Performance standards based on carrying capacity limitations for land uses public water supply lands, residential ; water uses : waste disposal, recreation

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

NEW

HAMPSHIRE
C.Z.M.

PROGRAM

HD
211
.N4
P47
1975

N.R. Coastal Resources
Management Program
First Year Report
AttachmentB 12

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
.-BASED,ONTARRYING CAPACITY LIMI'TATUNS. FOR.-

LAND USES: PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY LAND S

RESIDENTIAL

.,WATER USES: WASTE DISPOSAL'

RECREATION,

Strafford-Rockingpam Regional Council

99 Water'Street

N.H.
CX Exeter,

August 15, 1975

This report was prepared under a grant
provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, administered by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management and the New Hamp-
shire Office of Comprehensive Planning.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Land Uses 5

A. Residential 5

B. Water Supply Lands 20

3.. Water Uses 27

A. Waste Disposal

B. Recreation 32

4. Tables

1. Introduction

In fulfillment of the Section 2B FY 176 Coastal Zone Management

contract, the staff of the Strafford-Ropkingham Regional Council

has attempted to develop a set of "performance standards" based on

carrying capacity. The following uses were considered here:

Land Uses

Public Water Supply Lands
Residential

Water Uses

Waste Disposal
Recreation

Where possible the discussions of standards were differentiated

according to the primary, secondary, teriary sub-zones of the New

Hampshire Coastal Zone.

The staff has pursued.the process set outin the memorandum of
understanding which accompanies the contract.for services and pre-
sents the following tables. The ttxt is followed by tables which
amplifies the entries in the final column of the tables, the Perform-

ance Standards to Avoid Adverse Impacts.

The Coastal Zone Management Act calls for the regulation of
those uses which have a direct and significant impact on coastal
waters. It is clear that those land uses which have such an impact
should be regulated on the basis of their environmental,economic,and
social impacts. In order to assess these impacts in the abstract,
there must exist an enormous quantity of the right kind of data.

From an analysis of these potential impacts, it is theoretically

possible to develop amanagement process to regulate the amount and

type of growth in the Coastal Zone. The management process could

employ a set of "performance standards" for every appropriate land

use based upon its impact on coastal waters.

At the present time the.1'state of the art" in planning is just

.beginning to grapple with the problems of controlling growth with

legally supportable "performance standards". Several planning

studies have used this concept.

Reviewed here are some of these studies.1his review reveals

that, within the time frames of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the

formulation of rational , defensible, performance standards is not

only physically impossible, but also inappropriate because of the

lack of relevant, scientific data for the Coastal Zone of New Hamp-

shire.

Before a discussion of the relevant planning literature, two

general comments will be made concerning the difficulty of applying

performance standards in the Coastal Zone.

(1) Lack of Uniformity of Receiving Waters Waters under the

jurisdiction of the State of New Hampshire's Coastal Zone

Management regulatory agencies are -not uniform bodies of

water. Waters considered estuarine are characterized by

a mixture of salt and fresh water; these waters are one

of the most productive natural ecosystems, yet are extremely

sensitive to perturbation (disturbance). Unlike freshwater

lakes with a more predictable response to a particular

impact, an estuary's ability to assimilate (or tolerate)

pollutants is a direct function of dilution or removal

rates, as effected by tidal currents. Shoreline and
bathymetric configurations, freshwater inputs, and dist-
ance from open'ocean are some.of the factors specifically
determining water turnover rates (retention time) within
an estuary. As an example, for Great Bay, water turnover
rates are low.for the inne r reaches of the bay, but near
the Piscataqua River, turnover rates are relatively high.
Also@, physical and chemical water parameters (egs. salin-
ity, temperature, phosphorous, and nitrogen), water cir-
culation patterns (causing a possible translocation of a
pollutant to a more ecologically sensitive area), and loca-
tion of areas of "particular concern" (egs. clam flats,
oyster beds, fish breeding grounds) are.information needed
to understand the effects of an impact. Therefore, land-
based Performance Standards must be directly sensitive to
the receiving water's localized characteristics. Further-
more all of these factors change with the time of year,
and are difficult in different years due to changes in rain-

fall.

(2) Lack of Uniformity of Land-Based Subzones The Primary
(20 feet vertical or 1000 feet horizontal from mean high
tide), Secondary (areas enclosed in all towns adjacent to
coastal waters), and Tertiary.(all remaining land within
the coastal watershed). Subzones are defined by boundaries
not sensitive to the micro-features (topography, hydrology,
soil types, depth to bedrock, vegetation, and areas of
11particular concern") of the land comprising the subzones.

-3-

For example, septic systems located near water, supply aquifers or

in areas with soil percolation characteristics unsuitable

for proper filtration result in groundwater or surface

water contamination. Construction on slopes greater than
2576 develop serious erosion and sedimentation problems.

Proximity to areas of "particular concern" intensifies the

the impact from a particular land-or water use. Overuse

of.groundwater reserves might allow salt water intrusion,
contaminating all'nearby wells. Therefore, Performance
Standards cannot be, universally applied to each subzone, as
land-use suitability analyses dictate a more site-specific

approach in determining the set of environmental impacts

resulting from a particular land use.

It should.therefore, be noted at the outset that the performance
standards the-staff was able to derive, or find, for these four uses,
are'not enough in the abstract, to constitute a sound basis for

decision-making for New Hampshire's coastal zone. There are four

basic reasons for this:

1) Most "direct.and significant" impacts from most uses are

site specific: i.e. the same use in different locations

has different impacts;

2) Most uses can be constructed or operated in a variety of

fashions, thts altering the impact;

3) the consequences of many impacts are as yet unknown - i.e.
the amount of lead being dumped into an estuary from a

given number of gasoline powered outboard motors can be

estimated, but the effect of that lead on the ecosys-I.-lem,

-4-

4s-yet, cannot be calculated.

4) much basic data about the New Hampshire coastal zone is

as yet unknown such as the assimilative capacity of

'Great Bay for any of a variety of. substances.

In the tables, column four - Performance Standards, the term

"use specific" means that there are many possible variations in

the use, consequently a performance standard cannot be stated abso-

lutely. Likewise, "site specific" means that given a single well-

defined use, the impacts vary according to site and so cannot be.cast

into absolute performance standards with any specificity.'

Finally, one cannot determine the carrying capacity of an area

of land or water without determining first the sociatd.-I goal for

that area i.e. wilderness state, maximum-use of expendable re-

sources,or something in between.

2. Land Uses

Of the two land uses analyzed in depth, Residential was probably

the most difficult for which to apply performance standards. Since

residential developments are one of the largest users of land adjoin-

ing bodies of water, various research studies have attempted to

develop predictive models, or recom mendations, on how much develop-

ment can be allowed before the water quality of the lake, river or

estuary is unacceptably degraded.

2A. Residential

For Residential Land Uses, seven major impacts were identified

as having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters:

1. Increased Area of Impervious Surface (Reduced Ground-

-5-

water Recharge, Increased Runoff)

2. Sewage Contamination of Groundwater or Surface Water

3. Lowering Groundwater Table from Overuse of Private Wells

(Saltwater Intrusion)

4. Pre-emption of Land from Other Uses

5. Aesthetic Degradation

61. Flood.and Erosion Prevention Structures (Altered Water

Circulation Patterns)

7. Construction Impacts (Erosion and Sedimentation)

Each one of the impacts is a separate issue in itself. Only the
first two impacts were anlyzed in greater depth. Both are discussed

below.

An inerease.in impermeab le surface from natural ground cover
to (as an example) 35-50% paved or roof area increases runoff by
300% and decreases groundwater infiltration to 70% of.normal,recharge

Tourbier, 1973). The results of increased runoff are increased

erosion and increased flood volume, wi th a concomitant increase in

the size of floodplain. Reduced infiltration causes a reduction in.

dry weather stream flow and a reduction in groundwater reserves for

water supply. The.impacts on the coastal zone waters are sedimenta-

tion, turbidity, increased dilution of seawater, introduction of
nutrients and road contaminants, and salt water intrusion into ground-

water.

Rahenkamp and Sachs in their "impact zoning" method analyzed
slope, hydrological soil type, and vegetation on a grid map, and
calculated the amount of runoff generated at each site under natural

conditions (Stimson, 1972). By setting a standard as the amount of

-6-

runoff allowed, one can calculate the percentage of each grid area

that, can be used for impermeable surface, without resorting to man-

made runoff controls. However, from our literature search, there

is no universal methodology for applying a particular impermeable

surface area restriction on developments. The degree of severity

of the impacts on coastal waters is determined by the local charact-

eristics of the receiving waters and the site-specific land charact-

eristics of the area being developed, as described in the section

citing particular difficulties preventing adequate application of

the Performance Standards.

There are four recent.well known studies. They stand as examples

of how unadvanced the "state of the art" really is, regarding the

process of det.e rmining performance standards. A review of each of

the four is given below:

I. Atkins, 1972.

This regional planning study was an analysis of Huntington

township along the north shore of Long Island. The area's nat-

ural features and land uses were surveyed, and impacts from

the particular uses were recorded., Recommendations were made

to ameliorate or rectify impacts in a wide range of categories -

eg. water quality, air quality, energy consumption, safety of

human life and property, ae sthetics. Recommendations relating

to residential uses and their impacts on coastal waters were as

follows:

(1) Around bays, create a buffer area of "no development"

of 300 feet horizontally or 20 feet vertically from

mean sea level. Around marshes, streams and ephemeral

-7-

streams, the buffer zone is to be 300 feet.

(2) Prohibit construction or or immediately above slopes

of 25% or greater.

(3) Prohibit development on natural groundwater recharge

.areas.

(4) Limit development in valley bottoms.

(5) Develop and enforce standards on'amount of impervious

surfa. ce allowable for new development.

(6) Site construction should minimize tree cutting. No.

tree removal if dripline is 10 feet or more from

building.

(7) Use available technology for minimizing energy consump-

tion in buildings.

(8) Where dwelling unit density is greater than 1/1.22.acres,

sewers are required.

(9) Dwelling units are to be designed so as not to detract

from the landscape.

Comments: Obviously, many of the standards are subjective and diffi-

........cult to quantify into an enforceable regulation. The study's

applicability to New Hampshire is marginal, although the general

concepts discussed are all subjects needing consideration in

developing performance standards for residential land uses. No

particular distinction to 1 and use suitability is made in the

Huntington plan. However, the need for a buffer zone (or green

belt) at the water's edge is effectively stressed. The major

problem is that the suggested standards appear to be reasoned

judgements, not the inevitable end result of various scientific-

ally derived carrying capacity analyses.

-8-

II. Dillon, 1974.

This study analyzes the amount of phosphorus loading that

a lake can receive to effect certain water quality conditions.

From land use and geological data, theanount of phosphorus

imput from natural runoff can be calculated. From the lakeshore

development, artificial phosphorus loading from septic systems

can be calculated With the addition of the phosphorus from

direct rainfall and dry fallout, the total phosphorus load to

the lake is derived. Combined with information of the lake's

morphometry, flushing rate, and phosphorus retention coefficient

(the am ount of phosphorus not lost throughout the outflow), a

springtime total phosphorus concentration in the lake'can be

predicted. This value can predict two water quality parameters,

summer chlorophyll a concentration and secchi dish transparancy.

Therefore, an increase in development can be converted to a

change in'wa ter quality, or conversely, desired water quality

conditions can determine the permissable phosphorus loading,

which in turn can determinethe amount of allowable lake develop-

ment. If the water quality conditions are already degraded past

allowable limits, an estimation of the decrease in phosphorus

load can be calculated from conversion of septic to sewer

systems.

Four main problems are inherent in the application of this

type of model to coastal-waters:

(1) The complexity of the shoreline, freshwater inputs, tidal

flushing, and land uses would make the prediction of the

phosphorus loading extremely difficult and would require

a major research effort by a trained team of scientists.

-9-

(2) The flushing rate data for New Hampshire's estuaries are

not available,_and would again be the product of a soph-

isticated research effort.

(3) The model is only applicable to a lake where water qual-

ity conditions are. relatively uniform throughout the

surface area of the lake. Coastal estuaries are extremely

diverse because of circulation patterns induced by tidal

and freshwater currents.

(4) Most importantly, the model applies to phosphorus only.

Phosphorus.is generally the "limiting factor" to biological

growth in lakes. In estuaries, the "limiting factor" is

nitrogen. Phosphorus can.be considered a conservative

element in the sense that it is not lost to the atmosphere,

once having entered the aquatic system. Nitrogen, though,

is continuously entering and leaving the aquatic system to

the atmosphere in the form of gaseous nitrogen. Modeling

of nitrogen to predict water quality is therefore extreme-

ly difficult.

III. Juneja, 1974..

The planning study for Medford was aimed at formulating

ordinances based on the suitability of the land for various

uses. Since the ordinances were likely to be subjected to

legal scutiny, it was imperative that such regulation be based

on data and interpretations'provided by competent scientists

and planners. However, to avoid the problem of "taking" where

it might oc cur, the study included performance requirements to

overcome site limitations where possible.

_10-

Medford Township is located in south central New Jersey

and comprises a total land area of about 40 square miles. The

study took three years to complete and required the participa-

tion of numerous expert natural scientists, experienced plan

ners, and lawyers, and a large number of graduate students.

The cost ($150,000) and magnitude of this study is indicative of

the commitment necessary to achieve valid planning regulations

based on performance standards.

The study investigated the natural environment within the

township from two perspectives: 1. based on protection of the

town's resources because of their value to society, and 2. based

on the suitability and desirability of the land for various uses

because of potential "cost savings". Suitability maps were

created for the following uses:

1. agriculture

2. forestry

3. recreation

C urbanization (residential)

The suitability maps-were snythesized from a number of natural

factor maps that had been interpreted for "cost", "amenity"

(site desirability), and "value to society". Rules were estab-

lished to define the classes or levels of suitability. These

rules were based on the rating of relevant natural factors as

acceptable or unacceptable. The varying levels of suitability

were determined by a concurrence of a given number of acceptable

factors. In certain instances the suitability class was modi-

fied if certain relevant resource categories also occurred at

a given site. These additional categories usually indicated

high costs due to a specific problem. The criteria for suit-

ability for suburban development in Medford (4 houses per acre

to 6 houses per care) follow:

Cost Savings

Concurrence of 5 acceptable factors = Prime Suitability (1)
Concurrence of 4 acceptable factors = Secondary " t (2)
'IV
Concurrence of 3 acceptable factors Tertiary (3)
Concurrence of less than 3 acceptable factors Unsuitable

The lmits of acceptability for each factor for this land use are:

Factor Acceptable Limit

Foundations: Light Structures Fair Subsoil shear strength

Maintenance Site Drainage Somewhat poorly drained soils

Maintenance Site Drainage and min. 1 -31 depth to seasonal-'high
Lawns, Playgrounds, etc. water table

Maintenance: Lawns, Playgrounds, Concurrence of at least two of thE
etc. following:
a. Moderate available soil moistux
b. Fair nutrient retention
c. Moderate shrink-well potential

Maintenance: Lawns Playgrounds, Max. 100 tons/acre/year potential
etc. soils loss

However, suitability classes derived from above have been modified

by the following site factors:

Factor Location 'Suitability Mod.

Lack of gradient Inner Lowland: 1 becomes 2
(Site Drainage cost) Plain; 2 becomes 3
Outer Lowland: 3 becomes 4
Plain

Excessive Run-off see Footnote 1 becomes 2
(Site Drainage cost) below 3 becomes 4
4 becomes 4
4 becomes 5

Site desirability has also been added.

Presence of 1 desirable factor Tertiary suitability (A)

Factor Desirable Element

Vegetation and Wildlife Vegetation Associations of
interest Low Value/High Tolerance
High Value/Low and High Tolerance

Once the suitability classes were identified a set of

performance requirements were established to mitigate the

impact of certain kinds of development in the more vulnerable

sites. These requirements were generally aimed at proper man--

agement of water resources. For instance a water runoff manage-

ment chart and map were developed to calculate and regulate the

amount of runoff created.when an existing condition is changed

to another type of condition. (This chart which in effect con-

tained the requirements necessary for maintaining the water

resources of Medford requires a number of maps (Soil Infiltra-

tion Rate, Hydrologic Soil Groups) and a hydrolgic analysis

(Rainfall,and Run-off calculation) that New Hampshire has not

ye t developed. This is just one example of why the creation of

valid performance requirements-for the New Hampshire coastal

zone is difficult without the spending of much additional time

and money.in a limited time period.

The Medford study represents a landmark in the field of

planning. It provides the means by which a town can base land

use regulation on natural limitations and opportunities. At

present the town is using this study as a basis for guiding

growth. However, it is clear that the amount of time and money

required by such a study is not within the means of the Office
of State Planning and the Strafford-Rock-ingham Regional Council

as stipulated in the F.Y. '76 Coastal Zone Management contract.

-13-

IV. Tourbier, 1973.

This study developed performance standards for residential

uses to protect the water quality and water supply of the

Christina River Basin watershed. The study area was 103. square

miles, located near Wilmington, Delaware. The report took

three years to complete and required the assistance of dozens

of highly specialized personnel hydrologists, city planners,

civil engineers, economists, landscape architects, systems anal-

ysts, ecologists, and lawyers. The study was not a land-use.

study in the traditional sense of locating areas suitable for

development. Rather, the approach was to allow development on

most sites, but with appropriate protection measures required

to preserve the area's water resources.

The first stage of the study was a natural resources in-

ventory determining land categories having a relationship to

the water regime. Areas of Aquifer Recharge, Surface Wa ter

Marshlands, Woods, Floodplains, Slopes over 127o and Critical

Soil Types classified as Erodible and Poor Internal Drainage

were the major land categories-used in the final analysis. These

categories' were believed to be the most important for that

particular region. Site Classes were defined by the number of

possible combinations of occurrence or nonoccurrence of the

above categories on a series of grid blocks of approximately

1000 feet on a side for each block. The number of possible

site classes generated was 192. The entire study had approxi-

mately 4,400 grid blocks. A computer sorted the natural resource

inventory information, and assigned Site Class numbers to a

grid.map.

-14-

Three residential characteristics having an impact on

water uses were considered: (1) area of site disturbed dur-

ing construction, (2) area of impermeable surfaces and (3)

sewage generation. A Land Use Code from 1 to 8 was assigned

to varying intensities, or degrees of each characteristic.

(For example, a code of "7,7,7" for the three respective cat-

egories would indicate 75-1007o,of the site was disturb during

construction, 50-757o of the area was impermeable surface, and

the sewage generation was 3,200-6,400 gal/acre/day. These

characteristics were.generally indicative of 1/16 - 1/8-acre

for a single family residential lot size). All the information-

was sorted.and mapped by computer.

Finally, costs for protection measures of suitable design

were determined for the three basic development characteristics.

Cost ranges were scaled from 1 to 9, depending on the amount

of protection measures required, and were assigned to each set

of Land Use Codes for each particular Site Class. This infor-

mation again was sorted and mapped by computer.

The information generated from the study determined the

particular natural land.features having a direct relationship

to the area's water resources, and the particular development

type juxtaposed to the natural features. Protection measures

for past and future development were therefore recommended to

preserve these water resources. In the case of future develop-

ment, a developer could assess each area of consideration, and

determine the cost and design of the protection measures re-

quired for a particular type of housing to be permitted on the

site.

-15-

A condensed example of the protection measures related to

septic tanks and sewer lines is given to illustrate the reg-

ulatory recommendations of the study:
1. Ban on septic tanks on sites less than 1 acre.
2. Ban on septic tanks.on areas of water, marsh, or flood-

plain.

3. Percolation test with a minimum rate of 40 inches per

minute required on residential sites greater than

acre, and on areas of aquifer recharge, woodland,

erodible soils, and slopes greater than 12%.

4. Single home aerobic sewage treatment units required on

aquifer recharge sites, if percolation test and lot

size specifications are met.

5. Increased costs can be expected from septic tile field

construction in wooded areas and on steep slopes where

soil depth to bedrock is shallow.

6. Extended aeration "package" sewage treatment may be

installed by a developer when septic tanks are not

allowed and when public sewage is not planned for sev-

eral years.

7. On all lots less than 1 acre, municipal sewage treat-

ment is required.

8. Sewer lines locate d in unstable soils (marsh, flood-

plain, and poorly drained soils) and steep slopes re-

quire adequate foundations.

9. Sewer lines located in unstable soils, river crossings,

or in aquifer recharge areas shall be constructed as

to have a maximum exfiltration rate of no more than

10 gal/diam inch/mi/hr.

-16-

10. Other sewer lines are to have a maximum allowable

exfiltration of no more than 20 gal/diam inch/mi/hr.

The s ame type of regulatory approach was used for protection

measures for both construction erosion, and runoff from impermeable

surfaces.

Comments:

The Christina Basin study is an excellent example of a site-

specific approach to land use planning. The time needed to complete

the project, the number of people of various expertise involved, and

the relatively small size of the study area are indicative of the

amount of work involved in such an approach. The results of the

project, though, are readily applicable to the planning decisions

regarding housing in the Delaware area. For New Hampshire, the infor-

mation generated is not directly utilizable because of the site-

specific correlation of land uses to natural areas. The general

methodology is applicable to the New Hampshire coastal zone, although

the study area would be much larger.' Also, many land and water uses,

not just residential, would have to be analyzed to develop a complete

set of performance standards for the coastal zone. This would nee-

essitate a reasonable amount of time and money to the apportioned to

the planning commissions to complete such a project.

Sewage Contimination of-Ground Water or Surface Water

Septic tanks should be located in areas of suitable lot size,

slope, soil type, depth of soil to bedrock, and filtration distance

before encountering the water table. Recommendations for the design

and location of septic systems are adequately discussed in a-New

Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission report (Shep-

hard, 1974). Recommendations for lot sizes for new subdivisions,

-17-

Atkins, J.T. et. al. 1972. Huntington Environmental P`l'a:nnih'g Program..
Master's Thesis, Department of Regional Planning and Landscape
Architecture, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Caputo, D., M. Hockman and S. Hougen. 1974. Ecological Planning:
Water Resource Study in the Assunpink Watershed. Master's Thesis,
Department of Regional Planning and Landscape Architecture, Univer-

sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia-, Pennsylvania.

Clark, J. 1974. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerat1ons for

Management.of the Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation,

Washington, D.C.

DeChiara, J. and L. Koppelman. 1975. Manual of Ho*using/Planning'and
Design Criteria. Prentice-Hall, Inc.., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Dillon, P.J. 1974. A Manual for Calculating the Capacity of a Lake

for Development. Linnology To xicity Section, Waster Resources

Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Godschalk, D.R., F.H. Parker, and T.R. Knoche. 1974. Carrying Capacity:

A Basis for Coastal Planning? University of North Carolina, Dept.
of. City and Regional Planning,.Chapel Hill,. North Carolina.*

Juneja, N. et. al. 1974. Medford,.Performance Requirements for the

Maintenance of Social Values Represented by the National Environment

of Medford Township, New Jersey. The Center for Ecological Research

in Planning an d Design. University of Pennslvania, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.

McHarg, I.L.,1969. Design With Nature. The Natural History Press,

Garden City, New York.

Shepard, J.F. 1974. Guide for the Successful Design of Small Sewage
Disposal Systems. New Hampshire@ Water Supply and Pollution Control

Commission, Concord, New Hampshire.

Stimson, J.M. 1972. "If There's a Way Out of the Impasse Among Housing,

the Community and the Environmentalists, the Way is Impact Zoning."

House and Home 42:58-67.

Technical Planning Associates, Consultants. 1972. Handbook of Sub-

division Practice.-Prepared for New Hampshire Office of State

Planning by Technical Planning Associates, North Haven, Connecticut.

Tourbier, J. 1973. Water Resources as a Basic for Comprehensive Planning

and Development of the Christina River Basin. Water Resources Center,

University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Identification and Control

of Pollution from Salt Water Intrusion. EPA-430/9-73-013. Air

and Water Program, Water Quality and Non-Point Source Control Div-

ision.

_19-

based on soil type and slope are included in an appendix table'of

the Handbook of Subdivision Practice, Office of State Planning,

State of New Hampshire. The problem arises from the application

of this method for determining septic tank location suitability,

because soil types that are suitable for adequate percolation might

also be areas of aquifer recharge. A more detailed site specific

analysis is therefore needed.

Federal water quality standards are indicators of sewage pollu-

tion; but these standards should not be adopted as the regulatory

mechanisms for septic systems.- The pollution of ground or surface

water often is only detected at.,great distances from the source of

contamination. Hence, detection of the pollution does not lead to

immediate regulatory control of the contamination, because the source

is'often difficult to locate. Performance standards based on water

quality are enacted after the contamination has occurred, but effect-

ive regulation of septic systems requires that site analyses be made

to determine potential problems that might prohibit septic tank use.

On unsuitable septic system sites, if sewer hook-up or other sewage

disposal methods are not available, then residential development

should be prohibited.

The standards of the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution

Control Commission report (Shephard, 1974) presumably will result

in a non-discharge of pollutants condition for surface water, or

ground water beyond 75 feet. Tiose standards are offered here.

2B. Water Supply Lands

These lands include only the municipally or privately owned
sites that supply water for community or inter-community water

-20-

systems. These sites may be for both ground and surface water-

supplies. Although d6salination may be technically possible in

New Hampshire, it is not a likely reality because of the expense.

Ground and surface water supplies are typically found in the

secondary zone of the Coastal Zone, although all these subzones can

potentially supply potable water. The problem of salt water in-

trusion is a distinct possibility in.certain areas of the primary

zone if there is over pumping of wells, evidence for this already

,exists. (Wilson, 1969). Favorable deposits for groundwater reserv-

oirs (aquifers) have generally been mapped and identified, particular-

ly in the primary and secondary subzones. Relative potential yields

.from individual aquifers and some community pumping.records from

various sources are known. In order to measure the impact of the

use of water supply lands on coastal waters, numerous other data

would be essential (amount.of fresh water lost to estuarine waters,

for example). To determine performance criteria or standards for

these areas much more must be known about the capacity and character-

istics of the individual sources of water. Such things as aquifer

size, recharge rates, depth of saturated layer, etc. must be known

before valid performance standards can be established.

The most probable impacts on coastal waters would occur from

over pumping of aquifers and over-extraction from reservoirs. Whether

in all instances over pumping would have a direct and significant im-

pact on coastal'waters is debatable. Because of distance from

coastal waters and inherent physiographic differences from place to

place, standards would have to vary.according to potential impact.

Assuming there is a direct and significant impact on coastal waters,

the criteria for determining when overpumping has-occurred could

be derived from measurements of water table depression and reduced

hydrostatic pressure (reduced water yields). Not only are such
data unavailable, there is no comprehensive scientific data on just

how much total ground and surface water is available for future use

in the Coastal Zone of New Hampshire. If a performance standard

was to be established it would have to be based on known data for

water availability.

In the Seacoast Region, which for purposes of the discussion

is defined as the former Region 16.and Region 17 planning regions,

the present daily consumption of water is 16 million gallons per

day (M.GD). Of this 10.5 MGD are from groundwater and 5.5 MGD are

from surface water (Hall, 1974). The most recent figures put the

potential sustained yield for total water supply at between 23-25

MGD (Hall, 19741- Anderson-Nichols, 1969-72).

Recent investigations (Anderson-Nichols, 1969-72; Hall, 1974;

Reed, SENHRPC, 1972) have concluded that by the early to middle

1980's the Seacoast Region will run out of water for any expansion

if the above statistics and present practices of water extraction

are used. However.. none of these investigations have performed a

detailed hydrogeologic analysis of the Seacoast. Until this type of

work is done, it is difficult to establish a valid performance

standard of the carrying capacity of either ground or surface waters.

In addition, if innovative techniques for water management were im-

plemented the water supply,of the Seacoast Region could be increased.

Considering the above qualifications, one could theoretically

-22-

posit a standard for the number of households that can safely be

supplied in an individual town in the Coastal Zone or in the coast

as a whole before there is no more additional water available. How

much of an impact would be created by lowered water capacity up

to this "end" point of water availability is difficult to determine

without more investigation and relevant data.

By projecting population, we can determine water demand (such

as 100 gallons per day per capita projected population) the water

demand figure to water capacity or availability, the amount of pump-

ing or extraction of water can be achieved.

For this discussion, data already generated by Hall (1974) Will

be used. Although his'work includes Planning Regions #16 and #17,

the implication can be applied to the defined Coastal Zone. In

Table 1. average seacoast water pumpage values are displayed. Hall

(1974) stresses the following points:

1. Surface-water consumption increased 40 percent.

2. Ground water consumption increased 33 percent.

3. Total consumption increased 35 percent.

4. Ground water accounts for some 65 percent of total consumption.

5. Some communities such as Portsmouth and Hampton have greatly

increased water needs in the summer which means summer con-

sumption is on the order of 18 MGD or even higher.

In Table II, projected water disposal and estimated capacity

are displayed. Hall (1974) makes the following points:

1. Water usage since 1965 has been increasing at about the

projected rate, and although not shown herein some comm-

unities such as Durahm have already reac hed 1980 levels.

-23-

2. The capacity figures whow additional capacity will have

to be developed by the early 1980's either from local or

outside sources.

By subtracting the present 16 MGD consumption from an estimated

23 MGD, there is, a 7 MGD capacity to be consumed in the seacoast,

before going to other areas for increased supply. If one assumes

that the per capita residential use of water is 100 GPD, then the

equivalent pumpage of only 70,000 additional people can be accom-

odated in the seacoast region. Theoretically, this figure.might be

greater if-only the primary and secondary subzones are considered.

By placing an appropriate standard on pumpage per day per community

than the resource bearing capacity of ground and surface water will

be sustained. This would mean allowable capacity for Exeter of

approximately-350,000 gallons. This figure is based on calculating

Exeter.@s projected population of 1985 (11,500) as a percentage the

Region 16 and the Region 17 total population (210,000)

applied to the available water supply for the region. In

terms of additional population, Exeter could accomodate 3,500 more

people. This reasoning assumes each town will be allowed a per-

centage increase of water based on present population projection.

Such a value does not take into account:

1. 'Other.appropriate data

2. Future commercial and industrial demands

3. Possible importation of water

4. Innovative techniques for aquifer recharge, etc.

Translating a pumpage standard into a standard for such things

as the lowering of water table, etc. depends on so many variables,

that is essentially impossible to establish values as required to

-24-

complete the carrying capacity tables for public water supply.

-25-

Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc. 1969-1972. Public Water Supply Study.

4 Volumes. Prepared for the New Hampshire Department of Resources

and Economic Development, Concord, New Hampshire.

Camp, T.A. 1960. Report on Metropolitan Water Supply for Seacoast Area.

Prepared for the New Hampshire Water Resources Board by Camp,

Dresser, and McKee, Boston,.Massachusetts.

Hall,.F. 1974. "Water Requirements and.Possible Source of Supply."

Chapter VI in The Impacts of an Oil Refinery Located in Southeastern

New Hampshire: A Preliminary Study. University of New Hampshire,

Durham, New Hampshire.

Reed, A.B.,1968. Comprehensive Report on Water Supply and Sewerage
for Rockingham and Strafford Counties. Prepared for New Hampshire

Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission by Alanzo B. Reed,

Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire.

Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. 1972. Volume

VI. Water Supply. Exeter, New Hampshire.

Wilson, J.A. 1969, "Surface Water Resources, Ground Water Resources,

Climate." Part II of Regional Planning: New Hampshire-Maine.

University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire and Department

of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, New Hampshire.

_26-

TABLE 1,

AVERAGE SEACOAST WATER PUMPACE (ALL VALUES IN MGD)

1973

Peak Summer*
1/ 2/
1965- 1969- Ave. Daily Daily Source

Surface Water

Durham .358. .800 9/ .800 1.000 q/ Oyster@ Ri ve
Exeter 4/ .5/ 5/ - [email protected]
Newmarket .'@i 5 .'@75 .'@00 -
Portsmouth 1.500 1.900 2.000 5.500 8/ 5.000 8/ Bellamy-[Ov(
Rochester 1.650 1.500 2.100 - 2.500 Berry's B-ro(
(Rochester)
Sub total 3.723 4.475 5.200

Groundwater

Dover 2.050 3.000 2.300 3.000
Epping 6/ .083 .100
Exeter .548 .662 .662 1.000 q/
Farmington 6/ .165 .200
Hampton 1.j50 1.254 1.327 .2.6-177
Milton .082 .100 9/
Newfields 015
.070 .100
Newmarket .129 7/ 7/
Portsmouth 1.505 .1.900 2.000
Raymond 6/ .190 .200 9/ -
Rollinsford .675 .076 .100 V/ -
Seabrook .289 .306 .300
Somersworth .968 .950 1.400 1.900

Sub total 6.'629 8.738 8.789

TOTAL 10.352 13.213 13.989

1/ Wilson,, 1969.
2/ NHWSPCC, 1970.
Communication from NHWSPCC and telehpone survey by UNH. Because of
discrepencies in the reported data, the groundwater total may be low.
4/ None pumped.
S/ Small amount may be included in groundwater.
6/ None pumped or not available.
Small amount may be included in surface water.
8/ Includes considerable groundwater.
q/ Estimates by present author.
10/ Wells

TABLE 2.-*

PROJECTED WATER NEEDS AND ESTIMATED CAPACITY (ALL.VALUES IN MGD)

Adjusted Estimated
Capacity Capacity
1965 1967 1969 1974- 1980 1990 2000 2o16 2020 1967 1970

Region No. 16 6.1 9.18 14.5 22.1 34.8 50.6 13.2
Region No. 16 6.1 9.1 14.3 22.4 34.9 51.9 14.2
Region No. 17 5.3 10.4 15.8 24.5 37.8 56.0 8.8
Total-V 11.4 19.5 30.1 46.9 72.7 106.9 23.0
3/
Total_w_ 10.4 13.2 14.0

4
Totaii/ 16.0

1/ Southeastern Regional Planning Commission (1972).

2/ Anderson-Nichols (1969-1972)

3/ This report, Table 2.

4/ This report, estimated maximum.

SOURCE: Hall, 1974.

3
WATER USES
.

3A. Waste Disposal

Dredge Spoil

The Army Corps of Engineers is presently conducting a 5
year Dredge Material Research Program to determine the impacts of
dumping dredge spoil, but the data has not yet been analyzed. No

other detailed studies on the impacts of dredge spoil have been lo-

cated. Until such information is made available, only generalized

predictions of impacts can be made. Any particular proposal- would

have impacts specific to the site, the material being dumped, and

the method of dumping.

2. Sewage

The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Com-

mission is in the process of establishing performance standards for

the disposal of sewage into coastal waters which, in the short run,

will assure that all coastal waters achieve the legal class B qual-

ity.(essentially suitable for body contact). The long run goal of

both the federal government and the New Hampshire Water Supply and

Pollution Control Commission is to totally eliminate discharges of

sewage into coastal waters. The current performance standards

would require that all sewage receive the Best Available Technology

available before,being discharged into coastal waters. Again, as

in the dumping of dredge spoil, only generalized comments can be

made.

3. Solid Wastes

.The dumping of solid wastes generates impacts such as the

leaching of toxic materials and nutrients, oxygen depletion.of the

-27-

surrounding waters, increased turbidity and floating debris. Ex-

tensive revi ew of the studies done on the impacts of solid waste

disposal in coastal waters 1 ead to the conclusion that very little
hard data to support such determinations is available. The Uni-
versity of New Hampshire, University of Rhode Island, M.I.T and

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute have all conducted small scale
studies on the biological and economic imp acts of ocean dumping (see

references). However, additional research must b e conducted, ex-

panding upon the results of these studies before they will be use-

ful in evaluating potential large scale ocean dumping activities.

As a first step in evaluating the impacts of ocean dumping solid
wastes, it will be helpful to consider the maximum acceptable levels

for most serious toxic substances which are established by the EPA.

The EPA standards for the most common toxic metals likely to be

found in solid wastes include:

Compound Maximum Acceptable Level

Aluminum 1.5 mg/1
Antimony --:0.2 mg/1
Arsenic .05 mg/1
Cadmium .01 mg/1
Lead .05 mg/1
Mercury 1.0 mg/1
Selenium .01 mg/1

Any ocean dumping of solid wastes should be controlled so that

none of the maximum acceptable levels for these toxic metals are

exceeded. However, it is impossible at this time to determine how

much solid waste can be dumped in a specific area before any of

these levels is exceeded. In fact, according to Ketchum, "increases

in the abundance of trace metals in the marine environment are

difficult to assess, because so little is known of the natural

-28-

variations and behavior of the elements." In-addition, leaching

and concentration of toxic metals will vary by.site depending upon

characteristics such as water temperature, depth, ocean currents,

vertical diffusion, etc.

Nutrients are another problem associated with solid waste dis-
posal at sea. According to Ketchum, the maximum acceptable discharges
of nutrients into a water body are extremely difficult to estimate.

He states that "the problem of heavy nutrient loads is greatly com-
plicated in the coastal waters by other wastes that may compete for
the assimilative capacity of receiving waters, or reduce the capacity
through toxic inhibition of metobolic processes and physical inter-
ference, particularly through turbidity and silting of benthic hab-
itats.'2 Clearly then, nutrient release from solid wastes can pose
significant problems. However) the extent of the impact depends
upon the type solid wastes and the characteristics of the disposal
site, and these are variables which.have not been evaluated as they

apply to waters off bf New Hampshire.

Oxygen depletion of waters around the disposal site is another
significant impact of solid wastes dumping. The University of Rhode
Island, in their report, analyzed the relationship between baled
solid wastes and oxygen consumption. Although the information was
rather sketchy, one conclusion that was reached was that at "cold
bottom temperature and with massive waste bales, the period of oxygen
consumption at any actal dump site will be prolonged over years."3

Bostwick H. Ketchum, The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of
the Coastal Zone, M.I.T. press, Cambridge 1972, p. 155.
2 Ibid, p. 158
3 B.' D. Pratt, et. al. "Biological Effects.on Ocean Disposal of
Solid Wastes, URI 1973, p. 37.
_29-

The extent of the oxygen depletion and ultimate impacts again

depend on the content of the solid wastes and the specific site

characteristics. Pratt sugg ested that an estimate of oxygen deple-
tion-in the basins of the Gulf of Maine could be made by usin .g min-

imal initial oxygen content, minimal vertical diffusion rates, max-

imal oxygen consumption rates, and maximal areas of waste coverage.

Levels-of oxygen under 2mg/l could be considered as potentially harm-

ful.

Other potential impacts of ocean dumped solid wastes include

turbidity and floating debris. According to EPA standards for

-,recreational water quality,-clarity of the waters should be such

that a secchi disk is visible at a minimum depth.of four feet, al-

though temporary disturbances causing higherturbidity are permissible.

Little or no floating debris is acceptable in waters used for recrea-

tional.activities. Thus regulations on ocean dumping of solid

wastes should be developed to insure that only a minimum level of

disturbance to benthic sediment occurs and'should require that solid

wastes packaged to prevent any significant release of free float-

ing debris. It should be noted that the 4 foot depth for water

clarity while appropriate for surface swimming is too turbid for

skin diving and perhaps for many marine organisms.

In light of the numerous potential negative impacts of solid

wastes disposal at sea, and the vast amount of information still to

be compiled, it appears impossible to establish performance standards

at this time. The EPA does presently regulate all ocean disposal of

solid wastes. Before any new durrping site is authorized an Environmental

Impact Statement on the proposed site must be completed. At that

time, data on potential leaching of toxic materials, nutrient releases,

_30-

oxygen depletion, turbidity, etc. can be analyzed'in light of the
particular site characteristics. This case by case evaluation of

solid waste disposal at sea seems to be the most prudent approach,

at least until more information becomes available to thoroughly

assess the potential impacts in a more general sense.

References

1. Devanney, J.W., Economic Aspects of Solid Waste Dispo al At Sea,

Mass institute of Technology, Cambridge Nov. 20,' 1970.

2. Ketchum, Bostwick H. (ed), The Water's Edge: Critical Problems

of the Coastal Zone, MIT press, Cambridge 1972.

3. Loder, Theodore C., Sea Monitoring of Emplaced Baled Solid Wastes,

University of New Hampshire, Durham, Aug 1973.

4. Pratt, S.D., Biological Effects of Ocean Disposal of Solid Wastes,

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, 1973..

5. Proposed'Criteria for Water Quality Vols. I and II, U.S. Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Oct 1973.

Report on Solid Waste Disposal, S.E.N.H.R.P.C., Jan 1974.

-31-

3B.- Recreation

1. Beach Activity, Including Swimming
Chapter VI of the 1975 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan (NHORP)
contains figures which gauge the carrying capacity of the state's

beaches in reference to recreational activity. "Beach" refers,-It-6,

the land on shore and also the waters used for swimming. The recrea-

tional'uses that characterize beach activity are largely "passive"

in nature, although swimming is considered "active-expressive" by
some (pp VI 31-32). Despite these differing categorizations, beach

activities-such as sunbathing, building of sandcastles, and swimming

could be expected to all be of minimal environmental impact when

practiced'in limited numbers at properly designated recreational

beaches.

For information pertinent to the development of the 1975, NHORP-,:

recreational use criteria the entire sixth chapter should be consult-

ed, while pages VI 34 through VI 39 deal specifically with capacity.

Although the NHORP provides useful and necessary information, it

should be remembered that "this development of capacity for recrea-

tion faciliti es for New Hampshire represents an initial effort and

all capacity figures should be considered in general terms until

extensive.review and evaluation has taken place in the field."

Specific definitions have been used in the MIQLRPto distinguish

between "instant" and "daily" capacities. Instant capacity is the

number of persons that can be accommodated by a particular facility

at any one time. Daily capacity is the number that can use said

facility during one day. The daily capacity is the product of the

instant capacity times the "turnover rate," the number of times a
particular facility can be used by different individuals during one day.

_32-

While these definitions and operations are clear the MORPdoes not

clarify the methodology used to obtain the initial figures for New

Hampshire beach areas. These figures are the.following:

minimum instant capacity 100 square feet of water per person

6
-440
x ----person per%aGre

optimum instant.capacity 200 square feet of water per person

or 220 person per acre

turnover rate 1.5

minimum daily capacity 65 square feet of beach per person

or 660 persons per acre

optimum daily capacity 130 square feet of beach per person

or 330 persons per acre

Translating these into numbers that are more easily visualized,

the least amount of water per swimming should be a square with sides

of 10 feet and the optimum space a square of about 14 feet on each

side. These are also the same for the actual beach area, as the daily

capacities, when divided by the 1.5 turnover rate, yield 100 square

feet minimum and 200 square feet optimum.

In addition, DeChiara and Koppelman provide corresponding but

not identical figures in Urban Planning and Design Criteria. Table

I provides this additional information.

These figures appear to be based upon a "crowding" value, most

probably based on aesthetic rather than ecological criteria. This

is because the ecological effects of beach activities are difficult

to determine, as they are often long-term or secondary rather than

immediate and direct. Swimming itself may not have any effect on

the ocean, but a side effect of swimming, such as urination, could

-33-

ACHES
12

Facility Standard Facility Standard

shoreline--ocean, 25 effective feet of shoreline for each 1000 popu. beach, rural area 3 supporting areas for each acre of beach. The
lake, reservoir, or lation, accommodates 150 persons per day, and acre of beach accommodates 185 swimmers,
stream 50 persons at one time. 25 effective feet include: over 12 years old, at any given time. This pro-
vides 200 sq. ft. of beach per swimmer. With an
a. 5000 sq. ft. for sunbathing. average daily turnover of 3, the acre of beach and
b. 2500 sq. ft. for buffer and picnic area., its 3 supporting acres accommodate 555 swim
c. 1000 sq. ft. for water area for swimming. mers per day.

An effective foot consists of one lineal foot of beach. urban area 4 supporting acres for each acre of beach. The
shore with 100 footwide band of water suitable for acre of beach accommodates 370 swinimers at a
swimming; 200 foot-wide strip of beach for sun- time. This provides 100 sq. ft. of beach per
bathing; 100 foot-wide buffer zone for utilities and swimmer. With an average daily turnover rate of
picnicking.
3, the beach area accommodates 1.110 swim-
mers, per day.
beach A shoreline swimming unit should have a length
of 600 ft. and a width of 665 ft. (565 ft. of width is beaches 150 sq. ft. of water for each swimmer in the water.
land and 100 ft. is water). Maximum shoreline 300 sq. ft. of land for each swimmer not in the
length should not exceed 3600,ft. water.

A rninimurn unit of 9.2 acres (1.4 acres of water beach 100 to 200 sq. ft. of swimmable water per swim-
and 7.8 acres of land) has a 200 foot wide beach mer. 50 to 100 sq. ft. of beach per swimmer.
or play area and a 100 foot wide buffer zone for
installation of utilities, tables, etc. The balance,
265 ft., accommodates 300 cars at a time. Between 15% to 30% of swimmers are in the
water at one time.
Minimum facilities are a change house, and
sanitary facilities.
Vost of the time there are more persons on the
beach
At any one time an optimum capacity of 1200 beach sunning than in the water. Since the
persons may use the minimum shoreline facility. amount of usable water space per person ranges
A tumover'rate of 3 is expected. This allows 3600 from 50 to 100 sq. ft. the available site v.-!' d-At
persons to use the area on an avera o summer -batning I-azlil
mine the capacity of a particular
Sunday or 461.5 user days per.

Dechiara. and Koppelman
Table. Source:

forseeably have a long range and subtle effect, no matter how far-
fetched it seems. Sunbathing itself does not appear harmful, but

the trash.left on the beach as a consequence.of such passive act-
ivity accumulates with negative impact on the natural and aesthetic

environment.

As many ecological truths have proven to be counter-intuitive
it is wise to guess at possible effects or to assume the system's
parameters according to a "logical" pattern. In other words, we
cannot be sure that the "crowding" capacity of a beach will be ex-
ceeded before we reach the natural carrying capacity, especially as
the former could ery well be a.matter of personal opinion. 400
persons per square acre might be considered crowded by a rural person,

but not so to an urban dweller.

Similiarly, the natural carrying capacities of beaches cannot be

considered uniform either. In an area where there are dunes and

delicate grasses the natural carrying capacity would allow far fewer
persons than. a crowding capacity based on non-ecological values.
However, at a duneless, rocky, sea-walled beach like Hampton, the
natural capacity might be expected to match or exceed the aesthetic

limit. Moreover, the natural carrying capacity is likely to vary
not only between different beaches, butalso at the same beach under

different conditions.

2. Finfishing
Data-dn..@@.approximate numbers of finfish-of various species inhab-
iting New Hampshire coastal watbrs and on the impacts of commercial
and,sport fishing on these various populat ions is extremely limited.

it is known that blue fin tuna are presently approaching

-34-

endangered status and that haddock and halibut have been virtually
eliminated as a result of intensive commercial fishing. Many fear

that other species are also experiencing population declines due
to over exploitation and interferences with the reproductive proc-
esses resulting from pollution and other human activities. However,
-no data exists to fully indicate the extent or specific causes of these

population declines.

In light of the obvious lack of base line data, it appears im-
possible at present to establish realistic performance standards
based on natural resource factors. However, other criteria such as

aesthetics and demand levels have been used to determine optimal

,levels of use. For example, in the 1975 New Hampshire Outdoor Rec-
reation Plan, a review of existing state and federal standards on

recreational fishing,yielded the figure of 1-3 fishermen per acre
as a desirable management standard for fishing. Whether or not this
figure is applicable to New Hampshire's particular situation can not

be determined at present.

