Lamprey River harbor management plan

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

i@ Ir@. C@-
0 @h 11
'@-' .1,Li
FD IF
LD Ll
U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOA A
COASTAL SERViCES C'ENTIP.
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
16 E S T 0 N , S C
LAMx- jxEY RIVER

HARBOR MANAGEMENT PLAN

M26 F;-,- @-@ j -Z'

Prepared For: Prepared By:

@% @A-AW, @-
KiMbC111,
InChase
and

HE Strafford Regional Planning Commission
550
L35
Ll

@04

1989 c A T'A L -Z i7E
June, 1989 INFOPLI.IATION C7-k "T E, R-

L it
A77AC-*MEA17-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The New Hampshire Coastal Program provided a grant for the
preparation of this management plan which was financed, in part,
by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
administered by the office of ocean and Coastal Resources
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Kimball Chase Company, Inc. and the Strafford Regional Planning
Commission are grateful for the active cooperation of the many
Newmarket residents and businesses whose generous contributions
of time made possible preparation of this report. Thanks are
also due to staff at the NH State Port Authority for their
frequent assistance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION Page 1

A. Plan Purposes

B. Plan Organization

C. Plan Summary

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Page 8

A. Great Bay Estuarine System/Coastal
Program

B. Study Area Description

C. Sketch Harbor History

D. Physical Characteristics

E. Shorefront Characteristics
F. Resource 'Usage

G. Resource Management

III. HARBOR MANAGEMENT ISSUE IDENTIFICATION Page 49

IV. HARBOR MANAGEMENT GOALS Page 58

V. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Page 64

VI. HARBOR MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION Page 80

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Page 92

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: GREAT BAY AND THE TIDAL RIVERS Page 9

FIGURE 2: LAMPREY RIVER: APPROXIMATE CHANNEL Page 16
LOCATION

FIGURE 3: LAMPREY RIVER HARBOR: SHOALING AREAS Page 18

FIGURE 4: LAMPREY RIVER: SHOREFRONT LAND USE Page 22

FIGURE 5: LAMPREY RIVER: BOAT MOORINGS AND Page 38-39
SLIPS

FIGURE 6: GREAT BAY SHELLFISH BED STATUS Page 45

FIGURE 7: LAMPREY RIVER: PROPOSED AIDS-TO- Page 70
NAVIGATION

FIGURE 8: LAMPREY RIVER HARBOR: PROPOSED Page 75
DREDGING

FIGURE 9: LAMPREY RIVER HARBOR: POTENTIAL Page 77
REUSE AREAS

I* INTRODUCTIOM

A. Plan Purposes

A plan is a proposed or intended course of action! Plans should

enumerate the reasons for their need, what they intend to

accomplish, and how they intend to accomplish it. Assuming

those obligations are discharged adequately, there remains a

problem. Plans don't accomplish themselves! People must be

reasonably convinced a plan is needed and is appropriate. Plans

need support in order to be successful. Persuasion then is an

active part of the planning process, and one of the purposes of

this plan for the Lamprey River.

There may be a strongly shared feeling, or even a consensus, that

existing conditions are not good. However, even inadecruate

existing conditions will be tolerated in preference to either

uncertain future conditions, or unacceptable future conditions.

People are suspicious of planners, especially planners in

government. Combined with an activist - wanting to get something

done - predisposition, a proposed set of future conditions may

constitute the real risk of both an uncertain and. unacceptable

change to inadequate existing conditions. Proposed change can

be, or seem to be, very threatening. one of the purposes of this

plan is to try to reduce the perceived risk associated with

proposed recommendations.

The Lamprey River is a natural feature of real beauty, important

to its riparian property owners, to boaters, fishermen,

conservationists, historians, and residents of the Town of

Newmarket, in which the tidal river wholly lies. Can anyone who

genuinely cares for the river, or the estuarine (salt and fresh

water environment) system of which it is part, imagine Newmarket

without the Lamprey? Can anyone who genuinely cares for the

river imagine the possibility of changes so profound that river

uses like fishing or boating may no longer be possible or

pleasurable? The realization we seek to convey is that

collective inaction, failure to assume responsibility for what is

happening in the river, can result in the above-described

degradation process. Enlightened self-interest and the

collective understanding of what has been happening to the river

is another plan purpose.

Questions like "how much boating traffic can the Lamprey Harbor

and River carry before that traffic becomes, or threatens to

become, excessive" are important to discuss. The same can be

said of water quality conditions in the river. Will the Lamprey

River's "cleansing capacity" be exceeded by pollution conditions

for which we all bear some responsibility?

A harbor management plan is intended to provide policy direction

through a process of analysis and active public participation.

It is the water-side equivalent to a municipal land use plan, but

with an important-to-understand legal difference. Understanding

that difference makes the public participation process a very

serious commitment and responsibility.

New Hampshire's municipalities are legally empowered to

effectuate land use regulations under constitutional law (police

power) doctrines of public health, safety, and welfare

protection. These police powers, in the form of land use

regulations, represent a balancing of private property rights in

the public interest. However, municipal land use regulations do

not extend to tidal waters like the Lamprey River.

The Lamprey from Moody's and Shackford Points to the Macallen Dam

in Newmarket is owned by the people of the State of New

Hampshire, and is held in trust for the people by the State

Legislature up to the river's natural mean high water mark. The

law (New Hampshire Constitution, Article 5, Part 2), which

developed under the English Crown, is commonly called the Public

Trust Doctrine.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court (in case law) has defined these

"public ownership" rights to include the right to "boat, bathe,

fish, fowl, skate, and cut ice" (Hartford v. Gilmanton, 101 NH at

425-426), but not necessarily the right to water access over

abutting shoreland. The "right" to adequate environmental

protection, under the Public Trust Doctrine, has not yet been

addressed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, by implication, the

people of the State of New Hampshire are the constituency for

this plan, while the New Hampshire State Port Authority is the

implicit trustee for the planning process. For this reason, the

Port Authority established the following criteria for plan

development:

1. to strike a balance between river/harbor use and

protection;

2. to strike a balance between competing recreational

uses;

3. to present a plan that is perceived as necessary and

fair; and

4. to present a plan that is perceived as practical and

implementable.

Both balance and practicality are needed to achieve desired

results.

B. Plan Organization

The Lamprey River Harbor Management Plan's organization is

substantially similar to that of a municipal land use plan. Like

a municipal land use plan, the harbor management plan has

sections on existing conditions, on major problems and issues, on

plan goals, on plan recommendations, and on proposed

implementation methods. The significant differences between a

typical land use plan and a harbor management plan relate to

subject matter treated and the harbor management plan's typically

greater degree of emphasis on implementation.

