The regulations also recognize the limitations that are placed
on lot sizes by slopes (such as the difficulty of designing and
building adequate absorption fields on steep slopes, erosion
problems associated with steep slopes and others). Lot sizes
are, therefore, adjusted for any particular soil according to
the capability of that slope.
For example, Paxton soils have a hardpan layer at about 2 feet
which forces percolating water to move horizontally when it
encounters the hardpan layer. This can cause potentially severe
water quality problems on steep slopes. If wastewater is not
purified by the time it reaches this impermeable layer, a steep
slope will cause rapid downhill movement of impurities on top of
the hardpan, resulting in possible ground and surface water con-
tamination. Thus, the regulations indicate a large increase in
lot size requirements for a Paxton soil on steep slopes.
* (Source for the text and model regulations: Southern Rockingham
Regional Planning District Commission.)
Estimated Costs: There would be no direct costs involved in amend-
ing town subdivision regulations. Any additional costs would be in
the form of higher lot purchase costs resulting from the larger lot
sizes required on certain soils.
Efficacy: The determination of lot sizes based on soil types and
slope would give a town the best assurance that as it grows,
improperly functioning subsurface disposal systems will not later
necessitate the construction of a costly municipal sewer system.
4. Revised Criteria for Subsurface Disposal Regulations
Discussion: Important NHWSPCC criteria for determining the suit-
ability of a site for the use of a subsurface sewage disposal
system are (1) the percolation rate for purposes of defining the
absorption area requirements for the leach field, (2) distance of
seventy-five feet from any surface waters, whether year-round or
intermittent, and (3) the bottom of the leach bed, trench or dry
well, which must be four feet above the seasonal high water table
and eight feet above any impermeable substratum (six feet with
municipal or NHWSPCC approved community water supply). When a lot
does not meet the above conditions, the site can be modified by
bringing in acceptable fill from an outside area to replace the
existing soil and/or create an artificially raised leach field
(NHWSPCC, 1975). This practice is one which needs further investi-
gation. The practice of issuing waivers to WSPCC requirements is
also one which needs review.
One of the primary non-point source concerns is nutrient input into
surface waters. Considering the high density of shoreline homes
and cottages on subsurface sewage disposal units in the Lakes Region,
-------
86
the present NHWSPCC guidelines for the minimum distance to surface
waters and favoring of soils with high percolation rates should be
reviewed. Specifically, there is need to (1) review the minimum
distance required from the subsurface sewage disposal system to
surface waters and (2) investigate the usefulness of percolation
tests to assess site suitability to attenuate pollutants, rather
than to determine how fast the soils can transport the leach field
effluent away from the source. It is recommended that towns adopt
the following alterations in the NHWSPCC guidelines for small sub-
surface disposal systems as part of a local subsurface disposal/
health ordinance which will be more stringent than State require-
ments :
First. it is recommended that the minimum distance from the
leach field/dry well to surface water should be increased to
approximately 150 feet. Studies show that the migration rates
and distances of nutrients in groundwater vary considerably.
However, phosphorus groundwater contamination at distances
exceeding 100 feet from the effluent discharge point have been
reported in the literature (Chi Ids 1972a, Chi Ids 1972b, Dudley
and Stephenson, 1973). According to these investigations the
problem area occurs (1) where coarse sands and gravel are the
principal subsoil materials, (2) in very impermeable materials
where the effluent may become ponded above horizons at short
distances from the point of release, and (3) in poorly drained
soils with high water table.
While phosphorus is considered a key element in the eutrophication
of surface waters in the Lakes Region, nitrogen, which is another
important nutrient and a common constituent in septic tank effluent,
has a much greater mobility than phosphorus.
Second, the validity of the percolation test in all cases as a
means of assessing the suitability of a site for a leach field is
questionable. As discussed above, the purpose of this test is to
determine the capability of the soils to transport pollutants away
from the effluent discharge zone by measuring transport time of
water through the soils at test sites. The percolation test does
not take into consideration the soil's ability to adsorb or filter
out pollutants. It is therefore recommended that subsurface dis-
posal guidelines take into consideration the fact that soils with
rapid flow through rates for water actually require longer minimum
distances and larger leach field sizes to remove nutrients from
septic tank effluent. Such soils are those with percolation rates
faster than 5 minutes/inch. It is also recommended that research
be conducted to devise a new methodology to replace or improve the
percolation test to more accurately assess the soil's ability to
remove pollutants at potential leach field sites.
Efficacy: Adoption by towns of more stringent guidelines for
approval of subsurface sewage disposal systems to reflect the
actual nutrient-handling capacity of soils at potential leach
field sites would effectively decrease the available land accept-
able for leach field construction. The major impact of such
-------
87
revisions in the Lakes Region would be specifically to reduce
shoreline development where public sewers are unavailable. The
net benefit would be the prevention of increased pollution loading
rates into local surface water.
5. Adequate Test for Detecting Pollution
Discussion: An adequate method for detection of septic tank system
failure should be developed. Septic tank construction prior to
1971 required a permit only for systems located within 1000 feet of
surface waters. In 1971 this law was expanded to include all new
septic tank systems within the entire State. Many public health
officers still lack the equipment and experience to recognize the
presence of malfunctioning septic tanks and have little or no legal
recourse with which to take action to correct the problems when dis-
covered. The often used dye test is a poor indicator, defining only
blatant problems, because the dye may: (1) have a long travel time,
(2) react in the soil and lose its fluorescent characteristics
(fluorescent dye when introduced into an acidic septic tank can lose
its fluorescent character), or (3) the dye may be bound by the soils,
especially clays. Consequently, pollution may be occurring even
though the dye is not detected and the septic tank is allowed to
continue polluting.
A methodology for rapid and inexpensive testing of septic tanks for
pollution of surrounding ground or surface waters is needed for
enforcement purposes. Such a test procedure should not be affected
by natural background interference and must be environmentally safe
and easy to use. It is recommended that the septic leachate detector
(see p. 213 of Draft Plan/EIS) be used to resolve this need.
Estimated Cost: The estimated cost for the septic leachate detector
would be approximately $50.00 per unit, including laboratory analysis.
This cost would depend on the number of units involved and the number
of samples processed.
Efficacy: No accurate method is presently being utilized to monitor
septic tanks for pollution; and, consequently, corrective measures
are seldom carried out by authorities. Only in blatant cases are
poorly functioning septic tanks discovered. With an efficient and
legal testing method, such as the septic leachate detector, problem
septic tanks could be monitored for pollution and remedial action
ordered.
6. Revise Definition of Pollution to Include Nutrients
In conjunction with the improved method of testing for pollution
from septic systems described above, it is recommended that the
NHWSPCC revise its approach to defining pollution of waters from
septic tank effluent. The current approach stresses violation of
coliform bacteria standards. Research has shown that nutrient pollu-
tion of waters is equally as important in the long run as bacterial
pollution. It is therefore recommended that violation of nutrient
standards be incorporated. Recommended permissible and critical
levels for consideration are as follows:
-------
88
Proposed Permissible Levels and
Critical Levelsfor Standing Waters
Permissible Critical
Levels Levels
Total Phosphorus (mgP/1) 0.025 0.040
Orthophosphate (mgP/1) 0.004 0.010
Organic Nitrogen (mgN/1) 0.20 0.40
Ammonia (mgN/1) 0.02 0.05
Nitrate (mgN/1) 0.10 0.25
Nitrite (mgN/1) <0.001 0.002
Inorganic Nitrogen (mgN/1) 0.12 0.30
7. Mandatory Septic Tank Guarantee
Discussion: Procedures and regulations governing septic tank
installations in the Lakes Region are governed by State Law.
Historically, the enforcement and effectiveness of the regulations
have been limited by the available manpower of the enforcement
agency (NHWSPCC), in terms of review and inspection of the sites.
Few towns (exceptions Gilford, Meredith, Laconia and Alton),
have engineers or local health officers designated by the State to
aid in the issuing of permits and the enforcement program. Conse-
quently, many systems are constructed on marginal sites, without
adequate precautions (Winnipesaukee River Basin Project Environ-
mental Impact Statement. Ecolsciences. 1976).
One alternative method which would decrease the number of marginal
septic systems constructed would be to place the responsibility for
system viability upon the builder of the system in the form of a
mandatory guarantee for a designated number of years. The builder
of the system would have to repair malfunctioning systems free of
charge during the guarantee period. Owners of the homes would then
become more willing watchguards of their own septic system and the
builders of the systems would have an economic penalty for improper
design and construction of septic systems. Such a guarantee system
could be incorporated as a provision of a town health ordinance.
Issuance of a permit to construct a septic system would be contingent
upon the execution and submission to the town health officer and
owner of a guarantee by the builder of the system. A model provision
which could be included in a town health ordinance follows:
No permit to construct a subsurface disposal system will be issued
until such time as the builder of the system provides to both the
Town Health Officer and the owner of the system a written perform-
ance guarantee. The performance guarantee will specify:
(1) The builder agrees to repair any malfunctions in the subsurface
disposal system occurring within a period of five years from
the date of construction at not cost to the owner, provided
that the owner:
(a) connects no additional water-using devices to the system
other than those which existed at the time of construction;
-------
89
(b) pumps out the septic tank at least once every three
years;
(c) does not permit any vehicles to travel over the surface
of the leach field;
(d) does not introduce any materials into the system that
good maintenance practices would not permit.
(2) Malfunctions are defined as:
(a) effluent surfacing above the leach field or septic tank;
(b) evidence that the system is polluting adjacent surface
or ground waters;
(c) back-up of plumbing fixtures not caused by temporary
blockages in pipes.
Estimated Cost: Because marginal septic systems would be constructed
properly, the construction costs would tend to increase. However,
lower maintenance costs and decreased contamination would be the
beneficial results.
Efficacy: Considering the high number of existing marginal systems,
the failure rate of existing systems, and limited capabilities of
the NHWSPCC to enforce existing regulations, a guarantee system could
be one method of improving the present construction and siting of
septic systems. It is recognized that there are some limitations and
potential problems in this approach that would require careful con-
sideration before a community were to adopt a guarantee provision as
part of a local health ordinance. Such problems might include:
Would the builder of the system be liable for someone else's faulty
design? Would responsibility for a seasonally used system compare
equally to one in year-round use? Could the builder modify the
design of the system at the time of construction to meet his perceived
responsibilities?
8. Community Treatment Systems
Discussion: The provision of a community wastewater system to serve
clusters of homes provides an alternative to the construction of
sewers, particularly in densely developed shoreline areas where
existing subsurface disposal systems are failing. Such a system
could provide, for example, for a common septic tank and leaching
area or a package treatment facility in a location removed from the
shoreline where soils are suitable for subsurface disposal. A
community treatment systems could also be provided to serve a newly
constructed cluster development. Examples of basic systems already
in operation in the Lakes Region are: (1) the common leaching area
for Lake Shore Park on the south side of Route 11 in Gilford and
(2) the disposal system for Winn-Stock Condominiums, also in Gilford.
Septic tanks, holding tanks and package treatment systems serving
small clusters of homes are eligible for State and Federal grant
-------
90
funding under Section 201 of PL 92-500 when certain minimum stan-
dards are met. One of the basic problems with the eligibility
requirements spelled out in EPA regulations (under the Clean Water
Act of 1977) is that seasonal homes may not be treated similarly
to year-round homes in determining costs eligible for municipally-
owned small community systems. Specifically, the regulations do
not consider seasonal homes to be eligible for Federal construction
grant funds. In the Lakes Region, this eliminates from considera-
tion most of the areas where small community systems would be an
alternative.
It is recommended that EPA revise its regulations so that community
systems involving seasonal homes will become eligible.
Current requirements are:
(1) A project must provide the most cost-effective method of
waste treatment required to meet local conditions and must
satisfy State and Federal requirements, including water
quality standards. (Areas which would probably meet this
requirement are: Meredith Neck, Moultonboro Neck and shore-
line and Tuftonboro shoreline. Other areas adjacent to small
harbors and coves may also meet the requirement.)
(2) A project must be owned, operated, monitored and maintained
by a municipality.
(3) The facility must be located on public property except where
easements will suffice, such as for installation of sewer
lines or if easements are obtained from property owners pro-
viding for access to and maintenance of facilities located on
private property.
(4) If the effluent is to be discharged to a stream or other body
of water, secondary treatment as defined by EPA regulations or
some more stringent level required by water quality standards
must be the minimum treatment provided. (Since State regula-
tions prohibit new discharges containing phosphorus to lakes or
to streams which are tributary to lakes, almost all instances in
the Lakes Region would require subsurface disposal or spray
irrigation.)
(5) Septic tank leach fields or other land disposal techniques
must meet local, State and Federal ground water and public
health standards.
(6) Sludge disposal vehicles and associated capital equipment
required for servicing of systems are also grant eligible.
-------
91
Efficacy: Community systems provide a cost-effective alternative
to the construction of sewer lines and treatment facilities. They
provide a viable means of solving water quality problems in areas
difficult to serve by other means.
9. Alternative Systems
a. Non-Hater Using Toilets:
The single most important non-point source of pollution in the
Lakes Region may be nutrient migration from shoreline subsurface
sewage disposal systems. The results of the LRPC's groundwater
sampling and soil retention study have indicated that effluent
from subsurface sewage disposal systems is a primary source of
water pollution.
Toilet discharge contributes as much as 50% of the effluent
that enters sewage leach fields. Eliminating toilet discharges
as a contribution to subsurface disposal systems would signifi-
cantly reduce both the problem of malfunctioning systems and
the problem of nutrient migration into ground and surface waters.
There are currently many alternative systems on the market. The
discussion below treats several of those which are available.
The LRPC recommends the use of alternative non-water using
toilets, particularly in the following geographic areas:
islands
existing development adjacent to surface waters
on marginal soils where conventional subsurface
disposal systems will not function adequately.
Recommendations:
(1) Composting Toilets
Discussion: An alternative method of residential sewage
disposal in the Lakes Region which does not add nutrients
to the ground water is the composting toilet. There are
a number of composting toilets on the market but" most
consist of a tough plastic container in which compostable
kitchen wastes and grass clippings, as well as human waste,
can be composted. In some models, decomposition of the
waste is greatly accelerated by a heating coil at the base
of the unit and aeration from a fan, which draws air through
the compost and out a vent pipe. The fan runs continuously
and removes all odors. The heating coils function inter-
mittently depending on the room temperature. When not in
use for an extended period of time, the unit can be turned
off. Decomposition will continue, but at a slower rate.