In the interim, however, some form of controls over marine

recreational finfishing seems warranted. The Fish and Game Depart-

-ment has recommended that a license be required for all salt water

sports fishing and that all sport and commercial fishermen be re-
quired to report their catches. With these regulations it would be
possible to compile a valuable data source on numbers of fishermen,
average yields, and yearly variations in yields, as well as provide
funds to support research on various marine, fish populations. Once
this information has been gathered and analyzed it should be possible

to establish figures in maximum sustainable yields for the various

fish populations and to. develop the means for insuring that these

-35-

yields are not exceeded.

The Fish and Game Department presently requires a'license to

fish for coho salmon, salt water trout and shad and also sets a

limit on the daily catch for these species. In view of the uncer-

tain future for many commercial ocean finfish species if sport fish-

ing is not strictly regulated, it may be desirable to establish

interim conservative limits on all fish species. These limits can

be changed as additional information dictates. The Fish and Game

Department appears to be most qualified to make this decision.

.3. Clamming and Oystering

A "carrying capacity" for the number of shellfish that can be

harvested before the breeding population declines was difficult to

assess because of the numerous variables that may simultaneously

limit the population. Exposure to pollutants, predation intensity,

climatic fluctuations, spawning success and food supply as well as

overharvesting may contribute to the reduction of shellfish'in an

area. A number of sources were consulted for pertinent information

on these variables but specific carrying capacities for clam and

oyster harvest could not be established.

First, an attempt to establish existing quantities of harvest-

able clams and oysters in New Hampshire waters was made. The first

quantitative survey of clam density estimated 96,000 pecks of har-

vestable clams existed in Hampton-Seabrook Estuary (Ayer, 1968).

Considerable evidence (Belding, 1931, Turner, 1948; Dow and Wallace,

1957) indicated that heavy harvesting pressure has been responsible

for population reduction.

In order to investigate the matter further, an economic study

-36-

was conducted by a consultant for the Fish and Game Department of

New Hampshire (1971). An estimated 13,273 license holders, spending

111,834 days.clamming were assumed to have harvested 100,000 pecks

of clams annually. These figures, presented in the Coastal Zone

Management - Fisheries Report are.based on Hampton-Seabrook Estuary

estimates. Approximately.95% of New Hampshire's clamming activity

is concentrated in Hampton-Seabrook Estuary. The clam flats in

Great Bay and Little Harbor are significant, but receive little

harvesting pressure at present.

The Fish and Game Department predicted a decline in harvest of

20,000 pecks annually, and attributed the decline to overexploitation.

There was no data given to support this contention, however. Accord-

ing to their figures, a harvest of 60,000 pecks was expected in 1973.

Studies on the standing crop of legal size Mya arenaria in

Hampton-Seabrook Estuary (Normandeau Associates, 1974) estimated

that only 23,000 pecks of harvestable clams was available in 1973.

This approximation did not include three minor clam flats of the

estuary, but nonetheless the discrepancy with the Fish and Game data

is considerably large. The population may be declining at a much

higher rate than was expected, or one or both sets of figures may be

inaccurate. Normandeau Associates reported that the standing crop

of harvestable clams declined by 33%.from 1972 to 1973, and suggested

that the increase in mortality could be attributed to clam digging.

The figures obtained in the literature are extremely variable,

but the reduction in clam density is apparent. Perhaps the varia

bility of the study conditions (methodology, climate, tides, etc.)

.are responsible for the discrepancy. Shellfish'populations fluctuate

_37-

naturally from year to ye ar regardless of harvesting pressures,
so baseline data on natural growth rates should be determined. It

is difficult to isolate any one factor as influencing clam growth.
Presently, about 15,000 people are licensed claxnmers. With the
legal harvesting limit of one peck per day, and about 150 clamming
4ays/year in Hampton-Seabrook Estuary, it is conceivable that the
clam population is being overexploited. The increase in clamming

licenses issued and the decrease in clam density annually raises

some serious problems.

No conclusive data has been presented to determine the actual
causal factor in the population reduction. Thus, carrying capacity

for recreational clamming cannot be developed. Absent from the
field study, more information is needed on seasonal harvesting rates,
pollutant concentrations in the estuary and natural rejuvination
rates in order to determine the number of clams that can be harvest-

ed before exceeding the capacity. The actual number of pecks that
are harvested must be known to develop acceptable standards. Until

such information is available, conservative limits are recommended

for regulation of recreational clamming activities.

Oystering in New Hampshire is confined to the Great Bay Estuary.
There is substantial oyster resource in Great Bay which is lightly

harvested at present. For the past five years about 1,300 oyster-
ing licenses have been issued annually, according to the Fish and
Game Department of New Hampshire. In 1971, an estimated 7,238
bushels of oysters were harvested, which comprised 20% of the market-
able standing crop. A maximum sustainable yield was developed,
recommending that no more than 10,000 bushels be harvested per year.

-38-

In percentage terms, this means that a harvesting capacity of 2570
of the total population is the acceptable limit established for

oystering.

The methodology employed was not based on all of the scientific

information normally necessary in developing carrying capacity.- It

may be possible, however, that the oystering situation is not as
complex as more intense shellfishing activities. The exploitation

of oysters is so minimal that the population density, which is
relatively stable, can be monitored annually. Instead of utilizing

contributing factors to determine carrying capacity, the Fish and

Game Department established a limit on oystering based on the in-

formation that 20% of the population harvested yielded a constant

growth rate. It was assumed that a slight increase in harvest would
not significantly reduce the population, but that a 576 increase
might, andtherefore, should be considered the maximum limit. Until

that limit is approached, it will not be known whether or not the

rather arbitrary estimate is a good one.

The environmental conditions may also determine population

density. Limited information is available on the environmental para-

meters of Great Bay. Until this information is available it seems

unwise to determine a carrying capacity based only on harvesting rates.

4. Recreational Lobstering

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, in a report of March

1, 1975, states that "there is excellent evidence, collected primarily

in Maine, that the inshore lobster population in the Gulf of Maine

is being exploited to its maximum sustained yield level and perhaps

_39-

beyond." This report does not supply statistics on the carrying
capacity of lobstering in New Hampshire, because as it states

"there is a severe lack of accurate statistical information avail-

able concerning commercial and recreational fisheries in New

Hampshire's coastal zone."

This lack of information is due to both the inadequacy of re-

porting requirements that do exist, not to mention the inherent
difficulty of gauging the size of an ocean lobster population. While

lobster fishing is restricted to licensed residents and requires

catch and effort reporting, these "requirements are completely in-
adequate" and according to fishermen's admissions, "the data they

submit is inaccurate.

As lobster has already become prohibitively expensive after

seeing a dramatic price increase during the past five years, determ-
ining the carrying capacity of lobster population appears imperative,

for ecological as well as economic reasons. The current lobster

situation is-indicative of the fact that an economic enterprise can-

not prosper without taking biological laws into account. The more

lobsters that are currently harvested, the higher the resource cost.

in terms of time and effort. Unfortunately there is not guarantee

that the point of diminishing economic returns will be reached

before the lobster population is diminished to a point of exhaustion.

It must be remembered that while one pound lobster may yield $2.50
today, its potential profitability would multiply each time it is

allowed to reproduce.

-40-

E. Boating
Carrying.capacity for boating areas could not be determined be-

cause the data-available at this time is insufficient. Establishing

acceptable standards and numerical capacities is theoretically

appealing, but rqquires extensive knowledge of a variety of con-
tributing factors. Intensive research is essential in order to de-

termine accurate data. At present only estimates, which are extreme-

ly limited and misleading are available. An attempt to gather pert-

inent information was made utilizing these sources:

General

New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan 1975

Urban Planning and Design Criteria

Proposed Criteria for Water Quality

Specific Freshwater Studies
A preliminary study for evaluating the capacity of waters for

recreational boating

Impact.of Outboard Motor Operation on Water Quality

Specific Saltwater Studies
Analysis of pollution from marine engines and effects on the

environment

Marina del Rey: A study of environmental variables in a semi-

enclosed coastal water
(See references for complete citation)
A major problem in determining carrying capacity is a lack of
appropriate methodology. At present, limits and tolerance levels

are set somewhat arbitrarily, according to aesthetic or economic,

rather than scientific, indicators. In addition to being arbitrary,

these limits are also approximate, and must be considered estimate

instead of accurate statistics. Despite these shortcomings, the

_41-

available information concerning the carrying capacity for certain

recreational activites will be presented here. Ih-dothg'-Tso, it must be

realizedthat this information will more likely illustrate the in-

adequacy of the present methods and knowledge than indicate the

carrying capacities themselves.

The 1975 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan estimates carry-

ing capacities for boating, and distinguishes between "instant" and

"daily" carrying capacities. instant carrying capacity is the number

of persons.a particular facility can accommodate at any one time,

while daily,capacity is the number that can be accomodated during

one day. The daily capacity is.the product of the instant capacity

and the turnover rate, which is the number of times the facility

can be used by different individuals in one day. While this opera-

tioh is clear, theNH-ORPdid not clarify how the initial figure for

instant capacities or turnover rates were specifically determined.

The figures for boating and sailing were obtained through an exten-

sive review of standards set forth by other states and agencies,

although New Hampshire devised its own standards for other recreational

activities. As "it was difficult to determine if the environmental

conditions in New Hampshire and some other locale were similar"

(XI, 8) the following figures, expressed in person-acre ratios, are

not necessarily appropriate:

Maximum Optimum

Boating .5 persons/acre or 2 acres/person .25 persons/aefror 4
acres/person

Sailing 2.25 persons/acre or.4 acres/person 1,acre/person

Unfortunately, these comprise only one set of the many and

-42-

divergent figures contrived in the NHORP. While some are general

Northeastern estimates, and others supposedly specific to New

Hampshire, none are site specific. Nor is there any evidence that

these estimates are based on scientific information. Due to the

inadequacy of inflormation and-arbitrary nature of standards, these

I
figures should be considered in general terms until entensive review

and evaluation has taken place in the field." (VI, p36)

Another reference source is Urban Planning and Design Criteria

(PeChiara a-nd*Kopp-elman),. which provides general standards for boating

uses (See Tabl6-2). These standards are not specific as they are in-

tended to guide planners rather than dictate plans. Before construct-

ing a marina, it is recommended that experts determine the number,

types and sizes of both the existing boats and berthing facilities

in the a,rea, and also the condition of those facilities. The authors

attribute the difficulty in determining marina standards to the

variability of marina design, function, location and capacity which

make it "virtually impossible to arrive at standard conclusions and

judgements."'

The environmental impacts of boating are very important factors

when determining carrying capacity. Petroleum discharge from out-

board engines can have a significant adverse effect on the environ-

ment, lowering the carry capacity. Standards for oil pollution can

be a valuable tool in determining the limits of recreational boating.

Existing standards are contained in Proposed Water Quality Information

(US EPA 1973):

a) No visible oil on water surface

b) Concentration of emulsified oils not to exceed .05 of

the 96-hr. LC 50 value determined using the.receiving

_43-

Standard Facility Standard

100 acres for every 50,000 population. Ideal size motor boat area It takes 20 acres of water to support one power
of 100 acres and over. May be located within a boat. 13 boats in the water would require 260
district park, regional park or reservation. surface acres of open water to support a ramp.

1 lake or lagoon for every 25,000 people, ideal boat access unit 1 boat access unit capable of launching one boat
size of 20 acres of water area. May be located in at one time, serving 125 trailered boats or stor-
a community park or special regional reserva- age facilities berthing, mooring and the like for
tions. 100 non-trailered boats. 75 boats will operate
from one access unit on the season's peak day
and 50 boats on an optimum day.

Average number of canoes a day is 6, with 2 men Service radius of 25 miles for day-use boaters; 75
per canoe. Average daily trip distance is 15 miles. to 175 miles for weekend-users; 135 to 250 miles
for vacation boaters.

Streams must have an average flow of 100 cubis
feet a second in order to be generally suitable for boating 1 ramp on 1-1/2 acres for every 125 boat owners if
canoeing. boaters average 8 trips a year.

Estimating 2 persons per canoe per 1/2 mile of 21,000 sp. ft. of parking space per ramp, assum-
stream. Larger streams could probably handle ing a parking lot capacity equal to maximum ramp
one canoe per 1/4 mile of stream. capacity.

One ski boat requires 40 acres of water, there-
fore, 13 ski boats would require 520 acres of boat ramp A boat ramp occupies one acre of ground space
water to support one ski boat ramp. and can accommodate launching and retrieving
of about 40 boats per day per launching lane. 60
cars with boat trailers can be parked in area.

1/4 acre of water for every 1000 persons. Boating
area located in a county park that allows 12 acres
for every 1000 population. Ramps generally service 160 surface acres of
water available for boating. Each ramp has at
least one 75-foot vehicular turn-around.

for vacation boaters
Streams must have an average flow of 100 cubic
feet a second in order to be generally suitable for
canoeing. boating 1 ramp on 1-1/2 acre
boaters average 8 t

area Estimating 2 persons per canoe per 1/2 mile of
stream. Larger streams could probably handle 21,000 sq. ft. of par
one canoe per 1/4 mile of stream. ing a parking lot cap
capacity.
skiing area One ski boat requires 40 acres of water, there-
fore, 13 ski boats would require 520 acres of. boat ramp A boat ramp occupi
water to support one ski boat ramp. and can accommoc
of about 40 boats p
1/4 acre of water for every 1000 persons. Boating cars With boat traile
area located in a county park that allows 12 acres
for every 1000 population. 'Ramps generally s
water available for
least one 75-foot ve

DeChiara and
Table 2

water in question and the most sensitive species in

area.

c) The concentration of hexane e%tractable substances in

air dried sediments are not to exceed 1,000 mg/kg on

a dry weight basis.

Extensive research on the effects of oil on the plant and animal

communities of the marine environment has determined the following

threshold levels for petroleum concentrations in sea water:

Species Effect Concentration

phytoplankton productivity inhibited .0001 ppm.

clams and oysters mortality .01 to 1.0 ml/I

zooplankton mortality .1 ml/l for

starfish, barnecles mortality 3 - 72 hrs.

fish eggs
mortality .01 to-.001 ml/l

lobster timing & behavior, .009 ml/l

lobster larvae mortality .1 ml/l.

Oily odors were evident in shellfish at .0015 to .0017 ml/l.

Petroleum concentrations in the water and sediment should be maintained

below tolerance levels for acceptable environmental standards.

Research on the impacts of boating has been limited, yet is

needed in order to determine limitations on boating. Ashton and

Chubb (1972) condensed a preliminary study evaluating the number of

boats that lakes in Southeastern Michigan can accomodate without re-

ducing user satisfaction. Although the study specifically deals with

freshwater, the methodology is potentially applicabl.e to New Hampshire

areas. The relationship between the area used by boats and the levels

of use was determined and the carry ing capacity of surface waters for

-44-

recreational boating was predicted. The user's satisfaction defined

in terms of an index, was determined by survey. The index was cal-

culated by dividing the number of unfavorable responses by the

total number of responses for a given time and place. The area

used by boaters was quantified as a 'space consumption index', de-

termined by dividing the total area consumed by all activities by

the total water surface area. The user satisfaction index was re-

lated to the space consumption index, and the number of acres per

boat was inversely related to space consumption.

The impact of outboard motor discharge on Houghton Lake in Mich-

ican was investigated by the Michigan Water Resources Commission.

Bureau of Water Quality Appraisal in 1973. Of the 246,469 gallons
of fuel consumed, 12,000 to 25,000 gallons, or between 5 and 10%,
were discharged into the lake (based ona %discharge rate). These in-

vesti@ations involved studies on lead, phytoplankton, nutrients.,
zooplankton, benthic organisms, fish, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus,

14organic nitrogen, PH, chlorides, iron and toxic material.

The point at which outboard motor disbharge creates adVerse
biological and chemical condition might be considered the environmental

carrying capacity for the particular use.

The conditionsof a marine environment are more complex and

difficult to monitor than are freshwater systems. Mercury Marine,

Inc. (1973) conducted a pollution study of outboard motor's effect

on the marine environment. Stress rates, or tolerance levels, estab-

lished by determining the number of motor boats that could reasonably
be expected to occupy a given surface area of water under optimum

(sat uration) conditions. The average stress level for the water

system was one gallon of*fuel per million gallons of water per day.

_45-

This type of methodology can be utilized knowing the volume of water
in a given area and the consumption rate of gasoline. Variations

in circul ation currents, flushing rate and other characteristics

of non-uniform bodies of water must be accounted for. Complete in-

formation on such characteristics is not currently available for

New Hampshire.

The "environmental variables of a marina in a semi-enclosed

water body" were studied on the California coast (Bowerman and Chen,

1971). The physical, chemical and biological properties of the water

and sediment of the Marina del Rey boat harbor were examined in

order to determine if the berthing capacity of the marina had exceed-

ed the environmental carrying capacity. This report illustrates a

suitable scientific method for determining carrying capacity based

on extensive knowledge of the environmental conditions.

The preceeding review of literature concerning carrying capacity

for recreational water uses should illustrate that while some infor-

mation is available at present, a great deal of specific data still
remains to be gathered. It is suggested that in order to determine viable
carrying capacity standards for boating in New Hampshire, the foll-

owing measures be taken:
1) The specific location of the facility and the properties

of that region must be known

2) The criteria for determining carrying cap.-LCity Must

be defined, i.e. what single factor or combination of factors will

be the basis for judgement

Natural carrying capacity (in itself variable) must be

determined (in every experient there must be a control)

.(.1 4) The environmental conditions of the facility under

-46-

investigation must be relatively static in order to arrive at abso-

lute numbers.

5) The socio-economic, psychological and institutional

factors of the region must be determined

Althoughthe collection of this essential data will require

additional time and expense, it is hoped that the regults will enable

the state to develop meaningful performance standards.

References

Ashton, P.G. and.Chubbs, M., 1972, "A preliminary study for evalu-

ating the capacity of waters for recreational botating", Econ-

omic Research Service, Berkeley, California. Water Resources

Bulletin,"Voi. 8, pp 571-577.

Bowerman F.R. and Chen, K.Y., 1971, Marina del Rey: "A study of

environmental variable in a semi-enclosed coastal water" Los

Angeles,. University S.C. Sea Grant Program, Publication No.

4-71, 65p. Grants: USDC GH-89 and 2-35227.

DeChiara and Koppelman, Urban Planning and Design Criteria.

Impacts of an Oil Refinery Located in Southeastern New Hampshire:

A preliminary,!.study. The University of New Hampshire,@-Durham,_,_.

New Hampshire, 1974.

Mercury Marine, Inc., 1973, "Analysis of pollution from marine engines

and effects on the environment.." Boating Industry Association,

Project No. R801799-02-4.
-47-

Michigan Water Resources Commission, Bureau of Water Management Water
Quality Appraisal, 1973, "Impact of Ourboard Motor Operation on
Water Quality," Water Quality protection project, Houghton Lake,
Michigan. Tech. Bulletin No. 73-1., Department of Natural Re-

sources, Lansing, Michigan.

New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan, Department of Resources and
Economic Development, Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1975.

Proposed Water Quality Information, U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D.C.

20460 1973.

Report to the Office of.State Planning: Coastal Zone Management
Fisheries, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 1975.

Studies on the Soft-Shelled Clam, Mya arenariu, in the Hampton-

'Seabrook Estuary, New Hampshire Tech. Report V-2. Normandeau

Associates, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire 1974.

-48-

UJLU

DEVELOPMENT OF CARRYING CAPACITY BASED PERFORMANC
WATER USES

iodology Criteria For Determining Adverse Type of Carrying Capacity
Direct and Significant-Impacts Upon
Coastal Waters Which,Affect Uses
,.,source Uses

Waste Disposal I.. Re-introduction of nutrients into 1. Resource bearing capacity
(Dredge spoil) water column causing high BOD and
eutrophication
2. Re-introduction of toxic and persist- 2. Resource bearing capacity
ant compounds into the water column
3. Increased turbidity 3. Resource bearing capacity
4. Sedimentation.smothering bottom habitat Resource bearing capacity
5. Alteration-of'substate composition 5. Resource bearing capacity.
preventing reproduction and recoloni-
zation by shellfish and other benthic
organisms
Social -capacity
6. Aethetic degradation
7. Alteration of bathymetry Resource bearing capaci type
a': Change in water circulation
b. Change.in salinity and temperature
regimes
c. Change in effect of.. 1
erosion

DEVELOPMENT OF CARRYINGPACITY BASED PERFORMANC
WATER

hodology Criteria For Determining Adverse Type of Carrying Capacity
Direct and Significant'Impacts Upon
Coastal Waters Which Affect Uses
prce Uses

Waste Disposal
:-:(Sewage)
No treatment

1. Introduction of -pathogenic bacteria l.ResoUrce.bearing capacity
a. Public health hazard
1) contamination of shellfish
2) contamination of humans
ingesting H 0
b. Destruction of aquatic biota

2. Introduction of nutrients eutrophica- 2Resource bearing capacity
tion

3. Suspended solid. 3Resource bearing 6pacity

4. Increased BOD 4-Resource bearing capacity

5. Persistant and toxic non nutritive 5Resource bearing capacity
compound

6. Loss of recreation use of water 6.Social capacity

7. Aesthetic degradation 7Social capacity

8. Dilution of sea water 8-Resource bearing pacity

DEVELOPMENT OF CARRYING CAPACITY BASED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
WATER

-@@hodology Criteria For Determining Adverse Type of Carrying Capacity Limitation
Performance Standards To Avoid.
Direct and Significant'Impacts Upon Adverse Impacts
Coastal Waters Which-Affect Uses
tesource Uses

Waste Disposal Primary Treatment
(Sewage)
1. -Los's of recreation uses 1. Social capacity 1. At least secondary treatment by 1977
Best Ayail@ble technology by 1983-- s
If
2. @Offensive odors 2. Social capacity 2. specific
3. Increased fresh.water flows 3. Resource bearing capacity 3.

If
4. Increased BOD 4. Resource bearing capacity 4.
5. Pathogenic substances' to humans. 5. Resource bearing capacity 5.
6. Plant nutrients EutrQphication 6. Resource bearing eapacity 6. If
7. Non-nutritive organic, cgmpounds 7. Resource bearing capacity 7.

Secondary Treatment

1. Plant nutrients Eutrophitation 1. Resource beari-ng'capaci ty
2. Non-nutritive organic compounds 2. Resource bearing. capacity 2.

Tertiary Treatment

Exotic chemicals.
1. Resource bearing capacity

DEVELOPMENT OF CARRYING CAPACITY BASED PERFORMANC
WATER

hodo1ogy Criteria For Determining Adverse Type of Carrying Capac
Direct and Significant-Impacts Upon
Coastal Waters Which Affect Uses
Resource Uses

Waste' Disposal I. Introduction and accumulation of toxic 1. Resource bearing capacity
(Solid waste dumping) persistent-compounds (short term and
long term effects)..
2. Introduction of nutrient-increase BOD 2. Resource bearing capacity

oshore
3. Debris and residue carried t by 3 Social capaci ty /resource b
offshore currents
a. Aesthetically displeasing
b. Inhibitory to recreation
c. Public health hazard
d. Interference with fishing and
boating.
4. Breakdown of 'Material extremely slow 4. Resource bearing capacity
microbial activ-
A due to limited bottom
i ty (I ong term effects)
A 5. Suspended solids-.increased' turbidity 5. Resource bearing' capacity
Social capacity

WATER DEVELOPMENT OF CARRYING CAPACITY BASED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

thodology Criteria For Determining Adverse Type of Carrying Capacity Limitation Performance Standards To Avoid
Direct and Significant*Impacts Upon' Adverse Impacts
Coastal Waters Which Affect Uses
-source Uses

Recreation

J wimming. 1. Localized increase in turbidity and-, 1. Social capacity crowding N.H. Recrea-
1. Optimum daily capacity
human waste. nutrients tion Plan 330 persons/acre - site
specific
2. Localized disturbance of feeding and Resource bearing capacity 2. Site specific a stablished
nd no e*
for spawning areas standards

arina and boating 1.. Introduction of petroluem and anti- Resource bear,ing, capacity 1. 1 Gallon of fuel per million gallons
fouling contaminants of water/day

2. Navigational hazard to commercial' 2. Social capacity 2. Optimal level 4 acres per person
shipping and fishing.
Use and site specific
3. Introduction of.raw sew.agp Social'capacity 3. Us-e and site specific and no establishe,
standards
4. Localized dredging around marina 4. Resource bearing capacity 4. @specific and no- establ ishe
Use and site'
standards
5. Interferes with swimming 5. Social capacity
5. Use a'
nd site specific and no establish&
standards
6. Dumping of litter overboard 6. Social capacity Resource bearing capacity 6. No litter acceptable
7", Shell and fin fishing 1.. Over-exploitation of species reducing: 1. Resource bearing capacity 1. Oystering - exploitation shall not
(Recreational & sport: population
exceed 25% of population
@2. Li tteringw-aestheti c degradation 2. Social 'capacity /Resource bearing capacity 2. No litter acceptable
3. Disturbance -of benthic habitat 3. Resource bearing capacity 3- Use and site specific and no establishe(
app.Ticabl e to shellfishing
standards
S

DEVELOPMENT OF CARRYING CAPACITY BASED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

-or Determining Adverse Type of Carrying Capac
Methodology Criteria For Determining Adverse
Direct and Significant Impacts Upon Limitation
Resource Uses Coastal Waters Which Affect Uses

Residential

Low
Primary 1. Increased area of impermeable surface Resource bearing capacity
Density Zone a. Increased runoff
b. Restricts groundwater recharge
2. Sewage contamination of-groundwater Resource bearing capacity
A
or surface water

3. Lower water table (private wells) Resource bearing capacity
a. Saltwater intrusion

4. Preem tion of land from other uses
a. pLoss of wildlife habitat Resource bearing capacity

1b. Loss of vegetative cover neces- Resource bearing capacity
for nutrient and sedimenta-
4 sary
tion removal
Restriction of public access Social capacity
c

5. Aesthetic degradation Social capacity

6. Construction of flood and erosion Resource bearing,capacity
preventive structures

7. Site construction Resource bearing capacity
High a. Erosion and sedimentation Social capacity
Secondary Same as 1, 2, 3, and 7 of Primary Zone If
CO

Zone located near groundwater recharge areas,
lakes, and streams

DEVELOPMENT Of CARRY CAPACITY BASED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Type of Carrying Capacity
Criteria For Determining Adverse
Direct and Significant Impacts Upon Limitation
Resouce Uses Coastal Waters Which Affect Uses

Residential (cont)
Tertiary Zone Same as Secondary Zone

DEVELOP717111T OF CA;D%Ryq MIG CAPACITY BASED PE..RFOP%",W-!CE SU"Fl;

Criteria For Determinin- Adverse Type of Carrying Capacity Performance Standards To Avoid Adverse
.1 P, t',-, o d o 1 o cg'y
Direct and Significant Impacts Upon Limitation Impacts
Resource Uses Coastal Waters Which Affect Uses

Public Water Supply_
Lands

Primary Zone

oundwater 1. Lower water table,
a. Saltwater intrusion Resource.bearing capacity
Ir
2. Reduced hydrostatic pressure
a.'-Saltwater intrusion Resource beacing capacity
b. Reduced pump yields

Desalinization
treatment facili
ties 1. Thermal brine discharge System constraint capacity
Resource bearing capacity

Secondary Zone

,.Groundwater Same as Primary Zone for groundwater
Reservoirs 1. Disruption of natural freshwater flow Resource bearing capacity
_'(Impounded stre a. Loss of water
and rivers) b'. Increased concentrations of
pollutants

2. Int
erference of anadromous fish
migration Resource bearihg capacity

3. Restriction of na'Vigation Social capacity

Natural Surface
Waters (Lakes &
Rivers) 1. Reduced freshwater volume
a. Increased concentration of
arl

pollutants
Resource bearing capacity

DEVELOPMENT 0F CARRYING CAPACITY BASED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

fethodology Criteria For Determining Adverse Type of Carrying Capaci
Direct and Significant Impacts Upon Limitation
Resource Uses Coasta! Waters Which Affect Uses

Public Water Supply
cont)

Secondary Zone
(cont)
salinization 1. Thermial brine discharge
I System constraint capacity
tiary Zone "Same as Secondary Zone Resource bearing capacity

N.H. Coastal Resources
Management Ptogra
m
First Year Report
Attachment B - 13

----------

CURRENT DATA ON COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA

.,Prepared by

Strafford Rockingham Regional Council

Table of Contents

Abstract

Table of Contents

Preface

Present and F-iture Population Trends 1

Industrial Needs 3

'Housing Requirements 4

Mineral Resource Requirements 8

Transportation and Navigation Needs 10

Floods and Flood Damage Prevention 21

Communications Needs 22

Water Quality Requirements 25

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE PAGE

I Transportation Systems in Coastal Zone Planning Area . . . . . . 17

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

I Population in Coastal Zone Planning Area . . . . . . . . . 2
II Industrial/Commercial Development Land Needed 1980 - 2000 . . . . . 4

III Housing Adequacy and Population Coastal Zone Towns: 1970 . . . . . . .6
IV Projected Housing Requirements for the Coastal Zone Planning Area 7
V Sand and Gravel Resource.- N.H. Coastal Zone Planning Area 8
VI Comparison of Traffic with Capacities for Major Routes in Region
VII, Bus Routes . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . .. 13
VIII Rail Freight Traffic in Coastal Zone Planning Area . . . .. . . . . . 14

IX Time Lapse Between Pickup and Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

x Principle Commodities Flowing Through the Port of Portsmouth: 1973 18

xi Moorings in New Hampshire Harbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. 19
".'XII Town in Coastal Zone Plan Area and Zip Codes . . . . . . . . . . . 23
xiir Newspapers in Coastal Zone Planning Area . . ... . . . . . 23
'XIV Radio and Television Stations in the Coastal Zone Planning Area 24

Preface

The information contained in this paper has been collected by the staffs of the
Strafford and Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commissions under the
auspi-ces of the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council as an aid to the Office of
Comprehensive Planning of the State of New Hampshire. The individual items of con-
cern are those required by the contract between the Strafford Rockingham Regional
Council and the Office of Comprehensive Planning dated May 5, 1975.

Primary staff responsibility for the report was borne by Otis E. Perry, Assist-
ant Planning Director, Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.

I. Present and Future Population Trends

Each of the regional planning commissions with jurisdiction over the coastal zone
planning area have adopted population projections for the towns in their region. The
purpose of this section is to use those projections as a basis in making projections
for the twoIdivisions (primary and secondary*)- in the coastal zone planning area.
Table I, Population in the Coastal Zone Planning Area, shows the population estimated
for 1974 and projections for 1980 and 2000. With three exceptions the individual
town totals are those in the existing projections. The exceptions are Exeter, Hamp-.
ton and Portsmouth. In these cases the 1980 projections previously made have been
equalled or surpassed by the 1974 estimates. In the case of Exeter and Hampton the
projections were adjusted by using projections made using simple regression analysis
on past decennial census figures. In the case of Portsmouth the projections were
raised using the experience of the past five years and an analysis of the city's
zoning ordinance.
The allocation of the town's population to primary and secondary areaswas done
by using a straight ratio between the population and land area. The ratio used is

as follows:

total population population of-primary zone
total land area of town area of primary zone

The necessary assumption, that the density of population is uniform throughout
a town, is probabl y not true for every town. Many of these towns were initially
settled from the sea and their population centers are totally or partially within
the primary zone. The figure, while it is probably not completely accurate for in-
dividual towns is a reasonable one to use for the entire primary or secondary zone.
None of the figures presented in Table I include the summer population increase
which is experienced at the New Hampshire coast. The volume entitled Economic Impact

See Figure 1, Transportation Systems in the Coastal Zone Planning Area for a
-map of the primary and secondary zones, page 17.

Table 1. Population.in Coastal Zone Planning Area

1974 1980 2000
Town Primary Secondary Total* Primary Secondary Total Primary Secondary Total*'
Dover 3088 20145 23233 3722 24278 28000 4652 30348 35000
Durham 544 5014 5558 1369 12631 14000 2445 22555 25000
Exeter 779 9121 9900 866 10134 11000 1141 13359 14500
Greenland 88f- 1549 - 1930 553 :'.2247 2800 1816 7384 9200
Hampton 1920 7344 9264 2902 11098 14000 5183 19817 25000
Hampton Falls 144 1308 1452 159 1441 1600 476 4324 4800
Madbury --- 769 769 --- 300 800 7 1893 1900
New Castle 907 --- 907 1300 --- 1300 2000 --- 2000
Newfields 79 '752 831 95 905 1000 143 1357 1500
1
ington 239 461 700 682 1318 2000 1706 3294 5000
11,W,market 485 3130 3615 510 32 90 3800 698 4502 5200
North Hampton 257 3243 3500 588 7412 8000 1250 15750 17000
Portsmouth 4070 18581 22651 4493 20507 25000 5391 24609 30000
Rollinsford 251 1847 20�8. 323 2377 2700 454 3346 3800
Rye 1349 3006 4355 1797 4003 5800 3873 8627 12500
Seabrook 773 2917 3690 1152 4348 5500 2095 7905 10000
Stratham 143 1201' 1350 264 2236 2500 739 6261 7000

TOTAL .1-5409 .80394 -95803 20775 109025 129800 34069 175331 209400

Estimates made by New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning
Projections made by Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission and Anderson
Nichols Company

of Beach Use on the New Hampshire Coastal Zone, submitted to the Office of Compre-

hensive Planning in June 1.975, has in it some estimates of t1he number of coastal

visitors. Table X and the explanati on of that table on pages 21 and 22 of that

report indicate that there are about 3,252,400 user days in the New Hampshire coastal

season. This season is taken to be 119 days long as defined in that report. Thus

a.t any one day the average estimated number of users on New Hampshire's coast is
about 27,300 of whom about 3,300 (based upon the data in that report) are already

residents of the@coastal zone planning area. Of the 24,000 visitors, approximately
10,800 are there for the day only. The other 13,200 stayed at least one night.

It is quite difficult to project the number of visitors who might be coming to

the coast in the future. However, if all of the institutional constraints on the

number of people are,ignored, such as present parking, roads and housing, then the

sand area could be expected to provide a guide to the number of people who could use
the coastal beaches.* This area would allow the number of users to double. The

lower limit on the expansion of beach use would probably be best approximated by

the national annual population increase, now about 2.5%. Using this figure the

overnight visitor population at the beaches will be 15,300 in 1980 and 24,400 in 2000,

which is less than the calculated beach capacity.

II. Industrial Needs

According to the 1970 Census there were 33,961 people in the Coastal Zone plan-

ning area's labor force. About 22% of those people were employed outside the county

in which they lived. The remaining 78% were employed in their county of residence.

It is impossible to refine the data further to show employment percentages in the

coastal planning area. The major non-coastal zone employment center was York County,

Maine. The employer here is the nval shipyard in Kittery. Barring the outbreak of

See report The Economic Impact of Beach Users on the N.H. Coastal Zone,
Strafford Rockingham Regional Council, 1975.

-3-

a major war it is not expected that the number of jobs available at the yard will

grow substantially. Thus new jobs for the projected population will have to come
through increased oppo rtunity within the region or in the Boston Metropolitan area,

the other major employment area.

In order to estimate the industrial space needed it is necessary to determine

how many jobs will be required. This is possible using the population projections.

The 1970 labor force in the Coastal Zone planning area was 33,961, the population

was 90,258. Thus in 1970 the labor force in the Coastal Zone planning area was 38%

of the population. If this figure may be taken as normal for the region then some

projections of the size of the labor force in 1980 and 2000 may be made. Once the

.size of the labor force is known it is possible to project the additional acres of

commercial/industrial development land necessary to accommodate them. Table II-1

demonstrates the method of calculation and the number of acres requir ed for 1980 and

2000.

Table II

Industrial/Commercial Development Land Needed 1980-2000

1980 2000
Popul.ationi 129,800 209,400
Labor.Force2 49,324 79,572

Increase from 1970 15,363 45,611

3
Employed in region 11,983 35,577

Additional Acres Industrial/
Commercial land needed4 400 1,186

1 from table I

2
38% of population
3 .78% of increase
4 typically industrial and commercial operations require 1 acre per
30 employees

-4-

The projected increase in industrial/commercial acreage of 400 acres for 1980

and 1186 acres for 2000 is of course, subject to limiting assumptions. These are:

that the ratio of labor force to population remains constant, that the proportion

of people who commute-outside the planning area remains constant, and that the popu-
lation projections are accurate. The figures are not precise because of the assump-

tions, but they provide some guidelines for determining the amount of land necessary

to provide work for the planning area's increased population.

Part of the work done for the.Coastal Zone planning area was to class land by

its development suitability. The primary and secondary coastal area has 11,258 acres

of land classed excellent for development. This is more than enough land to accom-

modate the projected industrial/commercial needs to the year 2000.

III. Housing Requirements

The Strafford Rockingham Regional Cou-ncil @under,the name of Substate Six Co-

ordinating Committee published in 1973 a regional housing adequacy report, Regional
Housing Survey. This report was an analysis of the 1970 census. Table III in the

appendix to that repo rt lists for'.each town in the region.the size of itshousing

deficiency. This deficiency is calculated by subtracting the current housing stock

fromestimated demand. The current housing stock does not include substandard units

.already occupied.. Unfortunatelythere is noway to break this housing deficiency

into two components corresponding to the primary and secondary coastal zone plan-

ning areas. Table III shows this deficiency for each town. The larger towns and

.cities have constructed some subsidized housing since 1970. Portsmouth and Dover have

''gone a long way to eliminate these deficiencies. The small towns have not done this.

Table IV shows the new housing required in 1980 and 2000-if the population.pro-'.

J
ections are reached. These projected housing requirements are based upon Table I.,

Population Projections and the average occupants per dwelling unit from Table III.

ach of the figures uses the 1974 estimates as a base and represents@the additional

dwelling units needed for the population projected from that base.

-5-

Table III

Housing Adequacy and Population
Coastal Zone Towns: 1970

1970 Dwelling Average Housing
Town Population Units Occupants/D.U. Deficiency
Dover 20,850 6,889 3.03 173

Exeter, 8,892 3,086 2.88 82

Durh,am-l' 8,869 1,485 -3.-29 60

Greenland 1,784 542 3.29 12

Hampton 8,011 2,734 2.53 +84

Hampton Falls 1,254. 367 3.42 +11

Madbury 704 234 3.01 13

New Castle 975 300 3.25 +19

Newfields @843 225 3.75 20
Newington" 798 153 5.22 +2

Newmarket 3,361 1,164 2.89 81

North Hampton 3,259 1,031 3.16 +8

Portsmouth 19,737 8,461 2.33 256
Rollinsford. 2,273 717 3.17 3

Rye 4,083 1,466 2.79 +67
Seabrook 3,053 963 3.17 75

.Stratham 1,512 443 3.41 32

TOTAL 90,258 30,260 2.98 616

Source: Regional Housing Survey, Appendix Table II-C
Source: Ibid, Appendix Table III
Durham's., Population and housing stock fiqures are badly' skewed by the'large
student population.
*H Average occupants per dwelling is incorrect because of inclusion of occupants
of barracks at Pease A.F.B.

-6-

Table

Projected Housing Requirements
for the Coastal Zone Planning Area

1980 2000
Town- Primary Secondary @Primary Secondary
Dover 209 1,364 516 3,367

Durham* 277 2,256 638 5,886

Exeter 30 352 126 1,472

Greenland 120 488 504 2,049

Hampton 335 1,114 4,257

Hampton Falls 4 ..39 97 882

Madbury. .10 2 373

New Castle 121 336

Ne4fields 41 17 161.

Newington* 149 288 492- 951

Newmarket 9 55 74 475

North Hampton 105 1,319 314 3,958
Portsmouth 182 827 567 21587

Rollinsford 28 @167 64 473

Rye 161 357 905 2,015
Seabrook 120 451 417 1,574
Stratham 35 302 175 1,482
TOTAL 1,876 9,913 6,337 32,162

Use planning area average occupants per dwelling for these towns
as the one calculated in Table II are badly skewed.

-7-

None of these calculations takes account of the summer visitors. In Part I

of this pa per an estimate'of the projected number of summer visitors who stay over-
night was made. That figure was 15,300 and 24,400 per night for 1980 and 2,000
respectively. From the report, The Economic Impact of Beach Use on the New Hampshire
Coastal Zone (Table III, p. 16 and the number of parties interviewed, 314), the aver-

age number of people per vacationing party can be established. If it is assumed

that each party occupies one dwelling unit then a projection for the number of vaca-
tion dwelling units needed may be made. The average number of indiViduals per party
is 6.49. These figures lead to the conclusion that 324 new vacation dwelling units
will be needed by 1980 and 1726 additional units by 2000.

IV. Mineral Resource Requirements

The only mineral resource of significance in the coastal zone planning area is
sand and gravel. This mineral resource is of grea t importance to the construction

industry. The planning area is well endowed with this resource, the result of a
geologically "recent" glacial intrusion. Potential.for the mining of sand and gravel
exists both on and off shore. Table V lists the potential mining areas and an esti-

mate of the amount available.

Table V

'Sand and Gravel Resource
New Hampshire Coastal Zone Planning Area
(cubic yards)

Estimated Amount
Location Good Potential Fair Potential
'Primary Zonel 18.8 million
Secondary Zonel 122.6 million
Territorial Sea2 25.4 million 12.7 million
Contiguous Zone2 23.2 million 37.9 million
1 Calculated from data supplied by state geologist and estim ating 25 foot average
depth of deposit
2 Calculated from data in Offshore Sand and Gravel, SSRC 1975, and estimating 10
foot average depth of deposit recommended by that report.

-8-

The locations in Table V refer to the divisions of the planning area on land

and the legal jurisdictions in coastal waters. The responsibility for controlling

offshore minin g in the territorial sea i.s the State of New Hampshire's. The federal

government has that responsibility in the Contiguous Zone. The potential mining in

the Contiguous zone is mentioned because it is close enough to New Hampshire's coast

that support facilities associated with such mining would be likely to be located

on that coast. The area's of "good potential" are defined as bottom areas of high

surficial sand and gravel content where there is no indication of bedrock. Areas of

f1fair potential" are defined as area where sand and gravel is likely to exist but.

where no investigations have been made-to determine the extent of the deposits. Areas

of good and fair potential lie outside the contiguous zone but are not counted as

part of, New.Hampshire's resource as the mi ning activity could be based in neighboring

states.

In 1972, producers in New Hampshire produced 5,757,000 short tons of sand and
gravel. As there are 1.4 short tons to t he cubic yard*,,* the state produced 4,112,142

cubic yards in 1972. Ninety percent of this material was used in the construction

industry. A great deal of it was shipped out of the state, mainly to the Boston
metropolitan area. Using Ionly the areas.of good potential and excluding the contig-

uous zone, the total estimate of 166.8 million cubic yards of sand and gravel would

satisfy the state of New Hamps@hire's local and export needs for 40 years. This kind

of pressure will not of course be brought on the coastal area. Considerations Of

distance and availability dictate that New Hampshire's need be filled by mining

throughout the state.

The mining of sand and gravel on land is controlled by the municipalities. In
the coastal zone planning area one town (Seabrook) prohibits commercial extraction.
of sand and gravel, four towns ha.ve no regulations concerning sand and gravel extract-
ion, and.the other towns all require a permit and place certain restrictions on sand

"Sand and Gravel", U.S. Bureau of Mines Yea rbook 1972. USGPO
Standard conversion measure.

-9-

and gravel extraction. Offshore the Governor and Council of the State of New Hamp-

shire have permit authority in the territorial sea. The Bureau of Land Management

controls mining in the contiguous zone and seaward.

V. Transportation and Navigation Needs

The Coastal Zone planning area utilizes nearly every mode of transportation in use in

this country today except tho se involving passenger traffic on rails (which it used

to have as well).

Almost all passenger trips are by private automobile, the remainder are by

taxi, interstate bus, or airport limousine. A very few are by private aircraft or

boat (one carrier operates a passenger boat service to the Isle of Shoals).

Freight generally travels by truck, although significant amounts enter by freight-

er through the Piscataqua port facilities in Portsmouth and Newington, and, a sig-

nificant amount of rail freight passes through the region enroute.

The planning area does not have any major transportation problems of its own

making. Traffic jams are limited to through traffic on 1-95 and Lafayette Road
(Route 1). Very slow traffic is common along Route 1A along the.coast during the

summer, but, it is clear that those who are poking along at 15 miles per hour are

quite willing to do so. There are there to enjoy the salt air and the view.

The highway system in the.planning area includes two major east west routes
(U.S. Route 4 and Route 101) and two major north south routes (Interstate 95/Spauld-
.ing Turnpike and Route 125). The location of the routes is shown on the map Figure

One. Table VI shows the traffic volume and design life of these routes and selected

other routes.

'These capacities are the maximum number of vehicles per hour that a road will

handle -- not necessarily conveniently or safely. Highway traffic is reported in

vehicles per day. The design capacity may be reached or surpassed at any hour of

the day, while there may be little or no traffic at other times. For example, capac-

ity may be reached at prime commuter hours of 4-6 p.m. but at no other time of day.

Table VI

4
Comparison of Traffic With Capacities for Major Routes In Region
1. . 1. % Aver. -D@LteC
Recorder Estimated 1974 Annual Incr. est. daily
Location Daily Capacity Av. Day 1970-1974 Cap. Reach.
N.H. Turnpike (Toll) 96,000 3. 25,860 2.2 2020+

No. Hampton U.S. 1 24,000 9,762 1.5 2020+

No. Hampton N.H. 1-A 14,400 3,657 2.3 2020+

Hampton Harbor 1-A 14,400 7,234 .3 2020+

Newington Route 16 64,000 22,616 4.3 1985

Stratham Route 101 14,400 10,675 5.2 1980

Exeter (E & H) 14,400 5,930 3.3 2018

Lee Route 125 14,400 4,667 3.7 2020

Somersworth N.H. 16A 14,400 5,707 3.8 2020+

Dover N.H. 16 14,400 7)852 1.1 2020+

Spaulding Turnpike 64,000 9,196 5.8 2020+
Dover

Spaulding Turnpike 64,000 E5-726 4.4
2020+
Rochester

Route 4 Northwood 14,400. 3,787 2.0 2020+

1.
Source: Automatic Traffic Recorder Report, State of New Hampshire
Department of Public Works and Highways.

.2.
Source: Calculated from.information in Appendix E, 1990 Fuctional
Systems Characteristics, National Highway Functional Classification
and Needs Study Manual (1970 to 1990), Manual B of National Trans-
portation Planning Study, U.S. Department of Transportation, Febru-
ary, 1970.

3.
Capacity based upon 6 lanes of traffic.

4.
Date 2020+ indicates that capacity is not expected to be reached
before year 2020 if trends of 1970-74 continue.

All of the traffic figures are averages.- tht is average Sunday or average weekday.

The hourly range of traffic between peak hours and minimum hours is no known. This

means that multiplying the capacity (in VPH) of a stretch of road by 24 to get the
daily capacity is unrealistic. In this region, at.all of the traffic counter lo-

cations, over 90% of the daily traffic occurs between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. For this

reason the daily capacity of a road was calculated to be the hourly capacity of that
style of road times 16 (the number of hours between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m.)

The expected date that ca*pacity will be reached is purely an estimate based

upon trends of the last four years. The figures do not take account of seasonal

variation. They are to be used as guides only. It is not expected that traffic on

the roads will behave in exactly this manner.