C. Plan Summary

The Lamprey River is a small, circuitous, narrow and shallow

tidal river which is part of the Great Bay estuary.

Notwithstanding its history as an important commercial

transportation conduit, today the river serves recreational

boaters, fishermen, and conservationists/historians. There are

no significant water-related industries or commercial activities

relying on the river.

Recreational boating, its need for berthing opportunities,

shelter from storms, access to points of interest and to

occasional marine-related services is important. However, the

size of the river and the harbor precludes the location there of

substantial numbers of boats. Additionally, the harbor is a good

20 minutes at "headway speed" to the Great Bay and another 30-45

minutes to the Piscataqua River and beyond, so the Lamprey would

not appear to be the harbor of choice for vessels which must

frequently journey the 18 miles to the ocean.

Essentially a river which needs a flood tide for larger draft

vessels to safely navigate its length, it is also a river with a

history of bacterial water quality problems. These bacterial

problems have closed shellfishing in the Lamprey, and together

with similar problems in the Squamscott River, has closed

shellfishing in much of Great Bay as well.

This planning effort is an objective of some importance to the

Port Authority, the Town of Newmarket, many Newmarket residents,

and "Friends of the Lamprey" who attended meetings to discuss

river/harbor problems and options. The authors of this report

take this task no less seriously.

We always have choices, even if they are not acceptable and/or

illegal. The precipitating factor for this planning effort is

the number of boat slips granted several property owners in the

harbor area recently. With the prospect of a harbor/river filled

with boats, and the potential for more, it became more urgent to

define inter-relationships and to articulate standards.

The river, we have argued, should have a moratorium on additional

boats (slips and moorings) until it is possible to assess the

impacts of those already approved but not yet located there. In

order to achieve such a moratorium, it must be perceived as

justified by people in Newmarket, at the Port Authority, and in

Concord at the Wetlands Board.

The river should also be marked by a Coast Guard approved set of

can and nun buoys which will measurably improve boating safety

and convenience. The channel is narrow and the river has

submerged obstructions, in addition to mudflats so that a

navigational system is simply indispensable to boating safety.

Other recommendations relate to personnel and management issues

which we believe would assist in establishing needed governmental

cooperation respecting river use and protection. Ultimately, the

river and harbor will either be managed in the interest of a

balance between use and resource protection, or river and harbor

management will continue to be largely driven by demands of the

various user groups. The general choices are very clear, but the

decisions which will need to be made are not fully clear.

II, EXISTIMG CONDITIONS

A. Great-Bay Estuarine System/NH Coastal Program

The Lamprey River is one of seven rivers, including the Oyster,

Squamscott, Winnicut, Salmon Falls, Cocheco, and Bellamy, which

drain into Great Bay. The Great Bay hydrologic system, with a

watershed of 930 square miles and a surface water area of 17

square miles, is one of the largest on the east coast.

Great Bay derives its fresh water largely from the above-

mentioned rivers. Comprised of salt marsh, tidal creeks,

islands, open fields, and woodlands, the Great Bay is a shallow

estuarine system with an average depth of 9 feet, one-half of

which is exposed mudflat at low tide. The normal tidal range is

between 6.5 - 6.8 feet.

The Great Bay estuary has been the object of many investigations

and analyses by researchers, students, and others. It has also

been the object of a management planning program (National

Estuarine Research Reserve Program, 15 CFR, Part 921) now being

published in final form called Great Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve Management Plan. The objectives of this

management plan are to develop a program of education, research,

and natural resource protection. The principal means by which

-FIGURE 1:

SALMON FALLS
RIVER

COCHECO RIVER

MAINE

BELLAMY RIVER

OYSTER RIVER. P
C,

LAMPREY RIVER'--

. ..... GREAT BAY

7:. SO UAMSCOTT
RIVER

0 2 4 6
ILO@ETE'RS

GREAT BAY AND TIDAL RIVERS

these objectives are proposed to be implemented are through

public education, land acquisition, and coordination among State

and municipal levels of government.

Program administration is to be largely the responsibility of the

New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game. The New Hampshire

Office of State Planning has prime responsibility for planning

and finalization of key land and water area conservation

easements. These conservation easements, negotiated with public

and private land owners, are intended to better protect unique or

critically important resource areas. The thrust of research and

education efforts is likewise directed at natural resource

protection.

The "umbrella" program for this Great BaV ... Manacrement Plan and

the Lamprey River Harbor Management Plan is the New Hampshire

Coastal Program. The Coastal Program is to, by improving the

administration of existing State laws, "condition, restrict or

prohibit various (land) uses in part of the coastal zone, and to

encourage development in other parts*".

See New Hampshire Coastal Program U.S. Department of Commerce,

National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and KH office of

State Planning, July, 1988.

coastal natural resource protection lies at the center of the

program's purpose, as well. This protection extends to coastal

and estuarine waters, tidal and freshwater wetlands, beaches and

sand dunes, and rocky shores. A two-tiered "zonal" approach to

resource protection puts the Lamprey River in both zones. First

tier areas are perceived to have direct and significant impacts

on coastal waters. Second tier areas impact coastal waters less

substantially since the marine (salt water) nature of tidal

rivers diminishes as one moves inland. The six topics around

which the Coastal Program is organized are:

1. Natural resources.

2. Recreation and public areas.

3. Managing coastal development.

4. Coastal dependent uses.

5. Historic and cultural resources.

6. Marine/estuarine research and education.

B. Study Area Description

The Lamprey River Harbor Management Plan includes the tidal

portion of the river (Moody's Point to Macallen Dam). The study

area also includes the shoreland abutting either side of the

river, particularly where that shoreland may have a potential

impact on river use or conditions. The study area does not

include the Town of Newmarket, nor non-tidal portions of the river.

C. Sketch Harbor History

Old Newmarket by Nellie Palmer George provides a concise

historical overview of life in Newmarket from its early

settlement by Europeans to about 1930, the date of the book's

publication. our interest is in elements of that history

relating to the river and harbor area.

The earliest references to the river make clear how well-endowed

the Lamprey was with fish, and how abundant game was in abutting

oak and pine woods. The earliest uses of the river were

obviously for fishing and transportation for both indigenous

Indian tribes and European settlers.

At the end of the period characterized by warfare between

European settlers and Indian tribes (1672-1725) like the

Ossipees, the Wampanogs, the Pequakets and the Tarranteens, the

Lamprey River began to be more extensively used for commerce, in

addition to fishing and transportation.

Saw and grist mills were shipping planks, boards and staves, real

necessities in that or any other time, by water as well as wagon.