-------
92
If the compost is frozen, decomposition is suspended
but continues again when the compost thaws out (similar
to a garden compost pile). Other models rely simply upon
organic decomposition without the use of any heating
coils or fan.
Some composting toilets are approved for use in boats by
the U.S. Coast Guard. NHWSPCC recommends that approval be
granted for installation in houses, as long as an accept-
able grey water system is also present.
Buildings using a self-contained sewage disposal system,
instead of a subsurface disposal system, could reduce the
amount of nutrient pollution from 30-50% depending on the
nutrient loading of the grey water discharge. (Uttormark
et al, 1974).
Estimated Cost: Purchase and installation costs vary from
model to model. As an example, one unit with a fan and
heating coil, which services a family of 5-6, costs $659.00.
Installation consists of attaching a vent pipe to the out-
side of the building. Cost of operating a unit is $6.00
$7.00 per month for the electricity to run the fan and
heating coils (calculated from N.H. Electric Coop, rates,
1975-76). When comparing the operational costs with those
of the flush, toilet, one must consider the cost of pumping
water to the flush toilet and the heat consumed while the
water in the tank warms to room temperature. These costs
can approximate or exceed $6.00 $7.00 per month.
Efficacy: Because the ventilation system in the units
equipped with fans and heating coils remove the excess
moisture (which represents 90% of the wastes) and the
solid matter is reduced by decomposition, the total volume
is reduced more than 50 times. If used full time by a
family of 5-6, one unit produces a residue of about 2
gallons a year, which can be used as garden fertilizer.
When used correctly, there is zero discharge of pollutants,
both nutrients and bacteria. The application of the small
quantity of residual sludge as a fertilizer eliminates
nutrient runoff into surface waters. In the organic decom-
position types, human waste is decomposed into humus, pro-
ducing about 80 pounds of humus per person per year. If
these types of systems were widely used and combined with a
ban on phosphorus detergents, the discharge of sewage-
derived nutrients could be reduced to negligible levels.
(2) Incinerating Toilets
Discussion: Another alternative method of sewage disposal
is the incinerating toilet. Consisting of a cabinet
similar to a conventional toilet, the unit uses L.P. or
natural gas to incinerate the wastes. An exhaust fan blows
the resultant gases up the exhaust vent to the outside of
-------
93
the building. The incinerating cycle is controlled by a
preset timer and lasts 15-20 minutes. The cycle can be
interrupted by raising the toilet seat lid for repeated
use. Periodically the mineral ash in the fire box must be
removed by a vacuum cleaner. One unit can service up to
twelve people on a full-time basis.
By using an incinerating toilet to dispose of toilet wastes,
the nutrient loading in domestic sewage would be reduced by
30-50%. The remaining nutrients come from the grey water
discharge (Uttormark, et al, 1974).
The incinerating toilet could easily be installed in an
existing building since it requires only gas and electrical
connections and attachment of a vent pipe to the outside.
If installed on a boat the toilet would eliminate the pro-
blem of sewage discharge. A gas cylinder and electricity
for the exhaust fan and timer would be required.
Estimated Costs: List price for one unit is approximately
$600.00; delivery and installation charges are additional.
Operational costs using bottled gas would be approximately
6if per incineration cycle or about $45.00/month for a
family of 5.
(3) Conversion of Homes Served by Septic Tanks to Alternative
Sanitary Sewer Systems
Discussion: A conventional sewer system requires large
volumes of water to conduct household wastes by means of
gravity or pumps to a sewage treatment plant. The plant
must be designed to treat large quantities of water. The
recent NHWSPCC rule prohibiting any new discharges of
wastewaters containing phosphorus into lakes limits the
options available for construction of future sewage treat-
ment plants, especially in the Towns of Alton, Moultonboro,
Tuftonboro, Wakefield and Holderness, where main population
centers are adjacent to surface waters.
An alternative system which uses air instead of water for
the transport of sewage from the toilet is recommended for
further study. The vacuum system uses only 3 pints of
water per flush, rather than the conventional 4-6 gallons
per flush. Because of the reduced volume of liquid, the
sewage can be collected in a holding tank and transported
for treatment at an existing plant, incinerated without
the problems of excessive water, biologically decomposed
without the need of extensive moisture removal or piped
directly to a conventional sewage treatment plant. The
volume of waste water treated is greatly reduced. Under-
ground leakage is negligible, because vacuum pipes are used.
The system can also be connected to boats at a marina with-
out expensive plumbing costs.
-------
94
Individual homes' pollutant discharge from sinks, bath-
tubs, washing machines, etc. is relatively dilute and
could be fed into a septic tank/leach field. A phosphate
detergent ban could eliminate this important nutrient
pollutant from the grey water discharge.
Estimated Costs: It is outside the scope of this document to
determine the total cost/benefit ratio of this type of system.
However, operation costs (energy costs) would be high.
Efficacy: A vacuum toilet waste collection system, com-
bined with a phosphate detergent ban, could reduce the
pollutant loading rate 50-100% from household sewage.
This approach would also reduce interference with local
groundwater hydrology by not exporting large quantities of
water out of watersheds for treatment at remote sewage
treatment plants.
b. Flow Reducing Devices
Most conventional homes are presently not equipped with water
saving devices. These devices vary in design but all basically
accomplish the same result - reduce the amount of water consump-
tion. The devices range from specially designed attachments
that replace existing fixtures, such as faucets or shower heads;
to special in-line devices that adapt to existing fixtures.
Recommendation:
(1) Public Education Program - Water Saving Devices
Discussion: Alternative water saving devices are avail-
able on today's market. A program to stimulate public
awareness to the problem of decreasing water supplies and
the availability of water saving devices to conserve the
remaining supplies is essential.
Estimated Cost: The devices designed to replace existing
fixtures, such as shower heads, range in cost from $12.00
to $30.00. The in-line adapters average $6.00 a unit
depending upon the type. Generally, both types can be
easily installed by the homeowner. Savings will accrue to
the homeowner from reduced water-heating costs, reduced
demand on leach fields, reduced (municipal) water supply
demand and reduced pumping and operation costs.
Efficacy: Widespread utilization of such devices by home-
owners will effect a substantial water savings program,
reduce loads on leach fields and reduce the potential for
depletion and contamination of groundwater.
-------
95
10. Phosphate Detergent Ban
Discussion: Synthetic detergents have largely supplanted soaps
for most household and institutional cleaning tasks. Formulation
of many of these detergents has depended largely on using complex
phosphates. Federal legislation now prohibits the sale of laundry
detergents with more than 8.7% phosphorus (Duthie, 1972).
Because phosphorus is an important element in algal growth, it is
commonly held that removal of phosphate detergents might be an
important step toward controlling eutrophication. Laconia citizens
chose to ban the sale of phosphorus detergents for several years,
until their sewage treatment plant's phosphorus stripper went into
operation. Laconia's ordinance banning phosphorus detergent sales
was lifted in 1975. Local citizens groups in the Squam Lake area
have also campaigned for the use of non-or-low phosphate detergents.
From a review of the mobility and shopping habits of the tourists
and residents in the Lakes Region and the predominance of phosphate
detergents on the local market, it is reasonable to estimate that
50% of the phosphorus contributed to our lakes from domestic wastes
(or approximately 0.8 kgP/capita/yr) originates in detergents.
(Uttormark et al, 1974; EPA, 1974.) Domestic wastes (and therefore
phosphate detergents) represent a significant source of phosphorus
of cultural origin in the Lakes Region because (1) there is only one
tertiary treatment plant in the Lakes Region (Laconia), (2) the
planned Regional Sewage Treatment Plant at Franklin is not designed
for efficient dissolved phosphate removal, and (3) greater than 60%
of the Lakes Region is on subsurface sewage disposal systems
(Ecolsciences, 1976).
A ban on the sale of phosphate detergents could eliminate approxi-
mately 50% of the domestic sewage input of phosphorus, a significant
source. For a phosphate detergent ban to be optimally effective,
it would have to be enforced in all of the towns in the 208 region
and should ideally prohibit both sale and use of these products.
The minimum objective would be to make it difficult for people to
purchase phosphate detergents over the entire region because people
may live in one town and shop in another. A series of city
ordinances, as recently used in Laconia, may prove to be the most
effective means of legislation.
Estimated Costs: Both phosphate and non-phosphate detergents are
now available in the Lakes Region and, obviously, the major cost
incurred by a ban would be in enforcement.
Efficacy: A phosphate detergent ban would reduce the quantity of
chemicals required to precipitate out phosphates, a positive impact.
It would also decrease the phosphate content of the sludge generated
by the sewage treatment, which represents a non-point source of
pollution when placed at a landfill site. A ban on phosphate deter-
gents could also facilitate a reduction in construction and operating
-------
96
costs for future sewage treatment plants built in the Lakes Region
under a State of New Hampshire regulation, adopted under RSA 149,
forbidding any new discharge of phosphates into the lakes.
A phosphate detergent ban could eliminate approximately 50% of the
phosphorus input from domestic sewage or approximately 0.8 kgP/
capita/yr. Domestic sewage is a significant source of phosphates
in the Lakes Region. A recognized limitation of a phosphate deter-
gent ban is the difficulty in enforcement. A number of previously
adopted bans have been ineffective due to limited enforcement and
lack of voluntary cooperation.
11. More Stringent Enforcement of Existing State Laws
For a number of reasons, primarily a lack of adequate funding and
manpower, the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission is unable to enforce existing laws relating to subsurface
disposal as stringently as they should be enforced. Although pre-
vious recommendations call for revision of approval criteria, it is
nonetheless recommended that the WSPCC take whatever steps are
necessary to ensure more stringent enforcement of existing regula-
ti ons.
Estimated Costs: Costs will be those necessary for salaries and
overhead to hire additional personnel.
Efficacy: More stringent enforcement of existing laws will ensure
that marginal systems are not constructed and will in the long run
avoid potential water quality problems.
B. Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff has the potential of picking up and carrying high
levels of pollutants to lakes and streams. This is especially true
where a long period without rain is followed by an intensive rainfall.
Under these circumstances, the initial surge of runoff carries oils,
fertilizers, organic matter and eroded soil and other forms of pollution
to streams and lakes. This initial surge can be more highly polluted
than the sewage being treated at a municipal treatment plant.
Since so little of the Lakes Region is developed to urban densities, the
problems associated with urban Stormwater runoff are minimal. Emphasis
should therefore be placed upon rural runoff. The State of New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (NHWSPCC) has initiated a
program of urban Stormwater analysis in the Concord area using Statewide
208 funds. The expansion of this project to include a comparable
analysis of rural runoff would provide heretofore unavailable informa-
tion. Stormwater, in pikcing up pollutants from the land surface,
becomes the transporter of degradation. This suggests at least two
methods of control. First, surface pollution can be reduced and, second,
Stormwater can be treated to remove the transported matter.
-------
97
The best approach to minimizing the problems related to stormwater
runoff is to eliminate the sources of pollution. In this regard, most
of the controls mentioned in the subsequent section dealing with the
control of erosion and sedimentation are also applicable to stormwater
runoff.
Recommendations:
1. Encourage Use of Best Management Practices
The LRPC will encourage careful use of best management practices
(BMP) related to: runoff control in construction which involves
disruption of the natural landscape; establishment of standards
for storm drainage in land subdivision; use of porous pavements
and/or settling basins in areas where large expanses of land are
to be used for parking or covered with relatively impervious
material; preservation, use and improvement of natural drainage
systems by clearing, widening and vegetating swales and ditches.
It is recommended that towns, as a minimum, adopt the following
basic goal of best management practices as a provision in subdivi-
sion regulations: stormwater runoff shall be contained at the site
of origin so that the rate of flow of stormwater from development
or construction activity shall be no greater than that which would
occur from the site in its natural condition for all intensities
and duration of rainfall.
2. Expansion of the NHWSPCC Stormwater Analysis
The LRPC will encourage the NHWSPCC to expand its urban storm
runoff analysis to include rural runoff, including at least one
site in a relatively small, steep rural watershed.
3. Provide Educational Information
The LRPC will provide the public with information which will result
in the development of a clearer understanding of the role of swamps
and wetland areas in maintaining water quality, as a sink for
nutrients and a buffer which minimizes the transportation of pollu-
tants. The LRPC report, Wetlands - A Vital Natural Resource, will
be reprinted and distributed.
Estimated Costs: The utilization of engineering techniques such as
porous pavement, etc. to reduce runoff will entail a significant
expenditure of funds depending upon the scope of the project.
Efficacy Further study of the problem under the State's 208 Program
will result in a better definition of the problem and the solutions
available.
-------
98
C. Erosion and Sedimentation
Erosion and the control of resulting sedimentation is a problem of
significant magnitude. The problem results from a multitude of causes,
but can be generalized into two categories. The first is man-made and
can be defined as improper land development due to inadequate construc-
tion standards, improper agricultural and timber harvesting activities
and other tyeps of earth changing construction actions. Agriculturally-
related problems are minimal, in the Lakes Region. The second can be
classified as of natural origin resulting from bank erosion or
excessively high surface water runoff through an inadequate natural
drainage system.
In either situation, the problem can be controlled by: establishing
and enforcing strict standards for land development and construction;
and judicious use of stream bank stabilization practices and settling
basins to minimize future natural erosion.
Recommendations:
1. Adoption of a Uniform Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
Discussion: None of the municipalities in the Lakes Region pre-
sently have a detailed erosion and sediment control ordinance and
most lack the necessary time and expertise to evaluate proposals
that might be presented for the control of erosion and sedimenta-
tion. A uniform model ordinance which can be adopted by communities
has been prepared by the LRPC. The ordinance is based upon the
recommendations contained in The Guide for Erosion and Sediment
Control... in Developing Areas of New Hampshire published by the
New Hampshire Association of Conservation Districts and the North
Country Resource Conservation and Development Project. These guides
were prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Durham, New Hampshire, July 1973. The format
and approach of the ordinance is similar to that contained in Water
Resources Protection Measures in Land Development A Handbook by
Joachim Tourbier and Richard Westmacott, published by the University
of Delaware, Water Resources Center. Memoranda of Agreement have
been signed with the North Country RC&D Project and the County
Conservation Districts which provide for cooperation in the prepara-
tion, adoption and subsequent dissemination and implementation of
the model ordinance.
Estimated Costs: The costs of erosion and sedimentation control
measures will vary with individual projects. Additional costs will
be required for effective enforcement.