The planning area is well served by motor transport companies. There are over
thirty-five (35) local trucking firms based in the area. There are six (6) long
distance trucking firms. Twenty-four (24) large long distance firms serve the
region but do not have terminals in the region. Truck service is demand elastic,

that is, companies can vary the level of service very readily in responses to market

conditions.

The planning area has taxi service in all of its major municipalities. Most of

the non-private car east-west passenger movement is by taxi. There are a few buses
which take specialized users on east-west routes specifically. These are work buses

to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard from Exeter and federally funded disadvantaged

citizen transportation..

The major passenger movers in the planning area, outside of private cars, are
buses. There are three interstate carriers operating regular routes in the re'gion;

Continental Trailways, Michaud, and Greyhoud Lines.

Table VII Bus Routes, shows the information for the major scheduled carriers.

In addition there are four (4) charter lines in the area. Also the University of

New Hampshire runs a bus line to Newmarket, Lee, Portsmouth and Dover. Only students

and employees of the University are allowed to ride. There is also a limousine

service from Dover to Boston with stops in Durham and Hampton which runs five times

a day, except Saturday.

Table VII

Bus Routes

Round Trips
Per Day Carrier Regional Stops Origin/Destination

5 Michaud Dover, Durham, Newmarket, Exeter Springvale, Me./Boston

1 Trailways Dover, Portsmouth, Hampton Rochester, N.H./Boston

7 Trailways Portsmouth, Hampton Portland, Me./Boston

2 Trailways Portsmouth, Hampton Berlin, N.H./Boston

4 Greyhound Portsmouth, Hampton Portland, Me./Boston

7 Greyhound Portsmouth Portland, Me./Boston

SOURCE.: local bus terminals

The Boston and Maine provides rail service in the planning area by two through

lines and one regional line. Major service is provided by the trunk line which

runs north-south between Portland and Boston, passing through Dover, Newmark et, New-

fields and Exeter. There is.no passenger service provided, eitherthrough or local.

The New Hampshire segment of the coastal line,,formerly through the Boston to South

Portland, Maine, is cut at- the southerl:y end by, an- inoperative bridge - the Mer-
ri-mack River between Newburyoort and Salisbury. Freight for the coastal towns must

go through Portsmouth and Rockingham Junction in Newfields... Table VIII summarizes

the rail freight traffic in the region. Table IX shows the time lapse between freight

on board and delivery to major markets.

Table VIII

Rail Freight Traffic in Coastal Zone Plan/Area

Portsmouth to Rocki ngham Junction on e round trip per day 15-20 cars

Portsmouth, Newington, Hampton Line one round trip on Wednes- 2-15 cars
day, Friday

Portland, Me to Mechanicsville, N.Y. two round trips a.day through approx..-_-100*_cars,_..-.,

Portland, Me. to Worcester 1 round trio through 20-60 cars

Portland, Me. to Boston, Ma. one round trip a day through 15-40 cars

Dover-Farmington-Gonic 1 round trip per day 5-15 cars

Dover-Ossippee 1 round trip 25-30 cars

SOURCE: Boston and Maine Railroad

Table IX

Time Lapse Between Pickup and Delivery

Portsmouth/Dover and: Time Lapse

Boston next day

New York 2 days

Chicago 4.days

Detroit 4 days

Source: Economic Area Profile, New Hampshire Department DRED 1969

There is only one civilian airport of any consequence in the region. That is

the Hampton Airport, a privately operated general aviation facility. Most air

travelers go either to Logan International Airport (50 miles south of-the planning
area) or Manchester Municipal Airport (40 miles west). A fe w go to Portland Municipal
Airport (40 miles northeast). There is no commercial air carrier service available

closer than those three places. Pease Air Force Base which has the equipment to

handle large commercial aircraft currently does not permit such use but has said

that they would allow commercial use of their control tower if a new runway parallel

to and one mile west of the present one and a new terminal building were constructed.
The required location for the -runway would be in Great Bay. It seems likely, there-
fore, that for the immediate futu're air travelers will-continue to rely on Logan

and Manchester,

-14-

General aviation fields serve mostly sport flyers and businesses. Fields

offering this kind of service cannot be too far away from their customers. Besides

Hampton and Manchester there are three general avaiation airports which, though

outside the planning area, serve the sport and business flyers of the area. They

are Sky Haven in Rochester, Concord Municipal in Concord, and Boire Field in Nashua.

The New Hampshire Aeronautics Commission has been attempting to get funds for a

-ham or Exeter; so far these efforts have not been
general aviation field in Strat

successful.

Airport size is determined in large part by the number of individual operations

which take place in a year. One operation (op) is a take-off or landing. Ops are

classified as to local (those performed by.planes based at t he airport) and intin-

erant. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) requires 50,000 itinerant ops a year be-

fore they will build and operate an air control tower.
Hampton is a privately owned general aviation airport* located east of U.S. Route

1 at Fogg Corner in North Hampton. It has a 300 by 2050 foot turf runway, no navaids;

it is partially lit with homemade equipment. There are twenty-one (21) aircraft based
there with 2600 itinerant and 3600 local ops in 1970. Part time repairs and 80 octane

fuel are available.

Concord Airport is a publicly owned general aviation airport located southeast

of the center of the city off U.S. Route 3. It has three lighted bituminous runways.

Navigation aids include VORTAC and ADF. Major power trainand airfoil repairs are

available as are both 80 and 100 octane fuel. There are thirty-three aircraft based

at the airport, with 6930 civilian and 3000 military itinerant ops and 12,.315 local

ops in 1970.

Manchester Airport has both general aviation and air carrier service. The air-

port has two lighted paved runways and offers major airfoil and power train repairs,

80 and 100 octane and jet fuel.

Data on individual airports is from the N.H. Airport Directory 1970-71, the
New Hampshire Aeronautics Commission, and Paul J. Dwyer, Aviation Analyst, New Hampshire
Aeronautics Commission.
** VORTAC-stationary instrument approach facility available at Manchester, Nashua
and Concord. ADF-low frequency radio homing beacon for locating aircraft and airports.

.The airport has a control tower and navigation aids include VORTAC and ADF.

There are 40 general aviation aircraft based there wi-'L-.h 55,266 civilian and 1613

military itinerant ops and 63,564 civilian and 3632 military local ops.

Sky Haven airport is a publicly owned general aviation airport with one.lighted

paved runway located on Route 16 south of the city of Rochester. Major airfoil

and power train repairs are available. There are thirty-one aircraft based at the

facility. In 1970 there were 6510 itinerant ops and 11,625 local ops.

Boire Field is owned by the city of Nashua. It has one paved lighted runway

approximately one mile long. Navigation aids include the VORTAC and ADF. Major

powertrain and airfoil repairs are available as are 80 and 100 octane and jet fuel.

Boire had 36,000 itinerant and 91,200 local ops in 1970.

There are two specialized transpor tation networkds in the planning area. These

are the gas distribution lines and the electric transmission lines. The map Figure

One shows the location of these facilities. Any expansion of these facilities would

depend upon.market demand as perceived by the companies involved. Gas company

officials contacted did not feel that expansion was likely in the near future. This

is especially true considering the L.P. gas facility recently constructed in Newing-

ton which depends upon ship, truck, and rail transport. Public Service Company,

the sole generator of electric power in the planning area has plans to greatly ex-

pand their generation and transmission capacity. Precise location of transmission

routes is still not certain. Company officials may be contacted for latest revisions.

The New Hampshire Coastal Zone planning region has one major port, Portsmouth/

Newington and several smaller ones. The port of Portsmouth/Newington is a general

cargo port handling mainly petroleum products. Table X shows the cargo handled at

Portsmouth for 1973.

Other ports along the coast are Rye Harbor, Hampton Harbor and Seabrook Harbor.

These other harbors are used mainly to land the local lobster catch and for recreational

boating. Each one has its share of commercial sport fishing boats. Table XI lists

-16-

LEGEND OLLINSFORa.'
AN,
TOWN BOUNDARY DOVER
STATE BOUNDARY

MULTILANE HIGHWAY

MAJOR ROADS

RAIL LINES
ADBURY
ROCKINGHAM JUNCTION
Scale
GAS TRANSMISSION LINE
0=44
go. Major 0 1 2 3 4 5
................. Minor
155 miles
ELECTRIC UTILITY 4

Power Line
Transmission Substation
Distribution* Substation

URHAM t
COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA
168 PORTSMOUTH

NEW
EW TIOP
CASTLE
PRIMARY ING
El SECONDARY NEWMARKET
-G R VN AND@, -.00

NEWFIELDS ...'ST HA@
A

101
- RYE

EXETER
I A,:
95
NORTH
HAMPTON

>- - - - - - - - - HAMPTOR.,:

1HAMPTON
WALLS
N

X..

SEABROOK

FIGURE ONE.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

IN COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA

.-Tabl@e X- Principal Commoditi e Port of Portsmouth, N.H. 1973
es Flowing Through th
(Short Tons)

Commodity Total Foreign Domestic
Imports Exports Coastal Internal

Receip Shipments Receipts

Crude rubber 582 582
Fresh fish 139 136 3
Shellfish 3 3
Limestone 115,706 115,706
Salt 84,277 84,277
Meat and products 483 483
Lumber. 5,408 5,408
Veneer, plywood 128 128
Synthetic rubber 11 11
Gasoline 208,242 184,798 23,444
Jet fuel 78,615 65,626 12,989
Kerosene 141,640 71,988 62,769 6,883
Distillate fuel oil 747,137 223,209 504,996 18,932
Residual fuel oil 839,102 792,412 46,690
Lubricating oils 23,358 23,358
Petroleum and coal products 56,025 56,025
Iron and steel plates, sheets 2,766 2,766
Machinery except elec. 618 18 600
Electrical machinery 110 110
Iron and steel scrap 10,546 10,546
Commodities 2 2

TOTAL 2,314,900 1,294,195 13,453 944,262 62,984 6.

SOURCE: Waterborne Commerce of United States, 1973.

the harbors and their moorings. The data was collected from the harboriliaster of

each facility. All of the harbormasters queried said that theycould fill any new

mooring facility that they could find. In all cases dredging of various amounts

would be needed before new moorings could be made.

Table XI

Moorings in New Hampshire Harbors

No. of Moorings

Harbor Recreational Lobster/Finfishing Sport Fishing Total

Seabrook 12 38 6 56

Hampton 67 15 7 89

Rye 106 25 4 35

Gosport @15 15

Portsmouth 320 80 400

520 158 17 695

.SOURCE: Harbor masters of the various harbors.

Each one of the harbors has been the site of a Corps of Engineers navigation

project in the past. The following descriptions of these projections were obtained

from the Corps. As of the present time there are no new projects contemplated*or

underway.

Portsmouth:

The project was adopted 3 September 1954, modified 23 October 1962, and 23 Dec-

ember 1965 by the Chief of Engineers under Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act

of 1960, amended 1965.

Provides for a 35-foot channel, 400 feet wide with additional width at the

bends by removal of ledge rock at Henderson Point, Gangway Rock, Badger's Island,

the Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Bridge, and Boiling Rock, from deep water in

_19-

Portsmouth Harbor to a point about 1,700 feet above the Atlantic Terminal Sales dock

in Newington, with a 950-foot turning basin above Boiling Rock and an 850-foot

turning basin at the head of the project; and a 6-foot channel, 100-feet wide from

Little Harbor through the Rye-New Castle drawbridge and then northerly between the
mainland and Leach's Island to deep water-'near Shapleigh Island, and a.6-foot chan-

nel, 75-feet up Sagamore Creek with an anchorage strip of the same depth, 75-feet

wide and totaling 3 acres, in Sagamore Creek.

The 35-foot channel was completed in Febrary 1969. Construction of the small

boat channels in the Rye-New Castle area completed in February 1971. The project

cost: $5,353,357.

Rye Harbor:

The existing project authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1.960 provides

for a 10-foot deep entrance channel, an access channel 8 feet deep to the head of

the harbor, an anchorage 8 feet deep over a 5 acre area at the south side of the

harbor, an- anchorage 6 feet deep over a 5 acre area at the.north side of the harbor,

,and for maintenance of existing breakwaters at either side of the harbor entrance.

The waterway was dredged in 1962 and the spoil material placed on the state-

owned land at the head of the harbor to provide a fill area for construction of a

public landing and for future expansion of shore facilities. Supplemental work was

undertaken in 1964 for removal of two small ledge areas encountered during the dredg-

ing work. Local interests contributed 32 percent of the project cost and, in addi-

tion, made anchorage and shore improvemen ts. The harbor is used by lobstering and

Jishing boats, as well as by recreation craft.

Hampton Harbor:

Hampton Harbor is a rectangular lagoon behind the barrier beach villages of

Hampton Beach and Seabrook Beach. It is located at the mouth of the.Hampton River,
about 1.5 miles nor th of the Massachusetts state line. A small lobstering fleet and

numerous recreational craft base at the harbor.

-20-

A project was approved in 1964, under Section 107 authority of the 1960 River

and Harbor Act, providing for a channel 8 feet deep and 150 feet wide across the

entrance bar, and for extension of existing state-built stone jetties at the harbor

entrance. Work on the federal project was accomplished under two contracts during
1965. Local interests contributed 49 percent of the project cost.

A third contract was accomplished in 1965, as part of the authorized nourish-

ment of the existing Hampton Beach project, in which dredged material from channel

and anchorage areas within Hampton Harbor was placed at the northern end of the

Hampton State Beach.

Local interests are required to maintain at least 22 acres of anchorage and
access channels 6 feet deep within the harbor and maintain two public landings. A
safe walking surface was provided along the top surface of the north jetty extension

for use by sport fishermen.

The Corps has no plans for expansion of the navigational facilities in any of
the harbors. Any,more work would have to be requested locally and directly authorized

by the U.S. Congress.

VI. Floods and Flood Damage Prevention
.Floods are 6 reasonably common occurrance in the Coastal Zone planning area.
The most common type are coasta I floods triggered by a storm at sea coupled with
high tides. The most recent floods of this type were in February, 1972 and December
1974. Areas in Seabrook, Hampton, Rye and New Castle were flooded at those times.
Plaice Cove and North Beach in Hampton and Route 1A in Rye were the worst hit areas.
Annually in the spring certain low lands of the planning area are flooded by

stream overflow due to spring rains and snow melt run-off. Due to the localized

nature of the flooding and its relatively small scale, records of its extent have not

been systematically kept..

A check of the records of the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service
reveal no major flood prevention works in the planning are a. There were, however,

-21-

two major beach erosion projects done by the Corps. One at Hampton Beach in 1955

and 1965 and one at Wallis.Sands in Rye in 1963. Both of these projects involved

the placing of sand fill on the beach and the construction of sea walls and othe.r

works to prevent the loss of sand. The Soil Conservation Service has constructed

-ors which
many drainage,facilities for individual co-operat serve to control locally

the impact of the spring run-off floods.

All of the towns in the Coastal Zone planning area have been declared flood

prone for the purposes.of the National Flood Insurance program. North Hampton
has not yet received its maps showing the flood hazard boundaries. New Castle,

Newmarket, Exeter, Hampton, Portsmouth and Dover are eligible communitities. Part-

icipation in this program requires that%communities reguilate constructJon in the,

special flood hazard area so as to minimize the loss due to flood. All of the towns

in the region have either adopted or proposed to adopt such regulations.

VII. -Communications Needs

Communications in the Coastal Zon e Planning Area are handled in the same way
as throughout the rest of the country. They major means of communications is by
telephone. Service is available in the entire planning area. There are twelve
telephone exchanges serving the region. The main serving offices are in Dover and
Portsmouth., One telephone directory covers the entire region with the exception of
Seabrook and part of Hampton Falls.
Postal service is next most commonly used communication means in the planning
area. All of the municipalities with the exception of Madbury and Newington have
their own post office and zip code. They are all serviced out of the Portsmouth main

post office and have 038 zip code prefix. Table XII lists the towns and zip codes.

In addition to the individual communications media listed above there are three

forms of mass communications available in the Coastal Zone Planning area. These are

radio, television, and newspapers. The newspapers circulated in the Coastal Zone

planning area are Tisted in Table XIII. Table XIV lists the radio and television

-22-

stations.

All of these communications media are capable of expansion to meet the needs

of an expanding population.

Table XII

Towns in Coastal Zone PlanIning Area and. Zip Codes

lown Zip Town Zip

Dover 03820 Newington (from Portsmouth)

Durham 03824 Newmarket 03857

Exeter 03833 North Hampton 03862

Greenland 03840 Portsmouth 03801

Hampton 03842 Rollinsford 03869

.Hampton Falls 03844 Rye 03870
Madbury (from Durham or Dover) Rye Beach* 03871

New Castle 03854 Seabrook 03874

Newfields .03856 Stratham 03885

Both located in, township of Rye.

Table XIII

Newspapers in the Coastal Zone Planning Area

Local

Town Frequency
Name Published Published Area Covered

Foster's Daily Democrat Dover Daily Dover, Durham, Exeter
Portsmouth Herald Portsmouth Daily Portsmouth, Exeter, Rye
Exeter News-Letter Exeter Weekly Exeter, Hampton, Newmarket
Hampton Union Hampton Weekly Hampton, Seabrook
Rockingham County Gazette Hampton Weekly All Rockingham County
The New Hampshire U.N.H. Semi Weekly U.N.H.

-23-

Published.Outside-Area

Manchester Union Leader Manchester Daily & Sunday All
New Hampshire Times Concord Weekly All
Bordertown News NewbUryport, Ma. Weekly Hampton, Sea-
brook, Exeter
Boston Globe Boston, Ma. DailSr & Sun. All

'Boston Record American
and Herald Traveler Boston, Ma. ' Daily & Sun. All
New York Times New York City Daily & Sun. All

Table XIV

Radio and Television Stations
in the Coastal Zone Planning Area_

Radio Located in Planning Area

Call Letters Town Area Served

WTSN-AM Dover Dover, Durham

WDNH-FM Dover Dover, Durham

WVNH-FM Durham Dover, Durham, Newmarket

WBBX-AM Portsmouth Portsmouth, Rye, Hampton

WHEB-AM/FM Portsmouth Portsmouth, Rye, Hampton

WKXR-AM Exeter Exeter, Stratham, Newfields

Radio Located Outside Planning Area

WWNH-AM Rochester Dover, Durham

Various Boston and Haverhill AM and FM stations

Television Located in Planning Area

WENH-TV Durham All

CATV Dover Dover

CATV Portsmouth Portsmouth

Te levision Located Outside the Planning Area

WBZ-VHF Boston, Ma. All

WHDH Boston, Ma. All

WCVB Boston, IMa. All

WGBH Boston, Ma. All

WCSH Portland, Me. All

WGAN Portland, Me. All

WMTW Poland Spring, Me. All

WMUR-VHF Manchester, N.H. All

WSBK-VHF Boston, Ma. All

WGBX-UHF Boston, Ma. All
WLVI-UHF Boston, Ma. All
SWMW-VHF Worcester, Ma. All

These are cable.stati6n,� licensed. in those towns only.

VIII. Requirements for Achieving Water Quality

The quality of New Hampshire's coastal waters has improved over the past five

years, though some areas still fall far below the legal Class B quality standards.

According to the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, all state waters

must meet the adopted 'legal classification standards possible by 1985. There is a

real possibility that the state could achieve these water quality standards by the

proposed deadlines, but only if stringent controls over all potential point, and

implemented..;
non point, sources are

A survey of all coastal waters indicates that certain areas of the coastal zone

presently meet or exceed the legal Class B standards. Most of the waters along the

immediate coast from Seabrook to New Castle are identified as Class A. In addition,

waters in Hampton Harbor and Great Bay are generally Class B or better. However,

-25-

other areas, particularly along the inland rivers, present serious waterquality

problems.

The major point sources of poll ution along these rivers are the result of both
industrial and municipal outfalls. A few point sources have discharges large enough
to be significant in and of themselves. However, the majority become significant
because of the marginal impact they produce on an already polluted river. The New

Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC) has identified all
major point sources, including type and quantify of discharge, and has initiated plans
to reduce these effluents.*

According to the plan, there are 20 industrial point source polluters in the
entire coastal basin area. One industry, Clemson Automotive of Exeter, is responsible
for nearly 50 percent of the total Biological Oxygen Demand and Suspended Solids
produced by all industrial sources..- Clemson has begun construction of a waste treat-
ment facility which should be in operation by 1976, thus eliminating a major source
of industrial pollution. Two other major polluters, Spaulding Fiber Company and
Milton Leather Board Company, have initiated plans to install pollution control

equipment by 1977.

If all the industrial polluters comply with the implementation schedule proposed
by the commission - and it is expect edthey will - then one major source.of exist-

ing wate@ pollution should be virtually eliminated by 1977. In addition, all new
industries locating in this area will be required to install the best applicable
pollution control equipment available to insure that no future deterioration of water

quality will occur.

Municipal sewage outfalls represent a more serious threat to water quality.
Total discharges from all sources approximates 12 million gallons per day (MGD)
of which only 3.2 MGD receives secondary treatment prior to discharge. Although
all municipalities are required by the Federal Water Pol-lution Control Act to adopt

Piscataqua River and Coastal New Hampshire Basins Water Quality Management
Plan, New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, 1975.

_26-

secondary sewage treatment technology by 1977, it is already apparent that some

extensions will be required.

The most significant municipal polluter is the city of Rochester. A secondary

treatment system planned to handle the sewage of Rochester, East Rochester and Gonic

failed shortly after construction was completed late in 1971. Since then, raw

sewa.ge amounting to 2-3 MGD has been discharged directly into the Cocheco River.

Political haggling and litigation have impeded efforts to repair the malfunctioning

system, or to take any other course of action to alleviate the problem. Recently

however, pressure from the EPA and the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution

Control Commission has forced the city to begin planning for a new secondary treat-

ment facility, but it is not scheduled for completion until 1978. Obviously this is

one case where the 1977 deadline will not be met.

Other municipalities (Dover, Exeter, Portsmouth) with outdated or inadequate

treatment facilities have plans to upgrade their systems by 1978. Those municipal-

ities which have no treatment facilities at present are scheduled to "come on line"

by 1978 at the latest. However, it is highly conceivable that political and/or

financial constraints, similar to those experienced in Rochester, could delay im-

plementation of the proposed schedule in other communities as well.

Apparently,adequate federal funding is available (under section 301 of the

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments) to help finance actual construction

of municipal sewage treatment facilities. However, construction is only the last
phase in what can often be a lengthyplanning process to determine the most appropriate
system for a specific town. Not until this year (1975) was most of the federal

money previously allocated-for area-wide waste treatment management planning, actually

released. As a result, many municipalities are behind schedule in the planning phase

of the management program.

Subsequent delays in the design and construction phases can also be anticipated.

The extent of the delay may depend upon how quickly a section 208 waste treatment

planning program can be initiated in the coastal region. It is already apparent that

-27-

not all municipal wastes will be recieving secondary treatment by the proposed 1977
deadline. However, it is still possible that with an adequate planning program the
1983 deadline for Best Applicable Technology on all municipal sewage treatment fac-

ilities can be met.,

Non-point sources of pollution present another definite threat to water qual-
ity in the New Hampshire coastal area. Thus far, however,-the Waster.Supply and
Pollution Control Commission has not been able to determine the extent of these im-
pacts, because they are presently masked by the more obvious point source discharges.
A limited investigation of non-point sources such as agricultural runoff, erosion
due to construction and logging, sewage seepage from private systems and storm water
runoff, is being conducted by the Water Supply and Poli-lution Control Commission.
However, their resources are limited and'the major portion of their time and energies
are necessarily devoted to regulating point sources.
The WSPCC has tentatively identified certain areas where non-point sources may
be causing significant deterioration of the water quality. One such area is a seg-
ment of th'e Lamprey River between Raymond and Newmarket whichis presently categorized
as Class C water. No point source polluters have been identified along this river
segment and therefore, the WSPCC believes that non-point sources, particularly agri-
cultural runoff and sewage seepage, are the primary causes of the poor water quality.
Although the WSPCC may be able to regulate certain non-point Sources such as
agricultural runoff, once they have been identified, other non-point sources may
be extremely difficult to control. One source in particular, urban runoff, will be-
come an increasingly significant source of pollution unless measures are taken now
to mitigate the potential impacts. Increased urbanization of the coastal area is
inevitable, and under present development practices, increases in urban runoff are
an unfortunate consequence. Unless storm water runoff is treated prior to discharge,
we can expect periodic, significant increases in quantities of oil, chemicals, sedi-
ments and other pollutants entering the water table. The long term effects of these
pollutants on the water quality can not yet be determined.

-28-

Another impact associated with urbanization is an increased strain in the
existing water supplies of the area. Overuse of the water supply by an increas-
ing population could reduce hydrostatic pressure enough to cause salt water in-
trusion, or at the least reduce output.
The WSPCC is confident that the legal classific ation for New Hampshire coastal
waters can be achieved by 1983 if al.1 recommendations in the Piscataqua.River Bas-in
Plan are followed. However, as was indicated earlier in this report, political,
financial or time contraints may reduce chances of meeting the implementation sched-
ule, particularly in the case of municipal sewage treatment facilities. In addition,
the extent of pollution attributable to non-point sources can not yet be accurately
determined, though it is suspected to be significant in some areas. Failure to
identify and regulate significant non-po.int sources could further delay efforts to
achieve Class B water quality in all coastal waters by 1983.
The abatement measures outlined in the Basin Plan are a qood general summary
of the actions necessary to achieve acceptable water quality. However, the specifics
of implementation are not clearly defined. It is obvisous that adequate fu nding is
one important factor det ermining the success of the plan. Equally important is the
development of specific controls over all land and water uses which have a poten-
tially adverse impact on water quality.
The New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission has some regu-
Iartory authority over activities with obvious impacts, (i.e. point source polluters).
However, indirect controls, exercised through careful land use planning, are equally
important, particularly in eliminating non-point sources. At this point, it seems
imperative that an area wide waste treatment management program (Section 208, 1972
Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments), be implemented for the entire coastal
area. Such a program could ensure that adequate advanced planning for sewage treat-
ment facilities is initiated by.all municipalities, hopefully in time to meet the
1983 deadline. In addition, "208" planning can accomodate related water quality
problems such as non-point sources and population increases leading to urbanization.

-29-

Clearly then, a waste treatment management program with sufficient implementation
powers represents the most effective way to achieve and maintain the highest water
quality possible in the New Hampshire coastal region.

-30-

a
@@T) 2@-7 q-,
, , I
,l, @@ L @ -' -@ u k,
7,-@,, r- - -7- (- -
@,L,lu, @KUM
I

N.H. Coastal Resources
Management Program
First Year Report
Attachment B 14

0-7 1

ECONOMIC BASE DATA

Ctfl @1 1,00 @,U,

PREFACE

nteen municipalities make up the New Hampshire Primary and Secondary
Coastal Zone as defined in this report. Four towns are in Strafford County and

thirteen are in Rockingham County.

The municipalities overlap two planning regions; the Strafford and Southeastern
Regional Planning Commission, which are part of the Strafford Rockingham Regional

:!Council.

The task of gathering information for this report was complicated by the fact
that this area overlaps two Department of Employment Security local offices. Six
municipalities studied are served by the Dover office, constituting 33% of the.
eighteen.towns that are served by that office. Eleven municipalities are served
by the Portsmouth office, constituting 48% of the twenty-three that are served by

that,office.

Because data that is available at the State Employment office is not broken

down below the regional office level, and because the studied municipalities com-
prise less than 50% in either the Dover or Portsmouth office areas, the data is not

as precise as might be desired.

The only source of individual town information is the 1970 U.S. Census.

Because the information for the.Census was co-lected in 1969 and it is now 1975,

the utility of that information is also restricted.

Sections of this report are based on information and uses techniques from the

Economic Report and Projections Study by the Southeastern New Hampshire Regional

Planning Commission.

Introduction,

The purpose of this report is to provide an economic overview of the New
Hampshire secondary coastal zone through an analysis of available information on

the labor force.

-This report assesses the size,.composition and health of the labor force;.

predicts trends by relating the regional labor force to trends in the state and
national labor force; identifies objectives and general areas for future industrial

growth.

This report is a general overview, presenting a partial picture of the complete
economic base of the coastal zone. For specific planning, an analysis of the entire

economic base should be made. Work to aid in that end is now underway at the

University of New Hampshire under a Sea Grant funded project.

Labor Force Employment Distribution a-nd Trends

This section examines primary and secondary coastal zone employment trends and

the implications,of national trends for this region. Since New Hampshire Department

of Employment Security published figures over a larger area than just the coastal

zone, the 1970 Census employment figures are the most recent and accurate for the

region. Table I gives percentage employment distributions*derived for the 1970

Census figures for this region, the state and national levels.

As an employment area the nonmanufacturing sector is more than twice as impor-

-tant as the manufacturing sector.in the coastal zone, being slightly larger than on

the state level and slightly less than the national level. Within the nonmanufac-

turing sector the subsectors of Trade and Services are the largest employment areas,

being significantly larger than the state percentages. This is as expected, because

the coastal zone is more densely populated than the state as a whole, thus requiring
more wholesale and retail trade facilities and more personal and professional ser-

vices. Nationally, a slightly larger percentage of the labor force are employed

in the Trade subsector and significantly has in the Services subsector..

In the coastal zone the manufacturing sector employs a significantly smaller
proportion of the labor force than on the state level, entirely due to the smaller
nondurables subsector. This is due to the decline of the textile and leather indus-.
tries'in the coastal zone and the general transferrance of the primarily semi-skilled
and unskilled workers to employment requiring low skill levels in the nonmanufacturing

sector.

Coastal zone employment trends cannot be accurately identified because the only
available information that spans more than one year, Dover-Portsmouth Office area

Employment Security information, covers more than twice the towns within the coastal

zone. However, a look at this information and the implications of national trends
combined with known characteristics of the region will indicate general trends for

the region.

To establish-projected national employment trends a simple linear regression
analysis of the data in Appendix I was done. The technique is based on the assump-
tion that the employment trends experienced over the past three decades will con-

tinue into the future. The formula used was:

Y A + BX

where Y = the eipployment,figure for year X, A the -intercept on the Y axis,

B = the estimator used in the projections, and X = the year. Data for- 1939-1970 was
used to calculate the estimator B because before that year the data was incomplete
(see Table 3). In all cases th,c estimators (B) calculated were judged to be

significant, i.e., they were statistically sho-,,,.,n to be non-zero 95% of the time.

Table 5 was generated by solving the formula Y = A + BX for Y where A and B

were provided by the regression analysis and X is the year for which the projection
is desired. Y was then converted into percents in an effort to show expected trends
in the importance of different employment sectors. In analyzing the data presented
in Table 2 it is important to note that nationally the employment impact of manu-
facturing (both durable and non-durable) and transportation and public utilities
will decline steadily, while services and local governments incre ase, and trade and
finance increase slightly. The results in the mining sector illustrate a major
defect of regression analysis. Mathematically a negative contribution of a single
variable in a system is possible whether or not such is possible in the real world.
A reasonable interpretation of the projections for mining would be that the rate of
decline of the past thi.rty years will be much reduced, but that mining will continue
to be a less and less important employer in the nation. In this region, of course,

mining presently has almost no significance.

All of the above analysis is based on the initial assumption that the trends of
the past thirty years will continue for the next fifty.

Table 3 gives the percentage employment distributions in 1972 and 1973 for the

Dover-Portsmouth area and the state. On both levels, the percentage of the total
labor force employed in the manufacturing sector has declined while the nonmanu-
facturing sector has expanded. National trends indicate that this relationship will

continue.

Within the manufacturing sector, durables manufacturing increased 0.3% while

nondurables decreased 1% in the Dover-Portsmouth area and by similar amounts on the
state level. Nationals trends indicate that both durables and nondurables employ-
ment percentages will steadily decrease. In the Dover-Portsmouth area, it is

predicted that the durables manufacturing subsector will maintain its relative

share of total employment for at least the next decade.

Within the nonmanufacturing sector, Trade and Services (and other) experienced
significant gains in the Dover-Portsmouth area and the state. Nationally, it is

indicated that these sectors will continue to increase slightly. If the Dover-

Portsmouth area continues its rapid rate of population growth, it is likely that
these subsectors will continue to expand at least the national rate.

Labor Force Size

The last accurate compilation of the size of the primary and secondary labor
force was in,the 1970 Census. There were 35,349 persons employed, of which 10,297

were employed in the manufacturing sector,'22,210 in the nonmanufacturing sector

and 2,842 not reporting anyindustry.

Statistics on population usually translate directly into statistics on labor

force s.ize. According to data developed by the Portsmouth Economic Commission, for

each 1,000 residents there are approximately 400 persons in the local labor force.

Table 4 gives the 1974 and projected, through the year 2000, populations. Note.

that there are presently two urban centers, Portsmouth and Dover, that account for

45,884 persons or 47.9% of the total population of 95,803. However, by the year
2000, the Commission predicts that this percentage will decline to 30.4% as the

secondary urban areas of Exeter Hampton-Seabrook and Durham develop and the remain-
ing towns experience exten sive population growth.

Based on the projected population estimates and the estimate of 400 persons

out of every 1,000 persons participating in the labor force, the following labor

force projections were made:

Table 4: Population Projections* Mows)

1974 1980 1990 2000

Dover 23,233 28.0 29.0 35.0

Durham 5,558 14.0 20.0 25.0

Exeter 9,900 10.0 11.5 14.5

Greenland 11990-- 2.8 5.4 9.2

Hampton 9,264 9.6 10.5 12.0

Hampton Falls 1,452 1.6 2.6 4.8

Madbury 769 .8 1.2 1.9

New Castle 907 1.3 1.7 2.0

Newfields 831 1.0 1.2 1.5

Newington 700 2.0 3.5 5.0

Newmarket 3,615, 3.8 4.3 5.2

North Hampton 3,500 8.0 13.0 17.0

Portsmouth 22,651 21.0 21.5 22.5

Rollinsford 2,098 2.7 3.2 3.8

Rye 4,355 5.8 8.5 12.5

Seabrook 3,690 .5.5 7.2 10.0

Stratham 1,350 2.5 4.2 7.0*

Totals 95,803 119.4 148.5 188.9

A, sprepared by the SOLItheastern New Hampshire Regional 'Planning Commission, Jan. '72
not including Pease Air Force Base

These projections are recognized as being too low (as of 1975). No new projection-s
have been in,ade as yet.

TABLE 5

PROJECTED LABOR FORCE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY COASTAL ZONE

Year Total Population Labor Force

1974 95,803 38,321

1980 119,400 47,760

1990 148,500 59,400

2000 188,900 75,560

The 38,321 workers are divided into 10,536 workers (see Table 3) employed in
manufacturing and 27,785 either employed in nonmanufacturing or potentially employ-
able in an undefined employment sector. Note, in Table 6, that Dover, Seabrook and
Portsmouth combined employ 75.7% of the total manufacturing labor force, with Dover

employing 39.6% by itself.

The available labor force is reduced somewhat by res idents commuting to out-
of-state jobs. A 1970 Census examination of commuting patterns (see Commuting
Patterns section in this report) reveals that 3,491 residents commuted to out-of-
state jobs, primarily at the naval shipyard in Kittery and to a variety of locations
in Massachusetts. The number of persons commuting to jobs in Massachusetts is

expected to increase.

Average Earnings by Category

An examination of the average weekly wage scales of the various employment
cateogires is instrumental in determining the relative impact of various industries
on the local economy. Table 7 gives the average weekly earnings in the Dover-
Portsmouth Department of Employment Security Office areas and in New Hampshire as

Table 6

MANUFACTURING EMPLOYMENT BY MUNICIPALITY9
PRIMARY & SECONDARY COASTAL ZONE*

Dover 4,176

Durham 2

Exeter 827

Greenland 74

Hampton 140

Hampton Falls 6

Madbury 0

New Castle 0

Newfields 400

Newington 320

Newmarket 729

No. Hampton 7

Portsmouth 1,749

Seabrook 2,050

Stratham 0

Rollinsford 54

Rye 2

Total 10,536.

*N.H. Office of Industrial Development, Made in New Hampshire, 1975.

Table 7: Average Weekly Wages - Dover-Portsmouth
Office Area and New Hampshire for 1973.

Dover-
Industry Ports. N.H.

Average all industries 128.62 137.40

Manufacturing 144.56 152.81

Durable goods 168.89 163.06
Lumber and wood products 133.99 138.13
Furniture and fixtures 123.79 128.69
Stone and clay products 177.46 182.23
Primary & fab. metal pds. 169.17 168.00
Electrical products 150.31 163.29
Machinery 180.92 180.56
Miscellaneous and other 151.35 152.21

Non-durable goods 127.81 141.67
Food and kindred.products 142.09 161.69
Textile mill pds. & apparel 130.14 121.32
Paper & allied products 152.22 189.65
Printing & publish. -'allied 130.20 157.85
Leather and leather products 106.69 113.77
Other non-durable 152.14 168.38

Non-manufacturing 112.79 127.56
Construction (inc. mining) 157.40 177.31
Trans., comm., utilities 161.80 188.88
Trade 102,12 111.27
Fin., ins., real estate 129.91 144.46
Services and other .99.25 109.42

Based on data published by the New Hampshire Department
of Employment Security.

a whole for 1973. Bear in mind that the primary and secondary coastal zone comprise
only @ 50% of the Dover-Portsmouth Office areas.

Manufacturing paid higher average weekly wages, $144.56, than non-manufacturin�,
$112.79, with durables manufacturing, paying more, $168.89, than non-durables, $127.81.

-The highest average weekly wage paid was in machinery, $180.72, under durables
manufacturing, as were the next two highest. The next two highest average wages
paid were under the non-manufacturing sector in Transportation, Communication and
utilities, $161.80, and in construction and mining, $157.40.

The average for all industries, $128.62, was less than the average for the state,
$137.40, as were the wages paid in all sectors except durables manufacturing.

It is these statistical comparisons that have promoted the belief that heavy
industry is the best industry a region, or town, can attract - plus the higher
taxable property often present in heavy manufacturing installations.

When the avera ge local citizen thinks of industry, therefore, he thinks of
manufacturing, and when thinking of attracting industry, of attracting new manu-
facturers. As demonstrated above, however, although there are decided advantages
to some manufacturing categories in terms of wage scales and multiplier effects, the
non-manufacturing industries are the growth employers of the future. It is important
that the region also work actively to maintain existing manufacturers. As a result
of technological change local plants will become outdated. Replacements will be
needed. Other sections of the country are exerting attractinq influences on
employers now located here. This region must offset these outside influences by
trying to keep what it has, to help it modernize, and to point out why this is a
good place to stay.

As shown by the rates employers are charged for participation in the unemploy-

ment compensation program, non-manufacturers are for more stable in their employment

patterns. Further advantages of non-manufacturing employers are, unlike heavy

manufacturers, a generally lesser cost to the municipality for utilities such as

sewage dispotal, water supply, highways and other transportation facilities, and

overall a general benefit for the community because such industry generally does

not pollute the air or water, generate truck traffic or make much noise.

Commuting Patterns

Data for Table was obtained from the 1970 U.S. Census, Journey to Work
charts. Although the information is five years old, the employer situation has
not changed dramatically.

In 1970, of the 32,634 person labor force, 79% were employed within their
respective county of residence. However, fewer workers were employed in their
home county of Strafford (72%) than were in Rockingham (81%).

Of the-7,357 persons working outside their county of residence, 63% were
employed in York County, Maine, the principal employer there being the Portsmouth
Navy Yard, 25% were employe*d in Massachusetts and 12% in other regions of Nlew
Hampshire. Although the 1970 Census data does not identify specific employer
concentrati on areas in Strafford County, Dover is knovn to be a concentrated man-

ufacturer employer area.

The trend for the future is for a continuance of the existing commuting pattern.
The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has work scheduled for the next several years. Al-
though efforts are being made to attract industry to other towns in the region,
Portsmouth and Dover are by far the most concentrated employer areas. Migration
to the southern towns from Massachusetts i's expected to continue resulting in an
increase in the commuting to Massachusetts to work.

Table 8,: Commuting Patterns from U.S. Census, 1970

N.H.
6 Mass. Other Areas. Strafford Ports. Rock-. .'York, Me..
Dover 87 5960 539 326 628
.Durham 7 108 2377 74 199 32-@'
Exeter 170 65 118 129 2499 43
Greenland 23 0 19 197 275 79
Hampton 251 19 96 320 1446 92
Hampton Falls 36 8 10 22 284 5
Madbury 0 20 227 0 14 0
New Castle 0 0 29 117 112 15
Newfields 10 5 0 44 138 0
Newington 0 0 29 50 41 0
Newmarket 16 22 -264 147 733 7
North Hampton 32 21 35 201 .619 74
Portsmouth 62 74 351 4664 2803 1208
Rollinsford 0 0 478 38 0 112
Rye 37 28 66 649 370 177
Seabrook 326 6 0 36 510 12
Stratham 22 0 .48 63 370 12
@9_5 @463 10,107 7290 10,739 2496

Inside County of Residence:
Rockingham 15,744 81%
Strafford 9,533 72%

Outside County of Residence:
Rockingham 3,655 19%
Strafford 3,702 28%

Per Cent of Other Than in County Employed:
York, Maine 63%
Massachusetts 25%
Other N.H. 12%

April 1975 Employment and Unemployment

Employment and unemployment information by category is available at the Depart-

ment of Employment Security State Office level only. Category breakdowns at the

regional office level will not be available until the middle of 1976. At mid'-

April 1975, the Dover office, With a labor force of 38,300, had 3,700 persons,

or 93% unemployed. During April, 1974 the Dover office reported 1,500 persons (4%)

unemployed. For April 1975, the Portsmouth office with a labor force of 34,450

persons, had a 2,550 persons, or 7.4% unemployed. For the same period in 1974,

Portsmouth reported 1,350 persons (4%) unemployed. The average unemployment rate

in the Dover-Portsmouth area is 8.6%. Comparison of the Dover-Portsmouth rate

with the state and national rates is given in Table 9.

Table 9

Employment and Unemployment Dover-Portsmouth
Office Area, State, National.

Dover-Portsmouth N.H. National

Persons in Labor Force 72,750 369,100 91,369,000

Unemployed 6,250 29,100 7,820,000

% Unemployed 8.6 7.9 8.6

Employed 66,500 339,900 83,549,000

Table 10 provides employment breakdowns by categories on the state level for

April 1975 and compares it with the employment in April 1974. While this infor-
mation sheds little light on the employment situation in the coastal zone, it does

indicate the health of various employment categories relative to'each other during

a recessionary period.

iaDie iu

New Hampshire Civilian Labor Force, Total Employment and Unemployment-*
and Nonagricultural Wage and Salary Employment*
as of the Middle of the Month

Number of Workers Numerical change from
Industry April March April Previous Previous
1975 1975 1974 month year
1. Civilian labor force 69.100 363,700 357.,200 5,4oo .11,900
2. Unemployment 29,100 29,6oo 12,500 -500 16,,6oo
Yercent of labor force 7.9 8.1 3.5 xxx Xxx

3. Employment total 339,900 333@,900 344,,6oo 6.'000 -4,700

4. Persons involved in
labor disputes - 100 200 100 -100 0

Nonagr. wage & salary 294,6oO 289,000 298,750 5,6oo -4,150
Manufacturing 84.,750 83.,750 94,900 1"000 -10,150
Durable goods 46,150 46.,4oo 51.,4oo -250 -5,250
Lumber & wood prods. 4.,700 4@750 5,200 -50- -500
.Furniture & fixtures 1.8oo 1@,850 2,150 -50 -350
Stone & clay prods. 1,450 1,500 1,650 -50 -200
Primary metal prods. 2,500 2.,6oo 2,8oo -100 -300
Fabricated metal prods. 3.,850 3.,85o 4,100 0 -250
Machinery (exc. elec.) 11,150 11,150 11,8oo 0 -650
Electrical prod.s. 16,250 16,300 19,200 -50 -2,950
Miscellaneous prods. 1,500 1.,500 1,650 0 -150
*Other durable goods 2.,950 2,,900 2,850 50 100
Nondurable goods 38,6oo 37,350 43>500 1,250 -4,900
Food & kindredprods. 2@,900 2,900 3,000 0 -100
Textile mill prods. .5,000. 4P650 6.1650 350 -lP650
Apparel 2,550 2,500 2,850 50 -300
Paper & allied prod.s. 6,550 6,550 7,300 0 -750
Print - , pub. & allied 41650 4@650 4,8oo 0 -150
Leather & lea. prods. 9,4oo 9,4oo 10@,500 0 -1@'100
Other nondurable goods 7,550 6,700 8,.,4oo 850 -850
Nonmanufacturing 209,850 205,250 203,850 4,6oo 6,000
Construction (inc. min.) 15,350 13,300 16,150 2,050 -800
Trans., comm. & util 12.4oo 12,650 12>450 -250 -50
,Trade 62,800 61,050 61,300 1,750 1,500
Fin., ins. & real estate 15,150 141850 14,150 300 1>000
Service industry & other 54,300 53,100 51,8oo 1,200 2,500
Government 49,850 50'--@00 4.8,000 -450 1)850
Federal 10,100 10,100 9,650 0 450
State 13,500 13,6oo 12,750 -100 750
Local 26,250 26.6oo 25.6oo -350 650

Secui
New Hampshire Department of Enipl oyment S -ity. Eji-ip1o,,Ai,,ent and Unemployment in N.H.
Number 326, 11ay 1975, p. 2.

During the period from April 1974 to April 1975 manufacturing categories under
durable goods and non-durable goods showed a'10% and 11% decline in employment
respectively. During the same period non-manufacturing categories show a 3%
increase.in employment, despite losses in two categories: construction; trans-
portation, communication and utilities. The continued growth of the non-manufacturing
sector supports the idea that non-manufacturing industries, especially service,

government and trade, remain relatively stable through fluctuations of the economy.

Overall, unemployment in New Hampshire declined by 500 persons from March 1975.
This was the first decline since August 1974.

Location of-Industry

The Preliminary Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Substate District #6, which
the primary and secondary coastal zones are a part, establishes as one element of
the plan, objectives and specific locat ion areas for future industrial growth.
The sections of the report concerning industry follow.

Objectives

B. EMPLOYMENT-INDUSTRY

To encourage industry which provides full employment for the region's populations
with the i-,)inimum of social costs in terms of pollution, more particularly:

1. To encourage industry which has a stable rate of employment and is not

not dependent on the whims of Congress or the state of t-he national

economy, by:

a. Encouraging the kinds of employers which are becoming relatively

more important in the national economy, such as services, government,

and trade.

b. Discouraging industry which has a by-product air or water pollution,

large amounts of solid wastes, or noise.

c. Insisting on strict controls over industry placed here by necessity

and beyond our own powers to regulate, such as atomic power plants

and oil terminals.

2. To,reserve enough land of an appropriate character to accommodate antici-

pated industrial growth, by:

a. Encouraging establishment of industrial areas in locations directly

accessible to through highways; discouraging areas to which the

access is through residential districts.

b. Encouraging location of industry in areas where utilities, expecially

water and sewer services, are available or can be extended at low.cost.

c. Discouraging the location of potentially dangerous industries, such as

propane gas storage areas, near residential districts.

d. Protecting such areas byestablishing exclusive industrial zoning

and maintaining such zoning in the face of immediately profitable

but comparatively unimportant development.

Locations of Sites

B. INDUSTRY-EMPLOYMENT

The plan proposes several major industrial areas of regional importance.