The Falls at Newmarket provided power for the saws and stones,

and the river also provided access to Great Bay and beyond.

Additionally, salted alewives (as well as other river herring)

were sent to the West Indies in exchange for molasses and rum,

obviously a commerce using the river to good effect.

In the early 1900's, a Newmarket sewer project uncovered

conclusive evidence that the harbor, for some time prior to the

Revolutionary War, had been the scene of major shipbuilding

activities. In fact, 21 ships were built one year, and one ship,

at 74 guns, was then the largest ever to be constructed on this

side of the Atlantic. Interestingly, a 1752 town Warrant Article

complained that the shipyards were encroaching on the Town

Landing, a Town Landing then in continuous use for over 100

years. Obviously, the issue of public water access is not only a

phenomenon of the 19801s.

After the Revolutionary War with England, shipbuilding's

profitability on the Lamprey River declined. Subsequently,

fishing houses began to replace the shipbuilding yards. A saw

and grist mill continued to do business in the harbor.

In 1823, the saw and grist mills were sold with other property in

the harbor to individuals who subsequently formed the Newmarket

Manufacturing Company, a cotton cloth manufacturing operation

that would grow to several large buildings and a predominant

position in Newmarket's economic and social life for many years.

The Newmarket Manufacturing Company would build homes, lay out

streets, and make other significant public investments.

Newmarket, at this time, saw other industrial development take

place largely as a result of the investments made by the

Newmarket Manufacturing company.

Cotton was the raw material for the company's cloth

manufacturing. Cotton came to Boston by sea from the Port of New

Orleans. From Boston, the product came to Portsmouth, then to

Newmarket through Great Bay and the Lamprey River. Prior to the

railroad, of course, water was the inexpensive transportation

alternative. Boat design confronted the need to negotiate

shallowness of depth, narrowness of channels and transport of

cargo in bulk. Packets and then Gundalows (or gunlows) were boat

designs created by those needs.

Packets were in regular service from Portsmouth to Newmarket at

the time. They were approximately 30 feet by 10 feet wide with

short keels and a lanteen (collapsible) sail which co uld be

lowered for passing under low bridges. Very "beamy" (wide), they

could be loaded with as much as 15 tons of cargo. However, they

were not very stable, and capsize potential led to alternative

design. Gundalows were the alternative of choice. Flat-

bottomed, with a lee board and a lanteen sail, they were poled

out of the rivers, but often towed by tugs in the bay. Gundalows

proved to be a more stable and reliable solution to commerce's

shipping needs.

With the subsequent development of rail transportation and a

lessening of the economic importance of water-borne commerce from

Newmarket, the Lamprey River's importance as a resource for

commercial fisheries was again predominant. Much later, of

course, the river again became a transportation link, but this

time for recreational boaters.

D. Physical Characteristics

At one time large ships negotiated the narrow Lamprey River

channel from Great Bay to the harbor. obviously, they did so

with the flood tides, and just as obviously they were likely to

be piloted by experienced sailors who know the river. The same

cannot, of course, be said of all the recreational boaters who

might now wish to traverse the river.

The Lamprey, for much of its length, has a narrow channel with

little opportunity for maneuvering larger vessels. There are

variations in channel width and depth, of course, and channel

meandering is particularly noticeable at the entrance to Great

Bay, so it can be unequivocally argued "local knowledge" is very

important, especially now without Coast Guard-approved

navigational aids.

FIGURE 2:

0
cc)

0
0
0", "'00

ewmar et

OT K

60
.@-Al r al7v OWHHD. PWR. AB
A UT CL. 54 FT
TOWE
7 .7

L
bberla

o6
76

Mood a Pt." 4
4

8
5
4

4
............ ... . ...............i........... "2 2
.. ...........
15

4.
6 ..........
.6
2
7'

40
6
04,

LAMPREY RIVER:. APPROXIMATE CHANNEL LOCATION

Channel Characteristics

Depth at mean low water in the channel and harbor varies between

3-9 feet, with shallower depths up-river near the town. The rest

of the river varies in depth from 0-2 feet at mean low water,

making boating use prudent for only those boats which draw 6

inches or less and have experienced pilots. Even at high tide,

the Lamprey River can present difficulties for boats which might

strike unmarked, submerged obstructions due to their draft.

Channel width varies as well. In the Upper and Lower Narrows,

the channel is no more than 25 feet wide between submerged rocks

while in the lower portion of the river, the channel width can be

as much as 75 feet (+/-).

Historically, shoaling has been a problem in the river and harbor

since it has been traversed by boats drawing sufficient water to

potentially run aground. For many years, prior to current Corps

of Engineers dredging regulations, the harbor and river were

periodically dredged with, in some cases, monies appropriated by

the U.S. Congress. Maintenance dredging has been necessary in

the past due to up-watershed soil destabilization, erosion,

suspension of fine soil particles in the water column and

subsequent deposition downstream in the tidal river.

FIGURE-3:

BAY

640

'po
i@@

APPROVED 30 SINGLE
FAMILY UNITS

.SHOALING
AREA

SEWAGE
TREATMENT
FOA-t),-

LAMPREY RIVER HARBOR: SHOALING AREAS

There is a current shoaling "problem", particularly noticeable at

the ebb tide, in the vicinity of the Town landing and Bob's

Marina. Launching of boats at a low tide is difficult at best

for even small craft due to these shallow water conditions.

Environmental concerns, particularly those relating to disposal

of dredged materials, the potential turbidity caused by dredging,

and the potential water quality problems associated with

"release" of sediment-trapped pollutants, can now make extremely

difficult and time consuming any dredging effort. In addition,

given the importance of Lamprey River fisheries, any, even

minimal maintenance dredging, would have to be tightly scheduled

to avoid disturbance of spring fish releases or autumn fish runs.

Marine Conditions

Prevailing winds are from the southwest during Summer boating

months and are from the northwest during the winter. During the

Spring and Fall, wind direction is transitional.

Since the harbor is well-protected from winds during the boating

season, even from strong gale-force winds, there is little wave

activity in the harbor area. The same is true for much of the

river until the open water of the bay is reached. In fact, the

harbor area has been argued to be too wind-free, eroding

incentives to relax on-board a boat during the warm, humid months

of Summer.

Shoreline Conditions

The shoreline in the harbor area has been stabilized and

protected on the Town side for many years due to the succession

of water-related land uses located there. Virtually the entire

western and northern side of the harbor and turning basin area is

protected by "riprapping" and stone reinforced walls. Since the

harbor and river generally "ices over" each Winter, stabilizing

of shoreline banks has been necessary. only in the vicinity of

the Town landing do the ice and tidal effects appear to have

created a need for additional stabilization, and that need is not

acute.