Efficacy: The efficacy of erosion and sedimentation regulations
will depend upon the degree of enforcement. If the regulations are
properly administered and enforced, significant reduction in the
problems associated with erosion and sedimentation will result.
Technical assistance provided by the RC&D Project and Conservation
Districts will aid communitfes in enforcement.
-------
99
2- Require Water and Soil Retention and Pollution Abatement Plans
for Development Projects'
Discussion: Presently, minimal anti-pollution requirements exist
for the development of subdivisions, shopping malls, etc. in the
Lakes Region. These are especially needed in construction-related
activities where soil erosion control is of little benefit to the
contractor but incurs a cost, thereby decreasing the probability of
voluntary controls being taken. There is a particular need to
control erosion, sedimentation and runoff from areas developed into
urban use. Urban runoff can contain high concentrations of heavy
metals, petroleum extracts, pesticides, suspended solids, salts and
nutrients. With the predominance of continued urban growth adjacent
to surface waters, this represents a significant problem in the
Lakes Region. It is recommended that developers be required to
prepare plans for pollution prevention measures, to be approved by
a governmental agency. In addition to requiring information on lot
measurements, street widths, percolation test results, etc., the
plan should include an assessment of the soils, topography, drainage
patterns and other natural environmental features. The plan should
be in written format and include scale drawings of the measures to
be taken. The developer must agree to implement erosion and sedi-
mentation controls during construction and build retention reservoirs
for future peak runoff. As an example, some requirements suggested
by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, 1973) follow in summarized
form. The LRPC recommends that these requirements be adopted by
towns either in the form of a local ordinance, as provisions
in subdivision regulations or as part of the procedure for submis-
sion of plans under the non-residential site plan review procedure.
To control erosion and sedimentation in this area during and after
construction, the developer agrees to:
a. Maintain the stream bed and stream banks in stable condition
during and after construction.
b. Remove only those trees, shrubs and grasses that must be
removed for construction; protect the rest to preserve their
esthetic and erosion control values.
c. Stockpile topsoil and protect it with anchored straw mulch.
d. Install sediment basins and diversion dikes before disturbing
the land that drains into them.
e. Maintain these in effective working condition during construc-
tion and until the drainage area has been permanently stabilized.
f. Temporarily stabilize each segment of graded or otherwise dis-
turbed land, including the sediment control devices not other-
wise stabilized, by seeding and mulching or by mulching alone.
As construction is completed, permanently stabilize each segment
with perennial vegetation and structural measures.
-------
IOO
g. Stabilize each lot within 4 months after work starts on home
construction.
h. Backfill, compact, seed, and mulch trenches within 15 days
after they are opened.
i. Level diversion dikes, sediment basins and silt traps after
areas that drain into them are stabilized. Establish perma-
nent vegetation on these areas. Sediment basins that are to
be retained for stormwater detention may be seeded to perma-
net vegetation soon after they are built.
j. Discharge the water from outlet structures at nonerosive
velocities.
k. Design and retain two debris basins as detention reservoirs
so that peak runoff from the development area is no greater
than that before the development was established.
1. Pay for the costs of any damages resulting from erosion during
construction activity.
Large paved areas, such as shopping mall parking lots, should
require measures which will increase groundwater infiltration and
decrease surface stormwater runoff. Construction plans for porous
pavement, precast concrete lattice blocks and bricks, seepage or
recharge basins to collect pavement storm runoff, seepage pits or
dry wells and tile fields are readily available (e.g. Tourbier and
Westamacott, 1974).
Estimated Costs: The costs will vary with individual projects and
the severity of the regulations instituted. A filing cost for the
conservation plan could be used to offset the cost of overseeing
the design and implementation of the mitigation measures.
Efficacy: If the above-described plans are instituted and enforced,
decreased problems with stormwater runoff and further attenuation
of pollutants will occur. The efficacy of the procedures will
depend on the system design and pollutant removal capabilities of
the soils receiving the runoff effluent. A major reduction in
bacteria, phosphates, and heavy metals input into surface waters is
expected because of the recharge of storm waters into the soil as
opposed to its passage as surface runoff.
3. Unified Enforcement of State Laws
Discussion: Neither the State of New Hampshire nor the munici-
palities in the 208 Study Area have soil erosion control ordinances,
excluding RSA 483-A:l, the so-called "Dredge and Fill Law". This
law requires a permit when excavation occurs in or adjacent to
surface water, but does not specify what control measures are
required to control sediment erosion runoff. It does give the
Special Board power to deny permits and/or require sediment erosion
control methods. RSA 149:8-a requires that any person proposing to
-------
101
significantly alter the characteristics of the terrain, in such
a manner as to alter the natural runoff or create an unnatural
runoff, again must obtain a permit. In this case the permits are
issued by the NHWSPCC. This law does not specifically mention
sediment runoff.
A single State agency should be made responsible for overseeing
the regulations. Presently, the Special Board administers the
"Dredge and Fill Law" (RSA 483-A:l) and the NHWSPCC administers
the dredge law (RSA 149:8-a). Neither agency is adequately funded
to enforce the laws and relies on the public and other State
agencies for information regarding potential problems.
Estimated Cost: Enforcement would require the commitment of more
personnel by the State agency involved.
Efficacy: The efficacy would depend on (a) the coalescing of the
monitoring and enforcement duties into one agency, and (b) adequate
funds to support the enforcement of the laws and regulations.
D. Boating
The problem of boating and marine-related pollution is particularly
important to the Lakes Region. This is a multi-faceted problem which
ranges from noise (hardly a water quality problem) to health (definitely
a water quality problem). Sources of potential pollution include oil
and related petroleum waste products from marine engines (particularly
two-cycle engines); oily bilge water; "grey" water (i.e., dish water,
bath water, etc.) from live-on boats; boat wash water; spilled fuel;
turbidity resulting from propeller disturbances and metals from fuel
exhaust.
Recommendations:
1. Stringent Enforcement of Existing State Statutes
Discussion: Most of the problems stemming from dumping of sewage
and grey water are covered by State Law (RSA 149-A:3 and RSA 149:8
III). The major deficiency appears to be in enforcement. The
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC), charged with
enforcing the Statute, has two enforcing officers.
RSA 149:8 III, the law under which cease and desist orders are
issued for grey water violations, became effective after October,
1975. The WSPCC is currently undertaking a program to establish
the magnitude of the problem of grey water and is inspecting holding
tanks on boats in the Lake Winnipesaukee area. This program should
be continued and expanded. Present State laws relating to the
installation of marine toilets and grey water discharge should be
fully and stringently enforced. This will require additional WSPCC
enforcement personnel and a cooperative enforcement effort by the
WSPCC and the N.H. Department of Safety, Division of Safety Services.
-------
102
Estimated Costs: The cost involved will be those necessary to hire
additional staff. Costs to boat owners are required for the instal-
lation of holding tanks and for pump-out fees.
Efficacy: Full enforcement of existing laws should entirely elimi-
nate any black or grey water discharges.
2. Eliminate Oil and Gasoline Discharges from Boats
Discussion: The discharge of oil and gasoline from recreational
boats results from (1) the pumping out of oil-contaminated bilge
water and (2) the incomplete combustion of motor boat fuel. The
discharge of oil-contaminated bilge water is illegal (RSA 146-A:3),
but is a common problem because of the difficulty in separating
out the oil. The LRPC recommends that all boats pumping bilge
water be required to have oil sorbent materials (i.e., absorbent
materials which are treated to increase their oleophilic and hydro-
phobic properties) in the bilge. Replenishment of the oil sorbent
material should be required when its oil sorbing capcity is exhausted.
To remedy problems of incomplete fuel combustion, it is recommended
that legislative pressure be continued to stimulate technological
developments that would reduce fuel waste and discharge from out-
board motors. The development of the "Kleen-X-Zaust" by the Goggi
Corporation, a device.which redirects unburned fuel back into the
fuel system, is an example. All outboard engines manufactured
after 1972 have this type of device. The devices can be fitted to
engines manufactured before 1972, but few boats have them. Approxi-
mately 50% of the outboard motors in use now are pre-1972. (NHWSPCC
1975; BCI interviews, 1975 and 1976). Legislation that mandates
pollution control equipment on outboard motors on all boats in New
Hampshire is recommended to prevent crankcase oil from being dis-
charged into surface waters.
Estimated Costs; The costs of oil sorbent materials and the
quantity needed for each boat varies with the size of the boat
and quantity of oil in the bilge water. Bilge water with high
oil content would require more frequent replacement of the sorbent
materials. Installation costs are minimal and on some boats the
sorbent material could be placed in the bilge as free-floating
pieces. Costs would probably vary from $10-$100/boat.
The costs of oil and gasoline discharge prevention devices for out-
board motors vary with the size and make of the motor. The estimated
cost range for pre-1972 motors is $50-$60 (BCI Marina Interview,
1976). This cost would be partially offset by more efficient gaso-
line mileage.
Efficacy: Oil sorbent materials can absorb up to 20 times their
weight under operational conditions and contain the oils for over
three months (Samsel, 1974). The efficacy of their use will vary
with (1) the boat owner's willingness to replace the material when
oil saturated and (2) the oil and sorbent contact time. With
proper maintenance, most of the bilge oil discharge could be elimi-
nated.
-------
103
The use of oil and gasoline discharge prevention devices for out-
board motors can increase the running time of a motor on a tank of
gas 50% or more (Jackivicz and Kuzminski, 1973). The norm
experienced in the Lakes Region is 25+% (BCI interviews, 1975, 76).
The device's efficiency is strongly influenced by how well the
engine is tuned. The reduction in oil and gasoline discharge would
reduce the loading rate of heavy metals, specifically lead and
phenols.
3. Restrict Use of Power Boats on Small Water Bodies
Discussion: A number of communities have supported action by the
N. H. Legislature under RSA 486 which has resulted in eliminating
or reducing the use of power boats on several lakes and ponds in
the Lakes Region 208 area. Those water bodies affected are: Berry
Pond and Lees Pond in Moultonboro, Rollins Pond and Smith Meeting
House Pond in Gilmanton and the Merrymeeting River in Alton.
RSA 270:12 empowers the Director of the Division of Safety Services
to restrict both the maximum horsepower and speed of power boats on
public waters, and also to prohibit entirely the use of power boats
on water bodies of less than 35 acres. It appears that elimination
of power boats on small water bodies is particularly valid both
from point of view of water quality considerations and for safety
and aesthetic considerations. These bodies have limited assimila-
tive capacity and the conflicts between the various groups who use
the water resource are intense. The problem of noise is especially
evident in the typical small steep watershed of the Lakes Region.
The following list includes those water bodies on which the LRPC
recommends that power boating restrictions be considered either
under RSA 486 or RSA 270:12.
Estimated Costs: No costs involved.
Efficacy: Elimination of power boats would significantly reduce
both aesthetic and water quality degradation of small water bodies.
Those water bodies on which it is recommended that power boating
be prohibited are generally those under 50 acres, those which have
very limited access or those with particularly sensitive natural
characteristics. Water bodies for which horsepower restrictions
are recommended are generally those between 50 and 150 acres. Water
bodies falling into these two categories are shown on the following
table:
-------
IO4
TABLE 3-2
Town
Alton
Ashland
Belmont
Brookfield
Center Harbor
Franklin
Gilford
Gil man ton
Hoi derness
La con i a
Meredith
Moultonbo rough
New Hampton
North-field
Ossipee
Sanbornton
Sandwich
Til ton
Tuftonboro
Wakefield
Wol feboro
No Power Boating
None
None
Badger Pond
Clough Pond
None
Bear Pond
Otter Pond
None
Lily Pond
Round Pond
None
None
Pickerel Pond
Forest Pond
Randlett Pond
Spectacle Pond
None
None
Sondogardy Pond
Archers Pond
Bean Road
Garland Pond
Little Dan Hole Po
Moody Pond
Giles Pond
Rollins Pond
Hunkins Pond
Barville Pond
Dinsmore Pond
Intervale Pond
None
None
Sand Pond
None
Acres
11.7
11.1
13.0
12.4
51.3
18.5
74.8
12.4
24.7
30.9
40.8
11.7
10.3
30.9
id 77.3
34.6
32.0
14.8
19.0
37.1
43.3
24.7
Restricted Horsepower
Hills Pond
Sargeant Lake
Hawkins Pond
Lake Winona
Webster Lake
Loon Pond
Rocky Pond
Sawyer Lake
Shell camp Pond
Garland Pond
Uakonda Pond
Lake Winona
Dan Hole Pond
Hermit Lake
Red Hill Pond
Dan Hole Pond
Little Round Pond
(Ivanhoe Pond)
Union Meadows
Acres
137.6
35.1
92.7
154.3
612.2
121.2
40.8
78.5
148.8
80.4
92.7
154.3
408.1
176.1
98.9
408.1
123.7
49.5
-------
105
4. Increase Number of Pump-Out Facilities
Discussion: Additional pump-out facilities are needed in the Lakes
Region to more effectively handle the effluent from marina holding
tanks. Current facilities are available, but are limited in number
and not well distributed. Construction of the Winnipesaukee Basin
Project will make possible the tie-in of a number of marinas to the
regional treatment plant. Other marinas should be connected,
wherever possible, to public sewer systems.
Existing boat holding tank pump-out facilities in the Lakes Region
(as of July 1977) are as follows:
Town
Alton
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Moultonboro
Wolfeboro
Marina or Dock
Robert's Cove Marina
Fay's Boat Yard
Gilford Marina
Silver Sands Marina
Brickyard Landing
Irwin Marine (Lakeport)
Irwin Marine (Weirs)
Lakes Region Marine
Winnipesaukee Flagship
Corp. (Private)
Meredith Marina
Trexlar's Boat Yard
Goodhue Hawkins Navy Yard
Sewage Disposal Method
Pump to Septic System
Portable to Septic System
Pump to Septic System
(augmented by frequent
pump-out and transport
to Laconia STP)
Portable to Holding Tank;
Transport to Laconia STP
Pump to Municipal Sewer
Pump to Municipal Sewer
Pump to Municipal Sewer
Pump to Municipal Sewer
Pump to Municipal Sewer
Pump to Municipal Sewer
Portable to Septic System
Note: All three marinas in Gilford will be connected to the
Winnipesaukee River Basin Project (Gilford Interceptor)
by 1979-80.