Industrial site location 's were-proposed on the basis of their: (1) easy access to

the major transportation facilities, both rail and highway, (2) proximity to the

labor forces of the region and to those in other parts of'southern New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and Maine, (3) availability of land readily developable for industrial
uses, and (4) serviceability for water and sewer utilities. Considering all these
locational factors, industrial sites were located near the interchanges of the
Spaulding Turnpike between Dover and Rochester and along the eastern portion of the
Co.ncord Turnpike in the vic inity of Durham, and to a lesser extent the Spaulding
interchanges in Rochester and in Dover. Other areas center on Portsmouth another
is located primarily in Seabrook, a third located along Route 101 in Exeter,
Brentwood, and Epping. Major industrial land reservations are also proposed in
Salem and Plaistow. The plan recognizes that smaller industrial sites will con-
tinue to exist in other places but suggests that these should remain of secondary

importance.

These objectives and recommendations are necessarily general in nature. Among
other considerations, a detailed study of the economic base of designated areas
should,be made before recommending that specific acreages of land be zoned for what

types of industry.

Recommendations

The First National Bank of Boston has pointed out the following categories of
industry as New England's best potential growth industries for the next decade:*

Durable Manufacturing:
Electrical machinery: specialized, highly technical, commercial products.
Non-electrical machinery: precision tools and equipment.
Transportation equipment: aircraft engines (existing plants in Connecticut
and Massachusetts).

*Prospects for the New England Economy (1972), First National Bank of Bos-ton.

Non-durable manufacturing:

Specialty products, paper goods, printing and publishing, specialty rubber
and plastic goods, high quality leather footwear.

Service-producing industries: particularly educational, medical, and
where appropriate, recreational.

The region should seek and assist employers in the following fields as well as

the traditional durable goods classifications s-ince these appear to be the growth

industries.

Recreation and leisure-time activities: The region should capitalize on its
ocean front, the Great Bay, the Piscataqua., and lesser waterways, its woodlands, and
its historic attractions which will bring in an increasing number of paying visitors

as the standard of living rises and the workweek shortens. The'current two month

summer season.should be extended to a year-round season. The market for Christmas

at Will.iamsburg or on Nantucket is catching on and winter conventions in Atlantic

City are old hat. It could just as well be Christmas at Strawbery Banke in Historic

Portsmouth and conventions year round at the Beach.

Insurance, finance, and real estate: The region should seek the establishment

here of major office-type industries, of which the insurance company is a typical

example. They are growing in relative importance and are essentially non-polluting.

Similarly, as the bureaucracy of government grows the region should attempt to

attract some of those bureaucrats - who traditionally are never fired or laid off

as a stable employment base.

The region should also capitalize on the cultural and educational, and tech-

nical resource assets of the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Although the

region is often panned for its lack of cultural facilities, the University offers

much to the general public, certainly enough to satisfy most executive level

personnel. Likewise, there are many relevant course offerings for-part-time students
and niany technical resources available from the University's Whittemore School's

Center for Industrial Development.

Other sectors of the services industry should also be attracted although many
by their nature are directly related to the population size and must be located
near the consumer of those services - such as automobile repairs and bakeries - and

are really not amenable to being located any distance from the ultimate consumer.

In short, those who are engaged in attracting employers to the'area should look
beyond the durable goods manufacturers to those industries experiencing rapid expan-

sion, which have stable employment patterns, and which do not result in social costs,

such as pollution, which tend to reduce their overall benefit to the region.

Table 11: Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls, by Industry, 1919-1973.

Good"roducing Service-producing
Total Coll- Manufacturing Trans- Wholesale and retail trade Ff- Government
Y=-tbd Ift- tract tnr.-. = smrv-
Total ing con- Non- Total and isnee, low state
xtruo. Total Dar- dur- pub c Total Whole- Re- and Total Fed- and
utt
Uon able able I saw tail real eral local
I ties e3t&tS
1919 ........... 27, M 12,813 1,133 1, 61 10.09 ........ ........ 14,275 3,711 4,614 -------- -------- 1,111 2,20 2,676 ....... ..
IVA .......... 27,360 12,745 1,239 948 10, &%8 -------- ------- 14, WS 3.998 4.467 -------- -------- 1,175 2,362 2,603 ------- --
IM ........... 24.3M 10,231 962 1,012 8,257 -------- ------- 14,151 3,459 4,M -------- -------- 1,163 2,412 2,528 ------- -------
Ion ........... 25.927 11,234 M 1,185 9,120 -------- ------- 14,593 3,W5 4,903 -------- ------ 1 144 2, 603 2, US ------- -------
1923 ----------- 28.3% 12,741 1,212 2,229 10,300 -------- ------- 16,653 3,882 6,290 -------- ------ :: 1:190 2t 694 2,607 ------- ----- -
t924 ........... 29.040 12,093 1,101 1,321 9,671 -------- ------- 15,947 3,807 6.407 -------- -------- 1,231 2,782 2,7M ------- -------
IM ........... 28.778 12,474 1,089 1,445 9,939 -------- ------- 16,304 3,8% 5.576 -------- -------- 1 233 2,869 2. 8W ------- -------
Im ........... 29,619 12,896 1,185 1. U5 10,156 -------- ------- 16, 9M 3,942 6,784 -------- -------- 1:= 3,046 2.846 ------- -------
IM ........... 29,976 12,723 1,114 1,608 10,001 -------- ------- 17,253 3,895 5, 9W -------- -------- 1.367 3,168 2,915 ....... .......
1928 ----------- 30.000 12,603 1,050 1. W6 9,947 -------- ------- 17,397 3.8% 5,874 -------- -------- 1,435 3,265 2,995 ------- -------
1929 ----------- 31,339 13,286 1,087 1,497 10,702 -------- ------- M053 3.916 6,123 ........ ........ 1. 5D9 3,44D 3,065 W3 2,632
I= ........... 29,424 11,943 1,009 1,372 9,562 -------- ------- 17,491 3,685 6,797 -------- -------- 1,475 3,376 3,149 526 2,622
1931 ----------- 25.649 10,257 873 2,214 8,170 -------- ------- 16,392 3,2SC 5, 2&4 -------- -------- 1,407 3,183 3,264 5W 2,704
932 ........... 23,629 8,632 731 970 6.931 -------- ------- 14,996 2,816 4,693 -------- -------- 1,341 2,931 3,225 &59 2,666
IOU ----------- 23,711 8,950 744 809 7,397 -------- ------- 14,761 2.672 4,7M -------- -------- 1,29S 2.873 3t 166 b65 2,601
1934 ----------- 25,953 10,246 893 862 8, W1 -------- ------- 15,707 2,750 6.281 -------- -------- 1,319 3,058 3,299 652 2,647
1935 ........... 27.053 10,878 997 912 9,069 -------- ------- 16,176 2,786 6,431 -------- -------- 1,335 3.142 3,481 753 2,728
1936 ........... 29,082 11,919 946 1.145 9,827 -------- ------- 17,164 2,973 6,909 -------- -------- 1,398 3,325 3,669 825 2,842
1937 ........... 31,020 12,921 1,015 1,112 10,794 -------- ------- 18,105 3,134 6. 265 -------- -------- 1,432 3.518 3,756 M3 2,923
29,2D9 11,386 891 1,055 9,440 -------- ------- 17,823 2. W1 6,179 -------- -------- 1,425 3,473 3.883 829 3,054
1039 ----------- 30,618 12,282 8b4 1,150 10,278 4.715 5,664 19,336 2,936 6,426 1,694 4,742 1,462 3.517 3,995 ws 3.090
1940 ----------- 32,376 13,2D4 M 1.234 10,985 5.363 6,622 19,173 3,038 6.750 1,754 4. 9N 1,502 3,691 4,2092 9% 3.2D6
1941 ----------- 26,664 15,939 957 1.790 13tI92 6,%8 6,225 20,614 3.274 7.210 1,873 5,338 1,549 3,921 4,560 1.340 3, 3-3D
1942 ----------- 40.125 18,442 992 2,170 15.280 8, SM 6,458 21,693 3,460 7,118 1,821 5,297 1, &38 4,DM- 6,493 2,213 3,270
1943 ----------- 42t452 20,094 9M 1,567 17,602 11.084 6,518 22,359 3,647 6.982 1.741 5.241 1,502 4,143 6.080 2.905 3,174
1944 ........... 41,893 19,314 892 1,094 17,328 10, &% 6,472 22, W 3.829 7,058 1,762 5, 2D6 1,476 4,163 6. D43 2.m 3,116
1945 ----------- 40,894 17.492 &38 1. 132 15,524 9,074 6,450 22,902 3. 006 6.314 1, SG2 5,452 1,497 4,241 6.944 2. W8 3,137
1946 ........... 41,674 17.226 862 1,661 14,703 7,742 6,962 24,448 4.061 8,376 2,190 6,196 1,697 4, T19 5,595 2,254 3,341
1947 ----------- 43, 981 18,482 955 1,982 15, &45 8.3M 7,159 25,399 4,166 8,955 2,361 Gt 596 1,754 5.050 6,474 1,M 3.6b2
IK& ----------- Z 891 18,745 994 2.169 15.582 8,326 7.256 26,146 4,169 9,272 2,499 6, 7B3 1,829 5.206 5, &50 1,663 3,787
3049 ----------- 43:778 17t 536 930 .2,165 14,441 7,489 6.953 26,242 4.001 9.264 2.487 6,778 1,867 5.264 5. &% 1, ws 3.M
950 ----------- 415,222 18,475 901 2,333 15,241 8,091 7.147 26 747 4.034 9, 3M 2.619 6,963 1.919 8.382 6,028 I.M 4. 0%
1951 ----------- 411,949 19,925 M 2.603 16,393 9. 099 7.304 27:924 4,226 9.742 2.606 7,138 1,991 5.576 6.389 2.302 4,087
1962 ----------- 48, SW 20,164 898 2,634 16,632 9,349 7,2M 28,660 4,249 10,004 2,687 7.317 2,069 5,730 6, W9 2.420 4,188
1953 ----------- 60,232 21.038 SM 2,623 17,549 10.110 7,439 29,195 4,290 10,247 2,727 7,520 2.146 6,867 6,645 2.305 4, B40
1964 ----------- 49.022 19,717 791 2,612 16,314 9.129 7.195 29,306 4,084 10,235 2.739 7,496 2,234 6, W2 6.761 2,188 4,5G7
195& .......... 60,675 20,476 M 2,802 16,882 9.641 7,340 30,199 4.141 10,535 2,796 7.740 2.3W 6,274 6.914 2,187 4,723
1956 ----------- 52,408 21,064 = 2, M 17,243 9,934 7.409 31,344 4,244 10, &1.8 2,994 7.974 2,429 6,536 7,277 2.2D9 5,069
1957 ----------- 52,894 20,925 828 2,= 17,174 9, K% 7,319 31,969 4,241 10, 8W 2,893 7.992 2- 4T7 6,749 7,618 2.217 5,399
1958 ----------- al, Sa3 19,474 751 2,778 15,945 8,930 7,116 31,990 3,976 10,750 2,848 7, q(Y2 2,519 6. W5 7,&19 2,191 5,648
950 ----------- A313 20,367 732 2,960 16,675 -9,373 7,303 32,945 4,011 11,127 2.M 9,192 2,594 7,130 8,083 2,233 5, BY)
1960 ----------- K 234 20,393 712. 2@ 8M 16,696 9,459 7, &M, 33,940 4,004 11,391 3, OX 8,398 2,669 7,423 8,353 2.270 6, Ca3
1961 ----------- 54,042 19,814 672 2.816 16, M 9,070 7.2.56 34,229 3. 003 11,337 2.993 8.344 2,731 7,664 8.59.1 2.279 6 315
I= ----------- 55. 596 20,405 650 2.902 16,853 9.490 7.373 35,190 3.9% il, 566 3,056 8.511 2,80D 8,029 9.990 2,340 6: M0
196.9 ----------- 56,702 20,593 635 2.S63 16,995 9,616 7,380 36,109 3,903 11.778 3.104 8,675 2,977 8.325 9.--25 Z 358 6, M8
1964 ----------- 58,331 20,958 634 3,050 27,274 9,816 7,458 37,373 3,951 lZ 160 3,189 8,97-1 2,957 8,709 9, T596 2,348 7,249
190 ----------- 60,815 21. 8W 632 3,186 18.062 10.406 7.656 38, W 4,036 12.716 3,312 9,404 3.023 9.097 10.074 2.378 7,695
i9e.6 ----------- 63,955 23.116 627 3,275 19,214 11,294 7,M 40,839 4,151 13,245 3,437 9.808 3,100 9.551 10.M 2,564 8,227
1967 ----------- 65,957 23,268 613 3,208 19t 447 11,439 8.009 42,S89 4,261 13.606 3..125 10,081 3,225 10,099 11,398 2.719 8,679
1968 ----------- 67,916 23,672 606 3.295 19,781 11,626 8, IM 44.244 ol, 310 14,094 3,611 10.473 3,382 10,623 11.845 2,737 9,104
1969 ----------- 70,294 24.221 619 3,435 20. 167 11,895 9,272 46,06.3 4,429 14.639 3,733 10,906 3,564 11,2229 12,202 2,758 9,444
IM ----------- 70,693 23.352 623 3,381 19,349 11.195 & 154 47,242 4,493 14.914 3.812 11,102 3,689 11,612 12,535 2,705 9,930
1971 ........... 70, W 22,542 6W 3,411 18.529 10. M5 7,964 4k 103 4,442 15,142 3. SD9 H.333 3,796 11,869 12, &% Z 664 10.191
1972 ........... 72,764 23,061 621 3,521 -19.933 10,894 8,049 49.704 4.495 15,693 3.918 11,765 3,927 12.309 13,290 2,650 10.610
1073 ----------- 75,567 24, GM 625 8,648 19,820 11,633 8.188 51,475 4,611 16,298 4,079 M 209 4,053 12. W6 13, 6@7 2,W 11.031

1970

January ------- 70,642 22,142 612 3,174 19.365 10,505 7.860 48, WO 4.393 15.237 3, SM 11,415 3,628 11,964 13,178 2. W4 10.524
February ------ 70,775 22.151 607 3,096 18,457 10,570 7,897 48,624 4,367 15,120 3,817 11,303 3,939 11,967 1& 331 2,650 10,675
March --------- 71,393 22,384 612 3,210 18,573 10,651 7,922 49. OD9 4,442 15,248 3,844 11,404 3,862 12,066 13,391 2,650 10.735
A r1l --------- 71,979 22,613 612 3.374 18,639 10,717 7,922 49.366 4,445 15,436 3,951 11,5SS 3,680 12,218 13.387 2,66A 10.723
iw.y.: --------- 72,012 22, W 618 3,528 IS,-,51 10,797 7,954 49,728 4.481 15,570 3,875 11,695 3,909 12,339 13,430 2. fA2 10.768
June ---------- 73,4G3 23,401 632 3,717 19,070 10,953 8,117 50,062 4,549 15,749 3,946 11,803 3, 966 12,487 13.311 2,659 10, G52
Julv ........... 72,469 23,057 629 3,740 18,703 10,713 7,990 49,412 4,531 15,653 3,956 11,697 3,M 12.489 12,749 2. GIS 10,104
.A:u_kujt ........ 72,975 23, 601 632 3. &38 19,147 10, M 8,217 49,374 4,527 15,691 3.974 11.717 3,995 12,481 12,680 2.6t4 10,036
September- --- 73,519 23.696 630 3,795 19.2,98 11,076 8,22-2 49,823 4,549 25,774 3,962 11,812 3.957 12,391 13,153 2,627 10,526
October ------- 74,118 23,750 629 6 3.782 19,359 11,165 8,194 50,368 4.549, 15,987 3,982 11,905 3,957 12,463 13,512 2,627 10, M5
November ----- 74.449 23,651 624 3, &10 19,414 11,241 8,173 50,798 4,554 16,162 3.957 12,175 3,965 12.472 13,645 2.631 11,014
Deeembe 74,778 23,399 e2l 3,373 19,423 11,289 8,134 51,379 4,558 16,669 3,998 12.671 3,971 12,474 13,707 2,671 11,036

1973
January ------- 73,343 23,032 .0 3,155 19,279 1',253 8.026 50,311 4,510 15, SM 3,973 11, W. 3,959 12,40G 1-4,571 2,619 10.952
February ------ 73,724 23,202 598 3,184 19,420 11,359 8,061 50,522 4,507 IS,776 3,974 11,902 3,978 12, &30 13,731 2,619 11,112
March --------- 74,255 23,413 598 3,294 19,21 11.431 8,090 50,942 4,539 15, SW 3.989 11,S91 4,ooo 12,627 13,796 2.623 11.173
April ---------- 74.861 23.631 G03 3,442 19,586 11,498 8, 0,@S 51,230 4,559 10,CM 4,000 12,098 4,019 12,771 13.793 2,631 11,162
May ........... 75,404 23,691 608 3,616 19,667 11,575 8.092 51,513 4,593 IG.@00 4,014 12,186 4,040 12, W3 13.815 2,638 11.177
June ........... 76,308 24,491 642 3,937 20.002 11,755 8,247 51,827 4,601 16,33:5 4,096 12,239 4,089 12,9W 13,743 2,631 11.112
July ----------- 75,368 24,307 644 3,934 19,729 11, WS 8,121 51,061 4,G53 16, 22 U 4,112 12,150 4,113 12t992 13.051 2,616 10.435
August -------- 75,686 24,647 648 3,981 20,018 11,676 9,342 51.039 4,659 10,279 4,136 12,143 4,121 13,009 12, 'j7l 2.617 10, 254
September__ 76,238 24,717 641 3,944 20,132 11,801 6,331 51,521 4,671 16,367 4,1227 12,240 4,082 12,982 13,419 2,609 10,811
October ------- 71,914 24,731 640 3, = 20,168 11 &56 8,312 52.183 4,680 16,515 4.162 12,353 4,076 13,057 13,955 2, 613 Il,W
Novembor ..... 77,322 24, 6G7 -G43 3,8222 20,2V- ll:Wq 8. 2!4 U,655 4,659 16,790 4,188 12,5922 4,079 13,096 14,041 2, M 11,413
December ..... 77,391 24,391 642 3,639 20,110 11. 878 8,232 53,000 4,644 17,113 4,161 12,932 4,OSO 13,062 14,101 2,677 11,424

NoTE: Data include Alaska and YJawaill beginning 1969.
U.S. Department o *f Labor, Handbook of Labor Statistics 1974, Bulletin 1825,
U.S.G.P.O., Table 39, P. 103.

C)
ECONOMIC IMPACT of- GERTAIIIII 86"60"EOUNEW
COASTAL ZONE
USERS on theNEw HAMPSHIRE. C@

N.H. Coastal.Resources
Management Program

ce-

NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL ZONE STUDY

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Economic Impact of Certain Shoreline Users on the
New Hampshire Coastal Zone
AUTHOR: Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Beach and Picnic Area Users at New Hampshire's Coast
DATE: October 1975
LOCAL PLANNING Strafford Rockingham Regional Council
AGENCY: 99 Water Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833
SOURCE OF Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission
COPIES: 3 Water Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833
PROJECT NO: 04-4-158-50014

SERIES NO: None

NO. OF PAGES: 55

ABSTRACT: Analysis of personal interviews done on the New Hamp-
shire coast in summer of 1974 with special emphasis
on the spending patterns of visitors.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CERTAIN SHORELINE USERS

ON THE

NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL ZONE

prepared un'der the auspices of

The Strafford Rockingham Regional Council

by the

Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission

3 Water Street

Exeter, N.H. 03833

October 1975

The preparation of this report was supported in part by a grant
provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered
by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration an,d a grant by the Bureau of Outdoor Recre-
ation of the U.S. Department of Interior under provisions of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 and by a grant of the
Office of Comprehensive Planning, State of New Hampshire.

L OCATION MAP

New Hampshire Coastal Zone Study Area

I0,
Ne, '@'ollinsford

)o er

fadbury

Durham

Newingto

r
Newmarket
Ports-- 0
1110 ti t 1-1 New Castle
%
ewfields
P.- Green.-I
I land
IExeter Stratham 7 4 @ -./
Rye
7
N North Isles
11auilpton of
OW, Shoals

Hampton
V17 %.I
Hampton
Falls

S b k
ea roo
Scale inMiles
camp%

.0 4 8 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract

Title Page

Location Map

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations

Preface

Summary I

Historic,Perspective 2

Physical Description 2

Economic Activities 4

Sampling Procedure and Questionnaire Design 4

Results 8
General Population Characteristics 10
Population Estimates 14
Expenditures of Coastal Visitors 17
Comparison 1972 to 1974 21

Other Information of Interest 25
Frequency of Use and Effect of Advertising 25
Development Preferences of Users 28
Critisms of Facilities at the Coast 28
Survey of Coastal Businessmen 30

Conclusions 36

Appendices
Appendix A: On Site Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B: Survey of Coastal Businessmen
Appendix C: List of Other Tables Available
Appendix D: List of Commissioners and Staff

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Figure I: New Hampshire's Coast:
Showing Recreation Areas included in the Study 7
Figure' II: Development Preferences (of Coastal Businessmen) 38
Table I: Definitions of Origin Classes 9
Table II: Population of Parties Interviewed by Group Type and
Beach (Day User) 11
Table III: Population of Parties Interviewed by Group Type and
Beach (Vacationer) 11
Table IV: Population of Parties Interviewed by Origin and Beach
(Day User) 12

Table V: Population of Parties Interviewed by Origin and Beach
(Vacationer) 12

Table VI` Number of Cars and Average Number of People Per Car by
Group Type and Beach 13
Table VII: Number of Cars and Average Number of People Per Car by
Origin and Beach 13
Table VIII: Cars Counted on the Coast by Beach and Day 14
Table IX: Estimated Population on Coast by Beach and Day 14
Table X: Estimated Distribution of Visitor Population by Beach
and Class 16
Table XI: Per Capita Daily Expenses by Origin and Beach
(Vacationer) 19
Table XII: Per Capita Daily Expenses by Origin and Beach
(Day User) 19

Table XIII: Per Capita Daily Expenses by Group Type and Beach
(Vacationer) 20
Table XIV: Per Capita Daily Expenses by Group Type and Beach
(Day User) 20

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Table XV: Estimated Value of Beach and Picnic Recreation Page
Spending Summer 1974 by Beach and Class 21
Table XVI: Per Capita Daily Expenditures by Group Type and
Spending Category; Hampton Beach 1972 and 1974
Compared (Vacationer) 22
Table XVII: Per Capita Daily Expenditures by Group Type and
Spending Category; Hampton Beach 1972 and 1974
Compared (Day User) 23
Table XVIII: Estimated Number of People at Hampton Beach, 1972
and 1974 Compared 24
Table XIXa: Number of Parties at the Coast for the First Time
By Beach 26
Table XIXb: Method of Discovery for Those at the Coast for the
First Time: by Beach
Table XIXc: Number of Years Respondent Has Been Coming.To Coast:
By Beach 26
Table XX: Future Development by Origin (Day User) 27
Table XXI: Future Development by Origin (Vacationer) 27
Table XXII: Future Development by Beach (Day User) 29
Table XXIII: Future Development by Beach (Vacationer) 29
Table XXIV: Critisms of Facilities by Beach 31
Table XXV: Characteristics of Businessmen 32
Respondents to Survey

Table XXVI: Summary of Coastal Businessmen's Attitudes on
Coastal Development 33
Table XXVII: Level of Desirability of Development, Ranked
In Order of Most Desirable to Lease Desirable 35
Table XXVIII: Development Options Categorized for Figure 11 37

PREFACE

During July and August of 1974 the staff of the Southeastern New Hampshire
and Strafford Regional Planning Commissions interviewed individuals representing
approximately 900 recreation parties using the New Hampshire shoreline. The
purpose of these interviews was to gather data on the economic impact of the
coastal recreation industry. This report- details the analysis of the interview
results.

During this process only one type of coastal user was interviewed. This was
the person who came for the purpose of enjoying the beaches and/or picnic areas
in the day time. People who came to visit the historic sites in Portsmouth, to
use the charter fishing boats, to hunt or fish along the shore, to go boating
on Great Bay, or who visited the beach only after 3 P.M. were not interviewed.
Other studies exist for most of these users. In cases where such studies do not
exist, the work should be done, but time and budget limitations did not permit
it in this study.
This study makes very few recommendations for future action along the coast.
Its primary purpose was to gather information which would be of use to planners,
businessmen, and citizens.
Primary responsibility for this report was borne by Otis E. Perry, Assist-
,ant Planning Director, Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.
The bulk of the interviewing, questionnaire design, data tabulation and manipula-
tion was the work of Alice Estill, Patricia Bristol, and Nancy Porter, Summer
Interns. Additional interviewing assistance was provided by the entire staffs
of the Strafford and Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commissions.

SUMMARY

The work done by the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council and South-
eastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission in the summer of 1974
provided a great deal of interesting and informative information.
The number-of'user days on the shore from 15 May to 1 October is esti-
mated to be 3.25 million. A user day is defined as one person at the shore
for one day. About 1.5 million of these user days represent people who
spent only one day at the shore per 41--rip. The other 1.75 million user days
were spent by people.staying overnight for at least one night.
The average daily spending of a person depended on whether or not they
were overnight visitors. Our findings showed that those who came for one
day spent $1.1150 per day and those who sta yed overnight spent $9.00 per day.
This adds up to a total estimated receipts from the beach users on New
Hampshire's coast of 16.6 million dollars.

Approximately half of the people interviewed came from Massachusetts,
about -five percent came from Canada. The Concord and Manchester, New Hamp-
shire areas contributed another five percent. Local use of the coast was
"ight. Only about five percent were from Strafford and Rockingham Counties,
these were all Day Users. Most of the people used the Hampton Beach area
though Day Users used swimming picnic areas fairly heavily.
The dollar effectiveness of general advertising i,n promoting is exam-
ined in the study. Of the 930 parties interviewed only 49 said that they
were visiting the New Hampshire coast for the first time. Of those 49 only
three said that advertising first told them about the New Hampshire beaches.
Most people visiting the area for the first time heard about the coast through
a friend.

The people using the beaches were asked what criticisms they had of the
areas they were using. Most people had none. Of those who did the most
common criticism was the lack of cleanliness of the beach, (especially Hamp-
ton Beach) and the lack of sufficient parking spaces and bathhouses at all
areas. This is a fine record for such a larae area dependent upon so many
diverse public and private groups for its upkeep and operation.
Comparison with 1972 survey results show that the area has maintained
its economic vitality despite the bad economic conditions nationally.

HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE

The history of human habitations of New Hampshire's coast is long and
varied. Recent evidence found during an archelogical dig in Seabrook has
1000 years ago.
placed Indians of the Algonguin Tribe in the area at least
The evidence-leads to the conclusion that there were periodic, probably
seasonal, encampments of Indians all along the coast. The Indians were in-
terested in harvesting the shellfish and possibly sea mosses.
European contact with the coast is also of long duration. Legend has
it that the son of Lief Erickson landed in Hampton around the year 1000.
More concrete proof exists of the use of the Isles of Shoals by Breton and
English fishermen in the mid sixteenth century. At least fifty years before
the founding of Plymouth Plantation, these fishermen used the Isles as' a
haven from storms and a place to process their catch for the trip back to
Europe.
Portsmouth (the largest port'on the New Hampshire coast) was settled
by English people in 1632 and Dover, just up the Piscataqua, a year later.
The original settlers were fishermen and farmers. Later Portsmouth became
an important shipping point for the mast trees which were found in the near-
by forests. Portsmouth continued to be an important port until the con-
struction of the railroad and the use of steamships, enabling Boston to take
over supplying the port's hinterland. The Navy Yard on Seavey Island, how-
ever, continues to flourish.
Intensive recreation use of the coast began'in the period after the
Civil War. Large hotels were built which catered to tourists who arrived
by train to stay for their summer vacations. The biggest single develop-
ment came in 1897 when the town of Hampton leased 14 acres of barrier beach
to the Hampton Beach Improvement Company. That company in turn sublet par-
cels to organizations which developed the intensive commercial recreation
area which continues today. During the 1860's and 1870's there was a very
active artists colony on the Isles of Shoals. Many famous New England
writers including Emerson and Thoreau spent their summers there.

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION

The New Hampshire coast is short, only sixteen miles long from the mouth
of the Piscataqua to the Massachusetts border. There are two large estuaries
in that length: Great Bay, part of the Piscataqua system, and the Hampton/

-2-

Blackwater River Estuary. The coast itself is partly rocky and partly
sandy. There are twelve miles of sandy beach. *The sandy beaches were
originally bordered on the landward side by barrier dunes, though most
of these are not easily recognized as such, having been built upon or
leveled and replaced by seawalls. There are approximately 7500 acres of
tidal marsh on the coast. The largest portion is in the Hampton/Seabrook
Marsh which surrounds the Hampton/Blackwater River Estuary behind the
barrier dunes in Seabrook and Hampton, south of Great Boar's Head. A
smaller but still significant amount of tidal marsh is found landward of
Odiorne's Point State Park along Witch's Creek in Rye. Smaller areas of
marsh are spotted all along'the coast behind what were once barrier dunes.
There are several publicly owned parks along the coast. Starting in the
north they are:
Hilton Park: This park is at the entrance to the Great Bay Estuary
about seven miles up the Piscataqua River from its mouth. This is a state
park providing a boat launching ramp and picnic and playground facilities.
There is.no entrance charge.
Great Island Common: Great Island Common is in New Castle. This is
a town owned area with launching, picnic, bathing and municipal recreation
facilities. An entrance fee is charged.
Odiorne's Point State Park: Ordiorne's Point State Park is a large
(approximately 140 acres) state owned park. There are picnic tables, a
natural history museum, nature trails and a small beach. There is an en-
trance charge during the summer.
I Wallis Sands State Park: This is a small stretch of sandy beach. There
is a bath house and off-street parking. There is a fee for parking during
the summer.
Rye Harbor State Park: This park is a small picnic area with a boat
launching ramp and commercial fishing pier nearby. There is an entrance
fee for the picnic area.
Hampton Beach State Park: This park includes the longest stretch of
sandy beach. There is no entrance fee for most of it, however, the state
maintains parking meters on Route 1A through most of Hampton and derives
the revenue therefrom. At the barrier beach near the entrance to the Hamp-
ton/Blackwater River Estuary there is a section o.f the park with off-street
parking, a bath house, a snack bar and beach paraphernalia rental. There

-3-

is a charge for parking in this area.
In addition to the parks there dre long stretches of beach where the
land access is essentially privately controlled.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
The main economic activity along the coast is tourism. There are
hotels, motels, restaurants, sourvenir shops, amusement areas, marinas and
boat yards along much of the coast. By far the greatest concentration of
these is at Hampton Beach. Hampton and Seabrook Beaches have the largest
number of cottages and rooming houses. North of these beaches there are
also seasonal homes but they are larger and few in number. Many of the
summer houses and apartments have been converted into year-round dwellings,
changing the character of the mid-winter coastal population significantly.
There are six communities which have frontage upon the Atlantic Ocean:
Portsmouth, New Castle, Rye, North Hampton, Hampton and Seabrook. In addi-
tion there are two communities which are considered in the study and have
frontage on the estuaries: Dover and Hampton Falls. The other estuarine
communities are not a part of the study area.. With the exception o-:- .*,jr;_@;- 11
mouth and Dover the municipalities all have town government, derive much
of their business income from tourism, and have little or no industrial tax
base. The total year-round population of these towns is 69,052, (as esti-
mated in 1974 by the Office of Comprehensive Planning).

SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

The form of the questionnaire and the sampling procedure depended in
part on the forms used for data collection in the summer of 1972. One of
the purposes of doing this study was to see if there had been any change
in the number of people or the amount of money spent from 1972 to 1974. The
hypothesis to be tested was; "the energy shortage and the beginning of the
recession have not had a major impact upon the use of New Hampshire beaches."

SAMPLING PROCEDURE

Each beach section was sampled indepeindently each day interviews we-re
taken. The method was to make an estimate of the number of parties occupying
the beach section and then divide by the number of interviews it was possible

-4-

to do that day. The resulting number was used to aportion the population
so that the entire beach section would be covered. The interviewer start-
ed out at the land side of the beach and interviewed a party, then worked
to the water's edge and then back to the land edge, and so on down the
beach interviewing every 3rd, 7th, 11th, or whatever number of parties had
been decided upon for that day. This procedure was followed for all of the
sandy beaches. In the Not Sandy areas the same procedure of estimating and
counting was used, but the counting was done around the entire area. This
procedure resulted in a random sample but one in which the percent of parties
sampled varied from day to day and beach to beach. Thus the sample could
not be used directly to arrive at an estimate of the total population.
The method used to make estimates of the total population was to relate
the information from the questionnaire on the number of occupants of a car
to the number of cars at the beaches. In order to do.this, aerial photographs
were taken at noon hour on days when the interviewing was done. This was done
on a Saturday and Sunday (selected as a typical weekend), a Wednesday and a
Thursday (selected as a typical high use and average use weekday respectively).
The number of cars at the coast was then counted from the photographs and
the estimated population calculated from this total and the average occupants
per car from the information.
Another hypothesis to be tested by the questionnaire was that "different
sections of coast attract different types of people." In order to test this
the coast was divided into fifteen interview areas. Starting in the south,
these fifteen areas are as follows (see map, Figure I).
Seabrook Beach - the area of sand beach from Massachusetts to Hampton
Harbor inlet.
Hampton State Beach - the southern section of Hampton Beach State Park.
This is an area in front of the dune from Hampton Harbor inlet to the first
set of cottages.
Cottage Beach - the area of Sandy Beach in front of the cottages between
Epping Street and Haverhill Avenue, Hampton.
Hampton Beach - the main beach on the coast between Haverhill Avenue and
Great Boar's Head.
North Beach the narrow sand beach from Great Boar's Head to High Street,
Hampton.

Plaice Cove - the sand beach from High Street to the North Hampton town
line. Little Boar's Head - the sand beach from the Hampton town line to Little
Boar's Head.
Bass Beach - north of Little Boar's Head - the stoney beach used in
great part by surfers.
Rye Beach - the sand and rock beach from Rye Ledge to Perkins Road.
Jenness Beach the sand beach from Perkins Road to Straw's Road.
Rye Harbor State Park the picnic area north of Rye Harbor inlet.
Foss - Rye North Beach the sand beach from Ragged Neck Point to Con-
cord Point.

the sand beach from Concord Point to Marsh Road.
Wallis Sands
Odiorne's Point State Park - the state park picnic area, from Odiorne's
Point around Frost's Point to Witch's Creek.
Great Island Common - the municipal recreation area on Great Island,
New Castle.
Hilton Park - a picnic area road-side rest area at southern tio of:-.-
Dover,Point in Piscataqua-Great Bay.
In order to further organize the data these sixteen areas were grouped
into four coastal areas by location and beach types. The four areas are,
Not Sandy: Hilton Park, Great Island Common, Odiorne's Point, Rye Harbor
State Park; South Sandy: Seabrook Beach, Hampton State Beach, Cottage
Beach, Hampton Beach; Mid Sandy: North Beach, Plaice Cove, Little Boar's
Head; North Sandy: Bass Beach, Rye Beach, Jenness Beach, Foss-Rye North
Beach, Wallis Sands. These divisions were chosen because of expected
differences in the users. For instance, it was expected that comparatively
few local, year-round residents use the South Sandy Beaches, while there
would be proportionately more local people at the North Sandy and Not Sandy

areas.

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

The questionnaire was designed to provide seven basic kinds of infor-
mation, 1) origin of the people using the coast, 2) length of stay,
3) socio-economic information about the visitors, 4) number of people,
5) amount of,money spent and on what items, 6) reasons for coming, and
7) development preferences. A copy of the questionnaire is attached as
Appendix A. Certain of the questions deserve special explanation. Question

-6-

Great
Bay Hilton Park

0 Qd0

FIGURE I

NEW CASTLE

Great
I Island
NEW HAMPSHME S Common
COAST

Odlornes
Point
State Park
SHOWING RECREATION AREAS
INCLUDED IN THE STUDY
Wallis Sands

Rye North Beach

Foss Beach

Rye Harbor State Park

Jenness Beach

Rye Beach

Bass Beach

ittle Boars Head

Plaice Cove

North Beach

Great Boars Head

Hampton Hampton Beach
Blackwater Cottage Beach
River Hampton State Beach
a ry
Estuary

Seabrook Beach

0 1 2 3 4 6
jk I - I I
MILES

-7-

4 was designed to measure the popularity of the beach and the effect of
the advertising done by various promotion people. Question 15 is an
attempt to measure the impact of shoreline recreation users on the local
amusement attractions. Question 16 measures the users' desires for the
future of the coast. The other questions measure the demographic and
spending patterns of the respondents. These measures will be fully dis-
cussed in the next section.

RESULTS

This section presents in table form the results of the questionnaire.
Each table will be explained as it appears. The first data to be dis-
cussed will be the characteristics of the vacationing population, then the
money spent at the coast in 1974, and then a comprison of 1972 and 1974
expenc`@'. Throughout the section there are certain classifications
used -.il-,ich z;I, "'i be explained. These classifications were done in order
to organize the data for comparison so that the information may @e useful
to decision makers in the coastal area.
The first, and most basic classification, is that of length of stay
in the coastal area. Two classes were identified. Day User and Vacationer.
Day Usprs are people who have only come to the coast for a day trip on the
da,-@ Vacationers are those who are going to stay overnight at
least one night on the trip on which they were interviewed. People who are
in one class on the day they were interviewed may perhaps be in another on
another trip. Another common classification is that of Group Types. This
classification is also similar to the one used in the 1972 study, with one
new sub class. There are six divisions in this classification. Family with
children - nuclear family or grandparents, parents and children; Family with
out children - any number of related married couples without any children;
Group of friends - any group of people including groups of married couples
and/or single people not all related. Organized group - a camp, church, or
club group; One person.- self explanatory; Family with friends - group of
families,with children. The third general classification system which should
be defined is that of Origin. This is the home residence of the people
responding to the questionnaire. There are seven classes in this category.
Table I defines the origin classes.
All of these classification schemes are used in the presentation of the

data which follows:

-8-

TABLE I.

Definitions of Origin Classes

Class Originof Respondent

Coastal N.H. Hampton Hampton Falls New Castle
North Hampton Portsmouth Rye
Seabrook

Inland Strafford Atkinson Barrington Brentwood
Rockingham Region Danville Dover Durham
East Kingston Epping Exeter
Farmington Fremont Greenland
Hamptstead Kensington Kingston
Lee- Madbury Middleton
Milton New Durham Newfields
Newington Newmarket Newton
Nottingham Plaistow Rochester
Rollinsford Salem Sandown
South Hampton Stratham Strafford
Somersworth Windham

Merrimack Valley Auburn Bedford Bow
Concord Goffstown Hooksett
Hudson Londonderry Manchester
Merrimack Nashua

Massachusetts All of Massachusetts

New England Connecticut Maine Rhode Island
Vermont

Other U.S. All United States except New England

Canada All of Canada

GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

The first of the general population characteristics measured is the
total number of people. This is measured by the responses to questions
eight and nine of the questionnaire. Question six which was supposed to
answer that question was frequently not filled in or inaccurately filled
in. Tables II through V show the population by class. The totals on
Tables II and IV and Tables III and V do not agree due to the uneveness
of responses: some people did not answer the questions on group type and/
or origin. A comparison of the four tables shows that as expected the use
of the four beach types varies by group type and origin. The largest group
is the Family with Children class. Most of these people use the beaches
at Hampton Beach State Park. This is the area with the most sand beach,
parking, and other facilities. The large number of Vacationers in this
class show that Hampton Beach's reputation as a family beach is deserved.
From Tables IV and V it is obvious that most people come from Massachusetts,
especially the Vacationers. In all four tables, the Day User population is
much more ek distributed as to beach use than the Vacationer even though
Massachusett-i _..,id the South Sandy beach are still the largest origin and
destination respectively. The Not Sandy areas are used mostly by Day Users.
Only one out of every five people there are Vacationers and over half of the
Day Users are from New Hampshire.
Tables II through V show that the largest concentrations of people are
at the South Sandy beaches, that Day Users are more evenly distributed along
the coast, that Families with Children are the largest group type at the
coast, and that New Hampshire residents, especially seacoast residents, pre-
fer the Not Sandy and North Sandy areas, probably because they are less
crowded. This esult confirms the hypothesis upon which the beach divisions
was based.
Tables VI and VII show the number of cars reported by the interviews
and the average number of persons arriving at the coast in them. The differ-
erences in the totals for these two tables may be attributed to sampling
error. The difference is small and not significant enough to have a major
impact upon results. The two tabl.es show that the average number of occu-
pants has a relationship to the beach chosen and the origin. The parties
from further away tend to have fuller cars, as do those at the South Sandy
beaches. It seems clear that people have taken notice of the inadequate
parking facilities in the South Sandy area as well as the cost efficiency
of a full car for long distance travel.

_10-

TABLE II: POPULATION OF PARTIES INTERVIEWED BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (DAY USER)
(Number of People)
NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY. SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL

Family w/children 282 13.83 418 20.50 136 6.67 192 9.42 1,028 50.42
Family w/o child. 87 4.27 .84 4.12 27 1.32 43 2.11 241 11.82

Group of friends 96 4.71 193 9.47 58 2.84 103 5.05 450 22.07

Org. group 29 1.42 4 0.20 -- --- 9 0.44 42 2.06

One person 7 0.34 13 0.64 14 0.69 8 0.39 42 2.06
Family & friends 45 2.21 128 6.28 23 1.13 40 1.96 236 11.57

Total 546 26.78 840 41.20 258 12.65 395 19.37 2,039 100.0

TABLE III: POPULATION OF PARTIES INTERVIEWED BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (VACATIONER)
(Number of People)
NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL
% % % % %

Family w/children 68 3.87 760 42.23 134 7.62 193 10.98 1,155 65.70
Family w/o child. 29 1.65 @80 4.55 31 1.76 65 3.70 205 11-66

Group of friends 7 0.40 92 5.23 55 3.13 46 2.62 200 11.38

Org. group 2 0.11 2 0.11 8 0.46 -- -- 12 0.68

One person 3 0.17 5 0.28 2 0.11 2 0.11 12 0.68

Family & friends 8 0.46 133 7.57 22 1.25 11 0.63 174 9.90

Total 117 6.66 1072 60-98 252 14.33 317 18.03 1758 100.0

TABLE IV: POPULATION OF PARTIES INTERVIEWED BY 'BEACH TYPE AND ORIGIN (DAY USER)
(Number of Pec.,,,-.;]..e)

NOT SOUTH -0 NORTH
SANDY S" Y SANDY TOTAL
% % % %

Inland S.R. 122 6.16 39 9 7 3'- 1.92 65 3.28 264 13.33

Coastal N.-H. 100 5.05 42 2.12 64 3.23 88 4.44 294 14.85

Merrimack Valley 55 2.78 77 57 2.88 42 2.12 231 11.67

.New England 63 3.18 70 3.54 21 1.06 72 3.64 226 11.41

Massachusetts 165 8.33 561 28.33 71 3.59 109 5.51 906 45.76

Other U.S. 34 1.72 20 1.01 1 0.05 5 0.25 60 3.03

Total 539 27.22 809 40.86 251 12.68 381 19.24 1980 100.0

TABLE V: POPULATION OF PARTIES INTERVIEWED BY BEACH TYPE AND ORIGIN (VACATIONER)
(Number of People)
NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL

Merrimack Valley 9 0.52 40 2.32 43 2.49 50 2.90 142 8.22

New England 28 1.62 59 3.42 50 2.90 44 2.55 181 10.48

Massachusetts 41 2.37 780 45.17 110 6.37 167 9.67 1098 63.58

Other U.S. 16 0.93 59 3.42 20 1.16 30 1.74 125 7.24

Canada 9 0.52 152 8.80 12 0.69 8 0.46 181 10.48

Total 103 5.96 1090 63.12 235 13.61 299 17.31 1727 100.0

40,

TABLE VI: Number of Cars and Average Number of People Per Car By Group Type and Beach

NOT SANDY SOUTH SANDY MID SANDY NORTH SANDY TOTAL
Cars Occ. Cars Occ. Cars Occ. Cars Occ. Cars Occ.

Family w/child. 97 3.61 314 3.75 74 3.65 103 3.74 588 3.71

Family w/o child. 48 2.42 61 2.69 25 3.32 46 2.35 180 2.47

Group of friends 34 3.03 91 3.13 42 2.69 49 3.04 216 3.01

Organized Group 10 3.10 1 6.0 2 4.0 2 4.50 15 3.60

One Person 10 1.0 18 1.0 16 1.0 10 1.0 54 1.00

Family and friends 15 3.53 67 3.90 11 4.09 11 4.64 104 3.94

Total 204 3.25 5 5 21 3.46 170 3.00 221 3.22 1157 3.28

TABLE VII: Number of-Cars.,a.-,id,'.Average-Nilmbbr---of People Per Car By Origin and Beach

NOT SANDY SOUTH SANDY MID SANDY NORTH SANDY TOTAL
Cars Occ. Cars Occ. Cars Occ. Cars Occ. Cars Oc@c.

Inland S.R. 44 2.77 12 3.25 16 2.38 24 2.71 96 2.75

Coastal N.H. 33 3.03 9 4.67 27 2.37 22 4.00 91 3.23

Merrimack Valley 16 4.00 29 4.03 33 3.03 27 3.41 105 3.55

New England 27 3.37 31 4.16 23 3.09 34 3.41 115 3.54

Massachusetts 73 2.82 403 3.33 60 3.02 96 2.88 632 3.17

Other U.S. 15 3.33 19 4.16 5 4.2 12 2.92 51 3.63

Canada 2 4.5 45 3.38 2 6.0 6 1.33 55 3.29

Total 210 3.06 548 3.47 166 2.93 221 3.08 1145 3.24

POPULATION ESTIMATES

. The importance of Tables VI and VII is that they form the basis along
with Table VIII, for making estimates of the number of people at the coast.
Similar aerial photography may be taken and cars counted at any time in
order to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the number of beach users.
Table VIII shows the number of cars counted from aerial photographs taken
at noon on selected days. Most of the photographs were taken at the end
of July 1974, but the photographs of the South Sandy Area taken at that time
were incomplete. Because of this, this area was reflown in 1975.

TABLE VIII: Cars Counted on Coast by Beach and Day

Not South Mid North
Day Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy Total

Weekday 103 7496 1005 897 9,501

Saturday 280 4486 826 490 6,082

Sunday 639 8269 2053 1689 15,583

Data from flight on 7/22/75.

Table IX shows the estimates of people on the coast. This estimate was
made by multiplying the number of cars counted in Table VIII by the average
number of occupants by beach from Table VI. The cars counted from the
photographs include those in private driveways. The low figure for Satur-
day at the South Sandy area may be attributed to people leaving at the end
of a vacation while the new commers have not arrived yet.

TABLE IX: Estimated Population on Coast by Beach and Day

Not South Mid North
Day Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy Total

Weekday 300 25,900 .3000 2900 32,100

Saturday 900 15,500 2500 1600 20,500

Sunday 2100 28,600 6200 5400 42,300

Total 3300 70,000 11',700 9900 94,900
Figures to nearest 100.

See Page 5 for discussion of aerial photography.