Elsewhere in the harbor and the river where banks are not

protected by stone walls or riprapping, the natural protection by

steep banks, granite outcrops and vegetation has resulted in

little erosion. To be sure, in some locations a combination of

ice, tidal action, and boat wakes has resulted in evidence of

erosion, but the condition is not seriously threatening property

owners, and beyond enforcement of "headway" speeds for boats in

the river, these conditions are susceptible to private, rather

than public action.

E. Shorefront Characteristics

The Newmarket harbor area has had a rich history of activities

reflecting the major economic trends in the region since pre-

revolutionary time. While at one time the harbor and river were

buzzing with various commercially-oriented activities, today

recreationally-oriented interests predominate. The only

"commercial" activity is the entirely water-based operation of a

fish weir for capture of alewife and other river herring.

However, concerns for Lamprey River history are as strong a

motivator as are any commercial interests in the use and

maintenance of the weir.

Land Use Trends

In the harbor area, land use trends appear to favor shorefront

activities devoted to residential, mixed-use (residential and

commercial) and possibly limited marine-oriented activities.

Residential development of a former commercial-industrial

activity in a mill building reflects perceptions about markets

for that kind of space. Commercial reuse tends to be of a

service-oriented white collar activity, rather than industrial.

The remaining mill space (300,000 square feet) is either vacant

or occupied by an industry seeking to sell and relocate. Across

the harbor the currently vacant property has been approved for

construction of residences. Both property owners seek to enhance

FIGURE -4:

'ROAD

RESIDENTIAL
0
TOWN LAND

INDUSTRIAL

COMMERCIAL

MILL RESIDENTIAL

LAMPREY RIVER: SHOREFRONT-LAND USE

the attractiveness of their developments by offering boat slips

to prospective purchasers.

As mentioned, the entire Lamprey River is in the Town of

Newmarket. Down river from the harbor, land uses are residential

with the exception of Town property on which the Wastewater

Treatment Facility is located and the New Hampshire Department of

Fish and Game property immediately down river which is vacant.

Below the lower narrows, most of the shorefront is developed.

The most obvious examples to the contrary are at the river's

entrance to Great Bay. On Moody's Point, a residential

development has been approved with some prospect for ancillary

boat slip development although water depths do not offer ideal

conditions for boat storage. Land at Shackford Point and up

river is undeveloped at present, and while some of the shoreline

there is unsuitable for development (wetlands), there is much

suitable upland which could be built upon. The river here as

well is characterized by inter-tidal mud flats, not well-suited

for boat storage or launching.

Public Access

Long an issue in the harbor and around Great Bay, the

opportunities for public access are limited and sometimes

inadequate in construction, maintenance, or in parking.

The Lamprey River has one public boat launching ramp, a

parking/trailer storage area, and Town dock for boat tie-up. No

other public access exists on the tidal Lamprey River.

The condition of the boat launching ramp is generally good with

some evidence of scouring under the asphalt resulting in the need

for minor repairs. The Ramp width is ample, allowing two boats

to be launched during busy weekends or when fishermen are anxious

to get into the river. However, the ramp is not useable at low

tide except for smaller boats and then with some difficulty.

Parking of vehicles and boat trailers seems to be generally

sufficient for all but the busiest of holiday weekends or heavy

fishermen usage during anadromous fish runs. The same may be

said of the Town's boat dock, except when boats are left there

tied up for longer periods of time virtually preventing dock use

by other boaters.

The creation of a small park next to the boat launch ramp with an

information "kiosk" and strolling/sitting areas provides a form

of public access to the waterfront evidently much in demand.

Pedestrian and visual access to the water, combined with park

aesthetics brings a variety of "users" into contact with the

Lamprey. It is worth noting that this form of public access has

frequently been cited to us by Newmarket residents as the most

important form of access. Clearly, this little park is a valued

public resource.

F. Resource Usage

There should be little argument that the Lamprey River is a

resource of regional importance. How this resource is used and

managed says a great deal about what is being done to assure the

resource's long-term viability. Remember that the river resource

is owned by the people of the State, and that its management is

done in their interest. That means, among other things, that

management of the Lamprey River has a present and a future. We

are concerned here with the present, and in the sections which

follow "Existing Conditions" with its future management.

Boating

No commercial boating usage of the Lamprey River takes place.

All boating traffic is recreational. What then have been the

trends in Lamprey River recreational boating activity?

As general background to Lamprey River information, we can point

out that one source* believes that boating traffic in the Great

Bay increased by 35% in 1987 and similar growth was anticipated

for 1988.

Please see next page.

Until 1989, boat registrations in marine (non-inland) waters were

managed by the U.S. Coast Guard. Beginning this year, the NH

Department of Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles, Boat Desk

Bureau, is handling marine boat registrations. Coast Guard data

available through the Boat Desk (registration files were turned

over to New Hampshire) does not permit easy confirmation of the

above 35% growth figure. However, the Coast Guard has published

a report entitled Boating Statistics nearly every year. Data

from these reports (1980-1987), which in New Hampshire largely

reflects marine conditions, summarizes boat registrations,

accident data, and Coast Guard Auxiliary Programs.

Data from those reports indicate the following:

Year Total Boats Scope

1979 15,334 Motorboats

1980 16,503 Motorboats

1981 4,432 Motorboats*

1982 6,801 Motorboats*

1983 6,579 Motorboats*

1984 9,242 Motorboats*

1985 9,339 Motorboats*

1986 9,597 Motorboats*

1987 15,214 Motorboats*

Portsmouth Harbor Marine Firefighting Contingency Plan; Needs

Assessment and Recommendations Report, Maritech, June, 1988, p. 16

Based on Coast Guard statistics, 1987 New Hampshire Federal

Waters* boating traffic increased by nearly 60%! Figures are not

available for 1988, but if this information is accurate, it shows

a surprisingly large jump in previous (+/- 23%) annual boat

registration increases. In any event, the operationally

important information is that New Hampshire boat registrations

have been growing and showing real strength in that growth.

More specific indicators of boating growth trends in the Lamprey

River are quite recent. They are not as helpful because of

changes in the way information has been assembled. Mooring and

boat slip trends are useful indicators of growth in boating

within the Lamprey although not fully indicative of general

boating trends there (no information is available on numbers of

transient boaters).

Mooring information for the Lamprey River was part of overall

Great Bay statistics before 1988. The same is true of waiting

list information. In addition, waiting list numbers have

recently dropped significantly due to the imposition of a $5.00

charge for each list (harbor/area) on which an applicant wishes

his/her name.

* All motorboats used on Federal waters; includes some
inland, as well as marine waters.