Additional pump-out facilities are recommended in the following
locations:
Meredith Town Docks
Meredith Neck/Bear Island
Center Harbor Docks
Long Island
Moultonboro Bay-
Melvin Village
Wolfeboro Bay
Alton Bay
Ossipee Lake
-------
106
Estimated Costs: The costs to construct pump-out facilities
will vary according to the type of system installed and whether
or not it is possible to connect directly to a municipal sewer
line. There are also costs to boat owners to install holding
tanks and fees for the use of pump-out facilities. The current
average fee per pump-out is $3.00.
Efficacy: An increased number of pump-out facilities would make
compliance with RSA 149:8 III easier for boat owners and would
help to achieve the intent of the no-discharge law.
E. Solid Waste
The disposal of solid wastes is a major municipal problem in the Lakes
Region. Most communities dispose of solid wastes in the ground using
methods which range from an adequate sanitary landfill to various
modifications (usually inadequate) of sanitary landfill methods of
disposal.
The disposal methods being utilized are presently in a state of flux.
Communities with burning dumps and/or with sites in wetland areas are
converting to some type of landfill and locating the primary operation
in better locations. Other communities are moving from some type of
ground disposal to incineration. Finally, other communities are look-
ing very hard at developing either regional disposal systems or more
innovative processes incorporating use of the railroad coupled with
resource recovery or energy generation.
Given the current changes being considered, it is clear that the
effects of leachates from solid wastes, which are considered to have
limited areal significance, will be diminishing or at least changing
significantly.
Recommendations:
1. Continue Monitoring the Ashland Sanitary Landfill
Discussion: The North Country RC&D has been monitoring the exist-
ing Ashland sanitary landfill for three years. The results of the
program should provide valuable insight into the long-term leachate
problem stemming from solid waste disposal in areas comparable to
the Lakes Region. This program of monitoring should be continued
in the future by support from the New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission as part of their Statewide 208 planning
effort.
Estimated Costs: Estimated yearly costs for continued monitoring
are $4,000.00.
Efficacy: Results of this study should provide valuable information
for future site selection criteria for sanitary landfill.
-------
107
2. Monitor Groundwater at Other Sanitary Landfill Sites
Discussion: The long-term impact of specific existing disposal
sites is undetermined. For example, solid waste disposal at the
present Laconia site has recently been terminated. The continuing
impact of leachates should be monitored through groundwater samp-
ling to determine whether a problem does exist and whether it
increases after termination. It is recommended that the N.H. Bureau
of Solid Waste consider the establishment of regulations requiring
the installation of monitoring wells at all newly established sani-
tary landfill sites.
Estimated Costs: Costs will depend upon the extent and degree of
monitoring. Costs for a full scale monitoring program would be
similar to the costs at Ashland.
Efficacy: As with the monitoring of the Ashland landfill site,
results of groundwater monitoring will provide information on the
long-term impacts of leachate from solid waste disposal and will
aid in the refinement of criteria for site selection for disposal
areas.
3. Use of Solid Waste as an Energy Source
Discussion: The disposal of solid waste is becoming a serious
problem in the Lakes Region and throughout New Hampshire. Unless
existing dumps and landfills are correctly covered to prevent
percolation and leachate generation, solid waste already deposited
could continue to pollute adjacent surface and ground water and
future dumping will worsen the situation. With land suitable for
sanitary landfills becoming increasingly scarce and the costs of
preventing leachate pollution of gravel and surface waters, alterna-
tive methods of solid waste disposal are needed. The Town of
Meredith is utilizing one alternative by utilizing incinerators to
burn solid waste and using landfill to dispose of the resultant
ash.
With the continued escalation of conventional fuel costs and the
growing need for alternative sources of energy, it appears to be
wasteful not to utilize the energy generated by the incinerators.
Yet, considering the relatively small amount of solid waste
generated by each town in the Lakes Region, it would not be
economically feasible to recover energy from solid waste on a
town-by-town basis. However, if the Lakes Region and southern
New Hampshire as a whole is considered, the amount of solid waste
generated daily might justify a facility to recover energy and
recyclable materials from the solid waste. The following paragraph
provides an example of a solution to the problem of solid waste
disposal in the Lakes Region, which may warrant further study. A
flow chart is also included in,this section describing the proposed
alternative.
The Federal Energy Administration is requesting that certain elec-
trical power plants convert from oil to coal. Public Service Co.
of New Hampshire has been ordered to investigate the possibility of
converting two electrical generating units at the Schiller Power
-------
108
AN EXAMPLE OF A POSSIBLE METHOD OF
RECLAIMING ENERGY AND MATERIALS
FROM THE LAKES REGION SOLID WASTE
Solid Waste
Generation
Towns in the Lakes Region
and southern New Hampshire
Municipal
Collection
Facilities
» ! s E J ' J f
Temporary Storage
in Railroad Cars
Storage and
Transportation
/With inTtiaA
I separation J
Glass and Metal
to Appropriate
Recycling
Facilities
/Without initiaA
separati on J
[ Rail Transport
Incineration
Solid Waste Burning Power Plant
(e.g. Schiller Plant, Portsmouth
converted to solid waste/coal)
Products
Electricityj
Disposal]
of ash
Ferrous material
recycled at
Madbury Plant
-------
IO9
Plant in Portsmouth from oil burning to coal burners. The cost
of conversion is estimated at $2.7 million or $5 million if
expenses involved in dumping coal ashes are included (D'Allessandro,
1976). The possibility of converting the plant to burn solid waste
or a combination solid waste/coal fuel mixture could be considered.
To meet air quality standards when burning solid waste, the plant
would have to be equipped with particulate emission control devices
and ash removal facilities, but these would also be required if
coal were burned. Solid waste is being used (or considered) as an
energy source in a number of places across the U.S., including a
plant already operational in Saugus, Massachusetts.
Waste could be transported to the Schiller Plant on existing rail-
roads from the population centers in the Lakes Region and southern
New Hampshire and on a new spur which would connect to the plant
itself. Towns with a small population base producing a small amount
of solid waste on a daily basis could use railroad cars stored
temporarily on spur tracks. When the cars are filled, they would
be sent down to the Schiller Plant. Similarly, the combustion of
solid waste at the University of New Hampshire campus in Durham,
where steam heat is generated at a central power plant served by
rail, offers a second alternative.
There is a facility in Madbury, New Hampshire, served by rail, which
processes ferrous materials from junk automobiles. This facility
might be able to process the burned residue from the power plant
and recover ferrous materials for recycling. An alternative method
would be to require people to separate their own garbage into metal,
glass and combustible wastes. The collection sites could also be
classified, with railway cars containing combustible wastes going
to the power plant and cars containing glass or metal going to
appropriate recycling facilities. A successful recycling collec-
tion site at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, N. H.,
handles glass and metal wastes from the University as well as
surrounding towns.
Efficacy: If all the solid waste generated in the Lakes Region
were either recycled or transported to a power plant for combustion,
it would contribute no pollution to the surface or groundwater in
the Lakes Region. With particulate emission control devices
installed in the power plant, air quality standards would be main-
tained. Disposal of the ashed residue from the power plant would
have to be properly managed to minimize pollution or contamination.
4. Consider Mandatory Separation of Recyclable Materials
Discussion: Solid waste management is one of the most urgent
problems of many communities in the Lakes Region. The amount of
waste is growing, and the cost of adequate disposal facilities is
arowini even faster. Meanwhile, the nation is experiencing short-
aqes of basic raw materials. .Recycling, as one part of a total
wiste management program, is a process that can provide answers to
all three dilermias. First, recycling can reduce the volume of
-------
no
waste to be disposed. Second, recycling generates revenue
from material sold. Third, recycling conserves valuable natural
resources. It can prolong the life of a landfill site, reduce
wear and tear on an incinerator and substantially reduce the
amount that must be hauled from a transfer station. However, it
has been proven by past experience that in order for recycling to
work, separation of materials must be made mandatory. A local
ordinance should be passed and strictly enforced.
Estimated Costs: Additional facilities must be provided at the
disposal site to collect and store recyclable materials. Depend-
ing upon the type of operation undertaken, the following facilities
may need to be provided: storage building, baler, can crusher,
forklift/loader, scale. Capital costs to set up a facility for a
small community might run in the order of $35,000. An excellent
reference source is: Recycling - A Handbook for Implementation,
prepared for the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission and the Bureau of Solid Waste by the Strafford Regional
Planning Commission, November, 1977.
Efficacy: A well operated recycling facility would not only
reduce long-term municipal costs for solid waste disposal and
conserve valuable resources, but would also reduce the potential
for water pollution derived from leachates from solid waste dis-
posal areas.
F. Septage Disposal
Discussion: The problem of septage disposal, the disposal of septic
tank pumpings, has been defined quantitatively as involving several
million gallons of wastes per year in the Lakes Region. The problem,
although not significant quantitatively when compared to the total
estimated volume of sewage (13+ gallons per day) is quite significant
qualitatively. As a result, special facilities must be provided to
properly handle the septic tank pumpings. This will become increasingly
important if a more effective program of septic tank maintenance is
instituted which results in even greater volumes of septage being pro-
duced.
There are various techniques available for septage disposal such as
sanitary landfills, lagoons and wastewater treatment facilities. To
insure that water quality is maintained throughout the Region, the
following provisions should be adopted.
Recommendations:
1. The N.H. Division of Public Health Services, Bureau of Solid Waste
Management should require more stringent licensing provisions for
septic tank pumpers. The permit procedure outlined in RSA 147:34-42
should be expanded to include a reporting system to document dis-
posal sites used, volumes of septage pumped and serviced locations.
Reporting of this information would be of great benefit in deter-
mining the magnitude of problems and the need to provide additional
disposal sites. The provision for fines in RSA 147:42 should be
strictly enforced.
-------
Ill
2. As required by State law (RSA 147:23), municipalities must
provide carefully located septage disposal sites.
3. The Lakes Region Planning Commission will cooperate with the
New Hampshire Department of Public Health in the location and
identification of proper septage disposal facilities in those
portions of the region where a sewage treatment plant is not
available. Such site selection procedure should be based on
specific guidelines which will assure that the proposed site
will not pollute sources of groundwater and should mandate
installation of an adequate monitoring system at least six
months prior to the use of the site.
4. The Lakes Region Planning Commission will cooperate and coordi-
nate with the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission to insure that septage considerations are included in:
the modification and/or upgrading of existing sewage treatment
plants; the design capability of new sewage treatment plants.
Specifically, this should include: the Franklin Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant, the Ossipee Treatment facility, the Wolfeboro
treatment facility (all three should be designed as regional
disposal sites).
5. The Lakes Region Planning Commission will seek technical assist-
ance in the development of a regional septage maintenance plan.
Such a plan would consider septage projections on the basis of
proposed pump-out rates and not on existing septage rates.
6. The Lakes Region Planning Commission will encourage the New
Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission to
include provisions for funding septage disposal facilities
which are eligible under Section 201 funding policies. RSA
149B:11 (effective 8/26/77) has authorized the NHWSPCC to
require septage reception and treatment facilities in conjunc-
tion with pollution abatement projects for which State or Federal
aid is allocated.
7. Intermunicipal cooperation in septage disposal which would take
advantage of existing and planned wastewater facilities is recom-
mended. Possible intermunicipal combinations for regional dis-
posal include:
Franklin, Til ton, Northfield, Sanbornton
Ashland, Holderness, New Hampton, Bridgewater
Laconia. Gilford, Belmont, Gilmanton, Meredith
Wolfeboro, Tuftonboro, Alton
Wakefield, Brookfield
Center Harbor, Moultonborough, Sandwich
Ossipee, Effingham, Freedom
8. Consideration should be given to disposal of septage by lime
stabilization. This involves lime treatment of septage followed
by sand bed filtration. The end products of the process are dried
sludge, which could be used for agricultural purposes, and a
filtrate which could be discharged to the ground or used for
irrigation.
-------
112
Estimated Costs: The Table contained in Draft Report 6-E-2, Control
of Hater Pollution from Non-Point Sources, available in the offices
of the Lakes Region Planning Commission, lists some septage treatment
and disposal options with approximate costs.
Efficacy: The extent to which water quality will be maintained will
be dependent upon the cooperation and successful interaction of various
agencies.
6. Forest Practices
Discussion: A substantial portion of the Lakes Region is wooded (up
to 80%).Over the past year, over 200 "intents to cut" have been
filed within the Region. This does not necessarily mean that all
cuts were made, but merely that the owner intended to cut during the
year. This is the extent of the legal requirements for such notice
under the State Statutes.
Present State laws (RSA 224:44a, RSA 149:8a, and RSA 483:A) control
various aspects of logging and are designed to reduce potential pollu-
tion. Typically, it seems the laws are not adequately enforced due to
a lack of sufficient personnel to accomplish on-site investigation.
It is not anticipated that the magnitude of logging operations will
change significantly in the Region.
Recommendation: The LRPC will concentrate its efforts in publicizing
existing laws and work to obtain full enforcement of these laws.
Estimated Cost: Initially there will be no direct cost in publicizing
work; however, to obtain enforcement will necessitate expenditures for
additional manpower to oversee operations.
Efficacy: The extent of success will rest upon the public's response
to the desire to enforce existing regulations and prevent further
degradation of water quality from improper forest operations.
H. Road Salt
Discussion: Presently, the use of sodium chlorides for icy conditions
is considered a desirable objective at all levels of government in
New Hampshire. The tonnages of salt applications over the past few
years have either increased or remained relatively consistent at the
municipal level and have increased at the State level of government.
This is partially due to the weather and partially due to the growth
in the population of the Region.
Sodium chloride, ostensibly because of economy and efficiency is used
in large quantities in the winter to maintain what is termed a "bare
road policy" on the Lakes Region's roads and highways. The increasing
use of highway deicing agents has had adverse effects upon water
supplies within the State.
-------
113
One effect of application of road salts has been the contamination
of wells with chlorides. In 1974 the Department of Public Works and
Highways replaced 50 wells at an average cost of $2,640/well or
approximately $132,000. Continued applications of road salts will
result in increasingly high levels of chlorides and concurrently
higher levels of sodium in the groundwater.
In view of medical findings regarding sodium in drinking water as
well as the costs incurred by the State due to salted wells, it is
apparent that measures should be taken to avoid overuse of salt on
highways in New Hampshire.
The appearance of sodium at high levels, although not significant
from the standpoint of lake quality, is especially critical when
found in drinking water. The solution of this problem must be
approached as a potential health hazard under the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974.