-14-

The area photographed included all of Route 1A, east of Route 1A, and west
of 1A to the salt marsh or to subdivisions known to have year round use.
The days for photography were chosen carefully. They were during the week
when most of the interviews were being done. The weekend days were con-
sidered to be high average. That is, the number of people on the coast
would be typical of a mid summer weekend, not a holiday or off-season
weekend. The weather during both the days of interviewing and photograph-
ing was warm and sunny, "good beach weather". Using the information from
above to estimate the relationship of "season" days and "off season" days
an estimate of the total number of "visitor days" at the coast may be made.
A "visitor day" is defined as one person visiting the coast for one day.
People who stay overnight will be counted once for each day of their stay.
The "season" is defined as July I to the Tuesday after Labor Day plus an
operating "off season" as May 15 to July 1 and September 4 to September 30.
The population during the season may be expected to be similar to that
calculated from the survey, except that holiday numbers will be similar or
somewhat higher than ihose experienced on the sample Sunday. During the off-
season, the numbers were taken to be 70% of those expected on "season" days.
Using this criteria the total visitor days at the coast is estimated to be
3,252,400. Of these, 55 percent are Day Users and 45 percent Vacationers.
This distinction between Day Users and Vacationer is most important as Vaca-
tioners out-spend Day Users by five to ten times. This will be explained iW
the next section,
Table X is an attempt to find an estimate of the number of "visitor
days" for Day Users and Vacationers at each beach type for the year. The
result is a very crude estimate. The first line of the table is the percent
of the total estimate from Table IX that may be attributed to each beach,
using the totals in the table as a sample. The next two lines are the per-
cents for each beach of Vacationers and Day Users from the sample information.
Line five is the amount of the total user estimate that may be attributed
to Vacationers or Day Users using the estimate in line four and the percent-
ages in lines two and three.
In the calculation of the estimate number of people at the beach, two
classes of people were Ieft out. The first of these is the local people
who go to the beaches and picnic areas in the late afternoon and evening.
No interviews were made after about 3:00 P.M. Neither was any attempt made
to photograph the cars along the beach in the evening.

_15-

TABLE X: Estimated Distribution of Visitor Population
By Beach and Class (Annual total visitor days)

Not South Mid North
Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy Total

1. Percent from Table TX
3.48 73.76 12.33 10-1.:43 100

2. Percent Day User .83 .44 .51 .55 .45

3. Percent@Vacationer .17 .56 .49 .45 .55

4. Estimated "Visitor Days" 113,200 2,399,000 401,000 339,000 3,252,400
(Total)

Estimated "Visitor Days" 94,000 1,055,600 204,500 186,500 1,778,820
(Day User)
5.
Estimated "Visitor Days" 19,200 1,343,400 196,500 152,600 1,463,580
(Vacationer)

Figures to nearest 100.

on@s@equently th- number of-cars needed for estimating evening populations is
not now available. Even though the precise number of people present cannot
be determined, some description of their activities may be given. The des-
criptions are drawn from the observations of local businessmen and long-time
residents of the area. There are three basic activities in which people who
are not present at the beach in the daytime engage. There are t-he people
who come to eat at a restaurant, others come to cool off, and third are the
young people who come down for the excitement. Many of these people also
attend the special events sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce at Hampton
Beach. These include a beauty pageant, bingo, talent shows, and bahd con-
certs.. The probable spending patterns of these people will be discussed in
the next section.
. The second class of people to be left out of direct enumeration are
those people who go to the shore, but never go on the beach. The study
method accounts for those people in two ways. In cases where the person
who never goes on the sand is part of a group of which at least one member
does go on the sand, then that individual is Counted directly, when the
member of the group on the sand is questioned. The questionnaire was de-
signed to elicit information about entire parties, not just individuals.
In cases where a whole group comes to the beach but no one ever appears on
the sand a slightly more indirect accounting was made. These people do
not figure in the spending estimates by class or type. There is no reason,

-1 r._

however, to suppose that their spending habits would be much different,
than the'vacationers who2do go to the sand beach. Since their -cars are counte-d*
they do figure in the total population estimates and total spending
estimates. Again there is no reason to suppose that the average number
of people per car, would be radically different for this group than
4
for the beach users. Thus these non-beach users figure in the total
estimates.
A further word about the figure for average people per car. Each
group, beach users and non-beach users, arrive mainly by car. There are
a few, however, who come by bus, hitchhike, bicycle or some other means.
These people are Counted in the estimates as well. The average number
of people per caris calculated by dividing the number of cars of inter-
viewed parties by the total number of people in interviewed parties.
This includes all the people who arrived by non-automobile means. For
example, if there were twenty-five cars reported as bringing eighty people
and another twenty people arrived by another means, than the average
people per car is four (one hundred divided by twenty-five). This was
done deliberately so that the number of cars counted could be used as
a quick way to estimate total numbers of people on the.beach, including
those who arrived by means other than automobile.

EXPENDITURES OF COASTAL VISITORS
Question 12 of the interview schedule asked respondents about their

4
spending patterns while at the New Hampshire beaches. The purpose of
this question was to help local businessmen and state and local government
to find the best areas for investment in order to increase the economic
viability of the beach recreation industry. Tables XI through XIV show
the expenses per capita per day for the people interviewed on the coast.
These figures were arrived at by dividing the total expenditures, reported
by category and beach, by the number of people in the parties interviewed
from TAbles II through V. These figures indicate the average amount per
person per day spent at the coast. There was not a great deal of differ-
ence in the amount except that people at the Not Sandy areas seemed to
spend slightly less. Vacationers spent much more than Day Users as was
expected due to the higher amounts spent on food and the extra amount need-
ed for lodging. These figures are fi,,iportant in calculations of the total
amount of money spent on the coast in a particular time period.

-17-

An intuitive estimate of the financial contribution of the local
evening visitors whose characteristics were not measured may be made.
The first group of evening visitors probably have per capita expendi-
tures similar to vacationers. They eat supper at restaurants which
can easily cost $7 to $10 per person. The second two groups (those
who come to cool off and young people) probably more closely resemble
the day users in their spending habits. They eat snacks or bring their
own food. If some means of measuring the numbers of people in each
class could be found then the total spending could be reasonably esti-
mated as described.
The per capita spending figures seem to be quite low, especially
in some classes of Vacationers. A quick look at the characteristics of
the people measured will explain most of this seeming lowness. First
these are average figures. They include infants and older people who
spend little. They include people using camping areas as well as hotels.
consistantly low figure for vacationers at the Not Sandy areas may
be attr@_hru-r.ed to tourists who are on vacation but are just passing through
the New Hi-ampshire coast and have stopped here for a picnic.
Further, it should be kept in mind that these figures are averages
which were arrived at by using the perceptions of people of their spend-
in.g habits. People often underestimate the amount of money they are
spending. Because of the data classifications in question #12, however,
this underestimation should not be great. Most people would know fairly
precisely how much they are spending,on lodging, not quite as precisely
for food.and much less precisely for incidentals. As food and loding are
the major contributors to the expenses of a vacation, the figures should
be reasonably accurate. Also these figures are not designed to provide
predictions about the precise change in business income resulting in a
visitor-day increase in use. The purpose of collecting the data and pre-
paring the tables is to arrive a reasonable estimate of overall beach in-
fluenced business activity and to show what types of visitors it would be
in the best interest of the area to attract. Clearly, Day Users add less
to local income than Vacationers and among Vacationers, Families without
Children and Single Persons contribute the most.
Table XV shows an estimate of total expenditures for the entire "season"
and "off season". It is based upon the averages'in Tables XI and XII and

_18-

TABLE XI
PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN AND BEACH (VACATIONER)

(Dollars)

NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SAN.DY SANDY SANDY TOTAL

Merrimack Valley 6.22 4.95 9.21 6.62 6.91

New England 8.68 10.54 8.52 10.68 9.73

Massachusetts 3.71 7.26 9.56 8.1-4 7.49

Other U.S. 8.88 13.27 9.30 14.00 12.25

Canada 2.44 10.23 3.67 15.75 9.65

Total 5.97 8.09 8.95 9.05 9.26

TABLE XII
PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN AND BEACH (DAY USER)

(Dollars)

NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY 1110TAL

Inland S.R. .79 1.21 .47 1.51 .98

Coastal N.H. .52 2.26 .63 .63 .82

Merrimack Valley .89 1.31 1.11 1.88 1.26

New England 1.16 4.01 1.71 1.61 2.79

Massachusetts 2.28 1.43. 3.13 2.20 1.81

Other U.S. .09 2.25 2.00 .40 .87

Total 1.21 1.69 1.52 1.55 1.51

TABLE XIII
PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (VACATIONER)

(Dollars)

NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL

Family w/Children 7.82 7.76 9.18 7.66 7.62

Family w/o Children 10.52 15.73 12.29 11.71 13.20

Group of Friends 1.43 11.00 7.56 8.52 9.15

Organized Group - 13.00 - - 2.17

One Person 13.0 8.20 99.50 23.50 27.17

Family and Friends 7.38 5.17 3.82 7.91 5.27

Total 5.17 8.32 9.17 8.73 8.31

TABLE XIV
PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (DAY USER)

(Dollars)

NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL

Family w/Children .97 1.48 1.28 1.43 1.30

Family w/o Children 2.22 1.81 3.19 2.70 2.27

Group of Friends 1.25 1.62 1.36 1.59 1.50

Organized Group .28 2.50 - .11 .45

One Person .71 2.92 2.57 1.75 2.21

Family and Friends 1.67 1.20 .35 1.65 1.17

Total 1.19 1.53 1.48 1.61 1.45

-20-

the population estimates in Table X. This estimate is subject to error due
to the many calculations and averages involved. It can be used, however,
with a reasonable amount of confidence to indicate the relative magnitude
of the beach recreation industry's activity.

TABLE XV: Estimated Value of Beach and Picnic Recreation Spending By Beach
(Dollars)

Not South Mid North
Sandy Sandy Sandy Sandy Total

Day User 113,700 1,784,000 310,800 289,200 2,497,700

Vacationer 114,600 10,868,100 1,758,700 1,381,000 1,412,400

Total 228,300 12,652,100 3,069,500 1,670,200 16,620,100

COMPARISON 1972 TO 1974

One of the reasons for doing this study was to be able to make compar-
isons with data collected in 1972. The two years were much different in
the state of the national economy. In 1974 there was the threat of gas
rationing, a year's worth of uncontrolled inflation and fear, by many
merchants that business would be bad. 1972 was considered to be a good
year, though there was some feeling that it could have been better. This
comparison was made to try to determine if there had in fact been a decline
in business due to the uncertain state of the economy.
Tables XVI and XVII show the comparisons of per capita daily expend-
itures for each of the spending categories and three group types for the
two years. The -tables show only three group types because two of the
classes which were common to both years were so small that the results
were not statistically significant. The class Family and Friends used in
1974 was not used in 1972. Those people are added into the class Group of
Friends which is where they were put in 1972. The area labled South Sandy
in 1974 is the one used for comparison. This is the area which most nearly
approximates the study area for 1972.
The percent change in total per capita daily expenditures in these
tables shows a marked difference between Day User and Vacationer. Vacation-
ers show an increase which. approximates, except in the Group of Friends
category, the inflation between the two years. The Day Users, however,
show a marked decrease in individual spending. The reasons for this are

-21-

TABLE XVI
PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENDITURES BY GROUP TYPE AND SPENDING CATEGORY;
HAMPTON BEACH 1972-and 1974 COMPARED (VACATIONERS)

(Dollars)

Family w/* Family w/o* Group of*
Children Children Friends Total

Year 1972 1974 1972 1974 1972 1974 1912 1974

Food 2.86 2.46 6.20 5.69 3.42 3.05 3.21 2.80

Gas .12 .35 .21 .81 .18 .53 .13 .41

Clothes .26 .28 .65 .26 .19 1.47 .28 .39

Souvenirs .24 .34 .67 1.55 .23 .33 .27 .44

Amusements .52 .89 .89 1.59 .57 1.23 .56 .98

Lodging 3.16 3.32 5.-67 5.68. 4.49 3.80 3.56 3.57
Parking .01 .04 .10 .10 .14 .15 .03 @.06

Other .09 .08 .05 .05 .22 .43 .11 .12

Total 7.26 7.76 14.44 15.73 9.44 10.99 8.15 8.77

% Increase 1972-1974 6.89 8.93 16.3 7.35

No. Peonle 1244 760 129 80 233 92 1606 932
In Sample

* The other group types are not included because of small numbers or lack of comparable
date.

40.

TABLE XVII
PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENDITURES BY GROUP TYPE AND SPENDING CATEGORY;
HAMPTON BEACH 1972 and 1974 COMPARED (DAY USER)

(Dollars)
Family w/* Family w/o* Group of*
Children Children Friends Total

Year 1972 1974 1972 '1974 1972 19.74 1972 1974

Food 1.17 .88 2.29 1.21 .99 .90 1.14 .93

Gas .12 .16 .05 .05 .23 .20 .16 .16

Clothes .24 .12 .08 0 .15 .04 .20 .08

Souvenirs 0.16 .08 .26 .31 .12 .11 .15 .12

Amus@Dments 0.3-1 .16 .22 .08 .19 .10 .25 1

Parking 0.17 .07 .35 .11 .13 .13 .1-6 .09

Other 0.04 .01 0 .05 .01 .14 03 .05

Total 2.22 1.48 3.26 1.81 1.83 1.62 2*.09 1.56

Change -33.3 -44.5 -11.0 -25.4

No. People 888 418 65 84 691 193 3-644 695
In Sample

The other group types are not included because of small numbers or lack of comparable
date.

not completely clear. It must be assumed that once a person decides upon
an overnight vacation, his level of expenditure is relatively fixed, and
out of his control, while Day Users can bring from home most of what is
needed. Big.declines were shown in expenditures for luxury items such
as souvenirs, clothes, etc. Spending for food also showed a decline in-
dicating that people were bringing picnics rather than buying hot dogs,
etc. at the lunch counters, or were buying hot dogs rather than shore
dinners.,
The increase experienced in the Vacationer class was distributed in
a very interesting way. Food spending dropped. Gasoline, clothes, amuse-
ments and sourvenirs increased and lodging remained the same. This shows
an interesting priority of spending, due probably to the state of the
economy. People seemed to be accepting the higher costs of vacation lux-
uries but not food.
Tn order to determine the impact of the national economic woes on
I
the New Hampshire coast, it is not enough to know the.spending patterns of
individuals, it is also necessary to know if there has been a significant
change in the number of people coming to the coast. This data was diffi-
cult to determine in comparable form. Because the days on which inter-
views were taken were considered to be representative of their type, these
days will be used here to make comparisons. Table XVIII shows the rela-
tionship between the two years 1972 and 1974 for Hampton Beach.

TABLE XVIII: Estimated Number of People At H ampton Beach
1972 and 1974 Compared
1972 19741
Typical Day Day User Vacationer Day User Vacationer

Weekday 3360 3160 3423 3289
SaturdaY2 5775 1850 6393 6142

Sunday 8950 5675 11,156 10,718
1 Calculated from area photograph data and Tables VIII and X this report.
2 The unusually low number of people estimated for Saturday 1972 is due to
poor weather at the beach on the day of interviews.

The table shows that there were more people using the beach in 1974
than in 19.72. This information tallys with what local businessmen have

-24-

said. That is, that the summer of 1974 was a good year at the beach. The
strange low figures for Vacationers on Saturday in 1972 is due to poor
weather at the beach on that day. On days like that Vacationers who are
staying in the vicinity, can tell what the weather is and not bother to
come out on the beach, whereas the Day Users who travel some distance can-
not. Many of them,arrive to find poor weather but stay anyway after making
the long drive.
The data in Tables XVI, XVJI, XVIII lead to the conclusion that, for
Hampton Beach at least, the vacation industry is not as hard hit by a poor
economic climate as woul-d be expected. People do not spend as much on
casual day trips, but the overnight vacationer is still spending and still
. No
coming to the beach. There is,1no compariable 1972 data for the rest of the
coast so nothing can be said about changes from 1972-1974, in the other
beach area.

OTHER INFORMATION OF INTEREST
There were other bits of information gathered from beach users. Some
of that information is quite interesting. The following tables describe
those results.

FREQUENCY OF USE AND EFFECT OF ADVERTISING
As mentioned earlier, ques tion 4 asked for information about the users
pattern of use and how he had learned about the coast. Tables XIXa - XIXc
tabulate that information. It is a very fine comment on the quality of
the recreation facilities that 95 per cent of the people interviewed were
at the coast for at least the second time. It is an even finer comment
that 60 per cent of the people who were repeat visitors had been coming for
more than ten years.
Question four also attempted to measure the effectiveness of adyertising
on beach income. Specifically, people who were at the beach for the first
time were asked how they first discovered the area. Only 3 persons, or
six (6) per cent, responded "advertising". This implies that the advertising
does not bring in a great many first time users. Most of the first time
users heard about the New Hampshire coast from friends (see Table XIXb).
Advertising is probably responsible for reminding people about the beaches
and whetting their appetite for a visit. The role advertising plays in this
and in helping to build a positive image for New Hampshire's coast was not

25-

TABLE XIXa: Number of Parites at the Coast
For The First Time: By Beach

NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL

lst Trip 11 20 8 10 49

Not lst Trip 159 339 154 167 819

TABLE XIXb: Method of Discovery For Those At The Coast
For The First Time: By Beach

NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL

Relative 2 0 0 1 3

Friend 1 14 4 5 24

Advertising 1 0 2 0 3

Passing through 4 1 1 3 9

Other 2 4 0 1 7

No Answer 1 1 1 0 3

Total 11 20 8 10 49

TABLE XIXc: Number of Years Re'spondent Has Been Coming
To Coast: By Beach

NOT S 0 U T- H MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL
% i. % # % % %
Less Than 5 years 37 28 68 17 38 27 29 18 172 21

5-10 years 30 23 81 21 20 14 25 15 156 19

10-20 years 25 19 98 25 26 19 33 21 182 22

Greater than
20 years 40 30 146 -107 50 40 75 46 317 38

Tot-al 132 1-00 393 1.00 140 100 162 100 827- 100

-26-

TABLE XX
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY ORIGIN (DAY USER)
(Number of Responses)

NO
COMMERCIALIZED STATE PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Inland S.R. 4 35 2 35

Coastal N.H. 7 @38 2 39

Merrimack 3 23 7 24

New England 3 26 1 18

Massachusetts 22 35 7 76

Other U.S. 5 5

Total 41 162 19 197

TABLE XXI
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY ORIGIN (VACATIONER)
(Number of Responses)

NO
COMMERCIALIZED STATE PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Merrimack 3 18 2 16

New England 1 15 2 15

Massachusetts 31 84 1 i0o

Other U.S. 7 19 2 14

Canada 10 20 1 9

Total 52 156 8 154

-27-

measured by the question and thus cannot be quantified here.

DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCES OF USERS

Another question asked of coastal users was what, if any, development
would they prefer to see happen on the coast. (Question 16 of the
questionnaire). This question was included in the questionnaire with
some misgivings. It was not expected that the sample interviewed here
would be a representative one of the people.of the coast or even the state,
but it was feared that some people would use the results as if it were.
The information developed here may not be used to indicate the region or
state population's preferences for development of the coast. The sample
is one of the beach and picnic area recreation users, thus it was ex-
pected that recreation development would be the type favored. In fact
that is so. Only about 3.5 percent of those interviewed preferred in-
dustrial development to the others. What is surprising is the low number
of people who preferred commercial.recreational development. This cate-
gory was included because it was expected that people who came to the
beach would want the facilities they use expanded or upgraded. Surpris-
ingly, this was not so. The feeling was "leave it alone" or develop more
of the beaches as state parks. Neither response showed much disatisfaction'
with the present facilities. Tables XX through XXIII display the responses
to question 16.
The answers to question 16 and question 4 show that New Hampshire's
coastal recreation industry has been successful in satisfying the desires
of a large number of people. Whether or not the small number of new visitors
(5.6% of total interviewed) is healthy or not from a business standpoint
is not capable of being answered by this study. However, if all of the
people who are visiting for the first time come back regularly, in twenty
years they would replace the people who are presently using the coast., That
seems to be a good indication of possible long-term success as 40 percent of
those interviewed had been coming to the beach for twenty years or more!

CRITICISMS OF FACILITIES AT THE COAST

Question 17 asked respondents if they had any criticisms of the beach
or facilities at the beach. Table XXIV summarizes the responses to this
question. The headings in the response column are shorthand titles of the

_28-

TABLE XXII
FUTURE@DEVELOPMENT BY BEACH (DAY USER)

(Number of Responses)

NO
COMMERCIALIZED STATE PARK' INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Not Sandy 10 74 9 43

South Sandy 18 109 5 67

Mid Sandy 6 .38 4 39-

North Sandy 7 41 2 48

Total 41 262 20 197

TABLE XXIII
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY BEACH (VACATIONER)

(Number of Responses)

NO
COMMERCIALIZED STATE PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Not Sandy - 17 2 11

South Sandy 39 84 4. 84

Mid Sandy 4 28 1 34

North Sandy 9 32 2 30

Total 52 161 9 159

-29-

respondent's criticism. It is to the credit of the management of the beaches,
recreation areas, and businessmen that half of the people questioned had
no criticism of the beaches or facilities. 11ith the exception of the com-
plaints about lack of cleanliness and the lack of parking at the South
Sandy beach-, most of the rest of the critisms were minor. It is interesting
that the complaints about cleanliness at the Not Sandy areas are not as
strong as at the Sandy areas. Parking is a problem. In fact it is the
most limiting factor in increased use of the coast. Various plans have been
aired to solve the problem, though at this time, none has been yet adopted.

SURVEY OF COASTAL BUSINESSMEN

Along with a survey of beach recreation users, a survey of beach bus-
inessmen was conducted. The purpose of the questionnaire was to assess the
attitude of the businessmen to development along the coast. The question-
naire (attached as Appendix B) asked the businessmen to rate a series of
development types either as very desirable, somewhat desirable, necessary-
but not desirable or undesirable under any circumstances as well as to rate
areas for preservation. There were eighty-eight questionnaires handed out,
forty-eight (48) or 55 percent were returned. Table XXV shows the type of
respondents and the responses to the questions on preservation of natural
features. The highest priorities for preservation are those that the coast-
al businesses are most closely.tied to: museums, marinas, and public parks
and picnic areas.
Tables XXVI and XXVIII show the responses of.the businessmen to the
development part of the questionnaire. Table XXVI shows the total responses.
Table XXVII shows the responses ranked by percent of those indicating high
level of desirability for the proposed development. Those items which
ranked highest on Table XXVII are those which would most complement a vaca-
tion oriented business. It was somewhat surprising to find year round
residences ranking higher'than seasonal residences. Year round residences
mean more school children and other services and are generally a tax bur-
den while seasonal houses are a net tax asset. The low ranking of parking
facilities is surprising in view of the visitor complaints and local real-
ization of the problem. Table XXVII*shbws only the most and least desirable
categories, 54% of the respondents considered parking facilities to be
somewhat desirable or necessary. The low rank of heavy industry in general-

_30-

TABLE XXIV: Criticisms of Facilities By Beach

(Number of People)

NOT SOUTH MID NORTH
SANDY SANDY SANDY SANDY TOTAL
Lifeguards (not enough)* 17 1 2 20

Roads (lack of access) 5 5

Cleanliness (lack of) 11 72 23 29 135

Restaurants (lack of) 2 2 3 7

Parking (lack of) 2 46 15 1 64

Bathhouses (lack of) 19 13 14 16 62

Telephones (lack of) @2 2

Commercialism (too much). 8 5 13

Rules (too many) 4 6 3 .13

People (too many) 6 2 11 19

More Private 3 3

More Public 2 2

Playgrounds (lack of) 2 1 3

Other 32 38 16 16 102

None 99 197 70 95 461

No. Of Respondents 171 420 162 177 930

No comments on the competency of life guards or the quality of
the bathhouses were received.

TABLE XXV: Characteristics of Businessmen
Respondents to Survey

A. Location of Respondent's Business
Location Number Percent*

Seabrook 7 (15%)
Portsmouth 2 ( 4%)
Rye 11 (23%)
Newington 3 6%)
New Castle 1 2%)
No. Hampton 4 8%)
Hampton 19 (40%)
No location given 2

Total 48 102%)

Total does not equal 100 because of rounding.

B. Business Types

Type Number Percent

Restaurants 16 33
.Gifts & clothing 1 2
Motel/hotel lodging 11 23
Grocery, Bakery, Var.11 23
Miscellaneous 6 13
Realty Insurance 3 6

Total 48 100

C. Recommendations for Natural Features to be preserved.

Type Number Percent

Public Beaches 45 94
Coastal waters 41
Bays 39 85
Forest 31 65
Marshes 27 56
Other: Lakes 1 2

-32-

TABLE XXVI

SUM14ARY OF COASTAL BUSINESSMEN'S
ATTITUDES ON COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

Level of Desirability*

4J Q)
:1 r-i
PQ IQ W U 0
(d 04
a) >4 @4
k-rA 9 4J
@4 4 W

U) @4
a) -H
Ei rn U-P rO rd @4 4J
0 a) a) 0 r4 9 -rq 0
Type of Development > z z @D U E-q

Apartments and Condominiums 12 (26%)*16 (35%)* 6 (13%)*12 (26%)* 46

Auto Dealerships 3 (6%) 4 (9%) -12 (25%) 28 (60%) 47
Auto Repair/Parts 7 (15%) 7 (15%) 16 (34%) 17 (36-506) 47

Banks and Bank Branches 18 (38%) 15 (32%). 8 (17%) 6 (13%) 47
Bird/Wildlife Sanctuaries 28 (59%) 13 (27%) 4 (8%) 3 (6%) 48

Camping Areas 18 (37%) 8 (17%) 12 (25%) 10 (21%) 48

Children's Playgrounds 33 (77%) 8 (19%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 43
Clothing Shops/Boutiques 22 (46%) 13 (28%) 7 (15%) 5 (11%) 47

Discoteques 9 (19%) 16 (33%) 7 (15%) 16 (33%) 48

Fishing Piers 34 (72%) 8 (17%) 2 (4%) 3 (7%) 47

Food Concessions 19 (42%) 16 (36%) 3 (7%) 7 (15%) 45
Gasoline Stations 14 (30%) 11 (23%) 15 (32%) 7 (15%) 47
Gift Shops 23 (49%) 16 (34%) 2 (4%) 6 (13%) 47

Heavy Industry 2 (4%) 4 (9%) 6 (13%) 33 (74%) 45
Hotels/Motels 9 (36% 6 (24%) 1 (4%) 9 (36%) 25

Indicates percentage of persons who responded to that question.

-33-

TABLE XXVI

(Continued)

Level of Desirability*

4J a) W U)
9:
0
04
U)
r-A 4J H @4 -H W
@Q 0 @q d U) @4 U) 94
U) a) .11
U) r@ U) 5 r-q
0 a)W 0 rd
P U) U 4j rO rO @4 4J
W W 0 Q) a)0 -ri 0
Type of Development > z z

Industry In General 10 (23%) 7 (16%) 4 (9%) 23 (52%) 44

Light Industry 12 (26%) 7 (15%) 6 (13%)21 (46%) 46

Marinas 36 (82%) 7 (16%) 1 (2%) 44

Museums 39 (83%) 6 (13%) 2 (4%) 47

Oil Refineries 3 (7%) 1 (2%) 9 (20%)33 (72%) 46

Parking Lots/Structures 14 (30%) 14 (30%) 11 (24%) 7 (16%), 46

Public Boat Launching 29 (62%) 9 (20%) 3 (7%) 5 (11%) 46

Public Picnic Areas 38 (82%) 3 (7%) 3 (7%) 2 (0) 46

Restaurants 26 (58%) 10 (22%) 3 (7%) 6 (13%) 45

Roads and Highways 28 (61%) 5 (11%) 6 (13%) 7 (15%) 46

Sanitary Landfill Sites 13 (29%) 8 (17%) 13 (28%)12.(26%) 46

Seasonal Residences 27 (59%) 12 -(26%) 7 (15%) 46

Service Industries 14 (30%) 13@ (28%) 11 (24%) 8 (18%) 46

Shopping Centers 11 (24%) 9.(20%) 14 (32%)ll (24%) 45

Super Port 15 (44%) 9 (26%) 5 (15%) 5 (15%) 34

Theaters/Movie Houses 26 (56%) 9 (20%) 6 (13%) 5 (11%) 46

Utility Installations 15 (33%) 6 (13%) 9 (19%)16 (35%) 46

Year Round Residences 30 (65%) 9 (20%) 3 (6%) 4 (9%) 46

,-34-

TABLE XXVII

LEVEL OF DESIRABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT, RANKED IN ORDER
OF MOST DESIRABLE TO LEAST DESIRABLE

Very Undesirable Under
Type of Development Desirable Any Circumstances N

Museums 83%. -- 47

marinas 82% 2% 44

Public parks, picnic areas 82% 4% 46

Children's Playgrounds 77% 2% 43

Fishing pier 72% 7% 47

Year round residences 65% 9% 46

Public boat launching areas 62% 11% 46

Roads and Highways 61% 15% 46

Seasonal residences 59% 15% 46

Bird/Wildlife Sanctuaries 59% 6%

Restaurants 58% 13% 45

Theaters/Movie houses 56% 11% 46

Gift shops 49% 13% 47

Clothing shops 46% 11% 47

Super port 44% 15% 34

Food concessions 42% 15% 45

Banks and bank branches 38% 13% 47

Camping areas 37% 21% 48

Hotels/Motels 36% 36% 25

Utility Installations 33% 35% 46

Gasoline Stations 30% 15% 47

Parking Lot/St-ructures 30% 16% 46

-35-

TABLE XXVII (Continued)

Very Undesirable Under
Type of Development Desirable Any Circumstances N

Service Industries 30% 28% 46

Sanitary landfill sites 29% 26%. 46
Light industry .26% 46% 46

4
Apartments and Condominiums 26% 26% 46

Shopping centers 24% 24% 45

Industry, in general 23% 52% 44

Discotheques 19% 33% 48

Auto repair/parts 15% 36% 47

oil refineries 7% 72% 46

Auto dealerships 6% 60% 47

Heavy industry 4% 74% 45
* N - the number of respondents who answered that question.

and oil refineries i n particular is interesting especially When compared with
the relatively higher rank of an offshore terminal or superport.
Figure II shows the preferences of businessmen organized by development
categories. This was done in order to facilitate generalizations about
these preferences. Responses were categorized as either positive or nega-
tive. Positive responses were Very Desirable or Somewhat Desirable. Nega-
tive responses were Necessary But Not Desirable and Undesirable Under Any
Circumstances. The development options were categorized into several classes.
Table XXVII shows the categories and options included. Figure II shows
that coastal businessmen responded as would be expected of people expressing
enlightened self-interest. The anomaly is the rather large preference
for @housing, especially as this is basically reflected in a desire for
year round residences, which traditionally cause a higher tax burden. Apart-
ments, which at least initially may be a tax benefit, rank very low.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of recreation users at the coast does not present a plan for

-36-

TABLE XXVIII: Developement Options Categorized For Figure II.

Category Options Included

Government Facilities Sanitary land fill
Roads and highways
Parking lots and structures
Service Industries Automobile dealerships
Automobile repair
Banks
Gas stations
General service

Residential Apartments
Seasonal Residences
Year-round residences

Retail Clothing stores
'Gift shops
Shopping centers
Theatres

Industry Heavy industry
Light industry
General industry
Super port
Oil refinery
Utility
Recreation Bird Sanctuary
Campground
Children's playground
Fishing pier
Marina..
Museum
Boat launching
Parks

Food and lodging Restaurants
Food concessions
Discotheques
Hotels/motels

-37-

FIGURE :11 DEVELOPMENT PREFERENCES (OF COASTAL BUSINESSMEN)

POSITIVE REPLIES NEGATIVE 'REPLIES

GOVERNMENT .......... .....
FACILITIES

SERVICE
INDUSTRIES

RESIDENTIAL ;........ ..................................
@x X

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RETAIL

INDUSTRY
Lj--- J
....................
....................
. . ... ...................... ............................. ...........
RECREATION

FOOD a .......................... ..... ...............
r ...........

LODGING

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 !oO

LIST OF STAFF

Strafford Rockingham Regional Council

George N. Olson Executive Director
Bonnie D. Milner Secretary/Bookkeeper

Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission

Charles F. Tucker Director
Otis E. Perry Assistant Director
Jane C. Kenney Regional Planner
James E. Soden Regional Planner
Lawrence Cowan secretary
Shirley Greene Office Assistant (to Jan.175)
Kenneth Anderson Planning Intern
Robert Desharnais Summer Intern (Audubon Society)
Alice Estill Summer Intern (Audubon Society)
Patricia Bristol Summer Intern
Nancy Porter Summer Intern
Kenneth Comire Summer Assistant

Strafford Regional Planning Commission

Michael Kulka Director
Jack Mettee Regional Planner
Valerie Hall Secretary
Rebecca Fee Planning Intern
David Chadbourne Planning Intern
John C. Walker Planning Intern
J. Michael Hickey Planning Intern

changing the uses. Rather the study was an attempt to describe as accur-,
ately as possible the characteristic s of the people using the coast,
especially the amount of money that was spent.- However, from this des-,
cription, some feeling for possible changes can be had. For instance,
the general lack of parking is especially true at the South Sandy area.
The table shows that thereare certain group types which spend more-money
than others. These group types should be catered to by the coastal bus-
inessmen, especially if they are groups which do not use many services
such as groups with 3.5 or more people per car, thus providing more spend-
ers with less parking space use.
The information presented in this report is just a small portion of
the information available from the study. There is a great deal of data
which has not been extracted because of the limits in time and budget.
The basic classes of beach type, group type, origin and length of stay have.
been the focus of this report. It is possible, however, to organize the
data in many other ways. Appendix C is a list of tables already prepare d
"but not included in the presentation in this report. These tables are
available at the Commission office for inspection and use. In addition to
these tables, other organization of the data may be done if useful.

-39-

APPENDIX A

ON SITE SURVEY OF RECREATION USERS

Date: Time: Interviewer: Location:

1. WHERE IS YOUR PERMANENT HOME RESIDENCE?
Town State
2. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?

3. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET HERE TODAY?

4. HAVE YOU BEEN TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SEACOAST BEFORE: Yes No

(if no) HOW DID YOU FIRST DISCOVER THIS AREA?

(if yes) WHEN DID YOU FIRST START COMING HERE?

(if yes) HOW MANY TIMES A YEAR DO YOU COME?

(if yes) HOW LONG DO YOU USUALLY STAY WHEN YOU COME?

5. HOW LONG WILL YOU STAY .(THIS TIME)?

1 day

1 7 days

8 30 days

31 days 3 months

6. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE THERE IN YOUR GROUP TODAY?

7. WHAT KIND OF GROUP ARE YOU WITH TODAY?

family with children

family without children

group of friends

organized group

one person alone

(please note) other

8. WHAT IS YOUR AGE Sex: M F

9. WHAT ARE THE AGES OF THE OTHER PEOPLE IN YOUR PARTY? (Interviewer:
Put one slash in each group for each party member, e.g.

Under 5 years 20-24 years 40-44 years
5 - 9 years 25-29 years 45-49 years
10-14 years 30-34 years 50-54 years
15-19 years 35-39 years 55-59 years

60-64 years
65-69 years
70-74 years
75-79 years

10. HOW MANY CARS DID YOUR GROUP COME IN TODAY?

11. HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU ANTICIPATE SPENDING ON THE COAST DURING THIS
TRIP?

12. HERE IS A LIST OF THINGS YOU MIGHT SPEND MONEY ON WHILE IN THE SEA_
COAST REGION. WOULD YOU PLEASE ESTIMATE HOW MUCH YOUR GROUP SPENDS
PER DAY ON EACH ITEM? (money spent at the beach)

FOOD (spent today at concessions, restaurants) $

GASOLINE (purchased near coast only) $

CLOTHING $ PARKING $ OTHER $
(what?)

SOUVENIRS $ AMUSEMENTS $ NR

13. (If staying overnight or longer, ask:) IN WHAT KIND OF LIVING A
MODATIONS ARE YOU STAYING? CCOMI
tent or trailer camping

a hotel/motel unit

a rented cottage/efficiency unit

a friend's cottage or house

other (what?)

14. HOW MUCH WILL YOUR GROUP SPEND PER NIGHT FOR LODGING? $

15. HAVE YOU EVER VISITED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING RECREATION FACILITIES?

HAMPTON BEACH PLAYHOUSE SALISBURY AMUSEMENT PARK

HAMPTON CASINO BALLROOM GOLF COURSES

HAMPTON BEACH PENNY ARCADES SEABROOK DOG TRACK

HAMPTON BAND SHELL CONCERTS ROCKINGHAM PARK

ODIORNEIS POINT STATE PARK LEE RACEWAY

WALLIS SANDS STATE PARK STAR SPEEDWAY

RYE HARBOR STATE PARK NEW ENGLAND DRAGWAY
STRAWBERRY BANKE TOUR WENTWORTH COOLIDGE MUSi
ISLES OF SHOALS CRUISE

16. OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS NEW HAMPSHIRE WILL HAVE TO MAKE SOME DEC-
ISIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COAST. IF IT WERE UP
TO YOU TO CHOOSE, WHAT KINDS OF DEVELOPMENT WOULD YOU PREFER FOR
NEW HAMPSHIRE'S COASTLINE?

COMMERCIALIZED RECREATION DEVELOPMENT (Interviewer: if you
are asked to clarify say, restaurants, motels, shopping fac-
ilities, cottages)

DEVELOPED FURTHER AS A STATE OR NATIONAL PARK
(Clarification: more picnic areas, parking, beach maintenance,
possibly fees)

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (Clarifica@ion: such as electronic
assembly plants, oil refineries)

NO DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER (Clarification: the way it is now)

17. DO YOU HAVE ANY CRITICISMS OF THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE AT THIS
? (Interviewer: place, name of beach, park)

Dear Sir or Madam:
The Strafford Rockingham Regional Council and the Southeastern New Hampshire
Regional Planning Commission are currently conducting a survey of people's attitudes about
the coast as a recreation area. We are particularly interested in your opinion as a business-
man in this area. We would like to know what your views are concerning the future develop-
ment of the coastal region. What kinds of development, if any should take place along the
coast?

We would appreciate it if you would answer this short questionaire sometime
today. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to fill out. One of our pollsters will re-
turn later today to pick-up your questionaire, or you can mail it to us in the attached en- 0
0
velope. All answers will remain anonomous. No one will be able to connect you with your
answers.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION,

Otis Perry, Assistant Planning Director W
Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning "-'>
@4 1-d
Commission t7j Id

C-11
W
Please rate the following kinds of development as to how desirable you think they would ciW
be for New Hampshire's coast. Check one answer for each development type.

VERY SOMEWHAT NECESSARY BUT UNDESIRABLE UNDER
LXJ
DESIRABLE DESIRABLE NOT DESIRABLE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Apartments and Condominiums 0

Auto Dealerships

P
Auto Repair and Auto Parts Dealers

Banks and Bank Brances

Bird and Wildlife Sanctuary

Camping Areas

Children's Playgrounds

.... ..........
lothing Shops or Boutiques

VERY SOMEWHAT NECESSARY BUT UNDESIRABLE UNDER
DESIRABLE DESIRABLE NOT DESIRABLE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Discoteques, Bars and Lounges.

Fishing Piers

Food Concessions or Franchises

Gasoline Stations

Gift Shops

Heavy Industry (mining, auto fact-
ories, lumber mill, etc.)

Industry in general

Light industry (shoes, clothing,
electronic parts, etc.)

Marinas

Museums and/or Historical,Sites

Oil Refineries

Parking Lots/Parking Structures

Public Boat Launching Areas

Public Parks and Picnic Areas

Restaurants

Roads and Highways

Sanitary Land Fill Sites

Seasonal residences

Service Industries (advertising,
insurance, real estate, etc.)

VERY SOMEWHAT NECESSARY BUT UNDESIRABLE UNDER
DESIRABLE DESIRABLE NOT DESIRABLE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Shopping Centers

Super Port (Portsmouth Only)

Theaters and Movie Houses

Utility Installations (electricity,
water treatment, nuclear power plant

Year Round Residences

.Other

Other

What natural features of our coast and rivers should be preserved especially because of their
importance (however indirect) to your business? (Check all that apply).

Public Beaches Marshlands Coastal Waters

Bays Forests and Grasslands Other (What?)

What kind of business do you operate?

General location or town of the business:

Is it a seasonal or a year-round operation? (Circle One) Seasonal Year Round

Do you have any parking spaces for customers? Yes No If yes, how many?

If hotel or motel, how many units are in operation?

If restaurant, what is the total seating capacity?

Thank you. Results of the survey will be available (sometime in August) at the Southeas�tern
New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, 3 Water Street, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833.

APPENDIX C

List of Tables prepared for the Coastal Recreation Study but

not included in it.

The following list of tables is a partial list of the tables

available at the Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Comm-

ission. These tables are the ones that have been pulled out of the

data.

PEOPLE PER CAR BY-LENGTH OF STAY

NUMBER OF PARTIES (VACATIONERS)

NUMBER CARS BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (VACATION)

NUMBER CARS BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (DAY USER)

PERSONS PER CAR BY BEACH TYPE AND ORIGIN (VACATIONER)

PERSONS PER CAR BY BEACH TYPE AND ORIGIN (DAY USER)

PEOPLE PER CAR BY GROUP TYPE

NUMBER OF CARS BY ORIGIN AND BEACH (VACATIONER)

NUMBER OF CARS BY ORIGIN AND BEACH (DAY USER)

NUMBER OF CARS AND AVERAGE OCCUPANTS PER CAR BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH

(DAY USER)

NUMBER OF CARS AND AVERAGE OCCUPANTS PER CAR BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH

(VACATIONERS)

AGES OF BEACH USERS

AGES BY GROUP TYPE

AGE BY BEACH LOCATION

AGE BY BEACH ACCESS TYPE

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN AND BEACH (DAY USER) (IN DOLLARS)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (VACATIONER) (IN DOLLARS)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE AND BEACH (DAY USER.) (IN DOLLAR51

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN AND BEACH (VACATIONER) (IN DOLLARS)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (SOUTH SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (MID SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (MID SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (SOUTH SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (SOUTH SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NOT SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NOT SANDY-DAY USER)

PER CAPITAL DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NOT SANDY-VACATIONER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NOT SANDY-DAY USER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (MID SANDY-DAY USER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (MID SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY LODGING AMOUNT (VACATIONERS)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NORTH SANDY-DAY USER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NORTH SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NORTH SANDY-VACATIONERS)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (SOUTH SANDY-VACATIONER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY ORIGIN (NORTH SANDY-VACATIONER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (NOT SANDY-VACATIONERS)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (NOT SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (DOLLARS) (NOT SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE ( NOT SANDY-DAY USER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (SOUTH SANDY-DAY USER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (SOUTH SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (SOUTH SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (SOUTH SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY PER CAPITA EXPENSESBY GROUP TYPE (NORTH SANDY-VACATIONER)

PER CAPITA DAILY.E_XPENSES BYGROUP TYPE (NORTH SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (NORTH SANDY-VACATIONER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (NORTH SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (MID SANDY-DAY USER)

DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (MID SANDY-VACATIONER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (MID SANDY-VACATIONER)

PER CAPITA DAILY EXPENSES BY GROUP TYPE (MID SANDY-DAY USER)

APPENDIX D

LIST OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF

COMMISSIONERS

SOUTHEASTERN N.H. REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Brentwood

Patrick Jackson Epping
Robert Dodge Epping
Edward Ingraham (alt) Epping
Helen Carr Dix Exeter
Thaddeus Klemarczyk Exeter

Richard Rugg Greenland
Herman Parker Greenland
Louisa Woodman Hampton
James Fallon Hampton
Jerome Healey Hampton Falls
Mark Kelley, Jr. Hampton Falls
Seth Perry Kensington
Margaret Hartford New Castle
Sidney Palmer New Castle
William Tebo Newfields
Thomas Hackett Newfields
Sydney Frink Newington*
Frederick Smith Newington*
David Sanderson Portsmouth
James Ritzo Portsmouth
Calvin Canney Portsmouth
Charles Tallman Rye
Shirley Tibbetts Rye
Wallace Verge South Hampton
Norman Felch South Hampton
Richard Scammon Stratham*
Christopher Rowe Stratham*

*Non-member of the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council

COMMISSIONERS

SOUTHERN ROCKINGHAM REGIONAL
PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

Atkinson*

Leonard Chase Hampstead
Charles Lindquist,Jr. Hampstead
Jean DuBois Kingston
John Impey Kingston

Thomas Cullen Plaistow
Donald McKendry Plaistow

Michael Carney Salem
Michael Mariolis Salem
John Sununu Salem

Ronald Coish Windham
Peter Bronstein Windham

*Non-member of the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council

COMMISSIONERS

STRAFFORD REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Pat McManus Dover
Robert Rowe Dover
Tom Dunnington Dover
Hugh Tuttle(alt) Dover

Rebecca Frost Durham
Nelson LeRay Durham
George Shaw(alt) Durham

Aaron Chadborne Lee

Lane Goss Madbury
Joan Schreiber Madbury

Clyde L. Tufts Middleton
Loran Smith Middleton
Charles DiPrizio III Middleton

Thomas Blanchette Newmarket
Harold Szacik Newmarket

Dave Colby Nottingham
John Williamson Nottingham

Fred Barry . Rollinsford
George Leuchs Rollinsford

David Lamprey Somersworth

N.He Coastal Resources
Management Program
First Year Report
Attachment B 16

SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE

OF RESIDENTS OF.THE COASTAL ZONE PLANNING-AREA

by
Strafford Rockingham Regional Council

C P, 3 U N"0

This report was financed in part by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, administered by the Office
of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,

SOCIO ECONOMIC PROFILE
OF RESIDENTS OF THE COASTAL ZONE PLANNING AREA

The.following-information:on the socio economic status of residents of the Coast-
al Zone Planning Area was taken from the 1970-census. Because of-that, the informa-
tion is somewhat out of date. The Census was taken more than five years ago and there
have been many changes in the make-up of the region since that time. Unfortunately
there is little information available on those changes. New information that is avail-
able on employment has already been presented in the Economic Base report. Population
proje@tions and estimates do exist but they are not broken down into age/sex categor-
ies. Other characteristics such as family compostion., eduction levels, and poverty.
level have not been collected in comparable detail since the census. Thus in order
to prepare a detailed profile of the area's residents it is necessary to use the census
data.
There are two other considerations which must be kept'in mind when studying the
following tables. The census data 1970 was partially collected through sampling. The
basic population unit used for extrapolating from the sampledata to the total p6pu-
lation was 2500 persons. This has led to some inaccuracies in the estimates for the
total population; especially for small towns. Those tables based on sample information
are identified as is the size of the sample taken. Also.the Coastal Zone Plannina
Area has two large institutional populations which tend to skew the data: these are
Pease Air Force Base and the University of New Hampshire. The impacts of these two
institutions show up differently in the various tables. This difference is due to the
differing character of the people associated with them. Pease Air Force Base increases
the general population of the city of Portsmouth where the on-base housing is located.
These people do not vote in Portsmouth nor do they demand much in the way of services
from the city. They are families and their impact is spread throughout the figures
for Portsmouth. The students at the University have a much different impact on Durham's
population. They may register to vote in Durham and the services provided by Durham
are shared by the University and partially funded by it. The students have a dramatic
impact on the population which will be noted in the discussion of individual tables.
.In spite of these problems the census tabulations seem to be the best means of
providing the socio economic profile of Coastal Zone Planning Area residents. The -
information is presented here in tabular form with a short discussion of each table.
Table I shows the age/sex distribution of the population. The 'age categories
chosen are modified from the census to show major socio economic categories.' 5 and
under represents all people in pre school years. This specific population group has

few programs directed at it, though it is one of the most important. The 6-19 cate-
gory are those people most likely to be in school. Ages 20-44 are the child beari.ng
ages for women and thus the ages of most young families. Ages 45-64 are separated
because they are after child bearing and before retirement. They are the ages where
people generally. earn the most. Age 65 plus is *the true retirement from the labor
force and eligibility for many special programs-It is in this table.that some of
the effects of the University of New Hampshire show up.- Durham, with a total popula-
tion similar to Exeter and Hampton, shows a-disproportionate number of individuals in
the "school". and "child beari.ng" categories. This is due to the large number of young
students present at the university. Portsmouth and Newington also have institutional
populations. In these cases, however, it is impossible to pick out the skewed popula-
.tion categories as the Pease people are distributed throughout'the classifications.
Table IIshows the nativity of residents of the planning area. About one half of
the population was born in New Hampshire. It is not possible to say what percentages
of these were born.in the coastal area. It certainly may be said that over half of
the 1970 population are migrants to the planning area.
Table III shows the family status of people in the-planning area. As the census
did not measure this directly this.table was modified from one-concerned with women
and employment. It.shows the family organization as expressed by the marital status
of women. Also included is data on the presence of children. This tables shows more
I
ramatically than table one the influence of the University of New Hampshire on Durham.
he class of single women with no children under 18 is much higher than would be ex-
rT
pected.in a population of that size. This is due to the single female students.
Table IV shows the eduction of people 25 years old or older. These are the
employment years. The Coas -tal'Zone Planning Area has a very.high standard of education.
Even so there is a surprisingly large number of people without any high school educa-
tion at all.
Tables V - VIII shows the economic condition of the area in 1970. This informa-
tion has changed the most significantly in the last five years. However, this is the
only com@,16ation which is avilable in which it is possible to identify the Coastal
Zone Planning Area communities. For'this reason the data'are included in this profile.
More recent data on an area larger than the Coastal Zone Planning Area is discussed in
the Economic Base report.