At the present time, there are 608 names on the waiting list for

moorings in New Hampshire coastal waters. There are 8 names on

the Lamprey River list.

There are currently 21 moorings in the Lamprey River and during

1988 there were 22 moorings. of that number, approximately 14

are in the harbor/turning basin area, and the remainder are down

river.

With respect to boat slips, the trend is a little clearer, but

numbers are not yet fully resolved. Individual property owners

along the lower river have docks permitting maintenance of one or

two small boats. There are perhaps as many as 10 such docks,

some of which appear to predate existing Wetlands Board

regulations. In the harbor area itself, nearly all of the

approved boat slips were granted in 1988. There are

approximately 65 slips with the potential for more when the Essex

Group or the group to whom they eventually sell the mill

buildings apply.

Approved
Property Owner/Applicant Boat Slips

Walter Cheney (Cheney/Wajda) 36

Rivermoor Landing 18*

Robert Albee (Bob's Marine service) 12

Final number not fully clear (June, 1989)

Suffice it to say, that since the R. Albee slips are the only in

service at this time, the harbor impacts from boat slip approvals

to date will not be felt during this boating season.

Fishing/ShellFishing

For some time, the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game has

been managing a number of fisheries in the Lamprey River. As

will be recalled, the Lamprey River has a history as an

extraordinary resource for a variety of anadromous (fresh and

saltwater) species, river herring, and smelt.

It is not currently possible to provide strong long-term

statistical evidence of trends in the various fisheries which are

significant in the Lamprey River: the winter ice fishery, river

herring, and salmon. However, we do know that sport fisheries

are important in the State, and that the State is spending large

sums for stocking programs in the Lamprey River.

In 1985, approximately 17% of the State's population, or about

174,000 residents fished. However, New Hampshire residents are

not the only fishermen. Approximately 54% of all fishermen in

the State were residents, but a significant 46% were from out of

State. If national trends pertain to New Hampshire's 1985

fishing population (322,000), approximately 11% or 35,000

fishermen made New Hampshire's tidal rivers and streams their

choice*. The income associated with sport fisheries, in addition

to recreational objectives, are the reasons why the Lamprey River

figures so importantly in the State's fish stocking programs.

Since 1971, the Macallen Dam has had a fish ladder. Constructed

by the Public Service Company (the dam has hydroelectric

generation potential), the ladder is jointly maintained by the

Essex Group and the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game.

The Fish and Game Department reports that the smelt fishery,

which spawns about two weeks after ice out in the tidal river;

the alewives which spawn above the dam in late April or early May

and the blueback which spawn below the dam about two weeks later,

are approaching the river's carrying capacity. Those fisheries

are improving.

The Fish and Game Department is also actively managing other

anadromous species besides the alewife. Three species of salmon

(the native Atlantic and pacific coho and chinook) are stocked in

the river.

*.1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife

Associated Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish

and Wildlife Service, 1988.

Salmon Numbers Stage Timin

Coho 200,000 smolts April

Chinook 400,000 Smolts October

Atlantic 220,000 Fry April

The coho has not been as productive (returning numbers) nor has

it had the longevity of the chinook in other programs, so the

Fish and Game Department will supplant coho stocking with an

intensive chinook stocking program beginning this year and

continuing for the next four years. The Atlantic salmon program

in the Lamprey River is in its first year after achieving so-me

success in the Merrimack River. Cost of the above programs will

run to approximately $100,000 during 1989. Other species are

also managed in the Lamprey, but are not managed as actively.

The Lamprey River in the past has provided recreational

shellfishing opportunities. More significant opportunities for

harvesting mussels, oysters, and clams, exists in Great Bay

proper. However, water quality standards for intestinal bacteria

have not been met for several years, and the river, as well as a

good portion of the bay, has been prohibited to shellfishing by

the State.

The Lamprey River, as well as the Great Bay, has been designated

by the State of New Hampshire as a Class B water body. Class B

is a water quality standard permitting use of that water body for

fishing and swimming. The bacterial standard for Class B waters

is 240 "most probable number" of total coliform bacteria per 100

milliliters of water. Total coliform bacteria are an indicator

intestinal bacteria whose presence may signify the presence of

human fecal pollution. However, they may also indicate pollution

from animal sources. The 100 milliliters of water represents a

dilution standard when used with the total coliform count.

Shellfish which are called bi-valves (clams, oysters, mussels)

can store these bacteria in their stomachs which when ingested

can cause sickness. A more rigorous total coliform standard

exists for Class B "shellfish waters" which is 70 total coliform

bacteria per 100 milliliters of water. The Lamprey River,

because of its use for shellfish harvesting, and because it

discharges into Great Bay, is referred to as having a water

quality standard of "Shellfish B11 or IISBII. This standard is

reflected in State Law at RSA 149:3-IV-b.

Testing in the Great Bay and Lamprey River is conducted by two

State agencies as indicated:

1. Department of Environmental Services
Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
Water Quality and Permit Compliance Bureau
Water Quality Section

2. Department of Health and Human Services
Division of Public Health Services
Bureau of Environmental Health
Environmental Sanitation Program

Financial and personnel shortages have made for some difficulties

in testing consistency, but results from 1986 to the present have

shown consistency-

Total Fecal
Station Date Coliform* Coliform*

GB 15 5/27/86 460 460
(mouth of 6/16/86 > 2,400 210
Lamprey River) 7/15/86 2,400 460
8/11/86 2,400 2,400
9/8/86 110,000 46,000
10/6/86 1,100 240
11/10/86 24,000 460
1/13/87 460 43
4/13/87 1,100 23
5/18/87 11,000 11,000
6/15/87 > 240,000 11,000
7/13/87 1,100 460
8/3/87 > 240,000 > 240,000
9/28/87 1,500 1,500

Per 100 ML Most Probable Number.

