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:    March—October)
                           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.

-------