-2-

TABLE I

Age*Sex Composition of Coastal Zone Populations
(1970 Census)

Pre School School Child Bearing Working Reti.red
5 & under 6-19 20-44 45-64 65+
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Femali

.Dover 1187 1172 2879 2949 3255 3192 2027 2191 841 1353
Durham* 218 215 1792 1768 2049 1841 .349 328 96 167

Exeter 519 454 1182 1117 1241 1371 891 992 441 666

Greenland 146 129 248 232 260 326 181 152 53 57

Hampton 577 592 1021 1085 1223 1306 672 735 340 460

Hampton Falls 554 96 188. 137 188 169 131 117 50 99

Madbury 4 32 79 114 114 116 71 66 30 36
t
ew Castle 19 37 96 89 253 124 90 108 44 29

Newfields 61 52 161 136 132 134 62 76 11 37
Newington* 23 23 43 84 49 48 61 66 16 15

Newmarket 174@ 167 430 410 578 563- @343 337 148 206

North Hampton 115 .183 488 474 463 525 326 318 121 166'
Portsmouth* 1430 1447 3654 3364 5152 4194 '2116 2364 913 1554

95 114 291 239 344 393 230 263 38 70

Rye 192 171 546 536 638 628 469 490 167 246

.Seabrook 208 173 345 259 432 451 318 343 107 143

Stratham 56 88 232 227 260 213 127 160 62 85

Total 5578 5145 13675 13220 16631 15644 8464 9106 3478 5391

Population figures distorted by the enumeration of large institutional populations.

Source: U.S; Census 1970

TABLE II

Born In Born In Foreign No Total
New Hampshire U.S. not N.H. Born Answer Population
Dover @42569 @6242 234 1085 20130
Durham .,3145 4691 128' 632 8596
Exeter 4653 3335' 66 487 8541
Greenland 826 840 41 '36 .1743
Hampton .2577 4662 97 430 7766
'Hampton Falls 571 582 0 58 1211
Madbury 410 273 4 12 699
New Castle 318 516 17 23 874

Newfields 399 310 0 135 844
Newington 204 155 0 63 422
Newmarket 2120 934 0 142 3196
North Hampton 1165 1826 31 158 3180
Portsmouth 9861 13088 615 1495 25059
Rollinsford 1221 531 5 253 2010
Rye 1717 .1979 57 159 3912
Seabrook 1346 1409 0 60 2815

Stratham 674 755 9 30 1468

Total 43776 42128 1304 5258 92466

Percent of Total 47.3 45.6 1.4 5.7 100

Source:. U.S. Census 1970

TABLE III

Family Status in Coastal Zone Planning Area
Women 16 Years Old and Over by Marital Status and Children

Separated, Divorced
Married, Husband Present Never Married, Widowed

Children No Children @Children No Children
Under 18 Under 18 Under 18 Under 18

Dover 2598 1754 320 2958

Durham 573 406 46' 2681

Exeter 1105 901. 172 1118

Greenl!and 249 163 33 146

Hampton 1143 702 106 830

Hampton Falls 168 83 19 139

Madbury 87 71 9 100

New,-Castle 102 68 14 91

Newfields 121 44 11 ill

Newington 43 62 0 35

Newmarket 390 380 49 392

North-Hampton 442 308 55 304

Portsmouth 3236- 2333. 431 2822

Rollinsford 291 229 38 220

Rye 540 457 52 464

Seabrook 391 304 46 270

Stratham 123 89 11 101

Total 11602 8354 1412 12782

Source: U.S. Census 1970

TABLE IV

Education of the Coastal Zone'Planning Area Population
(Persons 25 or older)

Years of School Completed Male Female Total

None 178 188 366

1-4 226 206 432

5-6 510 541 1051

7 629 566 .1195

8 2650 2824 5474

9-11 3687 4256 7943

12 8093 10122 18215

13-15 2615 3988 .6603

16 2344 2144 4488

17 or more 1980 772 3752

Total 22912 25607 48519

% H.S..Diploma 35.3 39.5 37.5

% Some College 11.4 15.6 13.6

% College Diploma 10.2 8.4 9.25

% Graduate School 8.6 3.0 5.7

Source: U.S. Census 1970

TABLE V

Employed Individuals 14 Years Old and Over
By Industry Coastal Zone Planning Area

Male Female Total Percent

Agriculture and Fishing 482 96 578 1.62

Mining 16 5 21 .06

Construction 1646 107 1753 4.90

MFG Durable 4721 1551 6272 17.53

MFG Nondurable 2054 1971 4025 11.25

Transportation 1076 438 1514 4.23

WholsalO/Retail 3774 .2868 6642 18.56

Finance, Ins., Real Estate 558 599 1157 3.23

Business and Repair 402 90 482 1.37
Personal Services 382 1123. 1505 4.21
Entertainment/Recreation 181 .40 221 0.62

Professional Services 2957 4376 7333 20.49

Public Administration 1100 430 1530 4.28

Not Reported 1402 1440 2842 7.94

Total 20751 15034 .35785 100.0

Source: U.S. Census 1970

Total exceeds 100 due to rounding

TABLE VI

Labor Force in Coastal Zone Planning Area
(No. Persons 16+ in Labor Force)

Employed Unemployed
Male Female Male Female

Dover 5205 3428 196 154

Durham 1950 .1405 98 116

Exeter 2208. 1421 59 52

Greenland 416 253 17 3

Hampton 1871 1023 53 61
Hampton Falls 313 149 5 0
Madbury 176 93 5 23

New Castle 146 0 0

Newfields 191 122 0 10

Newington 104 64 0 @O

Newmarket 811 567 64 45

North Hampton 8117 412 31 5

Portsmouth 4542 3271 196 107

Rollinsford 593 461 0 10

Rye 975 574 25 12

Seabrook 716 419 30 24

Stratham 374 198 6 12

Total 21442 14006 785 634

Unemployment rates: Male 3.53% Source:. U.S. Census 1970
Female = 4.33%
Total = 3.85%

TABLE VII

Income of Persons Over 14 by Type and Sex 1970

Male Female-- 7 Total

Wage and Salary 177,338,100 53,254,350 230,592,450

Non Farm Self Employed 19,620,750 1,854,700 2i,475,450
Farm Self Employed 992,550 13,000. 1,005,550
Social Security or R.R. 4,262,150 4,889,200 9,151,350
Public Assistance 1,018,700 897,050 1,915,750
All Other 14,434,500 9,058,900 23,493,400

TOTAL .2 17,666,750 69,967,200 287,633,950

Source: U.S. Census 1970

Table VIII

Poverty Level

Number of Individuals
in Families With In- Total %
P:
..come Below Poverty Level Population oor

Dover 1149 21406 5.46

Durham 225 8873 2.54

Exeter 580 8874 6:54

Greenland 73 1786 4.09

8011 5.60
Hampton 449

Hampton Falls 56 1729 3.24

Madbury 24 662 3.63

New Castle 32 889 3.60

Newfields 27 862 3.13

Newington 48 428 11.21

Newmarket 233 3356 6.94

North Hampton 198 3179 6.23

Portsmouth 3118 26188- 8.09

Rollinsford 121 2077 5.83

Rye 237' 4083 5.80

Seabrook, 170 2779 6.12

Stratham 152 1510 10.07

Total 5892 96332 6.12

N. CoasItal Resources
Management program
First Year Report
Attachment B 17
07158

SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF

USER/S OF COASTAL RECREATION FACILITIES

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

1. Introduction: In July of 1974, the Strafford Rockingham Council

conducted a mail survey of attitudes of the regional residents

towards the recreation opportunities in the region, The survey

forms,are attached as Appendix A of this report. The surveys were

mailed to 2,000 households in the region and 323 forms were return-

ed in time to be included in the analysis,
In general., the results showed that there is a wide variety of
recreation opportunities within the region and that people do take
advantage of -them. There is, however, some dissatisfaction with
-these opportunities, Most respondents to question 2, measuring sat-

isfaction with recreation opportunities, indicated that while they

were satisfied, desired recreati'on facilities were not always avail-

able.

The rest of this section Iis an explanation of the survey tech-

nique and exhibits of the results.

Ii. Survey Tpchni.aue
The survey was mailed randomly to 2,000 households within the

region. The addresses were chosen from the -telephone book, The

-total mailing size of 2,000 was chosen arbitrarily as the largest
IT8ailing that could be done economically. The number of question-

aires sent to each municipality was based upon the ratio of that
municipality's population to 'the total regional population. (The

population figures used were the 1973 Estimates of Population pre--

pared by the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning, July,
1973). For example, Atkinson's population was 1,4 per cent of

the regional total so 28 questionaires were sent to households in

that community. The addresses were chosen from the telephone book

in a way -that distributed 'the households oveir the entire tel-epho ne

using population of the rpunicipa'Lity.

-2-

This sampling method was not perfect. By using the telephone
book those people who did not have telephones were automatically
excluded, thus biasing the sample to those people with income

enough to afford a telephone. This was not-considered a serious

drawback, for two reasons. First,, the use of a telephone is no
longer considered a luxury but a necessity. Thus there are not
many households which did not have a chance to be in the sample.
Second, the other group of people who would be excluded were those
with unlisted numbers.- This group was considered to be quite small
and thus was expected to have little impact on the results. Both
of these considerations, howevei@, must be kept in-mind as minor
limiting assumptions on the results.

III. Characteristics of the Population
Before considering the results of the su rvey and their implica-
tions on recreation planning, it is necessary to look at the charact-
eristics of the population responding., In the first place the age/
sex characteristics of the respondents were much different than the
total regional population. The resDondents were mainly young and
middle aged males: 55% between the ages of twenty-five and forty-
four and 75% male. While the regional population, using the 1970
census figures, is only 50% male and 24% aged twenty-five to forty-
f6ur, this skewing is likely due -to heads of households being list-
ed in the telephone book and subsequently filling out the form.
Table I shows a comparison between the total population of the
region.and thesample in education level completed. It can be read-
ily-seen that the respondents to the survey are a much better educa-
ted group than the general population. Whether this means that
better educated people do more recreation, (because they have high-

-3-

er incomes and more leisure) or that they are more willing to res-
pond to questionaires of this nature, cannot be positively deter-

mined from the data.

However, there is some evidence that the former is the major

reason for the high number of college graduates in the respondents.

An attempt to cross-correlate education with a recreationactivity

inde.-I. showed no significant difference between education levels

for each level of activity. This suggests that the respondents

were the people most interested in recreation regardless of educa-

tion.

The above described characteristics of the population must be

considered in evaluating the responses of the purvey..',,,The regional

population was not proportionately represented by the returned
questionaire. However, it is fair to say that @he differences are

not the-result of the sampling method and thus have significance

for recreation planning for whatever the reason. The better educa-

ted (thus presumably h igher paid) people, because they are more

vocal and have more leisure to engage in recreation, will have more

impact upon recreation facilities in the region.

TABLE I.
Comparison of Sample and Population: Education

Years of School Sample Population
Completed (Total Size 317), (94108)
% Number % Number
8 2,5 8 7 6233
9-11 2.5 8 10 9021
12 14.8 47 20 .19,151
1-3 College 20.5 65 .7 6932
4 College 24.0 7-6 4 3305
5+ College 21.5 68 1 1152

From 1970 Census

IV. Data

The survey attempted to measure those activities which were
most often done and, the placies where the activities took place.

In addition, questions*were asked about the respondents' satis-
faction with recreational opportunities in the region and an open
ended question was asked requesting the respondents' opinion 'of

what local officials could do to improve local recreational oppor-
tunities. The remaining questions were demographic in nature so

that a profile of the respondents could be constructed.

Because of the large number of activities and places consid-
ered it would not be practical to discuss each activity individually
here. Table II shows the activities ranked by the number of times
it was picked as either a frequent or.occasional activity. Sur-
prisingly, even after the 8as shortages this winter, driving for
pleasure was the most common activity. Predictably, swimming was
very high on the list. A new entry, though expected, was bicycling,
indicating that recreation planners should be working on bicycle
facilities, especially considering the ages of the respondents.
*Outdoor tennis out-polled golf though neither were very high. An
interesting sidelight is that five of the ten'highest ranking act-
ivities were passive pursuits such as driving or sunbathing, This
is an interesting result in a survey of outdoor recreation. activit-
ies which one might expect to primarily involve invigorating physical

exercise..

In order to further simplify the analysis each respondent was
given an activity rating. This rating was calculated from the
responses to question 1. Classes of activity were designed by plot-
ting the activity ratings on a normal curve. The five classes and

the number of respondents in them are shown in Table III.

TABLE II.
Activities Ranked By Frequency
(Number of times done frequently and occasionally)
Activi Rank Activit Rank
Driving for pleasure 69.3 Water skiing 23.5
Freshwater swimming 67.5 Sailing 22.6
S'altwater swimming 67.8 Basketball 21.1
Visiting museums', zoos Backpacking 21.0
& historical sites 66.3 Target shooting (rifle,
Picnicking 63.5 traps, archery) 20.7
Bicycling 63.5 Miniature golf 20.1
Sun bathing 62.5 Jogging, track 19.2
Day hiking or walking Vehicle camping 18.6
for pleasure 53.3 Horse shows 18.0
Ice skating 51.7 Badmitton 14.9
Boston area activities 50.8 Snow mobiling 14.9
Craft & art fairs, an- Horseback riding 14.6
tique:!shows, auctions 48.6 Snow-shoeing 13.9
Freshwater fishing 48.3 Volleyball 13.6
Pool swimming 44.3 Hockey '. 13.6
Nature observation (tide Motorcycling 13.3
pool, marshes, forest) 44.0 Indoor tennis lo,8
Motor boating 43.0 Flying 9,3
Live ball and hockey Roller skating 9.0
games 42.7 Dog shows 8.4
Saltwater fishing 42.1 Stock and sports car
Tent camping 35.9 racing 7.7
Sledding and tobagganing. 34.1 Scuba diving 5.6
Bird-watching 33.7 Soccer 5.3
Outdoor tenn.is 32.2 Surfing 2.5
Golf 30.3 Dog racing o.6
Canoein 29.5 Horse racing 0.6
Skiing &ownhill & cross Sky diving 0.6
country) 28.5
Farm animal shows 28.0
Outdoor concerts & plays 27.9
Hunting 26.o
Baseball 23.8

Percent activity was chosen as done whether frequently or occasion-
ally.

-6-

TABLE III.
Activity Classes For Resident'Recreatio'n Survey

Class Definition No. Cases

Very Active Greater than 2 standard 12
deviations above the
mean
Moderately Active Between 1-2 standard and 47
deviations above the mean
Active +1 standard deviation 211
Moderately Innactive Between 1-2 standard and 48
deviations below the
Very Innacti've Greater than 2 s tandard 0
deviations below mean

These activity indices were compared with other variables from
the questionaire.

V. Results

Table II summarizes the results of Question 1 concerning the

frequency of each activity. The infonnation on where each activity

took place is so voluminous that it cannot be listed here. It is

available at the offices of the Council. The most important quest-

ions in the survey were number 2 and 3. Question 2 was designed

to assess the respondents satisfaction with his recreation opportun-

-ities. Table IV shows the responses to that question. Table V

shows the relationship between gender and recreation satisfaction.

If "does not matter" and "do not go out" are considered to be nega-

tive or at least neutral indications of satisfaction, then women

are markedly less satisfied'with their recreational opportunities

than men.

TABLE IV.
Responses to Question 2.
No. of Respondents Response
15 Extremely happy
81 Satisfied
154 Something missing
22 Not satisfied
9 Does not matter
28 Do not go oLit
For.complete text of response see the survey schedule in
Appendix A.

TABLE V.
Recreation Satisfaction By Percent Male and Female-

Male Female

Extremely happy 6.5% 0.0%
Satisfied 29.1 17.3
Something missing 47.4 58.o
Not satisfied 6.5 8.6
Does not matter 2.6 3.7
Do not go out 7.8 12.3

Table VI shows the relationship between recreation satisfact-
ion and ac-'L-livity index. It is clear that the very active people
are not more satisfied with their opportunities, The moderately
active people are more satisfied but still find something missing.
In fact, the only group that seems satisfied with it's recreation-
al opportunities are those who.do not use them bften.

TABLE VI.
Activity Index and Satisf 'action With Recreational Opportuni ty (Percent)
Very Moderately Moderately
Satisfaction Active Active: Active Inactive
Extremely happy 0% 8.3% 3.8% 6.8%
Satisfied 16.7 27.1 25.5 31,8
Something missing 75.0 6o.4 52.4 20.5
Not satisfied 8.3 4.2 8.7 2.3
Does not matter 0.0 0.0 1.0 15.9
Do not go out 0.0 0.0 8.7 22.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table VII shows the relationship between gender and activity

index. There is little difference in the activity indexes.for male

and females. What difference there is shows a higher percentage

of women in the more active classes then men.

-8-

TABLE VII.
Activity Index By Gender (Per cent)

Male Female
Very Active 3.4 4ig
Moderately Active 14.3 17.1
Active 65.5 68.3
Moderately Inactive 16.8. 9.8

10010 100.0

TABLE VIII.
COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS CONCERNING RECREATION

No..
40 More tennis facilities (indoor, outdoor, lights)
20 More bike trails and facilities
15 More swimming pools (indoor, outdoor, meets, lessons)
13 More ice skating rinks (indoor, w/hockey facilities)
1.2 More park areas (state, w/wide variety of activities)
9 Facilities adequate .
9 More camping and tenting areas
9 More fish stocking and game stocking
9 More cultural activities and exhibits
9 Limit horsepower.allowed on certain bodies of water
8 More advertising of recreational activities and facilities
8 Snowmobile trails (groomed, in cities)
7 More picnic areas
7 Acquire more land for parks (state, local), beaches and
other future recreational expansion (on rivers)
6 Need more facilities (indoor, outdoor, public)
6 More organized sports programs (men & women, children,
year round)
6 More water pollution control
6 Insure more access to water (fresh and salt)
5 Bug control
5 More playgrounds (in every town)
5 More nature reserves and trails
5 Horse trails or bridle paths
5 More boating facilities (salt and fresh water, in Rye
Harbor, docking, etc.)
5 More public open space for recreation
5 More activities for children
5 Improve recreational areas and sports facilities
Responses to Question 3 of Resident Recreation Questionaire.

Question 3 was an open-ended question whose purpose was to let
the respondents let off some steam. against the local officials.
Table VIII shows the most frequently given responses. Not all res-

ponses were worded exactly alike but if the sense of a response
was similar to one already existing, they were counted together.
The five most mentioned,comments all conce.rn capital intensive

development. Two of the five are related to activities which rank-

ed high on the activity frequency list (Table II).

VI. Conclusion
The results may.,/be used -to begin to de-scribe the perception
of recreation opportunities of the residents and those activities
which should be considered in future recreation development.
One point that may be made reasonably convincingly, is, that
there are differences in the opportunities for men and women.

Table VII shows that there are.relatively more women active in

recreation than men; while Table V shows that more women are dis-
atis.,fied or only moderately happy with their recreation activities.

Perhaps there is'some sex'discrimination in recreation.

It seems clear from other data in the study that the residents
of-the region are not completely satisfied with their opportunities

and that those people who wish to use the facilities the most are

the least satisfied. It seems also that this lack of satisfaction
is in the area of capital intensive development which requires a
large tax money imput to satisfy. It is also important to note -
that the facilities most wanted are those whose primary use is by
individuals and not for organized team or league sports. In Table
VII, the five most cominion comments are requests for more facilities,
only one of which might be thought-of as primarily for organized
team sports (skating rinks). In Table II, baseball, the highest
ranking team recreation activity, is twenty-seventh out of fifty-
seven activities. Not very high for a staple of municipal recreation

programs throughout the country. It seems, from this survey at
least, that we should be spending more money on non-compet-itive
individual recreation pursuits. Unfortunately those activities

cost more to provide.

N.H. Coastal Resources
Management Program
First Year Report
Attachment B - 18

0 17

RECREATIONAL FISHING AND SOATING

UL@ &LA

Recreational Fishing and Boating

A large portion of the marine and estuarine waters of New Hampshire is

used for recreational fishing and boating activities. Intensity of use varies

J geographically, however, and depends on such.factors as the availability of

boat launching and mooring facilities, the presence of obstructions such as

low water, low bridge crossings and tidal currents, and the location of

finfish and shellfish resources.

For the purpose of this review, recreational fishing and boating activity

will be broken down into the following parts:

1) Pleasure boatipg

a. General recreational boating (cruising, sailing,
water-skiing).
b. Fishing (private,craft, party boats).

2) Recreational shellfishing

3) Shore or ice-based finfishing

This study is limited to a review of existing literature on these

topics, supplemented by personal observations of the Planning Commission

staff and discussions with concerned state officials and local residents.

The goal of this report is to identify the geographic location . and

extent of the various recreational fishing and boating activities in New

Hampshire's Coastal Zone. Information on numbers of participants and their

expenditures have been included where available. Supplementary maps and

charts relating the presence of resources such as clams, oysters, lobsters,

and finfish accompany this report. (See various maps entitled Clams, Clams

and Oysters, and Offshore Fishing Areas.)

-2-

Pleasure Boating

Pleasure boating in New Hampshire consists of water-borne fishing,

cruising, sailing and water-skiing. Whereas the Atlantic coast of the

state is heavily used for fishing and other recreational purposes, use of

the Great Bay estuary is much less intense, due largely to a combination

of adverse natural factors such as tides and currents. Heavy private

ownership of the shoreline also, contributes to the lower level of Great

Bay usage.

The distinctionbetween pleasure boating for fishing alone, and for

other activities, such as cruising, sailing, and water skiing is not clear.

The same facilities are used for launching, mooring, docking and servicing

boats used for any of the above activities. The same geographic areas are

used in many cases. The only significant difference between the activities

lies in implications for the management of coastal resources. Concentration

on improving the quality of water-borne recreation for non-fishing purposes

depends in part on developing increased launching, mooring and docking

facilities, whereas improvements in fishing activity depend more on the

management of the fishery resources which may preclude the construction or

expansion of new launching, mooring, or docking facilities in selected

locations.

The nature and extent of pleasure boating of all types is determined

in part by the availability of access to New Hampshire coastal waters.

Commercial and state-owned marina facilities, boat launching ramps, and boat

rental areas are located throughout the coastal zone. Numerous private

anchorages exist throughout as well. The heavy concentration of facilities

is along the Atlantic coast. Great Bay has comparatively fewer support

facilities. A list of boating access points including marinas, mooring

sites, and boat launching ramps is presented in Table 1% Private docks and

moorings have not been included in the list, although these have a significant
impact on boating activities as well. It is estimated by several sources-that
there are about as many private docking and mooring facilities in New Hampshire's

coastal zone as there are commercial and public.

Evidence exists that boating activities in the seacoast region are

growing rapidly and pushing the capacity of available facilities. Shaw and
Henry (1974) have conducted a state-wide marina industry survey. Their find-

ings point to increasing demand for access to coastal waters. Boats regis-
tered by the United States Coast Guard, and-used on federally controlled

(marine) waters of the state, numbered 7,621 in 1972. Inland lakes boats

are not included in this figure. This represented a 43.9% increase from the

5,295 registered in 1967 and includes only craft with ten horsepower motors
or greater. These vessels do not have to be registered with the state if they

are only used on federally-controlled waters, though it is certain that a large

number of them will be registered with the state and used on inland waters as

well. No distinction is made between trailered craft and those moored or

occupying slip spaces. There were 360 vessels documented with the Department
of Transportation, Portsmouth, New Hampshire District in 1972. These vessels

probably all exceed 30 feet in length and are confined to coastal waters.

Levels of boating activity in the seacoast may be'lower than they would

be if sufficient mooring and docking facilities were available. More than

80 percent of marina dealers surveyed on a statewide basis in 1974 turned

away customers-for summer berthing and storage spaces and almost 50 percent

of the dealers surveyed ran out of winter storage areas. The situation is

the same in the seacoast. With the possible exception of those who prefer to

trailer their boats.to the coast, there may be an untapped market of people

who are deterred from buying boats and/or using them there for lack of space

to keep them.

TABLE. 1

Boating Slips, Ramps,, and Moorings

Name/Location Operation Moorings Ramp Slips

Seabrook

Town of Seabrook Municipal double

State of New Hampshire State 50-60

Eastman's Fishing Parties Commercial x

Hampton

State of New Hampshire State 80 double

Hampton Beach Marina Commercial 5 x 95

Hampton River Boat Club Private Club 70 x

Rye
State of'New Hampshire State, 135 x

Gosport Harbor, Isle of Shoals State 15-20

Portsmouth

Pierce Island Municipal x

Prescott Park (short-term dock) Municipal

Mike's Marina Commercial 6 x 75

Portsmouth Yacht Club Private Club 15 30

Newington

Town of Newington Municipal x

Unimproved Launch Site State x

Great Bay Marina Commercial 40 x 72

Table 1 (cont.)

Name/Location Operation Moorings Ramp Slips

Greenland

Unknown Commercial. x

Town of Greenland Municipal x

State of New Hampshire State x

Unknown Commercial x

Stratham

Chapman's Landing Commercial 15 x

Newmarket

Gallant's Commercial #unknown x

Town of.Newmarket Municipal x

Durham

Adam's Point State x

Town of Durham Municipal x

Dover

Hilton State Park State x

Mike's Bait Shop Commercial x

Ben's Marina Commercial x 40

George's Marina Commercial 15-20

-4-

General Recreational Boating
Great Bay, Little Bay

Information on the location and extent of generalized recreational

boating activities (sailing, cruising, water-skiing) has been obtained for

Great Bay from the studies by Nevers and Olson (1968) and Stevenson, et.al.

'(197 4), supplemented by personalAnowledge of the Commission-staff. Very

little information is available on coastalactivities, though the National

Marine Fisheries Service has just released some data on number of participants

by activity (NMFS, 1975).

Nevers and Olson (1968) reported on recreational use of the Adams

Point Wildlife Management Area from.July of 1967' through July of 1968. Some

of their findings are useful in developing an understanding of the nature

of recreational boating in Great and Little Bays. They found, for example,

that the large portion of boats launched at the Adams Point ramp were

engaged primarily in oystering, clamming, hunting, and fishing (see Table 2).

A smaller number of boats (about one-third) were used for combinations of

the above activities with each other or with cruising, sailing, and picnicking.

Only two boats of 89 surveyed were for sailing and no mention was made of

water-skiing. Heaviest usage was during the fall for hunting purposes (geese

and duck).

Stevenson, et.al. (1974) conducted a comprehensive survey of recreational

activities of the Great Bay-Little Bay complex. Much use was made of the data

reported by Nevers and Olson, but this was supplemented by personal inter-

views and aerial surveys of the area. Stevenson found that most boat launch-

ing occurred at either one of three commercial facilities on Great Bay or at

the Hilton Park launch area, Adams Point being much less heavily used, due

perhaps to more severe tidal limitations (see Table 3). In addition, in an

aerial survey of the Great Bay shoreline, they reported sighting 75 private

boat piers or docks and 50 private moorings (highly variable on a year-to-year

Table 2

Recreational Activities of 89 Parties launching Boats at
Adams Point@ 1967-1968.

Activity Boats Launched Parties Interviewed of Total

Oystering 43 48 .90
Hunting* 16 58 28
Fishing 3 9 33
Sailing 1 1
Lobstering 1
Photography.

Oystering - Claiming 8 9 89
Oystering - Fishing 1 1
Oystering - Hunting 1 1
Oystering - Picnicking 1
Oystering - Picnicking
Birdwatching
-'Clam ing
Oystering. . n
Picnicking - Boating
4 4
Fishing - Clamming 3 2
Fishing - Picnickixig_ 2 1
Fishing - Clarrning
Picnicking - B::ating 1 1
Sailing Picnicking 1 1
Swbming Picmicking
Sightseeing Bix@,vratching
Boating 1 1

Total 89

Source: Nevers & Olson (1968)

Table 3

Aerial Surveys of Recreational Activity or. Great and Little Bay Ccmpared
With Access From Adams Point, 1967-1968.

Date Activity Aerial Survey Access from.Adams Point
(Number) (Percent)
October 21,, 1967 oystering 12 boats 3boats)
It Hunting 19 13 53%
Othe.- 5 3

December 2, 1967 None
January 6, 1968 Smelt fishing 230 enanties none
February 18, 1968 Smelt f ishing 776 shanties none
,April 7 1968 Oystering 3.1 boats 3 boats) 23%
Other 2 0
June 8, 1968 Fishing 4boats none
Sailing 1 none
Other 5 none
June 23, 1968 Fishing 1boats 0boats)
Boating 30 1 :. 3%
Other 6 0
July 7, 1968 Fishing 3boats 0boats)
Boating 32 0it ) 2%
Sailing 12

Source: Nevers & Olson (1968)

-5-

basis) as compared to the approximately 180 commercially operated slips,

docks or moorings located on Great Bay. The commercial facilities were

generally reported as "full to capacity during the summer months" by Stevenson.

No indication was given by Stevenson that activities undertaken by

all Great Bay boaters are any different from those reported by Nevers and

Olson (1968), further indicating that hunting, fishing, and clamming are

Zbe main pursuits of those boating in Great Bay during most of the year.

Cruising was more prevalent in the summer. It was mentioned that water-

skiing activities were largely confined,to those persons having private

access to the Bay. The reason for this is probably that the time period

each day during which the water is deep enough for t his activity is limited.

The pattern of recreational usage in the Great Bay area that emerges

from these reports is that heaviest.boating occurs during the summer and

fall months, with cruising in the summer and fishing and hunting during

the remainder of the year the primary activities. Craft used are generally

small in size being limited by depth restrictions throughou t the bay. No

doubt the 3.5 mile distance from the mouth of the Piscataqua River to Dover

Point at the bead of the Great Bay-Little Bay complex serves to discourage

vessels from entering the area from the ocean side. Private ownership of

much of Great Bay's shoreline serves to add to the access problem.

Atlantic Coast

Information on recreational boating along New Hampshire'a Atlantic

coast is not as well documented as that in Great Bay. Publicly available

moorings, piers, and slips along the Atlantic coast total in excess of 800,

of which approximately two-thirds are state operated or supervised (see,

Table,l for a partial listl. Concentrations are located in Hampton-Seabrook,

Rye Harbor, Little Harbor and Sagamore Creek, as well as the Piscataqua

River. Private docking and mooring facilities may double these figures.

-6-

There are also a number of state, municipal, and commercial boat ramps

available for use. (See Table 1)

No breakdown whatever is available for numbers and types of boats

engaged in fishing, as opposed to cruising, sailing, or water-skiing.

The concentration of cruising and sailing activity undoubtedly is higher

in the nearshore marine waters than in Great Bay, due to the lack of-bridge

obstructions and tide and current hazards. But, like Great Bay activity,

much of marine boating is geared toward fishery resources. For example,

private craft are used to gain access to some otherwise inaccessible clam

flats in the Hampton-Seabrook area.

Concentrations of vessels will fish the nearshore waters to distances

.of six miles or so, with the larger vessels headed further out for species

such as bluefin tuna (see the sections on.fishing for locations of heaviest

activity). Some ground fishing on Jeffreys Ledge occurs as well. These

activities occur primarily during the summer months (May to October).

Duck and goose hunting also occurs, primarily in the Hampton-Seabrook area,

and small boats are also used in this activity.

Information on either the overall numbers of participants in marine

and estuarine recreational boating in New Hampshire or on the economic

impact of their expenditures is unobtainable at present. The National

Marine Fisheries Services, however, has just released data on the numbers

of "households" engaged in such activities (one or more family members parti-
cipating). Their survey showed that 17,000 households throughout New Hampshire

.participated in marine sailing, 42,000 in pleasure boating, and 61,000

in fin-fishing in marine waters in the monthsfrom June 1973 to June 1974.

No attempt was made to determine frequency of activity nor manner of partici-

pation -- whether the activity was conducted in personally ox;ned boats,

those of friends, or rental or party-fishing craft. No detailed information

on the location of their activity was given. Assuming that effects of

residents of one state performing their water-borne recreation in other

states cancel each other out, these numbers apparently do not seriously

over-estimate.levels of New Hampshire activity, especially when compared

with numbers of New Hampshire boats registered with the Coast Guard in

1972 (7,621) and considering the fact that registration is not required for

craft with less than ten horsepower engines.

Fishing from Private Craft or Party Boats

Sport fishing from private, rental, and commercial craft occurs

throughout New Hampshire's coastal zone, being supported by the marinas,

boat launching ramps, and related facilities identified in Table 1. The

geographical distribution of fishing activity closely resembl-es the loca-

tion of these support facilities, with fishing activity in Great Bay being

considerably less than that along New Hampshire's Atlantic coast. Most

party boat facilities, state mooring sites, and commercial docking and

mooring facilities are located along the Atlantic coast and lower Piscataqua

River areas.. Conditions for boating are better in these areas.

No inventory of party or charter vessels running from various seacoast

marinas has been made as part of this study. However, Sullivan and Sawyer

(1969) reported twenty-five vessels in 1966. DRED(1970),in a promotional

pamphlet, listed twenty. These vessels run primarily from Hampton Harbor
and Rye Harbor and generally fish inshore for mackerel, and on Jeffrey's

Ledge for haddock, cod, and pollock. Recent warm water has attracted

bluefish to the region, which forces the mackerel offshore (N.H. Department

of Fish & Game, 1975). There are also party or charter boats located in

Portsmouth and New Castle.

Information on the location of fishing grounds comes from three sources:

the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, the New Hampshire Commercial

-8-

Fishermen's Association, and the National Marine Fisheries Services, which

has recently published a guide to recreational fishing areas of the Atlantic

coast. (See also the Offshore Fishing Areas map)

In the vicinity of the Isles of Shoals, concentrations of cod,

mackerel, cusk, and halibut exist. Silver hake (whiting) are cayght further

south.. In the surf zone along the entire coast and near the Hampton Harbor

entrance, striped bass are caught. A concentration of mackerel existgnear

the mouth of Hampton Harbor. Both striped bass and mackerel are caught in

the harbor. Winter flounder are caught in the estuarine and nearshore areas.

Further offshore, concentrations of cod, cusk, pollock and silver hake

(whiting) also exist, primarily on elevated areas where hard bottoms occur.

Such areas as Old Scantum, New Scantum and Jeffrey's Ledge harbor concentra-

..tions of these fish. Bluefin tuna are also sought by recreational fishermen

seaward of the Isles of Shoals, though they are close to being listed by

the Federal government as endangered species, (N.H. Department of Fish &

Game, 1975). In the Great Bay, striped bass and winter flounder are caught.

One favorite spot. for striped bass is in Furber Strait in the vicinity of

Adams' Point (Stevenson, et.al., 1974). In the tributaries eels and smelt

may be caught.

Existing information on the numbers of fishermen using the coast for

fishing from commercial or private vessels and what they spend on their

activity is generallyspotty or outdated. Sullivan and Sawyer (1969),

indicated that in 1966, May to October expenditures (by both residents and

tourists) f or party boat f ishing ranged between $115, 000 and $500, 000 repre-

senting a total of 22,000 man-days of effort. Using 1975 dollar value.s,

this range would be from $187,450 to $815,000. "Expenditure" has not

been defined, but it probably includes boat fare, bait, tackle, transportation

to and from the'dock, and other miscellaneous items. Data came from personal

interviews with fishermen and from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

-9-

The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game has drawn up estimates

of expenditures of New Hampshire residents only on salt water fisheries.

The figure arrived at was $3,700,000 in 1971 (New Hampshire Department of.

Fish and Game 1975) and represented 174,270 man-days of effort. No differen-

tiation between shore-based and water-based fishermen was made, making

difficult any comparison with earlier data. Also, the estimate included

fixed (one-time) costs for'gear, which were not included in the estimates

by Sullivan and Sawyer. The figures shown also represents a 12-month

effort, as opposed to the.five-month party-boat season which was investi-

gated by Sullivan and Sawyer.

Recreational Shellfishing

Recreational shellfishing consists largely of the digging of soft-

shelled clams (Mya arenaria). This activity is most prevalent in the

Hampton- Seabrook estuary. Oysters are also taken for recreational purposes

in the Great Bay and its tributaries, (See Clams and O.ysters' maps which

accompany this report).

The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game reports that in 1973

there were 12,686 adult clamming licenses issued, at a cost to users of

$50,860.50. Almost 1200 junior (12 years old or younger) clam licenses were

issued at a cost of $2,391.00 and 17 junior oyster licenses ($35.00).

There were also 507 free clam and oyster licenses issued to persons over

70 years old. These licenses are for recreational purposes only. No

commercial shell-fishing is allowed in New Hampshire.

The numbers of persons engaged in clamming is expected to rise. The

New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game estimates 15,000 license holders

of all types for the 1971-1980 period, growing ultimately to 21,000 people

around the turn of the century (1974 data indicates this estimate will be

conservative as 15,000 license-holders are listed). Interestingly enough,

_10-

total harvest is not expected to increase, due to the heavy pressure already

being exerted on the clam beds. Recent studies in New Hampshire have

indicated a drop in total clam population, especially in the.heavily harvested

Hampton-Seabrook area. The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game is

aware of this and is considering options for reducing clamming pressure. The

Hampton-Seabrook flats have alread y been restricted to usage on Friday-s,

Saturdays, and Sundays only.

Oystering activity is limited somewhat by the restricted access to

Great Bay and also the intense effort needed to tong oysters, and is not

expencted to increase as rapidly as clamming. The New Hampshire Department

of Fish and Game estimates no apprec iable increase in intensity of effort

until at. least 1980. At that point, they estimate that improved water

quality will increase the attractiveness of Great Bay oysters. From 1980-

1990 the-Fish and Game Department estimate 2500 license-holders. These

figures could double in the 1990-2020 period, thus requiring some limita-

tions to be placed on the allowable catch.

Estimates of the dollar values of shellfishing are scattered. The

New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game referenced a- 1971 study showing

that 13,273 license holders did 111,834 man-days of clamming and spent an

estimated $1,212,660 on the activity. This expenditure included fixed

expenses for gear and variable costs associated with trips to 'he clam flats.
Estimated harvest (assuming each person obtained 10 quarts of clams per trip)
was more than 100,000 pecks of clams. Sullivan and Sawyer (1969) have presented
data for clam fisheries only which estimated the effort and expenditures for
1966. Sixty-six thousand man-days of effort were estimated for 12,200 licenses,
based on interview data and head counts at the Hampton-Seabrook flats. Total

expenditures, both for "newcomers," which would include fixed and variable
costs, and for old-timers, which would include variable costs only, totalled

$176,850 in 1966. This would be equivalent to $288,266 in 1975 dollars. An

interesting sidelight to this research was the indication that up to 78 percent

of the clammers were residents of New Hampshire liv ing outside the secondary

coastal zone.

An additional way the economic value of recreational shellfishing

might be estimated, other than by expenditure, is by obtaining the market

value of the harvested resource. Sullivan and Sawyer feel that this method

is the most economically realistic. The 1971 catch of 100,000 pecks of

clams and 7000 bushels of oysters was thus worth $6*00,000-and $49,000

respectively (1971 dollars). In 1975, this same catch would have been

worth$978,000 and $79,870 respectively. There were 15,060 clam license-

holders throughout the state in. 1974.' Assuming each license-holder made

eight trips and obtained a ten-quart daily limit, clams harvested in 1974

-were valued at $1,144,560. Oyster fisheries were valued at $59,520,

.assuming 1240 license holders, six days of oystering per year, and each

taking the one-bushel daily limit.

The maps (CLams and Qjsters) which detail clamming and oystering

areas in the New Hampshire coastal zone, are self explanatory.

Several studies provide an idea of the quantity of shellfish resources

as well as locations. Ayer (1970) provides detailed information on both

the location and size of the oyster population in Great Bay. He estimated

that 37,800 bushels of oysters existed in Great Bay in 1968. This is

based on an estimated 50 acres of oyster beds at a density of 756 bushels per

acre. The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game believes this oyster

population could reasonably sustain additional harvesting pressure without

long-term damage to the population.

Clam-flat populations have been studied several times in recent years.

Ayer (1968) published a comprehensive report on soft-shell clams in Hampton-

Seabrook Harbor.' This has since been augmented by studies conducted for

the Public Service Company of New Hampshire by Normandeau Associates

-12-

(Normandeau 1974). No detailed published information on clam population

in the Great Bay estuary, however, has been found.

Ayer (1968) reported on eight flats in the Hampton-Seabrook estuary.

168 acres of productive flats vere surveyed and, based on average- dens ity-

per-acre calculations, estimates of production in bushels were made. The

total estimate was 24,000 bushels of legal-sized clams on the 168 acres.

The density ranged from five to 300 bushels per acre (mean 120.busbels).

Work accomplished by.Normandeau Associates since the completion of

the Ayer report shows a decrease in clam production in the Hampton-Seabrook

estuary. Five of the same flats, (totalling 154 acres) were surveyed for

population. These are shown in Figure 1. Results of the Normandeau

investigations, published in 1974, reveal a significant decline in clam

population from the levels earlier reported by Ayer for the same flats.

Methods of sampling appeared to vary from that used by Ayer only in details

of choosing sample locations, so the results are probably comparable in
their acc uracy. We have included a' reprint of a diagram from the Normandeau

report showing bushel-per-acre comparisons in legal-sized clams between the

various studies accomplished by Normandeau and Fish and Game data (see

Figure 2). These results indicate a definite drop in the density of

harvestable clams since Ayer's data was first reported in 1968.

Shore or Ice-Based Finfishing

Information on the shore-based sport fishery is drawn from a number

of sources. Sullivan and Sawyer (1969). detail the economic impact of

summer salt-water sports fisheries in the New Hampshire and Maine seacoast

region. Their report discusses, in addition to the shore-based fishery,

the economics of party-boat and clam fisheries noted earlier. Stevenson,

et.al. (1974) a.1so gave details on the shore-based fishery. Additionally,

ecological studies by Normandeau Associates, Inc., conducted in the Hampton-

NIS

rn
'ke

N@'
rn

SEA a 0
R OK
QkA
CH j'..
HAMPM) BEACH
..... ......

C, Im

....................

300- 12,000-
M
NHF&G !Po , NMF&G
flzrzs NAI 1969 IL1231 NAI 1969
NAI 1971 &::-M NAI 1971
NAI 1972 VIMMA NAI 1972
NAI 1973 =0 NAI 1973
250- 10,000-

8,000-
200- @N@
to
A

150- to 6,000-
CO RCM
LU

2
.4,000-
100-
N
A
N'
K M

MN,
C.
mg
@R,
Nr,
MR 2,000
50
MIN
n

c3r
NR
Li
IN

H 13Z
M\
'g,

CM
aii
A@
0
#5
#4 #2 #3 #4
FLATS FLATS

Figure Z u s over 50 mm or 2 inches)
Recent estimates of soft shell clam.productivity (ad lt
ANN
Ax,
\IN
A

on five flats in Hampton-Seabrook estuary (NHF&G data from Ayer, 1968).

-13-

Seabrook Estuary and the Piscataqua River for the Public Service Company,

deal in part with types of recreational fishing activity in those areas.

Various publications of state agencies such as the New Hampshire Department

of Fish and Game (N.H. Fish and Game, 1975) and the Department of Resources

and Economic Development (DRED, 1970) which survey recreational fishing

and boating have also been consulted. Several of these sources contain

information as to location of shoreside activities. This information is

summarized subject to later verification (Table 4).

A number of species are fished for from shore locations or through

the ice in the New Hampshire coastal zone. Among these are striped bass,

mackerel, pollock, cunner, winter fl6under, and smelt. Normandeau

Associates (1974) conducted a "creel census" of sport fishermenmin the

vicinity of Hampton Harbor in the summer of 1973. They reported that harbor

fishing effort was principally for winter flounder, striped bass, and

mackerel. Other sources would add pollock to this list. Sullivan and Sawyer

(1969) reported that in coastal areas (Hampton-Seabrook, Rye Harbor,

Piscataqua River in the vicinity of Portsmouth), "any" species of fish

were being sought, we take this to mean striped bass, winter flounder,

pollock, mackerel, plus lesser amounts of other species. Great Bay

ishing is much more sp ec ies -limited. The princ.i.pal sport fish in Great

Bay are the striped bass and winter flounder. Smelt are also caught,

both by line through the ice in winter and by dip net from various tribu-

taries throughout the rest of the year. Some angling for smelt also occurs

in these areas and in the Piscataqua River near Portsmouth.

In addition to the shore-based fishing locations listed in Table 2,

used primarily during the summer and at various times of the day according

to tides, the upper reaches of Great Bay are used for through-the-ice smelt

fishing. Intensity of activity is heavily dependent upon quality of ice

cover at any given time. There is a closed season on salt-water smelt

TABLE 4

Principal Shore-Based Fishing Locations

A. Seabrook Harbor. West of Route 1-A. Sandy beach area provides
fishing for winter flounder, striped bass, mackerel, and pollock,
as well as various other species. Bait, tackle facilities nearby@

B. Hampton-Seabrook Bridge, Route 1-A. Reportedly fished heavily
by Hampton Beach summer residents. Founder, pollock, some mackerel
and striped bass are caught.

Blackwater Bridge, Route 86, Seabrook,and both sides of the Black-
water River. Primarily fished for winter flounder.