Recommendations:
1. Minimize the use of road salt. This should be accomplished on
both the State and local levels. The overuse of salt on N. H.
highways through the practice of salting before and during snow-
storms causes both a heavy slush driving hazard plus an unnecessary
expenditure of large quantities of salt. Weather monitoring should
be practiced by the personnel responsible for highway safety. Salt-
ing during very low temperature (sub-zero) conditions, for example,
during and after a snowstorm may create an environment that is
conducive to the formation of frozen salted slush, which is much
more hazardous than either deep snow or just plowed roads with
sand.
2. Fewer roads and highways subject to the "bare road" requirement.
Because "bare road" permits speed and does not necessarily increase
safety, traffic patterns and traffic usage should be analyzed to
indicate where speed that is not possible on sanded roads is essen-
tial. Information from ambulance drivers, fire departments and
police for traffic statistics and accident rates can aid in deter-
mining where high mobility following snowstorms is essential.
Roads not subject to high priority could be salted at a much lower
rate or sanded.
3. The use of sand and dark materials, which can absorb more solar
energy when spread onto streets. The Town of Sandwich, for
instance, has eliminated the use of road salt and it is recom-
mended that other towns learn from their successes and problems.
4. Minimize the use of road salt in areas which have a direct flow
into surface waters. This effort should initially concentrate on
distribution control and careful management of salt application
procedures. This should be accomplished on both the local and
State levels.
-------
114
5. Obtain funds under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 for the
purpose of identifying whether sodium is present at levels which
are harmful to public health. This could best be accomplished
through the N. H. Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission's
monitoring program.
6. Terminate the practice of dumping snow plowed from streets into
water bodies. Plowed snow not only contains quantities of road
salt, but also other materials.
Estimated Cost: Initial costs would include a study of road patterns
and usage to determine which roads could receive either reduced salting
rates and/or sand treatment. Once determined, the salting rates could
be reduced. This would (a) reduce the yearly costs for salt and its
transportation, (b) reduce the number of wells contaminated (15 com-
plaints received by the NHDPW&H in 1974 in the Lakes Region), and (c)
decrease the potential health hazard from increased sodium levels in
drinking waters.
Efficacy: The efficacy of reducing the salt application rate will
depend on the willingness of the public to have a "bare road" policy
only on essential highways and streets. An adequate study is necessary
to determine where a "bare road" policy is essential. Coordinated plans
for roads not designated for a "bare road" treatment should combine
plowing, minimized salting and/or sanding and a public education program
to gain public support.
-------
CHAPTER 4
Point Source
Controls
-------
115
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
The point source study conducted as part of the 208 Project included
identifying existing and planned sewerage facilities, characterizing existing
and potential point sources, identifying alternative point source controls, and
assisting in the selection of the recommended point source control plan. Other
aspects of the work were identifying industrial and commercial wastewater sources,
clarifying "facilities" planning needs for the communities, and identifying means
to control wastewater loads.
The following sections discuss existing, planned and recommended sewerage
on a town-by-town basis. The location of all areas referred to in the text is
shown on the maps which are included in Chapter I Summary Report.
A. Existing Sewerage Facilities
The Towns of Alton, Belmont, Brookfield, Gilford, Gilmanton, Holderness,
Sanbornton, Sandwich, Tuftonboro and Wakefield do not have any municipal
sewerage facilities. Sewage is disposed of by means of on-lot subsurface
disposal systems.
The Towns of Ashland, Center Harbor, Laconia, Meredith, Moultonborough,
New Hampton, Ossipee and Wolfeboro have municipal sewage collection
systems and some means of treatment. Franklin, Til ton and Northfield
have collections systems, but no treatment facilities.
Ashland
Ash!and's system serves some 250 homes in the village. The treatment
facility employs oxidation ponds (Hinde aeration system), clarifiers
and chlorination. The plant meets Best Practicable Treatment criteria
and has a reserve capacity of approximately 1.0 MGD.
Center Harbor
Center Harbor Village is a part of the Bay District, along with a
portion of the Winnipesaukee shorefront community in adjacent
Moultonborough. The Bay District serves an estimated summer popula-
tion of some 1,200 people and a winter population of approximately
600 people. The sewage is treated by means of lagoons, chlorinated
and discharged into a stream which flows to Lake Winnipesaukee.
Franklin
The City of Franklin has a municipal sewer system serving its more
densely populated downtown area. The collection system discharges
raw sewage directly to the Pemigewasset and Winnipesaukee Rivers.
Laconia
The Citv of Laconia has the most extensive sewer system of any of the
municipalities in the Lakes Region, servicing 85% of its permanent
DODulation and 54% of its seasonal/transient population. The three
maior centers of development in the City (the downtown area, Lakeport
and the Weirs) are presently sewered. The original sewage treatment
-------
116
plant, built in 1952, was a primary plant. During 1974-75, this plant
was upgraded to a physical-chemical plant providing secondary treatment.
The plant discharges to Lake Winnisquam.
Meredith
The central developed area of Meredith is sewered and serves a popula-
tion of approximately 1,400. Most of the facilities were installed
in 1952. The sewage treatment.pi ant consists of an Imhoff tank, a
recirculating trickling filter and a secondary settling tank. The
effluent is chlorinated before being discharged to Hawkins Brook, which
flows to Meredith Bay.
Moultonborough (see Center Harbor)
New Hampton
Essentially the whole village is sewered except for a few low areas
which did not warrant service because of the projected excessive
cost. The system serves 220 permanent residents plus 120 elementary
school and 200 boarding students of the New Hampton School. Waste
treatment, which was placed into operation during July, 1965, consists
of two stabilization ponds which comprise a total area of 3^ acres.
The facilities are operated as an infiltration pond type system; there
is no discharge.
Northfield
The Town of Northfield has a public sewer system serving the compact
area of the Village. The collection system discharges raw sewage
directly to the Winnipesaukee River.
Ossi pee
The community wastewater system of Precinct "A" services a portion of
Center Ossipee. Treatment consists of a large septic tank which at
one time discharged to a leaching field. The leaching field is no
longer in existence and consequently the septic tank effluent dis-
charges to a swamp which eventually empties into the Pine River, a
tributary to Ossipee Lake.
Ti1 ton
Tilton has a municipal collection system serving the densely developed
area of the Town. The collection system discharges raw sewage directly
to the Winnipesaukee River.
Wolfeboro
The Village of Wolfeboro is presently sewered by a system initiated
in 1939, serving a population of approximately 2,500. The original
treatment plant was built in 1939, and consisted of Imhoff tanks, a
trickling filter, final settling tanks and sludge drying beds. A new
treatment plant has been constructed at the site of the original
plant and went "on-line" last year.
-------
117
This plant is operating under the extended aeration modification of
the activated sludge process and discharges to Front Bay. Spray
irrigation facilities are presently being added to the treatment
'process. Tertiary treatment and effluent disposal will be achieved
by land application of the effluent during the period from mid-May to
mid-November, with storage of the effluent in an aerated lagoon during
the remainder of the year.
B. Planned Sewerage Facilities
Additional sewerage facilities are presently planned for some of the
towns in the Lakes Region as part of the Winnipesaukee River Basin
Project (WRBP) and as part of municipal facilities plans.
1. Winnipesaukee River Basin Project (WRBP)
Under the WRBP, the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission (WSPCC) has acquired and planned wastewater
facilities in the Lakes Region. RSA 149-G reads, "The New
Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission is
hereby authorized and directed to acquire, plan, construct,
and operate to serve certain municipalities within the Winni-
pesaukee River Basin (including, but not necessarily limited
to Meredith, Laconia, Gilford, Belmont, Sanbornton, Til ton,
Northfield and Franklin) any and all sewage and waste disposal
facilities (meaning only those facilities eligible for Federal
and State aid) in accordance with basin and regional treatment
needs consistent with Federal and State requirements".
Construction of this regional system has begun. The Franklin
Sewage Treatment Plant will receive wastewater flows from the
Towns/Cities of Franklin, Til ton, Northfield, Belmont, Sanbornton,
Laconia, Gilford and Meredith. The treatment plant will utilize
the activated sludge process and is designed for an average daily
flow of 11.5 MGD; considerations have been given to increasing the
plant's capacity to over 23 MGD by the year 2020.
Figure 1 shows all the major interceptors and treatment facilities
under WRBP control. The Franklin, Tilton-Northfield and Winnisquam
Interceptors will connect the Laconia Sewage Treatment Plant'to the
new regional plant in Franklin. Upon completion of these inter-
ceptors, the Laconia Treatment Plant outfall to Lake Winnisquam
will be abandoned and all wastes will flow to the new regional
plant. For an interim period, until the Franklin plant is completed,
the Winnisquam Interceptor and a portion of the Til ton-Northfield
Interceptor may be used as a temporary outfall for the Laconia plant,
discharging to the Winnipesaukee River just below Silver Lake (the
intent is to eliminate the Laconia discharge to Lake Winnisquam as
soon as possible).
From the Laconia Treatment PTant, the West Paugus and Meredith
intprreotors will run north, connecting the Meredith Treatment Plant
to the regional system. This will eliminate Meredith's discharge to
Meredith Bay (Lake Winnipesaukee).
-------
Local interceptors in Franklin, Til ton and North-field, also
planned under the WRBP but not shown on Figure 1, will intercept
and eliminate the sewer outfalls in these communities to the
Winnipesaukee and Pemigewasset Rivers. These local interceptors
will connect to the Franklin and Tilton-Northfield Interceptors.
The Belmont Interceptor, again part of the WRBP, will sewer
Belmont Village to the Tilton-Northfield Interceptor.
The Sanbornton Interceptor-wi11 serve development on the west
shore of Lake Winnisquam in the Towns of Sanbornton and Meredith.
The existing Weirs Boulevard Interceptor connects sewerage at the
Weirs to the Laconia Treatment Plant. Under the WRBP, the WSPCC
has acquired control of this interceptor. For an interim period,
it may link the Gilford Interceptor to the Laconia Treatment Plant,
while the West Paugus Interceptor is being completed.
The Jewett Brook Interceptor will connect to the Weirs Boulevard
Interceptor and will service the Ridgewood Avenue-Sleeper Hill
area in Gilford.
The Gilford Interceptor will provide service to Gilford Village
and the Gilford shoreline along Lake Winnipesaukee.
The entire capital cost for the WRBP will be approximately
$50,000,000. The first year (1980) operation and maintenance
cost for the system will be approximately $650,000. The capital
and operation and maintenance costs for all components of the
Winnipesaukee River Basin Project are summarized in Table 6-1.
Approximately 95% of the capital cost will be defrayed by Federal
and State funding. The remaining 5% will be paid by the Basin
towns. The approximate town-by-town apportionment of this 5%
cost is as follows: Belmont (7%), Franklin (10%), Gilford (28%),
Laconia (30%), Meredith (15%), Northfield (3%), Sanbornton (3%)
and Til ton (4%). Operation and maintenance costs are expected to
be defrayed on a similar basis. These percentages are an estimate
subject to change. The town-by-town apportionment of costs is
shown on Table 4-2.
2. Municipal Facilities Plans
The Towns of Belmont, Gilford and the City of Laconia have had
Facilities Plans completed. Plans are in progress for Ossipee,
for the Bay District (Center Harbor and Moultonborough) and for
Wakefield. All of the first phase facilities, those anticipated
to be constructed by 1980 as described in the Facilities Plans,
are considered planned facilities. A discussion of the planned
facilities for these four communities follows:
Belmont
Planned facilities for Belmont include sewering Belmont Village,
the South Road and Route 140 area, the Silver Lake shoreline, the
Brecks Shore area, the Lake Winnisquam shoreline and Route 3 from
Mosquito Bridge to the Belknap Mall. All these areas will be sewered
to either the Belmont Interceptor or the Winnisquam Interceptor.
-------
119
Gilford
Planned facilities for Gilford include sewering the Lake Winni-
pesaukee shoreline, Route 11 from Mclntyre Circle to the Laconia-
Gilford Airport, and the Ridgewood Avenue-Sleeper Hill area. All
these areas will be sewered to either the Gilford, Weirs Boule-
vard or Jewett Brook Interceptors.
Lacom'a
Planned facilities for Lacom'a include sewering the South End
area, Lake Opechee area, Lakeport-Sheridan Street area, Pendleton
Beach area, and Moulton-Pickerel Cove area of the City. All areas
will be sewered to either the West Paugus or Gilford Interceptors,
except the South End area. The South End area will be sewered
directly to the Lacom'a Sewage Treatment Plant.
Ossipee
Tentatively planned facilities for Ossipee include expanding the
service area of the existing sewer precinct in Center Ossipee, and
constructing a new sewage treatment facility, aerated lagoons, to
treat the wastewater. The effluent from the facility would be
pumped to an outfall in the Ossipee River between the Bays and the
F.ffingham town line. This would eliminate any discharge to the
Pine River which flows to Ossipee Lake.
The estimated costs of all these planned facilities are summarized
in Table 4-3.
C. Recommended Sewerage Facilities
During early stages of this study, the point source contractor identi-
fied all areas within the Lakes Region which might possibly be sewered
before 1995 (within the planning period). These initial recommendations
also discussed alternate point source control plans. This data was
reviewed by the Lakes Region Planning Commission, the water quality
sampling contractor, the water quality modeling contractor, the non-
point source contractor and the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission. The resulting input scrutinized the preliminary
recommendations in terms of water quality, land use, demographic and
economic data, technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness and likelihood
of implementation. This process resulted in the selection of the
recommended areas to be included in the final point source control plan.
Those areas which were considered for inclusion in the point source
control plan in early stages of the study but which were dropped after
an assessment of impacts are listed in Table 4-4.
Following is a town-by-town discussion of the selected recommended
areas and facilities. This discussion includes only the major elements
of the recommended facilities; i.e., those areas that contain major
interceptors. Areas requiring only local sewer extensions are not dis-
cussed; consideration of those areas is left for more detailed studies.
Construction costs are shown for interceptors and appurtenances only.
-------
120
Alton (WRBP)
It is recommended that the Gilford Interceptor be extended to the
south end of Alton Bay by 1990 and to Peggey's Cove by 1995. The
1977 construction cost of this extension is estimated at $8,675,000.
Center Harbor (WRBP)
It is recommended that the Meredith Interceptor be extended to the
Bay Sewer District, to eliminate the present discharge to Lake
Winnipesaukee, by 1985. The 1977 construction cost of this extension
is estimated at $1,870,000.