Total Fecal
Station Date Coliform* Coliform*

GB 15 10/12/87 390 240
11/9/87 150 15
12/21/87 11,000 2,400
4/11/88 93 93
5/9/88 2,400 210
6/6/$8 430 93
7/18/88 4,300 4,300
8/15/88 46,000 4,300
9/19/88 240 240
10/17/88 430 240
11/15/88 2,400 240

Lamprey River 4/11/88 23 4
(at dam) 5/9/88 390 9
6/6/88 150 93

Lamprey River 4/11/88 930 430
(at boat dock)

Lamprey River 4/11/88 2,400 430
(at Moonlight Brk) 5/9/88 3,900 2,400
6/6/88 4,300 930

Lamprey River 4/11/88 430 150
(at Upper Narrows) 5/9/88 240 23
6/6/88 4,3.00 2,400

Lamprey River 4/11/88 43 15
(at treatment 5/9/88 150 < 3
plant) 6/6/88 4 > 3
7/18/88 43 3

Total Fecal
station Date Coliform* Coliform*

Lamprey River 4/11/88 75 75
(at Lower Narrows) 5/9/88 460 93
6/6/88 930 430
7/18/88 2,400 2,400

Lamprey River 4/11/88 150 75
(below Narrows) 6/6/88 430 430

GB 15
(mouth of Lamprey No Sampling thus far this year.
River)

The fecal coliform. test is a more accurate indicator-of human

fecal microorganisms than total coliform. The 11SB11 standard is

14 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters of water. One can see by

reviewing the above data that rarely has the Lamprey River met

its legislatively assigned water quality standard over the last 3

years. It is for that reason that the river has been closed to

shellfishing by the State's Division of Public Health Services.

Other Uses

The Lamprey River is used as the receiving water for the

Newmarket Sewage Treatment Plant discharge. That discharge,

after biological treatment and effluent chlorination, takes place

between the Upper and Lower Narrows.

The river may again be used to produce electricity at the dam.

Two applications were filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory

commission. one was dropped last year, but the proposal from

Hydroelectric Development Inc. is still active as of this moment

(6/89).

More important perhaps are the numerous "passive" uses which the

Lamprey River serves. The presence of the river is an important

factor in the lives of many Newmarket residents. Being able to

walk along the river, to observe its wildlife and see the

changing tides are important, although non-measurable attributes

of the river. These kinds of "passive uses" probably involve

more people than the active uses mentioned.

G. Resource Management

The previous section described how the river is used. This

section will describe how it is currently being managed. The

problem of unmanaged uses is the potential for abuse. Without

use standards, the competing "use groups" would very likely not

manage the river resource in such a way so as to assure its long-

term viability. Long-term viability is the object of resource

management. That is the meaning of the RSA 149:3-IV-b water

quality standards. It is also one of the reasons behind harbor

management plans.

Boating

Boat use on a river like the Lamprey requires navigational aids.

Federal Law (CFR; title 33, Chapter 1, Part 66) requires that the

U.S. Coast Guard District Commander approve any navigational plan

in tidal waters. In addition, approval is required from the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Without such an approved navigational

plan (buoy location and type), any aid-to-navigation system is

illegal and heavy fines can result.

No navigation aid system currently exists in the Lamprey. The

"informal" system used during previous boating season.s has been

discontinued due to legal and liability concerns.

Boat use also requires provision for berthing of vessels and

provision for accessing those berths. As mentioned, mooring

permits are managed by the State Port Authority while slips

(docks) are managed by the State Wetlands Board. These State

agencies do not consult on a regular and formal basis with one

another respecting applications for moorings and slips, although

clearly one affects the other. Moorings and slips both result in

boats, and marinas and harbors have physical limits to the number

of boats which can be stored.

The New Hampshire State Port Authority approves mooring

applications on the basis of boating safety considerations.

Demand for moorings is high, as has been mentioned, but demand

shrunk considerably with the imposition of a $5.00 waiting list

fee.

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Wetlands

Board approves boat slips on the basis of criteria contained in

the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules at Chapter Wt 400

"Shoreline Structures".

1. to insure safe navigation;

2. to minimize alterations in prevailing currents;

3. to minimize reduction of water area available for

public use;

4. to avoid changes in subsurface conditions that would be

deleterious to fish and wildlife habitat; and,

I
I FIGURE 5:
1
1 CO N V
Q ROAD
14%
I kf
b
1 1
1
1 100
1 0
1
s- BOAT SLIPS
I * -BOAT MOORINGS 'A
0
1 7s
1
I
I
I -
I
I LAMPREY RIVER: BOAT MOORINGS AND SLIPS
1 38

FIGURE 5

BAY

ago
-BOAT SLIPS
BOAT MOOR-IN-GS

LAMPREY-RIVER HARBOR: BOAT MOORINGS AND SLIPS

5. to avoid changes in water movements that might cause

erosion to abutting properties (Wt 401.02).

Slip numbers are approved on the basis of frontage along the

water body. For non-commercial slips, 75 feet of frontage is

required for the first 2 boat slips and 75 feet of additional

frontage for each additional slip (Wt. 402.14). Marinas require

25 feet of shoreline frontage for each slip (Wt. 402.17 (b)).

The New Hampshire Wetlands Board approved slips in the Lamprey

Harbor area on the basis of the above criteria. Therefore, while

both State agencies appear to use roughly the same criteria for

decision making, they do not collaborate respecting decisions,

nor do they appear to have similar perspectives on what

constitutes safe boating. It is worth observing that neither

agency specifically and explicitly elaborates what is meant by

"safe boating" or "safe navigation". This language appears to

make reference to judgments shared by decision-makers on the

basis of evidence presented in a particular set of circumstances.

Boat access for those with moorings in the harbor are.a is

provided at the Town launching ramp and dock. The Town

Administrative Assistant reports that only rarely does Newmarket

have administrative problems with boaters launching or tied up to

the dock. There are no Town regulations respecting use of the

launching ramp, dock, or parking lot.

Water Quality Act amendments mentioned earlier in this report,

which require discharge of marine sanitation devices outside the

three mile coastal waters limit, are not observed. Very little

Coast Guard enforcement takes place due to manpower/cost

constraints, and boaters know this. Promiscuous dumping of boat

sanitary wastes in the bay, the rivers, and harbors, is, while

not possible to establish empirically, commonplace and accepted

among boaters. To our knowledge, only one boat sanitary pump-out

exists in coastal New Hampshire, and no enforcement program has

been established there (Wentworth Marina) to reguire its use.

Collectively, we appear to accept the implication that our tidal

waters are, in fact, raw sewage receiving waters for members of

the boating public.

While we have no survey of boats currently moored or berthed in

the Lamprey River, it is our judgement that at least 30% of those

vessels have some form of marine sanitation device.

Marine boat registration is now being managed by the New

Hampshire Department of Safety. For years, New Hampshire has

registered boats in its inland waters, but the Coast Guard, until

1989, registered boats in marine waters. For inland waters, the

State has a staggered fee structure based on boat length, motor

power, etc., but marine registrations now are a flat fee for

three years (reflecting former Coast Guard fees). The State

Department of Safety appears to perceive boat registrations as a

revenue mechanism largely, and seems to feel that those revenues

should go directly to the General Fund. No known service is

provided by the Department of Safety for marine registration

fees.

Fishing/ShellfishiMq

The State Department of Fish and Game manages the several

fisheries in the Lamprey River. The principal purpose of that

management is to generate income from recreational fishermen and

enhance the managed fishery.