D. East side of Hampton-Seabrook Bridge and North Jetty, Hampton
Beach State Park, Hampton. (Jetty designed with 1,000-foot
walkway for sport fishing I@) Heavily utilized. Flounder, pollock,
some mackerel and striped bass.

E. Jetty at Rye Harbor State Park. Pollock, flounder. Frequently
fished (more than twelve persons per day). Admission.fee.

F. Bridge on Route 1-B, Portsmouth to Goat Island. Flounder,
occasional striped bass on early morning incoming tides.

G. Bridge to Pierce's Island, Portsmouth. Infrequently utilized.

H. Prescott Park, Portsmouth. Small flounder, small school pollock,
cutifier, and smelt. Heavily utilized. Popular due to immediate
availability of parking and proximity to downtown Portsmouth.

I. Memorial Bridge (Badgers Island to Kittery). Fished infrequently.

J. General Sullivan Bridge. Route 4. Newington to Dover Point.
Fishing on southbound side of bridge only. Excellent fishing
--for striped bass. Heavily fished (20-per-day average).

K. Bellamy Bridge (Scammel Bridge), Route 4, Dover Point. Fishing
on Southbound side of bridge only. Good location for striped bass.
Also fished for flounders. Very popular.

L. Eliot Bridge, Salmon Falls River, Dover. Fished moderately by
local sportsmen for striped bass and eels with fair success.

M. Stratham Bridge, Route 108, Stratham-Newfields line. Infrequently
utilized in the summer.

NOTE: List covers effort during summer months only.

Sources: Sullivan and Sawyer (1969)
Department Resources and Economic Development (1970)

-14-

from April 15 to July 1, during the spring spawning run. Netting of smelt

occurs in the Oyster, Squamscot, Bellamy, and Lamprey rivers. This fishery

is for both commercial and recreational-purposes.

Sullivan and Sawyer (1969) have conducted economic analyses pertaining

to shore-based recreational fishing throughout the seacoast region of

New Hampshire. Data was gathered during the months of July and August, 1966.

It was estimated that some 5500 fisherman-days of effort were expended for

shore-side-fishing in the Great Bay and on the Atlantic coast of New

Hampshire. Total expenditures were estimated to be $19,500 (1966 dollars),

or $31,785 today. No other estimates of the location and extent of shore-

based fishing have been made in recent years. However, the New Hampshire

Department of Fish and Game obtained data in 1971 on the total amount spent

annually for all recreational salt-water fishing efforts in New Hampshire.

Results of that survey were related in an earlier section of this report.

SUMMARY

A large portion of the marine and estuarine waters of the New Hampshire

coastal zone are used for recreational fishing and boating. These activities

.are comprised of pleasure boating of all types, recreational shellfishing,

and shore or ice-based finfishing. Heaviest participation occurs during

the months from May to October. Hunting and oystering activities extend

this period somewhat, however.

Intensity of use varies geographically. Such factors as fast currents,

extremely shallow waters and exposed flats at low tide, and a high pro-

portion of private shoreline ownership tend to keep use of Great Bay and

Little Bay at relatively low levels. Water quality becomes a problem up the

tributaries. It will take extensive removal of physical obstructions.(such

as low bridges) and significant dredging activities to improve Great Bay

-15-

to a point where it can be extensively used for boating activity. Water

quality is being constantly monitored by the Water Supply and Pollution

Control Commission and a program is under way which will achieve legislated

standards by 1985. There has been concern voiced, however, that there'is

not enough money available to achieve these, goals.

Fishing and boating activities along New Hampshire's Atlantic Coast

do not suffer from the same restrictions that affect Great Bay's boating

activity, though both suffer from a lack of mooring and docking facilities.

All of New Hampshire's state-run mooring sites are located along the coast

or in.the lower Piscataqua River. There are several private mooring or

docking facilities as well, plus party and charter boats. Also, most of

New Hampshire's clamming activity, limited by law to state residents, takes

'place in the Hampton-Seabrook estuary. One study indicated that up to

78 percent of those people clamming came from outside the primary and

secondary coastal zones. Comparable data for other fishing.and boating

activities does not exist.

Much of the boating activity which takes place throughout the coastal

zone is determined by the location of fishing and hunting resources. Great

Bay and Little Bay are species-limited most people fish for striped bass,

winter flounder, and smelt. Oystering is also done. -The ocean-side

activities are geared mainly towards striped bass, mackerel and cod, much

of the activity taking place within three to six miles offshore. Hunting

activity (primarily duck and geese) takes place in the fall and winter, and

is concentrated in Great Bay, but occurs along the Atlantic Coast as well.

Information on numbers of participants and their expenditures in these

activities is spotty. Little concrete data is available on general recrea-

tional boating (sailing, cruising, water-skiing). Various counts and

estimations of public, commercial, and private boat-docking and mooring

facilities lead to the approximation of more than 1000 such spaces in the

seacoast region, approximately two-thirds of them along New Hampshire's

Atlantic Coast and the lower Piscataqua River. The U.S. Coast Guard registered

some 7621 craft (greater than ten horsepower) for use in Federally controlled

(navigable) waterways, which includes all marine and estuarine coastal waters.

(Inland lakes are excluded from this count.) Also, the National Marine Fisheries

Service has estimated that one or more members in 17,000 households throughout

New Hampshire participated in marine sailing, 42,000 in pleasure boating, and

61,000 in fin-fishing in the year from June, 1973, to June, 1974. Shoreside

fishing activity was included in the survey. Activities were.not confined to

New Hampshire waters, however. In 1973 there were also 15,000 license-holders

engaging in clamming and oystering. The numbers from all sources seem compatible

at least in rough form. We are talking, then, about tens of thousands of parti-

cipants annually in water-borne recreation and sport fishing in New Hampshire.

Man-days Of participation in these activities are in the hundreds of thous ands,

and perhaps higher. This is a large-scale activity.

Information on expenditures is confined to that from reports which are,

at a minimum, four years old. A survey conducted in 1966 revealed that from

$100,000 to $500,000 was spent by all participants on party boat fishing alone

($163,000 to $815,000 in 1975 dollars.) in the May - October period. In 1971,

the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game reported $3,700,000 spent annually

for salt-water fishing of all types by New Hampshire residents only. This is

equivalent to $4,847,000 today. Shellfishing participants were reported by

fish and game as spending an estimated $1,200,000 on their activities during

the same period. This is equivalent to $1,572,000 today, and consisted of

one-time expenses for gear and variable expenses associated with individual

clamming trips.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ayer, W.C., 1968, "Soft-Shell Clam Population' Study in Hampton-
Seabrook Harbor, New Hampshire", completion report on Federal
Aid Project 3-31-R, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department,
Concord, New Hampshire.

2. Ayer, W.C., 1970, "An Investigation of the Possibility of Seed Oyster
Production in Great Bay, New Hampshire", completion report on
Federal Aid Project 3-32-R, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department,
Concord, New.,Hampshire.

3.. Department of Resources and Economic Development, 1970, "New Hampshire
Saltwater Fishing and Boating".promotional panphlet published
in cooperation with the New Hampshire Seacoast Regional Development
Association by the Department of Resources, and Economic Development,
Concord, New Hampshire.

4. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1975, "Participation in Marine
Recreational Fishing,Northeastern United States, 1973-1974",
Current Fisheries Statistics'6236, Statistics and Market News
Division National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic
and Atmopheric Administration, Washington, D.C.

5. Nevers, H. and Olson, D., 1968, "Recreational Use of the Adam's Point
Wildlife Management Area", Institute of Natural and Environmental
Resources, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
Completion report on Federal Aid Project FW 13-R for New Hampshire
Department of Fish and Game, Concord, New Hampshire.

6.....New.Hampshire Department.of.'.Fish and.Game.,. 1975,."Coastal Zone Management
Fisheries", report to the Office of State Planning by the New
Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire.

7. Normandeau Associates, 1974, "Studies on the Soft-Shelled Clam, Mya
Arenaria, in the Hampton--Seabrook Estuary, New Hampshire", Technical
Report V-2 for Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Manchester,
New Hampshire, by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Bedford, New Hampshire.
8. Shaw, G.W., and Henry, W.F., 1974, "New Hampshire Marina Industry Study",
Sea,Grant Technical Report UNH-SG-144, Resources Development Center,
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.

9. Stevenson, K., and others, 1974, "Great Bay Recreational Study", Student
Project, University of New Hampshire Sea Grant Program, Durham, New
Hampshire.

10. Sullivan, A.L., and Sawyer, P.J., 1969, "Economic Impact of the Summer
Salt-Water Sport Fishery in the Seacoast Region, New Hampshire and
Southern Maine, 1966", in "Regional.Planning: New Hampshire - Maine
Part 3", University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire; and
New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development,
Concord, New Hampshire.

I
ro T, T9 @1'711 P".. @, 91, @@ @11
NIQLUUL@-,) U,@.)L,- J@E - U
E112112

N.H. Coastal Resources
Mcinagement Program
First Year Report
Attachment B 19
57q

OCEAN-BORNE SHIPPING

71)

OCEAN-BORNE SHIPPING

Ocean-borne shipping into PortsmoutM Harbb'r and the Piscataqua River presently
appears to be somewhat less than capacity. Cargo traffic is primarily composed of
tankers and barges carrying petroleum products, though a significant amount of
dry bulk and general cargo is handled as well. In additioln to pier space on the
Piscataqua River, this traffic requires the use of offshore waiting areas and
shipping lanes, neither of which are formally specified. These.areas are shown on

the Marine Uses may accompanying this report.

The port itse lf has a limiting draft of 35 feet. It is open throughout the
year. Along the south banks of the Piscataqua River are a. number of wharves which
handle such commodities as bulk salt and gypsum, general dry cargo, cable and
various petroleum products. There are no similar facilities on the Maine side.
No bunkering facilities exist in the harbor except for limited capability at the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and major repairs have to be made in Boston, though
light machine capabilities exist in Portsmouth. Provisions and marine supplies

are available.

Data from the U.S. Coprs of Engineers indicate that in 1973 Portsmouth Harbor

handled approximately 2,300,000 short tons of cargo of all types. Of this cargo,
approximately 2,084,000 short tons was petroleum products, with distillate and
residual fuels comprising the bulk of this. Dry bulk and general cargo totalled
approximately 221,000 short tons. Virtually all of this (about 200,000 tons) was
comprised of bulk limestone and salt shipments. See Table 1 for a more detailed

analysis.

The Corps of Engineers also-listed vessel movements through the port. Their
records show that in 1973, 366 vessels of all types entered the harbor (See Table 1).

Of these, 188 carried petroleum products, 76 were tugboats or towboats,-and thi;
remainder (102) were dry cargo/passenger vessels -- only 27 of which were vessels
heading to industrial facilities along the Piscataqua. The remainder of these
are likely to have been fishing boats or other small vessels, though no statistics

are available to substantiate this.

SRRC staff has obtained from the Port Authority 1972 and 1973 records of
shipping to tht various industrial facilities along the Piscataqua River. The data
is shown in Tables 2 and 3 and was previously published in an earlier report by

the Southeastern New Ha mpshire Regional Planning Commission.

What these data show is that industrial traffic entering Portsmouth Harbor stayed
about the same over the two year period'(about 175 ships) with a drop in dry bulk/
general cargo vessels being counteracted by an increase in the number of vessels
carrying petroleum products. The figures for numbers of petroleum vessels and
amounts of cargo differ somewhat from Corps data -- the number of vessels reported
being somewhat lower, the cargo carried somewhat higher. The difference.in data
are likely due to reporting methods and are not considered significant for the

purposes of this report.

Two charts have been included showing traffic in the harbor by month for
the years 1972 and 1973. (Figures 1 and 2). They reveal a highly fluctuating
ra:te of port usage on a month to month basis. The generaT trend, however, is to
have more vessels, chiefly tankers, arriving during the period from August until

January, with a fall-off during the late winter to early summer period.

Investigation of available data reveals that cargo carried through Portsmouth

Harbor rose from.about 1,455,000 short-tons in 1962 to the 1973 figure of 2,314,000

short-tons (See Figure 3). Petroleum products accounted for over 90 percent of
this increase. In 1962, petroleum accounted for 82 percent (about 1,160,000

1973

TABLE 1

SECTION INCLUDED1 rROM MOUTH TO NEWINOTON, N. M., ON THE WEST BANK OF THE PISCATAGV& RIVER. CONTROLLING DEPTHI 35.0 FEET IN THE
35-FOOT CHANNEL 91970). PROJECT DEPTHI 35 FEET AT MEAN LOW WATER OVER LECGES.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT or TRAFFIC
YEAR TONS PASSENGERS YEAR TONS PASSENGERS
1964 -------------------------------------- 1.460,325 ----------- 1969 -------------------------------------- 10795,915 4#080
1.654,508 1970 -------------------------------------- 2,187.303 265
1966 -------------------------------------- 1-740,119 64 1971 -------------------------------------- 2.174,425 ----------- -
1967 -------------------------------------- l.t24,537 400 1972 -------------------------------------- 2*188,071
1968 ------ -------------------------------- 1,833.373 $56 1973 ----------------------- : ------------- 2014,900 ....

FREIGHT TRAFFIC, 1973

MORT TONS)

rOREIGN DOMESTIC
COMMODITY TOTAL COAS WISE INTERNAL
IMPORTS EXPORTS RECEIP'SI-SHIPMENTS RECEIPTS
TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------------- 2#314.900 1,294,195 13,453 944.262 62,984 6'
0841 CRUDE RUBBER AND ALLIED GUMS ----------------------------------- $52 582 ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------
o9ii FRESH FISH, EXCEPT SHELLFISH ----------------------------------- 139 ---------- ---------- ---------- 136 3
0912 SHELLFISH, EXCEPT PREPARED ------------------------------------- 3 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 3
1413 LISESTONE ------------------------------------------------------ 115#706 115:106 ------- ---------- ----------
1491 SALT ----------------------------------------------------------- $4.277 84 277 -W ----- -------- -- -------- :-- ,
Rcii MEAT, FRESH, CHILLED, FROZEN ----------------------------------- 4a3 483 ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
2421 LUMBER ------------------------------------------------------- 5,408 5.408 ---------- -- ------- ---------- ----------
2431 VENEER, PLYWOOD, WORKED WOOD ----------------------------------- 128 126 ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
2822 SYNTHETIC RUBBER ----------------------------------------------- 11 ---------- it ---------- ---------- ----------
2911 GASOLINE ------------------------------------------------------- ?M-242 ---------- ---------- 184@798 - 237444 ----------
.2912 JET FUEL ------------------------------------------------------- 76i60 ---------- ---------- 61-626 12.989 ----------
2913 KERDSENE ------------------------------------------------------- 1,41,640 .71,980 ---------- .6Z-L261 6,113 ---
2914 DISTILLATE FUEL OIL -------------------------------------------- 747.137 223,209 ---------- 504,996 16.932 ---
2915 AESIDUkL FUEL OIL --------------------------------- ............ 839,102 792,412 ---------- 46,690 ---------- ----------
2916 LVDAICAT)NO DILS AND GREASES ----------------------------------- 23.356 ---------- ---------- 23.358 ---------- ----------
2991 PETROLEU4 AND COAL PROD, NEC ----------------------------------- 56.025 ---------- --------- 7 56#-025 - ---------- ------- ---
3316 IRON AND STEEL PLATES, SHEETS ---------------------------------- 2.766 ----------
3531 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL ----------------------------------- .2.766 ---------- ---------- --------
618 ---------- to ---------- 600
3611 ELECTRICAL MACH AND EGUIP -------------------------------------- 110 ---------- 110
4011 IRON AND STEEL SCRAP -------------------------------------------- 10.54$ ---------- 10,548 ---------- ---------- --
4112 COMMDD:TIES, NEC ----------------------------------------------- 2 ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------
TOTAL 0 -MILES. 9,444.566,

TRIPS AND DRAFTS OF VESSELS

HARBOR OR WATERWAY DIRECTION DIRECTION
BUY 110111110 IESSILS *OK-SUF 'A"PEILLD SELF PROPELLED VC SELS
VISSLLS LS
DRAFT (FEET) F"StNGER WGOAT TOTAL @111SER 1111104T TOTAL
@C 1JMB. To CR CARGO I -C A.... OR CAR.. TANKER
DRY CARGO TUGBOAT :Ry, TUaBOAT

PORISKOUIR HARBOR, R. H. INBOUND OUIDOUND
37 - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - 4 4
36 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 9 1 1
35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 9
34 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - is is 1 1
33 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 7
32 . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . 5 14 19 1 1
31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 10 14 1 1
30 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 3 2 2
29 - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 3
28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 4 4
27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2
26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .3 3 5 5
25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 1 6 6 6
24 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 4 3 15
23 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 2 1 2 5 1 8
22 . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 1 7 4 is 22
21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 a 7 15
20 . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 3 10 13
19 . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . 3 1 1 5 3 6 9
18 AND LESS - - - - - - - - - - - 78 49 76 2 39 244 74 48 70 2 47 241
IDTAL - - - - - --- - - - - 100 143 76 2 45 366 96 135 70 2 47 350

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
"Waterborne Commerce of the United States."

TABLE 2

INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE IN 1972

Dead Wt.
No. Ships Homeport Tonnage .Cargo

1. Atlantic Sales 16 U.S. 321,909 ofl, kerosene
Corporation

2. New England Tank 20 U.S. 336,536 oil, kerosene,
Industries jet fuel

3. Sprague & Public 29 Libyia, 868,176 oil
Service Company other foreign

4. Mobil Oil 31 U.S. 707,911 gas, oil

5. North East 17 U.S. 170,361 oil
Petroleum

6. Coleman Oil Company 6 U.S. 7,800 oil

Total (Oil) 119 2,412,693
7. Simplex Corporation, 17 U.S. 35,920 export cable
8. National Gypsum 6 Libyia 105,943 gypsum
9. Granite State 6 variousJoreign 133,155 salt
10. New Hampshire. Port 27 various foreign 259,161 general
Authority

Total (other
industries) 56 534,179

Total all industries 175 2,946,872

NOTE: Figures differ from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data.

Source: Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning
Commission: "Traffic: Piscataqua River-
Portsmouth Harbor."

TABLE 3

INDU STRIAL COMMERCE IN 1973

Dead Wt.
No. Ships. Homeport Tonnage Cargo.
Atlantic Sales 30 U.S. 378,907 oil;
Corporation.
2. New England Tank 26 U.S. 378,295, oil.
Industries jet fuel
3. Sprague & Public 35 Libyia, ...Oil
Service Company other foreign
684,992
4. Mobil Oil U.S. gas, oil
21 232,890
5. North East U.S. oil
Petroleum
6. Coleman Oil Company ..U.S. j,500 oil
Total (Oil) 144 2,593,599

7. Simp.1 ex Corporation 6 U.S.. 24,232 export cable

8, National lypsum -Libyia 105,942 gypsum

9. Granite State :5. varlo@s Joreign 100,174 salt

10. New Hampshire Port 10 various foreign 78,683 general
Authority
Total (other
industries) 27 309,031

Jotal all industries .17-1 2,902,630

NOTE: Figures differ from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers data.

Source: Southeastern Kew Hampshire Regional Planning
Commission: "Traffic: Piscataqua River-
Portsmouth Harbor.

GURE I

Industrial River Traffic 1972
Total no. of ships

Ship's carrying oil or
17 other petroleum products!

Ships carrying -non-6il
Number cargo (salt, gypsum)

of
S I10
hips

\qO

q dI

UP
7-

JA,W. FED. MAR APR Miky j UW J UL AUq 5F-ff OCr NOV.

1972
Source: New Hampshire State Port Authority

FIGURE 2

Industrial River Traffic 1972
2-2.1 Total no. of ships
2-1
.20' @&qShips carrying oil or
19. other petroleum product
18- - - - - - -Ships carrying non-oil
cargo (salt, gypsum,
Number general)
1(0-

of 15-

Ships

12--

11
to 0100,

7- V

JAW f5-E5 MAR AfK MAI JUM JUL AUq 5P-FT 06T N O'V. PIZC.
1973

Source: New Hampshire State Port AuthoritY

2,400,000

2,200,000

TONS 2,000,000

COMMIODILTY
1,800,000
TRANSPORTED

(Short Tons)1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

11000,000
1962 1965 19(o4 Moe 1966 1967 1.968 1969 1970 1971 1972- '1976
FIGURE 3
Rate of Traffic in Portsmouth-Harbor from 1962 to 1973

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

tons) of commodities transported in Portsmouth Harbor, in 1973, 91percent (about,

2,100,000 tons). Imports as a percentage of petroleum transported rose from 41

percent in 1962 to 52 percent in 1973. To gain an understanding of the nature

of the regional distribution picture associated with these petroleum shipments,

diagrams have been included showing the New England regional products distribution
systems by tanker (Figure 4) and by barge (Figure 5.). From these diagrams, and

with the additional information on dry bulk/general cargo deliveries to Portsmouth,

diagrams were developed of relative activity of shipping lanes into Portsmouth

Harbor. These shipping lanes are shown on the Marine Uses map.

The remaining cargo carried through Portsmouth Harbor is largely bulk salt

and gypsum, with a minor amount of general dry cargo. 1973 data available from

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reveals that 221,000 short-tons of dry bulk and

general cargo was transported through the port. Of this, about 200,000 tons was

bulk limestone and salt. While these figures are subject to considerable fluc-

tuation, it appears that this trend has held for at least the past five years.

A review of 1969 data shows 300,304 tons of bulk limestone and salt shipped into

Portsmouth as opposed to only 22,133 tons of other dry cargo.

The trends noted in Portsmouth.-increasing cargo through the port with the

largest portion of it as petroleum and dry bulk commodities -- are typical of

other ports along the Atlantic seaboard. The aggregate si-tuation is unlikely to

change in the near future. Adequate supplies of container vessel facilities (the

area in which general cargo transportation is likely to grow) are located in Boston.

A vast oversupply of general dry cargo facilities (not bulk) also exist in Boston,

and the present Port Authority facility in Portsmouth is underutilized. Conversely,
the recent location of a liquified petroleum gas (LPG) facility in Newington, not

to mention the increasing volume of petroleum products being handled in Portsmouth

Harbor, seem indicative of a trend toward more petroleum activity in the near

future.

SEARS4

PORTLAND

45
400

PORT SMOUTH
0 200

FROM
Ann FOREIGN
BOSTON. PORTS---
PL,Y
PROV FfA
LL
N.
NIO,
BR!DG. A
-.50.

F R 0 N. OR DELAWARIE

FIC-URIE 4 T4NKER TRAFFIC -ARRIVALS PER YEAR

Source: "Georges Bank Petroleum
y", MIT Sea Grant Program.
Stud,
1 9_7 2.

-7

SEARS

PORTLA41)

950 233

POR 100 50
2275 OUT 10
OF BOSTON

10 37
13- STOA
P Lyx a-'N
Mpv.
N. HAV.
N.
BRIDG.
4
40

Soo
FROM CON N PORTS
0 R.I. a SO THERN
MASS.
FROM DC-1 AVVI,A R E
OR NEW YORK

FIGURE 5 BARGE TRAFFIC - NUMBER OF ARRIVALS PER YEAR

Source: "Georges Bank Petroleum
Study", @HT Sea Grant Program,,
IQ
972

It appears that the future of ocean shipping into Portsmouth Harbor is, for

the next ten to fifteen years, critically tied to petroleum products. Further,
the volume of shipping in the harbor is expected by SRRC staff to turn most directly
on the relationships between imported and outer continental shelf oil. Imported
oil is already having an effect on shipping patterns, being responsible for

virtually all of the increase in petroleum-related traffic since 1969. This has

displaced coast-wise barge shipments.from Boston. The result is more oil delivered
by more tankers and fewer barges. This trend is expected to continue, barring such
devel_opments as a permanent oil embargo'and also barring any large scale decreases
in petroleum consumption due to higher prices.* (NOTE: effects of the 1974 embargo,
if any, on Portsmouth shipping have not been evaluated at the time of this writing.)

,A large petroleum find on George's Bank could have far-reaching effects on
this shipping pattern in any one of a number of ways. Were the oil transported to
the New York-Delaware region for refining and shipment back to the region, one
would expect an increase in coastal tankers and barge traffic unless there was
developed a pipeline distribution system throughout the Northeast. If the oil was
shipped to a refinery in New England, the situation would depend on a number of
other variables: proximity of refine ry to Portsmouth, location of unloading
facilities; mode of transport of finished product: truck, tanker or pipeline.
One might see a large jump in activity above the extended base case situation if
conventional tankers transported crude to Portsmouth for refinery nearby, no
essential difference if the refinery were elsewhere in New England and a barge/
tanker system were used to deliver, and perhaps even less traffic than today if
there were a regional refinery with an extensive pipeline products distribution

system.

At the present time, no reliable data on numbers of persons employed at Ports-
mouth shipping facilities or on the economic impact of these facilities has been

gathered. It is anticipated that the University of New Hampshire Input-Output
Study of the coastal zone economy.will reveal these data in some detail.

NATIONAL DEFENSE

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (located in Kittery, Maine) and the U.S. Coast
Guard Portsmouth Harbor Station (located in New Castle, New Hampshire) are both
closely tied to other uses of New Hampshire's coastal waters. Pease Air Force
Base (located-in Newington, New Hampshire) has extensive frontage on Great Bay.
However, except for shipments of jet fuel, covered implicity in the section on
ocean-borne shipping, its impact on coastal water uses is minimal. No,extensive

discussion of Pease Air Force Base is included here.

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard employs approximately 5,900 persons, and is primarily
engaged in the overhaul, repair, and conversion of nuclear submarines. It main-
ains a nuclear refueling capability. At the present time (June 1975).there are
two nuclear ballistic missile submarines and three nuclear attack submarines in
the yard undergoing work. The yard does not presently maintain a new construction
capability, the last new submarine constructed-there having been completed in 1968.

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard currently maintains fou r tugs, one yard workboat,
and one floating crane, primarily for use in shifting submarines, loading and
unloading of equipment and similar yard tasks. This equipment has been used in
the past to assist in the movement of large oil tankers in the Portsmouth Harbor,
and to load and unload general cargo at the New Hampshire State Pier. The ship-
yard has the only oil refueling facilities in Portsmouth Harbor. It provides
water, steam, and other hotel services to naval vessels berthing there. Additionally,
there is an oil spill cleanup team, designed for yard use, which has assisted in
oil spills in other portions of Portsmouth Harbor.

Total. annual movements of submarines (See Marine Uses map) to and from the
shipyard number around ten, making the shipyard a very small factor in the usage
of Portsmouth Harbor. Other vessels, such as the.tugs and a reserve minesweeper,
the USS Detector, also use the harbor. The minesweeper, for example, will make
weekly training cruises, and the tugs will tow miscellaneous equipment to'or from

the yard on an occasional basis'

There are no plans to drastically alter the level of activity at the shipyard
in the future. Current plans for improvements at the yard.are not intended to
increase its overall wo rkload, or numbers of persons employed -- only the quality
of existinq facilities. Regaining a new construction capability, while possible,

is not forseen.

In time of war, workloads at the yard would be likely to increase significantly.
Activation of mothballed vessels, battle-damage repair, and faster turn-around on
conversion and overhaul would probably occur. The type of war would determine in

what manner and by how much activity would increase.

The U.S. Coast Guard's Portsmouth Harbor Station is a relatively small
station with primary responsibility centering on search and rescue operations for

the area.from Rye Beach, New-Hampshire to Cape Porpoise, Maine. The station
handles approximately two-hundred cases of search and rescue a year,,over 60 per
cent of which occur between June and September. Although the majority of the
search and rescue operations are local, the station does become involved in larger
scale operations along the entire New England coast.

In addition to their primary search and rescue operations, the Portsmouth
Harbor Station performs several secondary duties. They make routine checks on
various aids to navigation (i.e. harbor buoys, lighthouses, day markers) and

enforce a variety of Federal regulations, particularly those per .taining to boating
safety (for example, proper possession of life preservers and fire extinguishers).
The Coast.Guard may also occasionally be called upon to escort dangerou.s ships,
such as those carrying ammunition or flammable gas, into or out of Portsmouth Harbor.

The Portsmouth station also has limited responsibilities to regulate oil spills
and ocean dumping. For example, whenever the Portsmouth station is notified of an
Oil spill or. incidence of illegal ocean dumping within its jurisdiction area (as
was the case with the Athenian Star oil leak), they will make an initial investi-
gation of the size and amount of the damage. They.then notify the Captain of the
Port Station in Portland, Maine, which has the authority and capacity to conduct
the clean-up activities.

Two large (210-foot) Coast Guard cutters, the Active and the Decisive, operate
out of the Portsmouth station spending approximately 160 days a year at sea. No
accurate estimates can be made at present on the number of movements each ship
.makes in or out of Portsmouth Harbor per year. The primary duties of these ships

are to perform search and rescue operations and to patrol fishing areas designated
by the International Commission of.Northwest Atlantic Fisheries.

Activities at the Portsmouth station have remained fairly constant over the

past several years and are not expected to change significantly in the near future.

If change came, the activities and manpower of the station would likely be increased

to assume additional responsibilities such as the inspection of tankers carrying

hazardous materials.

OCEAN DUMPING

The dumping of wastes (dredged materials, solid wastes and toxic chemicals)

into the ocean has been for many years a fairly common practice in the United

States, though it has never been a significant activity along the New Hampshire

coast. Recent federal legislation has brought much of the dumping activity under
Environmental Protection Agency control This section of the marine uses summary
will examine the present status of ocean dumping both nation wide, and off New

Hampshire.

Ocean dumpi.ng has been strictly regulated since 1972, following passage of
the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA). Only those
dumping activities which meet Environmental Protection Agency criteria or which
are part of an implementation schedule leading towards compliance with such criteria
are now permitted. In accordance with the act, all dumping of high-level

radio-active wastes and 'all biological chemical and radiological warfare agents is
prohibited, while dumping of all othermaterials requires a permit from the EPA..

Special sites are designated for'the disposal of "toxic" materials. At
presenti each new site proposed for disposal is evaluated on a case-by-case basis
by the EPA and is subject to an Environmental Impact Statement before approval
for the dumping is granted. Only one site in New England waters, the Boston Foul
Dump Site (420 25.5'N., 700 35' W) is presently being used for the disposal of lim-
ited amounts of toxic materials (i.e.,waste chemicals). In fact, the EPA is in-
tending to phase out all ocean dumping of toxic wastes in the next few years and
does not foresee the possibility that any dumping of toxic wastes will occur off
the New Hampshire.coast.

Dredge spoils represent the greatest percentage (between 80 and 90 percent) of
total materials being dumped in the oceans. The dumping of dredge spoils is'regu-
lated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, but every permit they issue
must first"be reviewed by, and receive concurrence from, the EPA. The Corps is re-
quired to use EPA designated dumpsites whereever feasible but may use other s1tes
with approval of the EPA.

Dumping of dredge spoil along the New Hampshire coast has been minimal during

the past ten.years. No exact figures are available. The only significant incidences
have resulted from the dredging of the Piscataqua River (Portsmouth Harbor) during

the late 1960's and the occasional dredging of Hampton Harbor. Two dumpsites off

the-Isles of Shoals (430 01' N, 700 38' W, and 420 59' Nil 70 34' W) have been used

by the Corps in the past and could be used again. Most dredge spoil is presently

being deposited above the mean high water level rather than being transported to

ocean dumpsites. For example, most of the material dredgedfrom the Hampton Harbor

in recent years has been used to replenish areas of Hampton Beach subject to beach

erosion. The Army Corps of Engineers does not foresee any increase in its dumping

of dredge spoil off the New Hampshire coast in the near future.

The environmental effects of dumping dredge spoils are not fully known. The

Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a five year Dredge Material Research Program
(DMRP), which should provide some answers. For-example, parts of the DMRP studies

are focusing on the impacts of ocean dumping on aquatic organisms. In addition,

investigations are being conducted to determine the possibility of creating arti-

ficial marshes using dredge materials.

The effects.of dumping dredge spoil are probably similar, in many respects,

to those associated with mining sand and gravel (See Appendix E). However, varia-

tions in effects may be expected depending on the nature of the spoil. For example,

the effects of dumping clean sand will vary significantly from the effects of

dumping material from the bottom of a heavily used harbor, i.e., material which

may have an excess of heavy metals or other contaminants. However, considering

the minimal amount of dredge spoils dumping which has occurred in the past and the

.limited amount expected in the future-, its dumping off-the New Hampshi re coast

does not appear to be a problem of major significance.

The long-term environmental effects of dumping materials other than dredge
spoils (i.e. industrial waste, sewage sludge, solid wastes) are not yet clearly
-understood. Studies are being carried out at present to determine some impacts
of limited dumping. For example, the University of New Hampshire has been studying
theeffects of dumping baled solid wastes, off the Isles of Shoals The University
of Rhode Island is conducting a similar study. It may be that, under carefully

controlled conditions, the dumping of certain types of solid waste will not cause
serious environmental damage. In fact there could be some benefits. Uses of junk
cars or tires to build artificial fishing reefs provide one example. The Maryland
Environmental Service is also studying the possibility of creating ffsh spawning
areas along Cheasapeake Bay using discarded tires.

The results of such efforts may indicate that ocean dumping of certain solid

wastes can provide an environmentally acceptable alternative to on-land disposal.
if so, it is always possible that certain highly-specialized dumping activities
will occur along the New Hamps hire coast. This pos sibility appears unlikely at
the present time, however, given the cost of obtaining raw materials, which will

soon make the recycling of solid waste more attractive than it is today.

:,;To summarize, very little dumping of any kind as been occurring off the New
Hampshire coast. In fact the only dumping activities which are of any significance
involve disposal of dredge spoil from the Piscataqua River and Hampton Harbor.
Even these activities, however, have been curtailed in recent years, and are not
expected to be significant in the future. The EPA has strict regulatory power
over dumping of any toxic wastes, and intends to phase out such dumping activities
in the next few years. Therefore, its does not appear that ocean dumping will
.pose any serious threat to waters off the New Hampshire coast.

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

The New Hampshire coastal area offers an attractive setting for marine research

and educati.onal facilities. At present, several universities, including the Uni-

versity of New Hamps.hirc, operate facilities either along the coast or on Great

Bay. One private consulting firm also utilizes New Hampshire coastal resources for

research purposeshaving located a facility in Portsmouth Harbor, This section

will examine briefly what facilities exist in and around the coast and estimate

their significance.

University of New Hampshire

The University of New Hampshire has been involved with marine research since

1927, when it began operations of a marine field station on the Isles of Shoals.

Since then, the program has grown steadily. At present, there are 44 regular

teaching faculty and well over 100 student researchers actively participating

in funded science, engineering, or socio-economic ocean research or educational

programs.

The Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, completed in 1970, is located on Adams

Point in Great Bay. The 8,400 square foot structure is the primary facility used

by UNH for marine and estuarine research. Its vessel, the Jere A. Chase, is

frequently used for field experiments in Great Bay and in ocean waters to the

Isles of Shoals.

Many of the Jackson Laboratory's research activities are coordinated with the

Engineering Design and Analysis Laboratory (EDAL), which was established at the

main Durham campus in J.965. The combination of these two research facilities

enables the university to conduct a broad range of ocean-related projects, often

with the cooperative effort of various state agencies and private industries.

Most UNH marine research programs are included under the UNH Coherent Sea

Grant Program (CAP) which is funded jointly by the federal government and the

university. Three major efforts of the CAP.program thus far include:

1. Development of engineering data and systems in anticipation of in-

creased power, plant construction and the development of offshore

oil industry.

2. Cooperative efforts with the Maine Department of Natural Resources

and the University of Maine to explore the feasibility of mari-

culture with emphasis on Coho Salmon and Blue Mussels.

3. Environmental monitoring and controls - i.e. studying the effects of

dumping baled solid wastes into the ocean.

Under the CAP program, the university also provides a Sea Grant Marine Advisory

Service, initiated'in 1972 to provide the necessary link between research

institutions and interested users. In addition, the university is involved in a

joint research project with Raytheon Company studying the coastal sea floor and

sub-bottom sediments along Naragansett Bay in Rhode Island.

.Shoals Marine Laboratory

The Shoals Marine Laboratory is located on Appledore Island, in Maine, at

the Isles of Shoals. It is,operated during the summer only, through a cooperative

agreement between Cornell University, the Sea Education Association, the State
University of New York and the University of New Hampshire, and offers instruction

and experience to students desiring an initial overview of Marine Science.

The Shoals Marine Lab offers two sessions per summer, accommodating aDproxi-
mately 40 students a session. The curriculum consists partiaily of lecture and
laboratory work with added emphasis on field 2xperience. Several field trips are

conducted during each session to various locations along -he Maine and New Hampshire
L

coasts, including trips to Great Bay and Sagamore Creek. The Appledore Island

site was chosen by Cornell University because it is the closest location available

with an unspoiled marine environment sufficient for Cornell's educational purposes.

At present, the Shoals Marine Laboratory summer program employs four full-

time'faculty as well as approximately one to two dozen part-time lecturers. Fac-

ilities at the Shoals Marine Laboratory include two teaching laboratories, a dorm-

itory and a dining-recreation complex. Several research vessels are used, includ-

ing the R.V.'s Westward, Jere A. Chase, Wrack, and Scomber, plus a number of smaller

boats. The,Viking Queen carries personnel and.supplies for the laboratory between

Portsmouth Harbor and the Isles of Shoals.

Normandeau Associates, Incorporated

Normandeau Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting firm with home offices

in Bedford, New Hampshire, operates a research laboratory in Port-smouth Harbor
near Pierce Island. At full capacity, the laboratory operates'with a staff of

approximately 35 people. Facilities include laboratories for the processing of

benthic' samples, analysis of plankton and other botanical specimens, and for

other biological analysis of marine organisms for their various research purposes.

Normandeau Associates maintains running-sea-water tables using water from Ports-

mo uth Harbor. They also operate two 22-foot vessels from the laboratory site

and have facilities to handle several larger company boats which occasionally

use the laboratory.

Normandeau Associates do private consulting work throughout the New England

area, including environmental studies along the New Hampshire seacoast. For

example, they are doing the environmental assessment of the Seabrook Nuclear

Power Plant for the Publ ic Service Company of New Hampshire and are presently moni-
toring the environmental impact of the Newington PowerStation on the Piscataqua
River, also for the Public Service Company.

None of the various research and education facilities mentioned contribute
significantly to navigational traffic in Portsmouth Harbor, nor do they have any
noticeable.conflicts with other coastal uses. No comprehensive estimate of the
impact of these activities on New Hampshire has been obtained. Between these
facilities, however, the capacity exists to employ approximately one hundred
professionals either full or part-time. Over 150 students annually, and perhaps
more, either receive instruction or financial support from the two university
oriented facilities - Jackson Estuarine Laboratory and the Shoals Marine Laboratory.
Additionally, such facilities have a positive impact on the seacoast region in that
they serve as a clearing house for technical data pertinent to the prediction of
effects of changes in coastal land and water use on the environment. The New

ampshire Coastal Zone Management program has availed itself of such information

in the past and is expected to continue to do so in the future.

Cable Areas

The New England Telephone Company and the Public.Service Company of New
Hampshire each have a number of submarine cables located under New Hampshire coastal
waters. Telephone cables cross the Piscataqua River and also extend offshore to
the Isles of Shoals, principally from the Portsmouth Harbor vicinity. Three elec-
tric cables cross the Fiscataqua River (each carrying 15,000 volts) to Badger's
Island, and one electric cable crossing is located under Great Bay which surfaces
,at Adam's Point on the Durham shore (34,500 volts). No phone cables cross under

Great Bay.

There are no defined restrictions on navigation in the vicinity of submerged
.cable areas other than those imposed by prudent navigation. For exampl.e.at the
e-n-trance to Portsmouth Harbor, primary and secondary wait areas are informally
designated for vessels coming into port, and have been situated outside cable

crossing regions. Signs are posted designating caLle crossings to warn navigators

of such areas. Mariners are advised to use -caution and should not anchor there.

The cables. are constructed with an armour rod for protection, as they lay
exposed on the bottom.. They are laid by barges, simply by dropping them@!overboard

as the cable unwinds off a large reel. Because of this method, and the fact that
the cables-are subjected to movement from currents, tides and storms, they generally
run along the bottom in a meandering paCtern. None of the cables are inspected,
but a permit must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers before new cable

crossings are constructed.

Existing cable areas have presented few conflicts with other uses of New
Hampshire waters., Dropping of heavy weights such as rocks or anchors.onto cables
is the main concern. Channel dredging operations have had no conflict with cable
areas, and reportedly none of the cables located under New Hampshire waters have
had to be relocated or removed to accommodate other activities. Very few incidents
of cable breaks have occurred. The only reason for replacement was attributed to
infrequent, minor accidents (3 accidents in the last 25 years). Signi ficant
change in this situation is not forseen in the near.future.

N.H. Coastal Resources
Vi -7- Management.Progr'am
First Year Report
Attachment B20,

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING

Introduction

Mining for deposits of sand and gravel off the coastline of New Hampshire is

a possibility. Indeed, one proposal for such a venture was filed with the state

by a Chicago, Illinois firm in March of 1972. It was subsequently withdrawn in

the face of public opposition, however, and there are no permit requests currently

being entertained for sand and gravel mining in state waters.

At the Federal level, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of

Land Management, has issued a "Draft Environmental Impact Statement--Proposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Hard Mineral Mining, Operating, and Leasing Regu-

lations." The drafting of the impact statement alone stands as evidence of Federal

interest in the sand and gravel resource existing beyond the three-mile territorial

sea. Discussions with DOI representatives reveal that granting of 1 eases for

sand and gravel mining in Federal waters is in an "indefinite position right now."
(Van Horn, oral communication). Several procedural steps must be taken before

leasing can occur (a procedure similar in nature to the leasing of OCS oil tractsN

However, DOT. reported that "several" companies have expressed an interest in leas-

in.g tracts for sand and gravel mining, including one of the world's largest dredging

firms.

J10 Nati.onally the use of sand and gravel for highway and building construction

has been increasing for a number of years and accounts for 96 percent of total

U.-S. consumption. Grant (1972) reported that the industrial consumption of sand

and gravel in the United States had risen from 500 million tons in 1954 to 980

4
million tons in 1970. The Commission on Marlne Science, Engineering, and Develop-

ment (1968) has predicted levels of consumption to be 2,530 million tons by the

year 2000. Other estimates range as high as 4,000 million tons (Cooper, 1970).

The outward expansion of metropolitan areas has decreased the availability of

nearby reserves for center city areas, Causing longer and longer overland hauls

from the pit to point of usage -- a f.act that usually means higher costs to the

consumer..

Locally, the situation is no different. The Boston metropolitan area has

continued to expand - so much so that portions of Southern New Hampshire may

properly be included laithin it. This expansion requires large amounts of sand

and gravel. It also requires overland hauls of more than 20.miles to the center

of Boston, since sand and gravel pits within that radius are being forced to cur-

lCail their operations, either by local ordinance or by greater value in other

uses. Because overland transportation by truck is more expensive per mile than

water transportation, at some point it will be cheaper to mine the material at

sea, despite the higher capital costs involved. It is at this point that one can

.expect pressure for offshore hard mineral leasing to become heaviest. Predictions

are that offshore min-Ing will take place near existing metropolitan centers, in-

cluding Boston, by 1.980. Economic and1egal considerations at the time offshore

mining takes place, as. well as resource availability, will determine dredging

sites.

Sand and Gravel Deposit Map

The Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council has developed a chart detailing

areas of potentially minable deposits of sand and gravel off the New Hampshire

coast. It is a compendium of a number of independent estimations of bottom-type

in the area, and is only intended to serve as a preliminary indication of the

location of deposits. indicated on the map is the 60-foot bottom contour recom-

mended by Schlee (1973) as an area within which sand and gravel mining should not

take place because of beach erosion. (There is some uncertainty about the exactness

of this dividing line,-however). Another line is drawn showing the 120-foot

bottom contour, which represents an approximation to the present limit of offshore
dredging technology. In waters "deeper than this, costs become too'high to make

dredging economically feasible,at the present time.

Areas of primary potential for sand and gravel mining are indicated on the
map by cross-hatched areas. M .ost of them lie outside of the 60-foot contour. These

areas represent bottom regions of high surficial sand and gravel content located

where indications are that bedrock is not exposed. The deposits may range to depths
of greater than 25 feet (Mills, 1975, personal communication). A conservative

estimate of average deposit depths in these areas would be 10 feet. In New Hampshire

waters, these areas lie directly off Hampton Beach and between North Hampton and the

Isles of Shoals. North of this, bedrock outcrops become more frequent, thus reduc-
ing.tho areas of potentially minable deposits. Areas of high sand content off the

Massach uset,111-s coast have been indicated, but there is Presently a moratorium on

commercial-dredging for sand and gravel in the Commonwealth, and the deposits are

located in an established ocean sanctuary area. They are not of concern to New

Hampshire.

Areas of secondary interest are indicated by solid lines. These are areas

where commercial quantities of sand and gravel may exist, but present information

is spotty or conflicting. These areas run the entire length of the coastline

between Cape Ann, Massachusetts and the Maine border, with the exception of an area

offshore of the Hampton-Seabrook, inlet. Again, most of them are outside of the 60-

foot contour.. One area of special note is Jeffrey's Ledge, about 30 miles off'the

coast. This area is generally too deep to be economicall!/ mined with existing tech-

nology, either U.S. or foreign. However, the area may have significant deposits of

sand and gravel and could conceivably be considered as a mining site should the

Federal government undertake to offer leases, and should new dredging technology

be introduced.

Impact on Coastal Zone

Sand and gravel dredging would have a number of impacts on New Hampshire's

coastal zone--some positive, many more negative. A complicated web of inter-

relationships can be developed with only minimal effort. An absolute quantitative

assessment of these impacts is much harder to derive.

It must be realized that offshore sand and gravel mining, while providing a

potential source of aggregate for construction, also has potentially adverse impacts

on other coastal uses and the marine environment as well. In order to.examine some

of these impacts, both positive and negative, a preliminary investigation of the

resources and activities impacted by offshore sand and gravel mining has been made.

Information is presented in table form and has been obtained from previously avail-

able documents and knowledge of the SRRC staff. Original research into offshore

sand and gravel mining was not conducted.

Three tables have been prepared for use in this portion of the inventory effort.

Table 1 is entitled "Primary Resources Affected by Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining."

Table 2 is entitled "Possible Effects of Sand and Gravel Mining," and Table 3 is

"Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining: ronflicts with other coastal uses and resources.
L .

Use of these tables will be made as part of the process for defining permissible

water uses, for identifying water areas of particular concern, and for identifying

priorities of water uses by capability area. They are purely expository and do not

constitute a complete analysis of the impacts of offshore sand and gravel mining.

Referenceslisted at the end of this section should be consulted for more detailed

i nf ormati on.

Table 1, developed by SRRC staff, presents a list of resources which may be

alffected by sand and gravel mining. General categories.are 141sted: land, sea floor,

water co lumn, air column, 'labor and capita-1. These are broad resource categories

which are basic to all uses. both in the coast-al zone and in upland areas. For

example, no building can take place withOL)t utilizing many resIources such as land

to place the building on,,labor to construct the building, and capital to purchase

the materials used in construction. Preparation of the materials used in construc-

tion may have been taken from land resources (e.g., timber), used labor in their

preparation, and so on. The broad resource categories have been amplified somewhat

by presenting alongside of then a more specific indication of the resources poten-

tially affected by sand and gra.vel mining. Further application of this table will

be found in Table 3.