Franklin
It is recommended that the area around Webster Lake be sewered by
1985 (1977 construction cost estimate: $2,770,000).
Gilford
It is recommended that Gilford Village be sewered by 1985, the Pheasant
Ridge Country Club area by 1990 and Governors Island by 1985 (1977
construction cost estimate: $2,470,000). It is also recommended that
the Gunstock Recreation Area be linked to the Gilford Interceptor by 1983.
Lacom'a
It is recommended that the Eastman Shore-Laighton Avenue Interceptor
(along the east shore of Lake Winnisquam) be constructed by 1985; and
an interceptor along Pendleton Beach and Winnipesaukee Shore Roads,
to serve the inland portion of the Pendleton Beach area, be constructed
by 1990 (1977 construction cost estimate: 51,525,000).
Meredith
It is recommended that sewerage be provided for two areas adjacent to
the south end of Lake Waukewan by 1990 (1977 construction cost estimate:
$1,200,000).
Moultonborough
It is recommended that an interceptor be constructed from Center Harbor
along Route 25 to service the southern half of Lake Kanasatka by 1990
(1977 construction cost estimate: $1,600,000).
Ossi pee
It is recommended that the west side of Ossipee Lake in the vicinity of
Deer Cove be sewered by 1990 and the Precinct "A" interceptor be extended
to service additional sections of Moultonville Road by 1985. These addi-
tions to the sewerage will require additional treatment capacity. The
1977 construction cost is estimated at $1,900,000.
-------
121
Wolfeboro
It is recommended that two areas along the shores of Wolfeboro Bay
and Jockey Cove, adjacent to the existing sewered area, be sewered
by 1985 (1977 construction cost estimate: $1,700,000).
The total costs associated with recommended sewerage are summarized
on Tables 4-1 and 4-3.
The planned and recommended sewerage discussed in sections B and C
above constitute the major components of the point source control
plan. The estimated costs for all the components of the selected
point source control plan are contained in Summary Table 4-5. The
most significant point sources in the Lakes Region are the municipal
treatment facilities at the Bay District, Laconia, Meredith, Ossipee,
and Wolfeboro; and the municipal sewer discharges in Franklin, Tilton
and Northfield. The point source control plan will eliminate the
discharges from all of these point sources. The only future point
source of significance will be the proposed Franklin Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant, and the design of this plant meets best practicable
treatment criteria.
Additional recommendations concerning future study areas, industrial
and commercial point sources, and wastewater control systems complete
the recommended point source control plan.
D. Future Study Areas
Future study areas were designated where municipal sewerage is not
anticipated within the planning period (by 1995), and/or where more
detailed study, beyond the scope of the 208 Project, (for example,
sanitary surveys and/or detailed engineering studies) is needed to
determine the best point and non-point source control measures. The
following list summarizes all the future study areas in the Lakes
Region.
Alton Portion of Alton Village
Alton Bay shoreline, Peggey's Cove to Chestnut Cove.
Ashland & Interceptor from Holderness to the Ashland Sewage
Holderness Treatment Plant.
Belmont Nine areas for possible sewer system extensions, as
discussed in Facilities Plan.
Franklin Sewer extension alonq Route 127, north of the City,
Route 3 south to the Industrial Park, Route 3A north
of the junction of Route 11 and Salisbury Road.
Gilford - Gunstock Acres,-Schoolhouse Hill Road and Gunstock
Hill Road area.
Gilmanton Sewage disposal schemes for Gilmanton Iron Works,
Crystal Lake, Sawyer Lake and Gilmanton.
-------
122
Meredith
Moultonborough
Northfield
Ossipee
Sanbornton
Tuftonboro
Wakefield
Wolfeboro
Extension of Eastman Shore-Laighton Avenue Inter-
ceptor to Meredith Center.
Meredith Center to include the Chemung Road shoreline
of Lake Wicwas.
The western shoreline of Lake Waukewan.
Extensions along Routes 3 & 104.
Sewerage for Meredith Neck.
Shorelines of Squam Lake and Lake Winnipesaukee.
Moultonborough Village and Moultonborough Falls.
West side of Sondogardy Pond, Route 3B south of 1-93.
Ossipee Lake Shores, adjacent to Broad and Leavitt
Bays.
Bay Road and Upper Bay Road area, adjacent to
Sanbornton Interceptor.
Entire Lake Winnipesaukee and Mirror Lake shore-
lines, including Melvin Village.
Sanbornville and Union areas, Province Lake, Belleau
Lake, Pine River Pond.
Routes 28 and 109 area including Wolfeboro Center,
Keewaydin, Wolfeboro Neck, and Kingswood Road-Timber
Lane area.
The areas are designated future study because it is not certain, in
terms of water quality, if the present development warrants municipal
sewerage. Some areas, notably those in Moultonborough and Tuftonboro,
may not warrant municipal sewerage for some time; the present water
quality is generally good and municipal sewerage would be extremely
costly. In some areas, a combination of land use controls and specific
non-point source controls should be considered the desired plan to
insure continued good water quality.
It is recommended that facilities plans be prepared for the Towns of
Alton, Gilmanton, Meredith, Moultonborough, Tuftonboro, and Wakefield.
Meredith is recommended primarily because of the shoreline development
on Meredith Neck. The Alton facilities plan should address the future
regional interceptor route to Wolfeboro (the possibility of extending
WRBP sewerage to Wolfeboro after 1995). All studies should place their
emphasis on the designated future study areas.
The studies should take into account that municipal sewerage for these
areas will be costly and is not the only alternative. A program includ-
ing land use controls, enforcement of existing regulations relating to
septic systems, replacement of failing or inadequate septic systems,
and providing cluster septic systems in real problem areas could go far
in protecting water quality. A program of this nature could in the
long run, improve the septic system pollution situation. If water
quality is presently good, this may be the most feasible plan.
-------
123
E. Industrial and Commercial Sources
A review of the industries in the region indicates that most indus-
trial applications are small and pollution loadings, with the
exception of plating wastes and toxic metallic ions, are not present
in sufficient concentrations to cause an interruption in the bac-
terial growth cycle. Several companies have already put in some form
of pre-treatment to remove any chemicals that would be detrimental if
introduced into their waste flow. Upon completion of the Winnipesaukee
River Basin Project, all significant wastes of an industrial nature
will be sewered to sewage treatment plants.
Some companies use dye or coloring operations that produce wastes
colored by the chemicals used in their process operations. Combining
each individual waste stream flow with the main wastewater stream flow
supplies dilution that could result in an innocuous, undetectable
color. The addition of oxygen by the treatment plant will further
oxidize any coloring matter left and final chlorination before discharge
will add an equivalent bleaching agent to further remove color. How-
ver, without a complete analysis and laboratory work, it is impossible
to define actual treatment required to remove color.
The final concentration and toxicity from metallic ions and compounds
used by industries will be very low and it is questionable if there
are sufficient concentrations of these ions to have a detrimental
effect on bacterial action. A complete analysis of the treatment
plant influent would be necessary to ascertain whether there is any
excessive ion concentration. As an example, cyanides and chromium
are toxic but if their concentrations are below an allowable limit,
there is no reason why they can't be routed to the treatment plant.
Oil is another contaminant appearing in several manufacturing waste
flows either from metal working operations or derived from cleaning
operations. A small amount of oil can be tolerated in a treatment
plant. Many companies install equipment to recover oil for either
reuse or sale. Oil emulsions can usually be broken up by the use of
coagulants; the separated oil can then be recovered or burned. Most
oil separators developed by the American Petroleum Institute will
provide separation with a water discharge suitable for admission to a
sewage treatment plant.
Iron and non-ferrous castings usually require large amounts of quench
water. This quench water accumulates small amounts of metal and scale
as a contaminant as well as a temperature rise. The limiting tempera-
ture permitted for cooling water discharge is 150° F. Quench water
should be discharged to lagoons where it will be cooled while providing
a settling basin for particulates.
Wool, cotton and asbestos fibers admitted to any sewer system will
cause a buildup of fibers and eventually plug a pipe line. Screens
should be installed to trap and entrain fibers and to lower the
chances of a fiber buildup in waste discharge lines. Wool and cotton
fibers discharged will eventually be decomposed, but because asbestos
is a mineral, bacterial action will have no effect and a continuous
buildup can be expected.
-------
124
Of the 77 industries identified and screened, only 25 have wastes
which may need pretreatment. These industries are identified in
the complete point source control report prepared by Hoyle, Tanner &
Associates, Inc. and the possible reasons for pretreatment listed.
It is recommended that the NHWSPCC initiate a testing program to
determine which of these industries will actually need pretreatment.
The few industries that will continue to discharge cooling water to
watercourses should also be tested to determine if pretreatment is
necessary. For those industries which will be discharging to the
Winnipesaukee River Basin System, the requirements of the New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission will answer these ques-
tions. No changes in existing permit conditions are recommended.
F. Wastewater Control Systems
The following four measures to control wastewater loads are recom-
mended.
1. Infiltration/Inflow reduction by sewer system rehabilitation and
repair and elimination of roof and foundation drains.
2. Household water conservation measures such as water-saving
appliances and fixtures.
3. The use of water meters to impose water and wastewater rates
porportional to water -used and wastewater generated.
4. Education of the public on the value of water resources in order
to reduce consumption.
6. Costs to Homeowners
A factor that is sometimes given too little consideration in the
planning of sewage collection and treatment facilities is the impact,
in the form of direct monetary costs, upon individual homeowners. The
costs to homeowners fall within three categories: (1) capital costs
for facilities construction, (2) operation and maintenance charges,
and (3) the cost to connect from each house to the sewer line in the
street.
1. Capital Costs In simplified terms, current arrangements for
financing sewage treatment facilities in New Hampshire result in
5% of the total capital costs being borne by the community. 75%
of the total cost is provided by the Federal Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and 20% by the N.H. Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission. The 5% attributable to the community is reflected on
the property tax bills of all taxpayers in the town, not just those
who use the sewer system.
2. Operation and Maintenance Charges The yearly costs for the opera-
tion and maintenance of a sewage treatment facility are assessed to
only the users of the system. There can be great variance in
operation and maintenance costs depending upon the type of treatment
-------
125
Sf ooPratinn no Or ?ot pumplng stations are required, the number
rLrn A I 9 perfonne1' etc. Individual homeowners pay a yearly
charge determined by dividing the total cost by the number of users
3- Cost to Connect from Each House to the Sewer Line
Pr°Jects» *t ^ generally the homeowner's
ny to construct, at his own expense, the line to link
his house to the pipe in the street. Most sewer ordinances mandate
that any property within 100 feet of the sewer line connect to the
pipe. There are a great many variables that can affect the cost of
doing this. Among them are: the distance from the house to the
street, the type of soil present, whether or not there is ledge
present, and whether or not the sewer line is above or below the
elevation of the house. If the sewer line is above the level of the
house, a sewage pump would be required. Rough estimates of costs
are as follows:
installation of a 4" P.V.C. line (for gravity feed) $10/ft.
(if sewage is pumped to the street, a smaller diameter
line can be used, but the cost will not differ greatly)
ledge removal
< 5 cu. yds. $150-200/cu. yd.
>5 cu. yds. $ 30- 50/cu. yd.
sewage pump $500-1100 installed
(cost will vary according to the quality of the pump
selected and the size needed)
If a number of homeowners were to have the work done at the same
time by the same contractor, labor and equipment costs could be
reduced.
-------
126
TABLE 4-1
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN PROJECT
PLANNED AND RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS
COST ESTIMATE AUGUST, 1977
CAPITAL1 FIRST YEAR1
COMPONENT COST 0 8 M (1980)
PLANNED
Belmont Interceptor $ 1,950,000 $ 3,260
Winnisquam By-Pass 7,700,000 24,900
Franklin Interceptor 3,000,000 5,000
Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant 10,750,000 550,000
Pemigewasset Interceptors 3,100,000 10,750
Gilford Interceptor 6,800,000 13,350
West Paugus Interceptor 6,550,000 11,450
Jewett Brook Interceptor 570,000 4,000
Meredith Interceptor 2,300,000 7,500
Tilton-Northfield Interceptor 2,500,000 5,000
North-field Connections 540,000 1,900
Sanbornton Interceptor 2,300,000 8,750
Til ton Interceptor 1.450.000 l.QOQ
(Sub-Total) $49,510,000 $ 646,860
RECOMMENDED
Alton Bay Extension $ 8,675,000 $ 40,000
Bay District Extension 1,870.000 12.136
(Sub-Total) $10,545,000 $ 52,136
(Total) $60,055,000
Sources: Planned New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission.
Recommended Water Pollution from Point Sources. Lakes Region
208 Project, Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
-------
TABLE 4-2
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN PROJECT
TOWN-BY-TOWN APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS
127
PLANNED
TOWN/CITY
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
North-field
Sanbornton
Til ton
Alton
Bay District
PERCENT
7
10
28
30
15
3
3
4
RECOMMENDED2
CAPITAL COST
$ 3,465,700
4,951,000
13,862,800
14,853,000
7,426,500
1,485,300
1,485,300
1,980,400
$49,510,000
$ 8,675,000
1,870,000
FIRST YEAR
0 & M (1980)
$ 31,860
160,100
52,740
258, 7701
41,190
30,100
25,900
46,200
$ 646,860
$ 40,000
12,136
$10,545,000
$ 52,136
^Includes $29,100 attributable to the Laconia State School.
For purposes of this financial analysis, it is assumed that Alton and the
Bay District will defray their own costs due to the interceptor extensions.
Sources: Planned New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commis-
sion.
Recommended Water Pollution from Point Sources. Lakes Region 208
Project, Hoyle, Tanner & Associates.
-------
128
TABLE 4-3
PLANNED
MUNICIPAL SEWERAGE
COST ESTIMATE, AUGUST, 1977
FIRST YEAR
TOWN/CITY
Belmont
Gilford
Laconia
Os si pee
CAPITAL COST
$ 4,021,000
2,535,000
3,585,000
2,000,000
$12,141,000
0 & M (1980)
$28,438
20,296
16,402
23,600
$88,736
RECOMMENDED
MUNICIPAL SEWERAGE
COST ESTIMATE, AUGUST, 1977
FIRST YEAR
TOWN CITY
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Meredith
Moultonboro
Ossipee
Wol f eboro
Source : Water
CAPITAL COST
$ 2,770,000
2,470,000
1,525,000
1,200,000
1,600,000
1,900,000
1,700,000
$13,165,000
Pollution from Point Sources,
0 & M (1980)
$ 29,600
19,092
15,096
9316
12,876
22,200
14,356
$123,136
Lakes Region 208 Project
Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc.