Strong emphasis has been placed on reestablishing anadromous

fisheries, principally the salmon, and marine fisheries,

principally the smelt, in the Lamprey River. Management consists

of monitoring species, stocking and analyzing elements of the

habitat which can influence the fishery.

The State Department of Fish and Game does not control all

elements of habitat influence which can strengthen or-weaken a

particular fishery. Especially in the case of salmon which,

after stocking, leave the estuary for several years of feeding

and growing in the open ocean, many things can happen.

Commercial harvesting, predation, disease, or man-induced

disaster can all adversely impact a fishery. In addition,

management of size and numbers of fish stocked is only gained

with considerable experience.

The Department of Fish and Game believes reductions in returning

salmon numbers over the last several years may reflect a

combination of the above factors. The numbers of chinook to be

stocked over the next 5 years underscores a State commitment to a

strong salmon fishery in the Lamprey River.

Shellfish management largely consists of monitoring bacterial

water qua lity, and regulating harvesting on the basis of those

results. The test, total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters

of water, determines the likelihood there may be pathogenic

(disease causing) bacteria in the water, which if present, would

tend to be concentrated in shellfish whose stomachs are consumed,

(bivalves) such as clams, oysters, and mussels.

water quality information earlier presented has resulted in

closing shellfish beds in the Lamprey and elsewhere in the Great

Bay. The Division of Public Health Services regulates shellfish

harvesting in New Hampshire and works cooperatively with the

Water Supply and Pollution Control Division. Both agencies have

had funding/staffing shortages affecting their abilities to

collect and process water quality samples.

The categories for classification of shellfish growing areas in

New Hampshire are derived from the National Shellfish Sanitation

Program:

1. Approved: Total Coliform (Most Probable Number) less

than 70 per 100 milliliters of water.

2. Restricted: Total Coliform less than 700/100 ML.

3. Prohibited: Areas exceeding above limits.

The difference between restricted and prohibited is only

applicable to commercial harvesting (aquaculture) operations.

Shellfish from restricted waters may be sold after undergoing

controlled purification which consists of residence time in clean

waters to enable "flushing" of potentially harmful bacteria.

We understand that shoreline water quality surveys scheduled for

this summer (1989) will not sample in areas now prohibited to

shellfishing. Time and funds are limited so that a decision has

been made to only sample in approved and restricted areas. The

thinking is that public health protection is better served by

examining quality in waters now open to shellfishing. Waters

prohibited from shellfishing do not represent a public health

liability. Implicitly perhaps, the Lamprey River's recent water

FIGURE 6:

M @PROHIBITED

SALMON FALLS
RESTRICTED
. ..... .... RIVER

COCHECO RIVER

MAINE

BELLAMY RIVER

OYSTER RIVER
C%.

LAMPREY RIVER

EAT BAY

7.7

':.@--:-SOUAMSCOTT 4L,
RIVER
\X

<</
0 2 6

KILOMETERS

45 - GREAT BAY SHELLFISH BED STATUS

quality history does not instill confidence that significant

improvements have been made during 1989.

The significance of bacterial testing is in determining the

sanitary quality of the water body and, by reference, the

likelihood of encountering pathogenic bacteria. It is possible

for these tests to show "good" results when, in fact, fecal

bacteria in cyst form (undetected) may be present. The tests are

not conclusive. Moreover! bacterial testing does not generate

information about the potential presence of viruses (Hepatitis A,

Norwalk, Polio, etc.). Shellfish can concentrate viruses

irrespective of the bacterial condition of local waters.

Other Uses

Management of the Newmarket Sewage Treatment Plant is a Town

responsibility which is reviewed by the State Department of

Environmental Services, Water Supply and Pollution Control

Division, Water Quality and Permit Compliance Bureau, Permits and

Compliance Section.

The management difficulty is to adequately and accurately dose

biologically treated wastewater effluents with chlorine so as to

kill bacteria without leaving a chlorine residual in discharge

waters sufficient to also kill fish life or food sources in the

river. Since wastewater volumes and concentrations vary,

chlorine dosage can be a fairly delicate process. one suspects

that plant design and management are not always up to those

exacting standards.

With respect to municipal management of harborfront land, there

are several points to keep in mind:

1. boat numbers will prospectively increase in the Lamprey

River over the next several years;

2. the Town has a decision to make on the reuse of the old

Town Hall site;

3. the Town is in a strong position to negotiate with the

Mill owners as they seek to sell and relocate;

4. the relocation of the Mill owners leaves about 300,000

square feet of floor space on Newmarket's Lamprey River

waterfront;

5. the harbor area has limited current fire suppression

ability;

6. the harbor area has limited current visual and

pedestrian access from Main Street;

7. the harbor area has limited retail, especially of

marine-related goods; and,

8. the harbor area has no Town developed vision of what is

should be once reuse decisions have been made.

While the Town of Newmarket has been actively discussing, in the

context of its building moratorium, impacts on the school and

water systems of various regulatory alternatives, it is usefully

discussing harborfront development options also. Ideally, a

vision for the harborfront will emerge which Newmarket will have

drawn, but which allows for flexibility of content and approach

by property owners. The Town should circumscribe development

parameters, without designing projects or seriously handicapping

land development financial opportunities. The vision must be

both politically and economically practical.

III* HARBOR MANAGE14EIlT ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

Issues reflect dispute or disagreement. In the context of harbor

management, those disagreements which seem most pronounced

reflect differences in basic perspectives about resource usage or

differences in basic perspectives about the role or ability of

government. Usually, the process of data gathering and analysis

will sufficiently inform and educate so that disagreement is

lessened. However, where disagreement is founded on economics

rather than access to information, information may simply make

disagreement more rigid. Thus far, there have been two Public

Hearings for interested residents (on April 27 and June 1, 1989),

an attitude survey (33 responses), numerous discussions with

public and private institutions (see listing which follows) and

several newspaper stories about the harbor management planning

process.

The attitude survey solicited responses to the following

statements by asking respondents to indicate whether-they:

a) Strongly Agree (+2)

b) Agree (+1)

C) Not Sure (0)

d) Disagree (-1)

e) Strongly Disagree (-2)

The statements are as follows:

1. Pleasure boat traffic on the Lamprey River is often too

heavy.

2. The Newmarket Town Landing provides adequate public

access to the Lamprey.

3. There should be additional mooring opportunities on the

Lamprey.

4. Most boaters do not exceed "headway" speed on the

Lamprey River.

5. The Lamprey River channel should be annually marked by

the appropriate authority; and those costs should be

borne by boaters.