Table 2, "Possible Effects of OCS Mining," has been extracted from the U.S.

Department of Interior draft environmental impact statement entitled "Proposed

Outer Continental Shelf Hard Mineral Mining Operating and Leasing Regulations"
(This document is available at offices of the Southeastern New'Hampshire Regional

Planning Commission, 3 Water Street, Exeter, N.H.). The table is organized by

phase of the dredging operation. The two phases of dredging operations listed are

as follows:

I. Survey accomplished with a variety of techniques: bottom surface

sampling (grab sampling) bottom sampling at depth (core sampling),
and surveys using acoustic (sound) profiling techniques, which probe

deeper beneath the bottom than the other two techniques. Sampling

done by research vessels of varying size.

Mining - accomplished by dredges of varying size and technique. Most

likely, use will be made of suCtion dredges acting as a vacuum cleaner

and lifting bottom material to the surface, where it may be washed and

graded according to size. Silty water is deposited back into the ocean

from the side of the dredge. The dredge will generally operate from a

shore-processing base which will further wash, sort, and otherwise pre-

pare the material for delivery.

.In each of the two dredging phases, certain causes of fimpacts f rom sand and

gravel dredging are listed.- Causes identified in the survey phase include: Light

and sound, sediment removal and bottom contact and possible radiation from certain

in situ sampling analysis.activities. In the-mining phase, causes of the impacts

are listed as excavation, sedimentation (overboard discharge) and water mass

transfer.

Jollowing identification of the phase of operation and causes of impacts,

several columns of the table are used to ident'ify the nature of the impacts. Direct

effects, such as change in bathymetry are listed, followed by columns identifying

side effects such as changes in beach profile, which cause a "slumped" or lowered

beach, which in turn causes a loss of recreational area. The las column is a

subjective indicator identifying whether each particular effect is positive or

negative. The table shows that the environmental effects of the activity are

primar@ ily negative but they vary in their intensIty. For example, the survey phase

creates effects such as momentary confusion of fish from light or sound, losses of

a
small o' individual marine organisms from the various sampling activities
number

(acoustical profiling, core sampling, etc.) and the death or mutation of a small

number of organis ms from radiation caused by certain types of sampling gear. How-

.ever, these effects are of a very low intensity and are not of concern to the State

of New Hampshire. They are common to many scientific investigations of the ocean

bottom, and these presently occur frequently along the coast.

The most severe effects on the marine environment will come from the mining

phase of the operation. Of.the three causes of environmental change from the

mining operation: excavation; sedimentation from overboard discharge and the

excavation process itself; and hydraulic water transfer which introduces new

nutrients into the area, excavation and sedimentation will have the most significant

effects. Introduction of nutrients through water-mass transfer is not likely to be
a factor off the New Hampshire coast, as the offshore envi-roninent. is quite rich to
begin with.

For more detailed discussion of the information contained in Table 2,.consult
the 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement -- Hard Mineral Mining, Operating, and
Leasing Regulations," issued by the Department of the Interior.

Table 3, "Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining: Conflicts With Other Coastal Uses
and Resources," was developed.by SRRC staff and builds heavily upon the information
available from the first two tables. Resources identified in Table 1 appear in this
last table, as do many of the impacts of sand and gravel dredging which appear in
Table 2. Additionally, new information relating certain impacts of the offshore
dredging activity to other coastal uses has been developed, based again on the d ata
presented in Table 2 supplemented by knowledge of the resource requirements of
other coastal activities. Table 3 will be of the most value in making water use
capability de terminations and identification of permissible water uses and priority
of uses.

The uses identified in Table 3 range from recreation and commercial-fisheries
to residential and commercial construction. They were chosen to represent uses
potentially affected by sand and gravel mining, either through direct competition
@for primary resources (see Table 1) or through a number of possible side effects.
The list includes both land and water uses.

The nature of effects on resources are listed in several columns across the
top of the table. The first set of columns relates the primary resources poten-
tially affected by sand and gravel dredging (see Table 1) to the other coastal

uses. The table assumes dredging within New Hampshire waters. Where the possi-

bility of direct competition for resources exists between sand and gravel dredging

and other coastal uses, an X has been placed in the appropriate box. For example,

ease of nav.igation into and out of Portsmouth Harbor requires a certain amount of

geographic ocean area for maneuver. Should sand and gravel mining be accomplished

within existing shipping lanes, a clear conflict would result over use of the water

surface. This potential impact is indicated on the chart. (It should be noted,
however, that the Department of the Interior intends to avoid such areas.)

The onshore processing systems asso ciated with sand and gravel dredging (for

washing, screening, crushing', and grading the aggregate prior to delivery) will

take up perhaps ten acres or more of.land (estimates vary). This is a direct

(though possibly minimal) physical denial of land to other uses, uses.whose poten-

tial value to society should be considered in deciding whether or not to mine sand

and gravel offshore. This impact is indicated on the chart as well. On the other

hand, perhaps 15-20 jobs would be provided at the processing site. This must be

considered as well. The following two columns of Table 3 reflect both direct

effects and secondary side effects of the dredging activity, particularly as they

relate to affected coastal uses. The final column consists of remarks explaining

the ultimate nature of the impacts on each affected use. These may range from non-

quantifiable impacts such as loss of enjoyment in recreational activities to

measurable decreases in the income of local fishermen and lobstermen.

No attempt has been made to numerically measure these affects. However, some

understanding of their nature has been obtained. For example, the most significant

positive effect of offshore sand and gravel dredging on other activities would be

that it could reduce pressure on existing coastal and upland producers of the

material. Much of Boston's supply of aggregate already comes from New Hampshire---

direct trains run from Ossipee to Boston, for eXample. There would be decreased
inland rail and trUck transpo-t, plus reduced inland air, water, and noise poll u-
tion if offshore mining to Ok place. This @-,iould be offset to a degree by truck
traffi.-I, noise, etc. in the vicinity of any onshore sand and gravel processing
facilities accompanylog offshore activity, however.

It is not possible, at present, to tie the offshore mining of sand and gravel
to reduced prices. The mining of offshore resources will not become economically
more attractive than current sources, unless aggregate prices rise, or stay the same,
and other supplies are not readily available, barring any cost breakthroughs in
mining technology. New Hampshire, being a net exporter of sand and gravel, can
meet its own statewide needs for the foreseeable future. Boston will be the con-
sumer area which sand and gravel dredging would serve. There will be no pressure
to develop a market structure for offshore aggregate indigenous to New Hampshire
which would lower prices to state residents.

The remainder of the,effects on-sand and gravel mining on other coastal uses
are likely to be negative. Sand and gravel dredging in state waters would most
definitely destroy relatively large areas of lobster and groundfish habitat for a
period of time (at least those on the dredging site itself) simply by sucking
lobsters into the dredge. Diversity in the number of species in the area would be
;F reduced. Severity of the effects would depend on geograph'ic extent, duration, and
frequency of the dredging opera-tion. There could conceivably be some alteration
of beach profile which might have negative affects on the attractiveness of New
Hampshire beaches to -tourists 'and-day-trippers. Sedimentation from the activity

of f4
could clog the gills infish and the 1"ood filters of shellfish. This could
result in death or out-migration. These impacts should be kept in perspective,
however, since turbidity already exists fron-i natural causes such as currents and

wa ve action.

Mining further offshore, in the Jeffrey's Ledge area, would not have the same

effects on beach profile that inshore sand and gravel mining would have. Jeffrey's
Ledge, however, is a herrin.g spawning area,'and herring use the gravel as an attach-

ment for their eggs. There has already been some concern voiced about diminishing'

sizes of herring stocks from overfishing. Sand and gravel mining on the Jeffrey's

Ledge would intensify that problem.

summary

The possibility of offshore sand and gravel mining in waters adjacent to New

Hampshire exists. One inquiry was made by commercial interests in March of 1972.

Also, proposed federal regulations for the mining of sand and gravel beyond the

three-mile limit have been promulgated, further indicating to us the potential

for offshore hard-mineral mining. Preliminary maps developed bythe Strafford

Rockingham Regional Council from existing information indicate a number of areas

of potential deposits in state waters, primarily along the southern two-thirds of

the coast, off Rye and Hampton. Further offshore, Jeffrey's Ledge is known to

have deposits of sand and gravel, though it apparently cannot be economically

mined with existing U.S. or foreign technology.

'ble and
Any offshore sand and gravel operation will bring with it certain possi

ne.gative effects. On the positive side, offshore mining would result in decreased

pressure on upland sources of aggregate, along with decreased noise, air pollution

and truck traffic in areas surrounding the upland activity.

On the negative side, offshore sand and gravel mining does require onshore

support, processing and handl 'Ing facilities. This might take ten acres or more of

pollUt4
coastal land (estimall-es vary). Truck traffic, noise, air, and water ion would

imply be transferred from any displaced upland production areas to the coast. There

is no indication that any decrease in sand and aravel prices Would ensue as a result

of the activity. Additionally, it appears that offshore sand and gravel mining would

haveadverse impacts on the New Hampshi-re lobster fishing industry if it is accom-

Plished within state waters. A dredge removes all bottom material, including creatures

that live there such as lobsters. Potential deposi.ts of sand and gravel are located

in identified lobster habitat areas. Conflict is Lna'voidable. Also, and again

depending upon location of the activity, alteration in wave refraction patterns, @nd

.beach erosion, could occur as a result. Proper siting of the activity could reduce

this.effect, however. Environmental effects, in toto, will apparently be direct and

significant, though, impacts will be site specific. Again, locally severe altera-

tions in certain areas of the environment will occur, depending on location of the

activity. For.example, Jeffrey'.s Ledge, which contains deposits of sand and gravel,

is used as a herring spawning area. The eggs, which. are attached to gravel, would

be destroyed were mining exercises to be conducted there during the autumn (August-

December) spawning season.

TABLE 1

PRIMARY RESOURCES AFFECTED BY

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING

I Land

A. Coastal Zone geographic area

B. Inland geographic area

II. Sea Floor - finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, other minerals, geographic area

III. Water Colum n - finfish, water quality

IV. Air Column - air quality

V. Labor - number of persons available for employment

VI. Capital money available for investment

Page
le 2.--

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF SAND AND GRAVEL MINING

OPERATION
PHASE CAUSE DIRECT EFFECTS SECONDARY SIDE EFFECTS OTHER SIDE EFFECTS

Momentary confusion
Light & Sound of light or sound
sensitive species

Survey
Loss of a small
Sediment number of individ-
temoval and ual marine.organisms
bottom ontact

Radiation Death or mutation
of small number of
organisms

Reduce pressure on Improve upland
upland producers esthetics, air,
Mining Excavation Obtain kesource water and noise
pollution

Hold cost of min- Curb inflation
eral down

Destroy corals & Alter wave refrac--Coastal
algae
tion and/or wave erosion
energy

Destroy benthos Destroy spawning Inhibit repopula- Harm
grounds tion fisheries

Benthic organisms Impair
die or leave area Harm fisheries economic
opportunit

Af ter: U.S. Department of the Interior, Proposed
Outer Continental Shelf Hard Mineral Mining Opera-
t-ing and Leasing Regulations.

aPable 2.

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF SAND AND GRAVEL MINING

PERATION
PHASE CAUSE DIRECT EFFECTS SECONDARY SIDE EFFECTS OTHER SIDE EFFE CTS
Expose boulders Foul trawl nets Damage fishing
Excavation and debris industry

Provide hiding & increase and/or Enhance fisheries
attachment for diversify marine +
organisms organisms

Alter wave refract- Coastal erosion Loss of wetlands
Change ion and wave energy & other high value
Bathymetry areas
I.Alter beach profile Slumped beach Loss of Rec. Areas
Cut into aquifers Discharge of fresh Seawater intrus- Loss of ground-
water into marine ion into the ac- water reserves
environment uifer

Introduce nutrients Increase Enhance fisheries +
productivity

Introduce organics Reduce f4
Im, i nn g .02 by Reduce@marine Harm Lsheries
loxidation animals

introduce heavy Kill marine Harm fisheries
Sedimentatio metals into water organisms
column I I

Concentrate heavy Potential harm- Potential harmful
minerals in marine ful effects on effects on humans
organisms marine organisms consuming affected
mar ine organisms

Reduce photosyn- -Reduce productivity Harm fisheries Impair economic
thesis op2ortunity
Finfish and some
Clog gills shellfish die or Harm fisheries Impair economic
leave area op2ortunity
Abrasion by.part cle@,,_

P@Lge 3,
400le 2@

POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF SAND AND-,GRAVEL MINING

JOPEIRATION DIREC SECONDARY SIDE EFFECTS +
PHASE CAUSE T EFFECTS OTHER SIDE EFFECTS ot,
Loss of economic
Turbid appearance Unpleasant for opportunity for
recreation tourism sector

Benthic organisms Harm fisheries
Sedimentation ISmother benthos die or leave-ar-ea
Loss of habitat
Destroy or impair and productivity
coral and algae
Alter wave refrac-
tion and wave energy Coastal,erosion

Sediment instability Redistribution
of sediment

Destroy spawning Inhibit repopulation Harm fisheries
grounds
Mining
Change wave refrac-
Deposition in Alter coastline tion and energy Coastal erosion
unwanted area and/or channels Expense of
i channel clearance
Water mass
transfer Introduce nutr- Increase Enhance-fisheries
(hydraulic) ients productivity

-page

TABLE 3

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING: CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USES AND RESOURCES

NATURE OF EFFECTS RESOURCES WHERE POTENTIAL FOR
RESOURCES DIRECT COMPETITION EXISTS
SECONDARY AND
1AND DIRECT OTHER SIDE REMARKS
CY-1 U-1
C:> EFFECTS EFFECTS
-Z C-7-1 _J U_ Z: 7n <
LL_ cx@ >-7- Cr_1
COASTAL USES =:) L.Li __D C)
_J V) _J _J co 0_
pj=CTE" 0- LLJ < C) CD <z <
V) all :S: < __J
L
A.. RECREATIOIN Turbid wa4-ers; Unpleasant Uniformly re'S'UltS
dusty air" swimming conditions in loss of enjoy-
Swimming- X X X X ment by public. May
lead to loss of
2. Fishing (on & off disturb Fish abandon area income in
shore) X X X X or die recreational
areas.
3. Boating X X X Same Unpleasant boating
conditions

4. Tourism X X X x X Same Other areas more
..... .. suitable

B. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Turbid waters; Fish abandon area Loss of income to
1. Finfishing X X X X X dusty air or die fisheries
2. Lobstering X X X X Same; disturb Fish abandon area
bottom or die

3. Processing X X X X Same

C. NATIONAL DEFENSE
1. Portsmouth Naval X X X Dusty air Degraded working -Possible loss of
Shipyard conditions productivity due
'@USE_

_X to dust from
2. U.S. Coast Guard onshore processing
New Castle X X X x Same Same

TABLE 3

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING: CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USES AND RESOURCES

NATURE OF EFFECTS RESOURCES WHERE POTENTIAL FOR
ON RESOURCES DIRECT COMPETITION EXISTS
SECONDARY AND
DIRECT OTHER SIDE REMARKS
-LAND
Of LU
C:) EFFECTS EFFECTS

<
F_
COASTAL USES V) < Uj
< " -< V) f-- _j
AFFECTED C) CL_ LU < C) C> <
V) 0;:@ :3: L)U

C. NATIONAL DEFENSE
Possible loss of
(Continued) Dusty air Degraded working productivity due to
conditions dust from o nS h o ra
3. Pease Air Force Base X X X processing. Depends
on location of
processing
facili-ties.

D . TRANSPORTATION
Possible.loss ol
Dusty ai-r Degraded working productivity due to
1. Piscataqua River oil X X X X conditions, dust from onshore
terminals, piers processing,

2. General navigation X Competition for
limited offshore
surface area.

3. Roads and highways X X X X X Positive benefit
through increased
supplies of
aggregate.

E. COMMUNICATIONS
Direct potential for
1. Cable areas X damage to cables.
@
'A
E
S
R
R
01 EFFECTS
'U" E

COAS L US ES
FETC@'EDT@
AF

Page

TABLE 3

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING: CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USES AND RESOURCES

NATURE OF EFFECTS RESOURCES WHERE POTENTIAL FOR
ON RESOURCES DIRECT COMPETITION EXISTS
SECONDARY AND
LAND Ld DIRECT OTHER SIDE REMARKS
C) C-) EFFECTS EFFECTS
C) < _j
c@ _j U_ Z: 2:
zl_ UL_ fX M: 04
COASTAL USES V) < LU C)
__j < Ln I--- _j a: __j co
AFFECIED C@ 0- LU < C) CD <
F. WASTE DISPOTAL TREATMEN7_77
1. Sewage X X X X Minor effects

2, Solid waste X X X X Minor effects

3. Off-shore dumping X X X Ocean dumping may
preclude dredging
of sandand gravel
in some areas.

G. ENERGY
Possible conflicts
I. Petroleum: with related
shipping.
a. Onshore terminals X X X

b. Refineries and
tank farms X X X X

c. Petrochemical Potential'heavy
complexes X X X X requirements for
aggregate as fill
and for
construction.
ES
@ @FL'UL U S
CiED

Page

TABLE 3

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING: CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USES AND RESOURCES

NATURE OF EFFECTS RESOURCES WHERE POTENTIAL FOR
ON RESOURCES DIRECT COMPETITION EXISTS-
SECONDARY AND
LAND DIRECT OTHER SIDE REMARKS
1= LU
EFFECTS EFFECTS
C) <
_j It- Z: 2: <
2__ U_ Ce 0:: :E: z
COASTAL USES Ln < =) Uj =:) CD
< __j < Cn @__ _j 0:: _j co
AFFECTED CD Cl- --I C@@ < <
LU < CD
t__) =D V) cz., 3. (->

G.. ENERGY (Continued)

2. Electricity:

a. On shore- conventi ona' X x x

b. Nuclear x x x

c. Offshore nuclear x x x

H. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
1. Shoals.Marine Lab x x x Turbid water Loss of value as Potentially serious
(Maine) study area effect.

I. MISCELLANEOUS

1. Registered historical
landmarks
a. Isles of Shoals X. Turbid water. Reduced attractive- Loss of.value as a
(Maine) ness historical site.
2. Wildlife refuge (Mass) X x x Turbid water; Adversely affect Loss of value as
dusty air wildlife and. a preserve..
marine biota
N
0
ATU RE 11 11111TI
N
"OUR
R

'T
COA
@L US ES
A ",TED

3. Ocean sanctuary (Mass) x x Same Same

Page sm

TABLE 3

OFFSHORE SAND AND GRAVEL MINING: CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COASTAL USES AND RESOURCES

NATURE OF EFFECTS RESOURCES WHERE POTENTIAL FOR
ON RESOURCES DIRECT COMPETITION EXISTS
SECONDARY AND
1AND DIRECT OTHER SIDE REMARKS
Of LU
EFFECTS EFFECTS
C:)

21- U_ Cx Cx: 2: @_rW
COASTAL USES Ln < Uj C)
< _j 11*1 @_ _j 03
AFFECTED CD CL Uj <
U) 8 8 _j

I.. MISCELLANEOUS (Continued) Potential Benefits:

4. Residential -increased supply oi
construction: aggregate for
Dusty air Degraded living & construction.
a. Coastal x X x X working conditions
-less truck traffic
b. nland X x x X Same Same' from inland areas.

-improved upland.
aesthetics.

5. Commercial
construction: Same,as residential
Dusty air Degraded living construction,
a. Coastal x X X x working conditions. Page 4.

b. Inland X X x X Same Same
>
N
0
AT' RE IF IFECTI
N 'E S", CES

U
COASTAL SE
CT
FFEED

REFERENCES

A. Text

1. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, 1968, Our Nation

and the Sea: A Plan for National Action, Volume 3, Panel Reports

"Marine Resources and Legal - Political Arrangements for Their Develop-

ment," Washingt-on, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office.

2. Cooper, James D., 1970, "Sand and Gravel" in Mineral Facts and Problems,

1970 edition, Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.

3. Grant, Malcolm J., May 1972, "A Draft Proposal For The Management of the

Offshore Sand and Gravel Deposits of the State of Rhode Island: Guide-

lines and Model Regulatory Legislation," Kingston, Rhode Island: Uni:4

versity of Rhode Island, unpublished master's thesis.

4. Hess, Harold D., 1971, "Marine Sand and Gravel Mining Industry of the

United Kingdom," NOAA Technical Report ERL 213-MMTC 1, Boulder, Colorado:

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-

tion,'Environmental Research Laboratory.

5. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1972, "Draft Environmental Statement--,

Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Hard Mineral Mining, Operating, and

Leasing Regulations," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Division of Marine Minerals.

6. Van Horn, W., U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Division of Minerals Environmental Assessment, oral communication,

March 12, 1975.

B. Derivation of Map

Duane, D.B., "Sand Inventory Program - A Study of New Jersey and Northern

New England Coastal Waters," U.S. Amy Coastal Engineering Research

Center, Shore and Beach, October 1969.

2. Folger, O'Hara, Robb; unpublished, "Bottom Sediments on the Continental

Shelf of the Northeastern United States: Cape Ann, Massachusetts to

Casco Bay, Maine," U.S., Geological Survey open-file report, Woods Hole:

U.S. Geological Survey.

3. Hathaway, John C., 1971, "Data File - Continental Margin Program, Atlantic

Coast of the United States," WHOI, Ref. 71-15, Woods Hole: U.S.

Geological Survey.

4. Manheim, F.T., 1972, "Mineral Resources Off The Northeastern Coast of the

United States," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 669, Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Geological Survey.

5. Mills, T., March 1975, personal communication conveying preliminary results

of research accomplished at Department of Earth Sciences, University

of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

6. Normandeau Associates, Inc., 1973, "Seabrook Ecological Study, 1972.

Report IV - 5 --The Benthos of the Area Offshore Hampton and Seabrook

Beaches, New Hampshire," unpublished report prepared for Public Service

Company of New Hampshire.

7. Oldale, R.N., Uchupi, E., and Prada, K.E., 1971, "Western Gulf of Maine

and the Southeastern Massachusetts Offshore Area Sedimentory Framework,"

unpublished open-file report, U.S. Geological Survey.

8. Schlee, J., 1968, "Sand and Gravel on the Continental Shelf Off the
Northeastern United States," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 602,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

9. Schlee, J. and Pratt, R.M., 1970, "Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope
of the United States - Gravels of the Northeastern Part:'U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey Professional Paper 529-H, Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office.

10. Schlee, John, 1973, "Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United
States - Sediment Texture of the Northeastern Part," U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 529-L, Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office.

11. Tucholke, B.E.; Oldale, R.N. and Hollister, C.D., 1972, "Map Showing Echo-
Sounding Survey (3.5kHZ) of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, Western
Gulf of Maine," Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations, Map 1-716;
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.

N. H. Coastal Resources
Management Program
Fir st Year Report
Attachment B 21

AQUACULTURE

c7RI,571 OHI CfE
113C 13
f

AQUACULTURE

Aquaculture is the commercial farming of various marine, estuarine, and fresh
water species, both plants and animals. The industry is in its infancy in the
United States, but has been developed extensively in parts of Europe and Asia.
For example, there has been the culture of oysters, shrimp, and some species of
fish in Japan and the raft-culture of blue mussels in Spain. United States efforts
have included, among others, trout farming in Idaho, catfish farming in the South-
west, salmon farming in the Northwest and oyster farming in Long Island Sound.

Regionally, aquaculture efforts have been sporadic, with efforts presently
at the academic level or the pilot-commercial stage. A conference, "Aquaculture:
A New England Perspective" was held in Durham in October of 1970 and again in the
fall of 1974. Discussed were a number of technological, economic, and legal
perspectives on aquaculture. A refined list of species which possibly might be
farmed in New England was also developed. Among those listed were the Atlantic
salmon, the Europe'an oyster, the eastern oyster, hard-shell clams, bay scallops,
coho orsilver salmon, and-American lobster. Not included on the list, but
subject to some interest since are the blue mussel and the winter flounder.

Current aquaculture efforts in the state of New Hampshire are largely at
the academic level or have been conducted on a trial basis only. The University
of New Hampshire is increasingly involved with the mairiculture of blue mussels,
coho salmon, seaweeds and flounder. The'New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game
has been attempting the introduction of coho salmon into New Hampshire waters,
and in the past has investigated the possibility of oyster seed production in
Greay Bay.

The potential for large-scale commercial aquaculture activities in the state
appears limited, primarily due to lack of adequate areas for culture. Smaller
family-type operations are a strong possibility, however. Much of Great Bay is
unsuitable for culture using rafts with suspended ropes (for shellfish) or with
suspended pens (for salffion),due to depth and temperature limitations. It might
be possible to use the area for the culture of bay scallops, though the technology
for this species has not been completely worked out yet. Existing polluti on levels
may also play a part in making-G-reat Bay unsuitable at the present time and ice is
also a problem during severe winters.

The most likely areas for raft or pen culture of shellfish and salmon would
be in the vicinity of Portsmouth Harbor, Little Harbor, or possibly the Isles of
Shoals. Here, the deep, clean water necessary for raft or pen culture exists.
There are no bad ice conditions and the water is relat@vely well sheltered. In
fact, the University of New Hampshire has placed a salmon rearing pen adjacent
to the U.S. Coastal Guard station in New Castle for use in their studies. Also,
an attempt is currently being made to gain permission to farm lobsters commercially
in the heated effluent of the New ington power plant, a location frequently used
as an open-laboratory for aquaculture related projects by University of New
Hampshire researchers.

One other possibility for New Hampshire aquaculture would consist of open-
range culture of anadromous species such as salmon. Efforts by the-University
.of New Hampshire in salmon rearing and releaseassisted by the New Hampshire Fish
and Game Coho project,are a start in this direction. The fish could be raised
in captivity to smolt size, released in tributaries of Great Bay, allowed to
roam freely, and then return to the point oftelease for harvest. Trial release
of coho salmon was to be accomplished this spring by the University of New Hamps hire.

This7-complements pre-existing efforts by the New Hampshire Department of.Fish and

Game, which is attempting to establish a coho salmon sport fishery.

One may expect a number of identifiable conflicts between the various methods

of aquaculture an
d other uses of New Hampshire coastal waters. Stationary.facil-

ities such as rafts or pens (all of which vary in size'- 20 meter 20 meter rafts

exist in Europe today) will present some obstruction to free navigation in-the

area'of the aquaculture facility. Shoreside support areas, including dockage
facilities, hatcheries and rearing areas, and perhaps ponds, will compete for lim-
ited coastal land space. In France, for example, mussel and oyster growers are'
forced to compete with beachfront hotels and casinos. In the cas e of open range
culture, the problem of who can catch whose fish is bound to crop up. Poaching
.and protection against predators and disease are also likely to be a problem.
Land ownership at water's edge, the question of who controls the bottom of Great

Bay as well as the surface, and legal problems of a similar nature will almost

certainly appear,

To summarize, large-scale commercial aquaculture activites are not likely to
occur in New Hampshire, due primarily to the nature of its coastal areas. Any
activities likely to arise will probably be confined to relatively small scale
enterprises for mussels, lobsters, or salmon located in the lower Piscataqua
River, the outer Portsmouth Harbor area, and Little Harbor. The possibility of

open-range salmon culture originating in tributaries to Great Bay exists, and is

presently being investigated. Direct conflicts with current water uses such as
boating are likely to occur, though they are not expected to be overly significant.
In any event, commercial aquaculture activity in the state appears to be perhaps
five years away, the first attempt at establishing such an industry only being
made at the present time.

;r -,

I ',@ S, u @. `-@ 1/7 @7 --172
7,- , @r (--@
L J @ @ @ @ IM
K @ (7) 72 1@ CIE
. I

-1

N.H. Coastal Resources
Management Program
First Year Report
Attachment B 22

FUTURE USES

@,R Cr 7@:
ubd U

FUTURE-'USES

DEEP WATER PORTS

The possibility that a deep-water port might be located in waters off of

New Hampshire continues to exist. The Deepwater Port Act of 1974, which author-

izes, in waters under Federal jurisdiction,,the planning, licensing, construction,

and operation of ports handling very large crude carriers was signed by President

Ford on January 4, 1975. This act complements the existing potential for siting

a deepwater port facility in New Hampshire-controlled waters.

For purposes of this analysis, deepwater port facility is assumed to include

the following components: 1) a terminal for mooring; 2) pipelines of varying
sizes; 3) booster pump platform; 4) tank farm for onshore storage; 5) products

distribution facilities; and 6) home"port facilities for vessels servicing the

terminal (tugs, launches, etc.). Consideration of the environmental and economic

impacts of a coastal refinery per se will not be dealt with. Refineries will be

considered primarily as their siting relates to the siting of a deepwater port.

Within the New Hampshire coastal zone planning program, the primary concern

is to identify th e large scale effects of a deepwater port on New Hampshire's

coastal zone planning area. Economic and environmental effects are of most

immediate concern.

The obJectives of this inventory effort is to obtain background knowledge

%,.,hich will aid in the determination of water-use capability classifications,

permissible wall-er-uses, and priority of water-uses as-well as contribution to an

operational definition of direct and significant impact. It is not the intention

of this inventory report to present a fully-detailed analysis of deepwater port

siting and related impacts. Such an analysis would necessarily have to be situation-

specific and site specific.

Numerous studies have been undertaken which serve to provide background

information on the effects of a deepwater port on the environment, on other acti-

vities offshore, and on the economy of regions adjacent to it. Some of these

re ferences are listed at the end of this section. For more detailed information

on deepwater ports, these should be consulted. The University of New Hampshire,

completed a study on the impacts of an oil refinery in Southeastern New Hampshire

wh ich included work on a deepwater port located in the New Hampshire coastal area.

Reference is made to this and other related S'tudies as appropriate.

At the present time, it is difficult to assess the chances of a deepwater

port locating in or adjacent to New Hampshire waters. Deepwater port location is

inexorably tied to the presence.of refineries onshore, and the variables associated

with refinery siting are manifold. The following are some of the variables which
enter the New England-wide refinery (and, by definition, the deep-water port)

siting picture:. location of peak areas of petroleum demand size of tariffs on

imported crude and refined petroleum products, would market prices of crude

petroleum, and regional petroleum consumption trends.

Some general comments can be made relati.ve to the current potential for siting

references and, therefore, deepwater ports in New England in general and New

Hampshire in particular. Professor J. W. Devanney of the Massachusetts Institute

of Technology,, co-author of the.Georges Bank Petroleum Study, stated in a presen-
tation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.(Offshore Installations: Legal,
Technical, Policy Considerations, held April 30, 1975), that any New England

refinery will be dependent upon foreign crude oil, even in the event that signifi-

cant quantities of oil were found on Georges Bank. His judg ment was that a New

England refinery, and therefore a deepwater port, will depend upon foreign oil.

The amount of foreign oil imported depends on the price of domestic and foreign

crude oil and their relative availability, the world political situation, and

differential tariffs between imported crude and refined products The uncertainty

in each of these areas makes it extremely difficult to predict the likelihood of

a,New England or New Hampshire refinery.

A Federal Energy Administration spokesman (Pecoraro, oral communication)

stated that it appears "inevitable" that New England will have a refinery some-

time in the near future. Whether or not it would necessarily be linked to a

deepwater port is uncertain. Neither was the potential for siting in New Hampshire

indicated. The FEA spokesman was also unsure about the existence of a relation-

ship between oil tariff and refinery siting, mentioning that they did not appear

to be a deterrent to the proposed Pittston facility in Eastport, Maine.

,Within New Hampshire, a spokesman for the Department of Resources and

Economic Development (Allen, oral communication), reports no official oil company

activity concerning refinery or deepwater port siti-ng,within the state. Further,

he stated that a Ge orges Bank oil find need not influence the situation.

Any major oil company finding oil on Georges Bank would likely ship the oil

to the mid-Atlantic states for refinery, their facilities there being expanded if

necessary. (The add itional cost to ship oil from Georges Bank to a mid-Atlantic

refinery and back to New England would total 15 to 20 cents per barrel, according

to the Georges Bank Petroleum Study.) Independent producers making a find on

Georges Bank, Allen felt, might find the construction of a refinery in New

England more attractive, however, and this could spur pressure for a deepwater

port.

The location of any deepwater port facility along the New Hampshire coast

would depend heavily on a variety of technological, environmental, economic and

political factors. Community acceptance, interference with commercial and recrea-

tional fishing and boating, incidence of economic impact from construction, and

availability of feasible sites all play a part in the location of a deepwater port.

Given the complex interplay between all of these factors, it is difficult to

identify a unique spot off the New Hampshire coast where a port might be sited.

Some general considerations can be related, however.

From a technological point of view, the University of New Hampshire suggested

three potential areas where different types of deepwater ports could be located

off the coast of New Hampshire: 1) A sea island facility located to the west of

the Isles of Shoals (about five miles east of Rye.Harbor); 2) a single mooring

(SPM) facilitv located two miles south to southwest of the Isles (six to seven

miles east of Little,Boar's Head) and 3) an SPM facility even further south of the

Isles and perhaps 10 miles out to sea off Hampton Beach.

Proximity to shoreside support facilities such as tank. farms, service areas,

or refineries, plus a number of other factors including construction cost and

environmental damage potential would determine the.relative superiority of one or

another of the above locations. An example of how these factors relate to siting

can be drawn from a Massachusetts PortAuthority study which addresses, among

others, a deepwater port ten miles off Cape Ann, Massachusetts. The study repo rt

stated that the construction of 48-inch pipelines in greater than 150 feet of

water (necessary for the construction of a facility in such a location) had not

been undertaken before and would require new and advanced technology, which can

be risky and costly as well. Nearby tank farm sites were found lacking. Adjacent

towns were opposed to it. Another site, ten miles out but further north (off

Newburyport), ranked much higher, with better proximity to tank farms, decreased

down-time due to weather conditions, and less damaging environmental impacts

cited as reasons. Local residents were also less opposed to the idea.

No such analysis has been attempted for New Hampshire sites. Experience,

h I
lowever, leads to the conclusion that, due to the shortness of New Hampshire's

coast, lateral variation in location of a deepwater port is likely to make little

difference from the point of view of the residents of the coastal zone planning
area. Generally. speaking, however, the further from shore a deepwater port is
located, the less chance of shoreline damage from an oil spill, and less chance of
impact on other coas-L-.al activities, and the greater the cost of construction and
operations. In New Hampshire, distance from shore, then, is the important siting

variable. Thetable, Qualitative Summary Comparisons extracted from the report

Table 4. "The Impacts of an Oil Refinery located in South Eastern New Hampshire:

A Preliminary Study," UNH, 1974) has been included for reference. It details some

of the comparative aspects of a sea-island (with and without products distribution

facilities) five miles offshore near the Isles of Shoals versus a single point

mooring (monobuoy) located about 10 miles offshore beyond existing shipping lanes

to and from Portsmouth Harbor. The table analyzes a number of comparative aspects
of the various deepwater ports options including environmental. risks, suscepti-

bility to damage, capital and operating costs, and employment. Of the information
'presented in the table, dama..ge.from.oil spills, visual impacts, geographic area

denied to other uses, and economic impacts of the port facility are of most concern

to the New Hampshire Coastal Zone planning program.

Returning to the important siting variable of distance from shore, a few

points can be made. First, the chance of an oil spill reaching shore decreases

the further out one goes. For instance, the Council on Environmental Quality has
suggested that the probability of oil from spills coming ashore in general (once

they occur) from a spill less than five miles is 90 percent. For a spill 5-15

miles offshore, it is 50 percent, and for a spill greater than 15 miles offshore,

only 20 percent. The probability of a spill occ urring in the first place are

decreased, as the chances of tankers grounding are sharply reduced in the deeper

water farther offshore. Second, the visual impact of' a deepwater port decrease

with distance from shore. A sea island facility near the Isles of Shoals about

AD4'
Qualitative Sunnaxy COM]2arisons !-age I
Terminal Crude Receipt only Product Distri-
:bution Ter-minal
.With Onshore Product Pipeline Dist ribution :and Crude
.'Terminal
II. Offshore Monobouys :III. Sea Islands
E nvironmental Risks I. Sea Island Near Shoals _(not in traffic lanes) -near Shoals

Likelihood of Oil SpilLs:
than amount Least likelihood because
A. Large spills from Estimate 2-3 times greater 'L :Estimate ove--
tanker groundings spilled at offshore SPM's. of distance from tanker 10 times more
grounding hazards. oil likely to
be spilled be-
cause of prox-
imity to hazards
greatly in-
creased number
:of port calls.
B . Chronic spills at 5 ppm estimated upper limiL. Comparative : S ppm, based on histori- ..5-1 ppm. (ter-
"te=iinal operations" :statistics at Milford Haven were .6 ppm., but : cal data. :minals are in
-po
only :transfers there include product and thus :semi-ex sed
"there are far more transfer operations per Jocations).@*
thousand tons of oil transferred than at a :Throu-11put rough-
crude terminal only. :1y 50% higher
than Case I.
Ease of Containment :Spills are easier to control but more dif- Efforts to contain & clean :Product spills
Clean-up, fate@of oil :ficult to clean up if they reach nearby up open seas have had little :spread faster
:Isles. Containment booms*considered-inef- success, but oil can be dis- :than crude spills
:fective in seas greater than 31. Small spills: bursed with less damage far :& are di&icult
:of crude oil can be dealth with effectively from land and the oil is gi- :to contain.
(Note: Biological impacts:in protected waters if clean-up response is ven greater time to weather :Fire hazard.
reported elsewhere) :rapid. Near Isles, spills may spread around from offshore location.'
:islands depending on winds. Oth;rwise they
:may float to mainland. Dispersants can effect:
:marine life if used near shore but they are
:the better alternative than allowing oil to
:come ashore.
There are active efforts in industry & government to develop booms or higfiqr capability. Some claim they exist now'but
we do not know il' EPA or USCG has tested them.

Source: University of New Hampshire (1974).

Qualitative Summary Comparisons (Con't)

Terminal Crude Receipt Only
With Onshore Product.Pipeline Distribution
:Prod

Tern

:Crud
II. Offshore Monobouys
Environmental Risks I. Sea Island Near Shoals (not in traffic lanes)
Visual :The introduction of sea island ter- :Least important depending :Mucl
minals and support facilities such as:upon distance of facility :Case
tug & work-boat harbors will forever :from shore.
change the character and natural sce-
nerv of the Isles.of Shoals.

Space Removed from
other uses :About 100 water acres plus harbor Less conflict with fishermen About
requirements of tugs, work-boats, and boaters in offshore lo- :conc
equipment storage, etc. would be de- cation. Area required: 150 :ties
nied to recreational boaters & fish- :acres mooring circle not in-:Case
:ermen. This does not include tanker :cluding 4000 diameter ap-
turning areas (about 3000 diameter :proach and area.
:Circles) or tanker traffic lanes.

Construction Aspects:
Terminal :Effects of drilling & blasting un- :Substantially less. Cons- Pres
:known. Am't of marine life attracted :truction activity at sea. :than
:by pilings of sea island is small
:compared to what's there now.

Pipeline Blasting required in all cases - the extent of :Exte
which depends upon site location. Effects :acco
unknown :pipe

QU:UifiatiVe Summiry Comparisons Page .3
crude'Receipt
Terminal and
Crude Receipt Terminal Only; 13-35 million tons/Year with onshore product : Prod. Distrib.
pipeline distribution : 19-45 mm ton/-"
Technical and I. Sea Island II. Single Port Mooring :III. Sea Islan(
Economic Characteristics

Technical:
Berth availability Moderate depending on amount of protection Lost days -fewer due to Same as Case
and wave refraction. Limiting seas 3-41 weather. Limiting seas
(significant waves) 6-81 (significant waves).
Susceptibility to Mod. to high depending on protection. Same as Case
Mod. to low. Damarre to
Damaae hawsers & hoses require
relatively short time-to
repair. Technology rapidly
advancing.
Flexibility : More expensive to modify or design sea island Can accept broad range of Same as Case
: terminal to accomodate variety of tankers tankers. Add't SPM's can
a necessity if Georges Banks are developed. be installed in a relative-*
ly short time (6-7 months)
Siting Considerations Generally restricted to protected or SALM designed specifically Same as Case.
quiescent waters. for moderate to severe seas:
and deeper water.
Transfer Rates Highest: 100-200,000 bbl/hr. Lowest: 75-125,000 bbl/hr. Loading produ
involves high
pressures.,*-!or
valving & eas
overflowed
tankers.

Ballast water
Resupply : Easiest if marine bunker lines are laid Difficult and costlY L
: to berth. pumped ashore
for treatment

Single Anchor Leg Mooring an advanced SPM system.

Page 4

Qualitative SummaEZ Comparisons (Con't)
Crude Receipt Terminal and
'Product Distribution
Crude Receipt Terminal OnlY; 13-35 million tons/year with on-
shore product pipeline distribution '19 - 45 million tons/year

.echnical and
:conomic Characteristics I. Sea Island II. Single Point Mooring III. Sea Islands

@conomic:
Capi-tal Investment & Although sea islands are generally more costly to The same is true for the
Operating Costs construct than SPM's, there are cost differences onshore pipelinb versus
tanker distribution systeil
between major components of the two systems which
can only be balanced by a.thorough analysis of the
entire tanker, terminal,, and distribution system as
a whole. These include the costs of possible break-
waters and control platforms., pipeline and refuel-
ing systems at SPMIS.

,m2lovment:
Construction Most components of either system would be pre- Onshore pipeline may empl<
fabricated in large units out-of-state. Construe- more New Hampshire labor
tion is therefore not labor extensive for New than coastal distribution
tion
Hampshire. systerr in.construc.

Operation Sea Islands employ somewhat more operating labor
than SPM systems, but neither is labor intensive
(60-96 men).

five miles offshore) could conceivably obliterate portions of the Isles from view
from shore while an empty 250,000 DWT tanker was berthed. A monobuoy offshore,
say 10 to 15 miles, would not by itself be visible from shore, and the visual
impact of the tankers.would be much less. A facility further offshore would
have the added advantage of being positioned away from areas of heavy recreational
boating andexisting lobstering areas.. It would also interfere less with other

shipping entering Portsmouth Harbor.

The geographic area of water surface unsurped from other activities by a
deepwater port is large. A study for the Massachusetts Port Authority revealed
that a single point mooring facility ha d a typical mooring radius of 1,500 feet,
and would require a maneuvering radius of perhaps 6,000 feet (exact radius would
.vary with location), certain portions of.which would be used by a mooring tanker,
depending on weather conditions. The circle with a 1,500 foot radius (about 160
acres) would be denied to all other uses. The area enclosed in the 6,000 foot
radius circle (about 2.,560.acres) would be denied to other users a portion of the
time. The further offshore the port is located, the lessinterference with
existing coastal activities, most.of which take place within three to five miles
off New Hampshire's coast, could be expected to occur. Offsetting these advantages
would be the cost of pipel ines to a facility 10 miles offshore and the increased
severity of operating conditions, both of which might make any such site unattrac-
tive to industry, especially if sites costing less to develop were found elsewhere

in the Northeast.

The economic impacts of a deepwater port facility would most likely be
significant.I They are site and situation specific, however, and only rough
numbers can be given and there only in selected cases. A single-point mooring
facility (the only-type for which detailed data is available) would require a

total constructive workforce of perhaps 1,000 men, including 250 project manage-
ment types employed for two -to three years and 750 construction workers, employed

Tab-I e 5

Estimated Construction Labor Factors For Deepwater Crude Oil Terminal

Est.-Avg. Est. Constr. Est. Employees Est. 172 Avg.
Work Duration Temporarily Yrly. Salary/
(Months) 'Rdlb@tcit60 Vdgd-Levol

Total Construction Force 1,000. 12-36 115 $12,000
Project Management 250 36 is $14,000
Management 20 36- is $20,000
Administrative Support 30 36 $10,000
Engineering/Design2 200 24 __2 $14,000

Construction 7SO 12 100 $11,600
Skilled 300 .12 100, $14,000
Semi-skilled .450 12 $10,000
Unskilled
00nobuoy design
2Major portion of this work would be done outside New Hamps]-Lire
3Based*upon Massachusetts site; New'Hampshi@e numbers likely to be hither

Sources: Shell Oil Company
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
DRED (1973)

for perhaps 12 months each. Table 5 gives a listing of these jobs, numbers of
employees, numbers of relocations into the construction area necess ary, and
average 1972 wages by job-type. Operation of the port might require 75 men for a
500,000 barrel per day facility with a gross payroll upwards of $1,000,000 annually
(See Table 6). This employment level includes jobs at a booster pumping station

4
and the terminal tank farms. Numbers employed could run 50% higher depending on
the type of facility. (Note: all above information appeared in "Economic Impact
of Oil Refinery Location in New Hampshire," Department of Resources and Economic

Development, December 1973).

In addition to the above direct employment increases, indirect employment

increases must be considered. These indirect effects include increases in
employment in service industries which provide inputs of materials, power, trans-
portation, etc., that support the actual construction or operation of a deepwater
port. Additionally, the presence of a deepwater port might stimulate the introduc-
tion of related industries such as petrochemical industries. These new industries,
in their turn, would have direct and indirect effects upon the employment picture
in the coastal zone planning area.. The establishment of a deepwater port would
also impact some existing coastal industries. It is beyond the scope of this paper
to quantify these impacts. However, the expectation is that they would be negative,
deepwater ports being a competing use. The major coastal industries which-might
be expected to feel the impact are: the $1.4 million fishing industry off the
New Hampshire coast (see "Domestic Commercial Fishing and Lobstering" inventory);
the $10 to $20 million beach recreation industry, (see PEconomic Impact of Beach
Recreation on the New Hampshire Coastal Zone"); and the estimated $5 million per
year sport saltwater finfish and shellfish industry (see "Recrea-111-ional Fishing

and Boating" inventory).

TABLE 6

ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT FACTORS FOR OPERATION OF A DEEPWATER CRUDE OIL TERMINAL

Estimated
Estimated 1972 Average
Estimated Employees Yearly Salary/
Employment Relocated Wage Level

2 3
Total Employment 75 20 $12,000
Administrative 20 5 $11,750
Executive 5 .2 $20,000
Support 15 3 91000
4
Operative Employment
Skilled 55 15 $12,100
Semi-skilled 45 15 $13,000
Unskilled

1
Monoluoy design

2
Employment for fixed or floating pier could be about 50% higher

3
Assumes 6 month training program before operations begin

4
Includes employment at the booster pump station and the terminal tank farm

SOURCES: Shell Oil Company
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
DRED (1973)

REFERENCES

Little, A. D., and Company, "A Preliminary Economic Study of Alternative Methods
of Supplying Petroleum Products to Eastern Massachusetts," report to
Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, MA, June 1973.

New Hampshire, State of, Department of Resources and Economic Development, Economic.
Impact of Oil Refinery Location in New Hampshire," Concord, N.H., December 1973.

New Hampshire, University of, "The Impacts of an Oil Refinery Located in South-
eastern New Hampshire: A Preliminary Study," Durham, N.H.5 March 1974.

Raytheon Company, "Massport Marine Deepwater Terminal Study - Interim Report
Phase II-A," report to Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, MA, May 1974.

@-71-1)17F,9
G -.. , -L@ i . . I
. r-.F- n7 -.I-, @j r7"
1: j ll@;LLIIIVEFIII I

1 110111111 11111110@
1 3 6668 14104 88P6 - j