-------
129
TABLE 4-4
AREAS DELETED FROM LAKES REGION 208 POINT SOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Town/City
Alton
Ashland
Belmont
Franklin
Gilford
Holderness
Laconla
Meredith
Sanbomton
Tllton
Holfeboro
Area
Rte. 28 and Bay Road - south
of Town center
Eastern shore of Alton Bay
from Peggey's Cove to
Chestnut Cove
Interceptor along Squam River
to Holderness Village
(Includes
Interceptor along Route 106
to Gil man ton
Route 127 north of City
Route 3 opposite site of
Franklin Regional Treatment
Plant
Reduction 1n size of area
recommended to be served in
Gilford Village area delete
most of Gunstock Hill Road,
School house Hill Road,
Merrill Street
Gunstock Acres
Holderness Village, shorelines
of Little Squam Lake and
western end of Squam Lake -
Interceptor to Ashland Sewage
Treatment Plant
White Oaks Road - delete all
but that area closest to Weirs
Boulevard
Route 3 from Parade Road to
Laconla City line
Meredith Center
Sanbornton Square
Route 3B from Route 140 to
Sanbornton Square
Route 28 from Holfeboro Falls
to Route 109 - along Route 109
to Uentworth State Park
South Main Street below Kings-
wood Regional High School,
including shoreline of South
of Wolfeboro Bay
Reduction In size of area
recommended off North Main
Street to exclude area
north of Forest Road
Capital Cost
S 700,000
3,300,000
1,980,000
costs for Hold
770,000
500,000
1,900,000
1,980,000
[Includes costs
ceptor and ser
450,000
600,000
700,000
(costs inclu
shown for T
850,000
1,500,000
870,000
1977
Operation &
Maintenance
Cost
$ 7,000
31,000
19,000
erness Village)
10,000
3,800
19,000
for inter-
vice in Ashland)
1,400
4,300
7,200
ded- In amount
11 ton below)
5,000
15,000
5,100
Reasons for Deletion
No projected need until after 1995; would
encourage strip development.
Cost prohibitive for area served; no pro-
jected need until after 1995.
No current need; would encourage addi-
tional growth on Squam and Little Squam
Lakes; would encourage strip development
on Routes 3 & 25.
Sewer service not needed in Gilmanton by
1995.
Current development sparse.
Current development sparse; much of area
prime agricultural land - provision of
sewer service would encourage development.
Sparse current development; would encour-
age loss of prime agricultural land to
development.
Cost prohibitive for area served; no pro-
jected need until after 1995.
Current development scattered; provision
of sewer service would encourage strip
development on Routes 3 & 25 and additional
shoreline development.
Provision of sewers would encourage loss of
prime agricultural land to development;
density of current development does not
warrant sewers.
Would encourage strip development on Route
3; current development sparse.
Cost prohibitive for current development
which would be served.
Current development does not warrant sewer-
ing; provision of sewer service would
encourage development.
Would encourage strip development and loss
of prime agricultural land; current develop-
ment limited.
Cost prohibitive for area served - current
development scattered; would encourage strip
development along Routes 28 4 109.
Density of current development does not
warrant sewering; provision of sewer service
would encourage additional shoreline develop
ment.
Insufficient current development to warrant
sewering.
Note- The areas listed above were recommended for sewering in preliminary point source control reports, but were deleted for
reasons cited after an assessment of impacts. However, the irwis are still recognized as needing future study.
-------
130
TABLE 4-5
SUMMARY TABLE
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR SELECTED POINT SOURCE CONTROL PLAN
Town/City
Alton
Ashland
Belmont
Brookfield
Center Harbor
Franklin
Gilford
Laconia
Area
(refer to map
in Summary
Report)
1 & 2
A & F
B
C
D & E
1
A
A
B
C
1
2
3
A
B
C
D
E
1
?
3
Capital Cost1
$ 8,675,000
3,465,700
1,325,000
895,000
255,000
1.546.000
7,486,700
1,870,000
4,951,000
2,320,000
A en ntv\
7,721,000
13,862,800
1,125,000
550,000
860,000
600.000
770,000
1.100,000
18,867,800
14,853,000
900,000
620,000
710,000
255,000
1,100,000
1,355,000
170.000
19,793,000
Operation &
Maintenance
Cost2
$ 40,000
31,860
7,100
8,000
3,800
5.200
55.960
8,200
160,100
20,000
186,100
52,740
13,200
1,600
2,400
2.600
1,800
8,500
82,840
258,770
2.400
1,600
2,800
700
6,400
9,700
500
282,370
Remarks
Reconmend extension of Winnipesaukee River
Basin Project, Interceptor Ellacoya to
Peggey's Cove.
No planned or recommended sewerage.
Town share of Winnipesaukee River Basin
Project (components within Belmont:
Belmont Interceptor, Wlnnlsquam By-Pass).
Village Area
Silver Lake Area
Wlnnlsquam Beach
Wlnnlsquam Service Area
No planned or recommended sewerage.
Recormended extension of Winnipesaukee
River Basin Project, Meredith Interceptor
Extension to Center Harbor.
*C1ty share of Winnipesaukee River Basin
Project (components within Franklin:
Franklin Interceptor, Pemigewasset Inter-
ceptors, Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant).
Interceptors around Webster Lake
Sewer rehabilitation
*Town share of Winnipesaukee River Basin
Project (component within Gilford: Gilford
Interceptor).
Winnipesaukee Shorefront
Black Brook Area
Jewett Brook Area
Gunstock Interceptor to Gilford Village
Pheasant Ridge Interceptor
Governor's Island
No planned or recommended sewerage.
No planned or recommended sewerage.
*C1ty share of Winnipesaukee River Basin
Project (components within Laconia: West
Paugus Interceptor, Jewett Brook Inter-
ceptor).
South End Area, presently under construc-
tion.
\
Onechee Area
Lakeport Area
Pendleton Beach Area
Cove Area
Eastman Shore - Lalghton Avenue Inter-
ceptor.
Pheasant Rldae Ifiterron+nv InrltiHoff nnrior
"Gilford11.
Pzndleton Beach Road Interceptor
-------
TABLE 4-5
(continued)
131
Meredith
Moultonboro
New Hampton
Northfleld
Osslpee
Sanbornton
Sandwich
T11 ton
Tuftonboro
Wakefleld
Wolfeboro
A & B
1 & 2
1
1 & 2
A, B & C
D
A
1*2
7,426,000
1,200,000
6,626,000
1,600,000
1,485,300
1,780,000
250,000
1.900.000
3,930.000
1.485,300
1,980,400
1,700,000
41,190
6.700
47,890
8,700
30,100
18,100
1,900
15.000
35,6o6
25,900
46,200
9,700
*Town share of W1nn1pesaukee River Basin
Project (components within Meredith:
Meredith Interceptor, portion of Sanbornton
Interceptor) .
Interceptors for southern half of Lake
Waukewan
Interceptors along Route 25 and southern
half of Kanasatka.
No planned or recommended sewerage.
*Town share of Wlnnipesaukee River Basin
Project (components within Northfleld:
Tllton -Northfleld Interceptor, Northfleld
Connections).
Planned collection & treatment facilities.
Recommended expansion of Precinct A.
Recommended Interceptor and STP capacity.
*Town share of Wlnnipesaukee River Basin
Project (components within Sanbornton:
Sanbornton Interceptor).
No planned or recommended sewerage.
*Town share of Wlnnipesaukee River Basin
Project (component within Til ton: Til ton
Interceptor).
No planned or recommended sewerage.
No planned or recomnended sewerage.
Wolfeboro Bay & Jockey Cove shorelines.
All capital costs shown are total costs and do not reflect 75J Federal and 20* State funding, where eligible, for
treatment facilities, Interceptors and other eligible components (for all Hlnnlpesaukee Basin Project sewerage and
municipal Interceptors, the town's share will be approximately 5S of the totals shown; 1n most cases the towns must
-pay 100J of the cost of lateral sewers and service connections).
Operation and maintenance costs must be paid entirely by towns.
To determine town's approximate yearly obligation, take 5% of total capital costs and divide by 20 (since in most cases,
capital costs will be bonded for a 20-year period), then add operation and maintenance costs and Interest charges.
*See Tables 6-1 and 6-2 for a listing of the costs attributable to each component of the Wlnnipesaukee Basin Project and
a town-by-town apportionment of costs.
Sources: Lakes Region Planning Commission; Water Pollution From Point Sources. Lakes Region 208 Project. Hoyle, Tanner &
Associates, Inc.
(Note: Costs shown are only for major components of the plan - costs for lateral sewers, service connections, etc., not
shown.)
-------
132
I HOLOERN
_:e W TERCEL T-Ol
GILFORD
INTERCEPTOR
-FRANKLIN SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT (OUTFALL TO
MERRIMACK RIVER)
SEWAGE TREATMENT
(EXISTING)
WINNISQUAM ^fNTERCEPTOR
BELMONT INTERCEPTOR
TILTON-NORTHFIELD INTERCEPTOR
LAKES REGION PLANNING COMMISSION
208 PROJECT
WINNIPESAUKEE RIVER BASIN CONTROL PROJECT
FIGURE I
WJEP4REO BY
LAKES REGION PLANNING COMMISSION
MEREDITH. NEW HAMPSHIRE
-------
CHAPTER 5
Land Use
Controls
-------
133
LAND USE CONTROLS
... . !*.1s ^possible to separate the topics of land use and water quality.
virtually every land use activity eventually has some impact upon water quality.
A major emphasis in the Lakes Region 208 Project was therefore placed upon a
study of land use activities, their impacts upon water quality and upon methods
of regulating land use activities to minimize adverse impacts.
As a separate activity from the 208 Project, the Lakes Region Planning
commission has developed and adopted a Regional Land Use Plan. The Plan was
developed to serve as a guideline and policy document for individual communities
to follow in making local planning and land use decisions. This Plan was a
primary determinant in recommending individual land use control actions at the
local level.
Another important consideration in making recommendations was a review of
the plans and controls already in existence in each community. Part of this task
was to review the comprehensive plans for those 12 (out of 21) towns in the pro-
ject area which have them. In addition, the staff reviewed planning and
industrial questionnaires distributed to town officials and planning boards to
help identify priority areas of concern. Subsequently, an extensive mapping
program was completed which inventoried the natural and physical characteristics
of each town. The staff also had the benefit of being involved in ongoing local
assistance projects, an extensive public participation program, and received
valuable input from the 208 Steering Committee, Citizen Concerns Committee,
Technical Advisory Committee and LRPC Commission representatives and sub-
committees. Importantly, the LRPC also met with Selectmen and City officials,
Planning Boards, Conservation Commissions and local special interest groups,
including lake associations, service clubs and school districts.
One further consideration involved a review for consistency with the land
use goals, policies and recommendations section of the Report of the Governor's
Advisory Committee on New Hampshire's Future.
Recommended land use controls are summarized on a town-by-town basis in
Table 5-1. The controls are also listed on the charts in the Summary Report.
Several factors entered into establishing the priorities shown on the Table.
One important element was an assessment of the problems present in the community
and the need for any immediate action. For example, the priorities established
for adoption of steep slopes, wetlands and aquifer protection ordinances reflect
the extent to which such a critical resource exists in the town in question and
its location with respect to development pressures. Thus, a steep slopes
ordinance was assigned a high priority in Ossipee, but a low priority in Belmont.
For towns that border on a common lake, ratings for the adoption of shoreland
zoning ordinances and controls are similar to maintain consistency.
Inherent within the rating system is the time frame for implementation.
Those items with a high priority should receive special emphasis for inclusion
in the March 1979 Town Meeting. Likewise, the intermediate and low priority
items reflect an intermediate and long-range implementation time frame. In those
categories where no action is recommended, no action was deemed necessary during
the 208 Project time frame. In towns where several categories have received a
high priority rating, it may not realistically be feasible to accomplish all the
recommendations in a single year. However, through the use of special committees
and study groups, a continuing work effort could be established.
-------
134
TABLE 5-1
RECOMMENDED LAND USE CONTROLS, LAKES REGION
Town
Alton
Ashland
Belmont*
Brookfield
Center Harbor
Franklin*
Gilford*
Gilmanton
Holderness
Laconia*
Meredith*
Moultonboro
New Hampton
Northfield*
Os si pee
Sanbornton*
Sandwich
Til ton*
Tuftonboro
Wakefield
Wol f eboro
Zoning
Ordinance
#
*
*
#
#
#
#
#
*
#
#
*
*
#
*
#
f
#
#
#
#
Subdivision
Regulations
#
1
#
#
#
*
#
#
#
#
I
#
#
#
#
1
#
#
#
*
#
Subdivision
Amendments (Lot
Size-Soil/Slope
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
#
*
_
*
*
*
*
*
Steep Slope
Ordinance
*
*
+
*
*
X
*
*
*
X
*
*
*
X
*
#
*
-
I
X
*
Wetland Conservation
Ordinance
*
X
*
#
*
*
#
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
#
*
*
o>
U
c
res
C 3
r- in
5 a*
i !->
f- «/»
3 >>
CQ CO
#
i?
s
$
#
#
f
#
f
#
#
*
#
£
X
#
#
*
f
*
#
*A part of the Winnipesaukee River Basin Project.
# Existing
* High Priority
X Intermediate Priority
+ Low Priority
Not Recommended
-------
135
A brief description of the recommended land use controls and the rationale
for their adoption follows. All the model ordinances described appeared in the
appendices of the Draft Plan/EIS and are available from the LRPC offices.
A. Zoning
Through State enabling legislation, zoning is the chief instrument
available to towns to control land use activities. Presently 15 of
21 towns within the 208 area have instituted some form of zoning
ordinance. Traditionally, zoning has attempted to separate various
land uses into definitive groups to insure protection of each category
of use.
The Commission, through its ongoing studies and as a part of its 208
Project, has compiled a model zoning ordinance. This ordinance has
been generalized to allow for ease in adaptation by communities and
can be expanded to encompass additional areas of concern.
B. Subdivision Regulations
Subdivision regulations deal with "the division of a lot, tract or
parcel of land into two or more lots, plots, sites or other division
of land for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale, rent,
lease, condominium conveyance or of building development". In
contrast to zoning regulations, subdivision controls do not regulate
land use, but rather apply to the division of land. Land subdivision
regulations generally have several specific considerations: the
compatibility of the proposal to existing private and municipal
facilities; the overall acceptability of the layout of the proposed
subdivision; and the administrative procedure entailed in the pre-
sentation of the proposed subdivision to the appropriate reviewing
agency.
Although all the towns within the 208 Project area have subdivision
authority with some form of subdivision regulations arid review
process, several regulations could be reorganized to better define
their purpose and requirements. In addition, a number of town zoning
ordinances specify a uniform minimum lot size throughout the community
which results in uniform density in subdivisions. This application of
uniform lot size throughout the entire town does not identify areas
of greater or lesser potential for development based on land capabi-
lity or environmental considerations.
Model subdivision regulation amendments which can be adopted by the
Town Planning Boards to base lot sizes on soil and slope have been
prepared.
Another technique available to communities for protecting environmentally
sensitive land areas is the special resource or overlay zone. This approach
differs from traditional zoning in that specific conditions, such as wetlands,
steep slopes, floodplains and shoreline areas are defined and restrictions
placed on their utilization for development. These restrictions are in addition
to those already contained in the existing zoning districts.
-------
136
C. Wetland Conservation District
Only off-hand attention has been given in New Hampshire to the need
for protecting fragile environments. Wetlands have been viewed as
sources of cheap land rather than in terms of their wildlife habitat
and water storage capabilities. Wetland areas play an important part
both in the balance of nature and maintenance of public safety and
health. These areas serve as prime wildlife breeding areas and
habitat. But as important to man, they act as buffers where pollutants,
such as nutrients or sediments, are trapped and stored. In addition,
they act to control flood hazards through their ability to absorb large
quantities of flood water and then retain and release this moisture
slowly over a long period of time.
Wetland areas have, over the past years, been viewed as unproductive
and wasted land and, as a result, the State laws lack a clear protection
policy. In fact, under RSA 431 wetlands may be drained and filled by a
town upon order of the Selectmen. In the Lakes Region, many wetland
areas are adjacent to lakes and ponds. Indiscriminate dredging or
filling of these areas would disrupt the balance of nature and adversely
alter the quality of the water in the lake or pond.
The LRPC has developed a model ordinance aimed at protecting the public
health, safety and general welfare by controlling and guiding the use
of wetland areas. Each town has the authority to protect their wetlands
by regulating the uses permitted in these areas. The model ordinance
lists those uses which the LRPC has identified as being compatible with
maintenance of the natural values of wetlands.
An alternative to the model wetland ordinance would entail outright
acquisition of wetlands by a town or town organization such as the
Conservation Commission. Although this would offer the best protection,
it would be a costly endeavor and one which a town most likely could not
afford.
D. Steep Slope Conservation District
The intent of a steep slope ordinance is to control development on
steep slopes, generally those having a grade of over 15 percent. The
problems encountered by development on steep slopes entail erosion and
sedimentation associated with construction, malfunctioning septic
systems, difficult road construction and aesthetics.
Erosion and sedimentation becomes a problem when development excessively
disturbs trees and natural vegetative cover or topsoil is removed
improperly. The result often leads to such water quality problems as
siltation of streams, lakes and other water bodies. Sedimentation can
also affect the navigibility of rivers, lakes and ponds. An area less
defined is the impact of sedimentation on destroying fish spawning
grounds and the choking off of plant life. The above factors have an
overall deleterious affect on water quality. Another important
-------
137
consideration of steep slopes is that septic systems are more difficult
to design and more likely to malfunction. Often-times the soils will
t>e shallow on steep slopes causing the effluent to issue out on the
surface resulting in a health hazard. A municipality may then incur a
large monetary obligation to provide sewer service to the area. Finally,
many towns in the Lakes Region rely heavily on the scenic beauty of the
region to attract tourists who contribute significantly to the economic
vitality of the area. As such, a poorly designed development may
adversely affect a scenic vista and detract from the surrounding beauty.
The result then becomes not only a loss of scenic beauty, but also a
decrease in the expenditure of tourist monies.
The model steep slopes ordinance is designed as an overlay zone to be
incorporated in an existing zoning ordinance.
E. Flood Plain
1. Flood Plain Conservation District
Although the National Flood Insurance Program has been adopted
by most towns in the 208 area, this does not preempt local
efforts to place greater control upon development in areas subject
to periodic flooding. Not adopting the Flood Insurance Program
may affect a homeowner's ability to obtain certain loans or grants
that involve Federal participation, but the program is not mandatory.
As a supplement to the Flood Insurance Program, the LRPC has pre-
pared a model Flood Plain Conservation District Ordinance. The
purpose of this ordinance is to control development and land use
in flood prone areas and to reduce expenditures of town funds for
services to areas subject to periodic flooding. An important
environmental concern involves the preservation of natural conditions
which are conducive to the maintenance of constant rates of water
flow throughout the year, such as withholding rapid water runoff
contributing to downstream flooding and providing area for ground-
water absorption for maintenance of the subsurface water supply.
The model flood plain conservation district ordinance can be
adopted as an amendment to a town's Zoning Ordinance as a special
overlay zone.
2. National Flood Insurance Program
The Flood Disaster Protection Act, amended to the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, has developed minimal standards and require-
ments which towns must adopt if property owners are to be eligible
for Federally guaranteed flood damage insurance. Until a town
joins the program, any citizen with property in the flood plain
zones designated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development is ineligible for any Federally related financial
assistance, such as grants, SBA and FmHA loans, VA and FHA mortgage
loans from Federally insured, regulated or supervised lending
institutions.
-------
138
For a town to comply with the requirements of the Act, a town
must have a Planning Board with subdivision approval authority
and adopted regulations and a building permit system requiring
permits for all new construction in designated flood plain
zones. The town, at Town Meeting, must vote to conform to the
requirements of the Act and adopt pertinent ordinances meeting
the requirements.
The Commission has developed a series of model articles to assist
towns in meeting the requirements to enter the program. The model
articles should be placed in the Town Meeting Warrant to accomplish
the above objectives.
F. Aquifer Protection Ordinance
The population of the Region has been projected by the Commission
to increase steadily over the next few decades. One of the impacts
resulting from this growth will be demands for increased municipal
services. One important service will be providing an adequate
public water supply. Presently, most domestic water is supplied
either from individual wells or from a reservoir or protected
surface water body. However, as new demands increase, alternative
sources will have to be located. One such source may be aquifers.
An aquifer is essentially an underground bed or zone, usually con-
sisting of porous sand and gravel, that contains water or has the
potential of producing potable water. It is important in the long
range that these groundwater sources be protected from contamination
or pollution resulting from uncontrolled development or adverse land
use practices. Some of the practices that may adversely impact an
aquifer include landfills or dumps, intensive development and
improper storage of hazardous materials or liquids.
The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared maps delineating potential
regional aquifer areas. The Commission has utilized this informa-
tion and incorporated it onto individual town base maps. The
information also indicates the relative potential groundwater yield
for each of the areas.
In order to protect potential future public water supplies, towns
can adopt the model ordinance as an amendment to their existing
zoning ordinance as a special district or overlay zone.
G. Shore!and Zoning
Lakes are a valuable natural resource. The lake shore attracts land
uses which are special and unique. It is an area with distinct
characteristics unlike those found in any other districts. The uses
of these special areas should be subjected to equally special controls
which recognize the attractiveness of such areas, while at the same
time, providing for a reasonable measure of protection of more
ecologically sensitive or critical resources. The intent of this
section is to suggest a model Shoreland Zoning Ordinance suitable
for adoption by communities. With the aid of this Ordinance, each
community could establish shoreland districts which include criteria
for development.
-------
139
Lakeshore zoning should permit and provide for residential and
cluster development and limited water-oriented commercial uses.
bucn zoning should also identify assurances for public access,
maintain the lakeshore and the immediately adjacent areas in an
attractive uncluttered manner and, in the process, include
regulations which will minimize any potential for water pollution.
Lake frontage is becoming a scarce resource. It is in the interest
of the community that helter-skelter and detrimental development
cease. The model shore!and ordinance sets forth the basic concepts
for the protection of lakeshore areas.
H. Subsurface Disposal/Health Ordinance
Within the planning jurisdiction of the 208 Project, only five towns
have adopted any local health or subsurface disposal regulations.
The Town of Alton has developed an ordinance which requires a permit
from the local Health Officer for all wells and sewerage systems
regardless of whether they are new or reconstructed. The ordinance
has further implications on preserving water quality in that it
specifies setback requirements from water bodies and domestic water
supplies, minimum septic tank capacities, construction techniques
and other pertinent data. The ordinance adopted by the Town of
Holderness regulates only the construction of sewage disposal
systems.
A subsurface disposal/health ordinance can be a very effective
control mechanism to local communities. Not only will it insure
public health and safety, but it will assist in insuring adequate
drinking water supplies for the future. In addition, because of
the State's limited enforcement manpower, local regulation of
subsurface disposal will ensure compliance with established standards
and enable towns to enforce more stringent standards if they choose
to do so.
I. Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinance
Uncontrolled runoff and accelerated erosion often occur when land
is developed. This is especially true during the construction
stage. The uncontrolled runoff can form rills and gullies, wash
out roads, and scour cut and fill areas. The resulting sediment
fills road ditches, storm drains and streams. Sediment deposits
destroy vegetation and aesthetics and can limit land use. These
and other damages are costly both to the developer and to land and
water users. Careful application of proven conservation measures
can prevent or control much of this damage. The model erosion and
sedimentation ordinance sets forth standards and a procedure for
controlling erosion and sedimentation.
-------
140
The most important aspect in the overall success of the recommended land
use controls is their enforcement. A study of the recommendations from the
point of view of the costs necessary to retain professionals to review, inspect
and enforce ordinances and controls indicates that most communities could
probably not afford all the expenditures. One solution to each town having to
obtain their own professional would be for towns to share such expertise. This
approach can make available the necessary expertise, while not requiring an
excessive expenditure. Salaries and associated expenses can be appropriated by
pro rating to each town a share based on a town population, equalized valuation
or services provided.
The following proposal for municipal compacts is an initial step in address-
ing the question of adequate implementation.
Shared Code Enforcement Officer or Health Officer
- Ashland Holderness
- Wolfeboro - Tuftonboro Brookfield
- Moultonborough - Center Harbor
New Hampton - Bristol*
Til ton - Northfield
Ossipee Freedom* Effingham*
Sandwich Tamworth
The following two lists identify towns which should uniformly adopt specific
controls to facilitate enforcement:
Uniform Shoreland Controls for Major Lakes
Alton Wolfeboro Tuftonboro Moultonborough
Center Harbor Meredith Laconia Gilford
(Lake Winnipesaukee)
Holderness Ashland - Sandwich Moultonborough
Center Harbor (Squam Lakes)
Laconia - Meredith Sanbornton Belmont
(Lake Winnisquam)
Ossipee Freedom* (Ossipee Lake)
Uniform Steep Slope Controls
Ossipee - Sandwich - Moultonborough Tuftonboro
Tamworth* (Ossipee Mountains)
Moultonborough Sandwich (Red Hill)
Gilford Alton Gilmanton (Belknap Mountains)
*Towns are not a part of the 208 Project area.
-------
Regional Land Use Plan
141
Pi^nnn Land ^e Plan policy statement adopted by the Lakes Region
nanmng Commission at its meeting of November 28, 1977, is included here for
reference. The following policies are those which form the basis for the
u- ?na! Land Use P1an- Each section is preceded by a statement of objectives
which the policies are designed to achieve:
Regional Land Use Plan Policy Statement
OVERALL GOAL;
GROWTH PATTERNS
Objecti ve:
Policies:
To accommodate both economic development and
environmental protection in the future growth of
the region. Maintenance and improvement of water
quality and air quality are of prime importance.
To provide for future land use patterns which
eliminate sprawl, permit the retention of
significant areas of open space, and minimize
the need for additional public facilities and
services by efficiently using those which
already exist.
(1) Encourage new growth to occur first in and
adjacent to existing town centers and/or
where public facilities are available.
(2) Encourage higher density development where
public facilities are available.
(3) Encourage cluster development in those areas
where the land is capable of supporting it
and where existing community facilities are
adequate.
(4) Base the intensity of new growth in areas not
served by public facilities upon the natural
capability of the land.
(5) Prevent strip development.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Objective: To develop a balanced regional economy which will
provide employment for a population of varied
characteristics and employment skills.
Policies: (1) Diversify the economic base of the Region.
(2) Encourage new non-polluting industry in areas
provided with public facilities.
-------
142
TRANSPORTATION
Objective:
To develop an adequate transportation network
without adverse impact on the physical or cultural
environment.
Policies: (1) Encourage the development of mass transportation.
(2) Improve the regional highway network to rein-
force the desired growth patterns.
(3) Encourage revitalization of the railroads.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Objective:
To utilize the provision of public facilities both as
a means of directing growth to desired areas and to
solve existing problems.
Policies: (1) Provide additional sewer service as recommended
in the Lakes Region 208 Water Quality Management
Plan (Summary Report and Point Source Control
section).
(2) Encourage the use of small community sewerage
systems in existing problem areas.
(3) Encourage maintenance and upgrading of all exist-
ing subsurface disposal systems to meet current
standards.
(4) Encourage the protection and preservation of
sources of public water supply.
(5) Encourage regional and intermunicipal solutions
to solid waste disposal.
OPEN SPACE/RECREATION
Objectives: To protect, preserve and enhance the physical and
natural resources of the Region by providing for an
increase in the quantity and quality of open spaces
and the number, type and variety of recreation
facilities.
Policies: (1) Maintain critical resource areas as open space
(slopes over 15%, wetlands, floodplains).
(2) Maintain existing lands in public ownership as
open space.
(3) Encourage acquisition of additional public land
and easements, particularly shore frontage, as
land becomes available.
-------
143
AGRICULTURE
Objective:
Policies:
(4) Encourage multiple recreation use of public
lands.
(5) Encourage the preservation of significant
natural and man-made features of the landscape.
(6) Encourage the preservation and maintenance of
areas of historic and cultural significance.
To ensure that the potential for agricultural use of
the land is maintained and enhanced for the future.
(1) Encourage the maintenance and expansion of exist-
ing agricultural areas.
(2) Protect prime agricultural lands from development.
------- |