6. The Lamprey River water quality is improving

noticeably.

7. There should be a publicly approved sewage pump out

facility for Lamprey boaters, financed by boaters.

8. Lamprey River fishing has noticeably improved.

9. There is the need for a part-time Lamprey River

Harbormaster during the summer to improve boating

safety education and enforcement.

10. Public access to the Lamprey River is inadequate, and

additional access should be financed by boaters.

11. The Town of Newmarket should work with developers of

Lamprey shorefront to preserve visual access of the

river.

12. Developers of Lamprey shorefront have the right to

exploit their property consistent with existing State

and local law.

13. The Town of Newmarket should adopt more stringent

regulations as needed for shorefront property

development.

14. The Lamprey River Harbor Management Plan should

establish financing and regulatory mechanisms, as

needed to implement management recommendations.

Individual responses were weighted, as indicated, and a "score"

assigned on the basis of all responses received. Therefore,

respondent's answers can cancel one another. Total scores

reflect degree of consensus, whether in support of or opposition

to the statement.

"Scores for the statements are as follows:

1. -14 8. -8

2. +6 9. +17

3. -14 10. -29

4. -6 11. +42

5. +3 12. +12

6. -10 13. +22

7. -12 14. +28

Therefore, with a potential total score of from -66 to +66,

respondents have indicated the greatest degree of consensus for

statements 11, 10, 14, 13, etc. Negative indicates disagreement

and positive, agreement with the statement. Looked at another

way, the lowest total scores (negative or positive) indicate the

greatest disagreement among respondents! Therefore,-.the most

substantial issues are represented by statements 5, 4, 2, 8, etc.

The meaning, to the extent this small survey is an accurate

reflection of larger community attitudes, is that:

A. Consensus.

1. Visual access to the river is'most important.

2. Public river access is adequate.

3. The harbor management plan should be implemented.

4. Shorefront development regulations should be

stronger.

B. Disagreement.

1. Whether the river should be marked and costs of

marking paid for by boaters.

2. Whether boaters do or do not exceed headway speed.

3. Whether the Town landing provides adequate access.

4. Whether fishing has improved on the river.

Of course, there is some degree of "issue" associated with any of

the above statements. In tabular summary fashion, Lamprey River

issues are:

A. Water Side

1. The amount (numbers of boats).

2. The numbers of moorings available.

3. The numbers of boat slips available.

4. Availability of moorings/slips for transient
boaters.

5. Speed of boaters on the river.

6. The extent to which boaters should assist in
financing boating improvements.

7. The size and power of boats.

8. The need for a sewage pump-out facility for boats.

9. The need for a part-time Harbormaster.

10. A harbor management plan with "teeth".

11. Adequacy of river water quality.

12. Reopening shellfish beds.

13. Maintenance dredging to improve depths at and
around the Town Landing.

14. Recent trends in popular Lamprey River fisheries.

15. The desirability of retaining the fish weir.

16. Use of the Town dock (need for rules).

17. Need for boating safety education.

18. Need for a harbor/river decision-making management
structure.

B. Land Side

1. Adequacy of public access in the harbor/river.

2. Provision of utilities and emergency services.

3. Adequacy of shorefront development controls.

4. Developer's right to exploit property.

5. The need for waterfront beautification.

6. The need to develop financing mechanisms for
harbor/river improvements.

7. A marine refueling station.

8. The need to encourage marine uses along the
waterfront.

Public agency and private citizen contacts, aside from contacts

at Public Hearings and survey respondents, have been the

following:

1. NH State Port Authority

a) Ernie Connors, Executive Director
b) Beverly Dorr
C) Richard Benn

2. Strafford Regional Planning Commission

a) Paul Smith, Executive Director
b) Rob Houseman

3. Town of Newmarket

a) Edward Wojnowski, Administrative Assistant
b) David Andrade, Health officer
C) Luke Weigle, Conservation Commission
d) Charles Clark, Fire Chief

4. NH Coastal Zone Program

a) David Hartman
b) David Murphy
C) Stephanie D'Agostino

5. NH Department of Fish and Game

a) John Nelson
b) Robert Fawcett
C) Doug Grout
d) Ted Spurr
e) Rich Tishko

6. NH Wetlands Board

a) Kenneth Kettenring
b) Gino Infrachelli
C) Frank Richardson
d) Janet Hilson

7. NH Department of Health and Human Services

a) Paul Raiche

8. NH Department of Environmental Services

a) George Berlandi
b) Richard Flanders
C) Donald Chesebrough
d) Laurie Cullerot

9. NH Water Resources Board

a) Richard DeBold
b) Gary Kerr

10. NH Department of Safety

a) Marshall Newland
b) Beth Clarke
C) Kevin McKenna

11. U.S. Coast Guard

a) William Smith (Boston)
b) Luke Brown (Boston)
C) Robert Arnett (Chicago)

12. U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

a) James Wing (Washington)
b) Anable Lang (Washington)

13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

a) Nancy Derry-Wilson (Waltham)
b) Frank Mroczek (Waltham)

14. U.S. Geological Survey

a) Rick Fontaine (Augusta)

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

a) John Kaledin (Boston)

16. University of New Hampshire

a) Clayton Penniman, Jackson Lab
b) Brian Doyle, Sea Grant Program
C) Dr. Maureen Donnelly
d) Dr. Aaron Margolin

17. Other Contacts

a) Joseph LaSala, Essex Group
b) Robert Albee, Bob's Marine Service
C) Walter Cheney, The Cheney Companies
d) James Belli, Rivermoor Landing
e) Robert Snover, Appledore Engineering
f) Edward McDevitt, Massachusetts Harbormaster's
Association
g) John Clarke, Massachusetts C.Z.M. Program
h) Joseph Migliore, Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management

IV* HARBOR MANAGEMENT GOALS

The following summary of harbor management goals reflects the

input of the many sources mentioned in the previous section of

this plan. These goals also reflect elements of the Public Trust

Doctrine and State Water Quality Law described earlier. Most

importantly, these goals reflect what we perceive is an emerging

community consensus on harbor/river growth and protection.

The goals and objectives are organized under water and land side

headings:

A. Water Side Goals and Obiectives

1. to establish a clear, approved navigational aid system

for the Lamprey River;

1.1 to work with the U.S. Coast Guard in design of a

navigational aid system and applicatio.n;

1.2 to develop accurate base maps of the Lamprey River

channel, mooring areas, docks, etc.;

1.3 to solicit Corps of Engineers approval of the

system;

1.4 to finance, install, and maintain buoys annually

for the approved navigational system;

1.5 to enforce boat speed regulations in the river;

1.6 to relocate moorings from the approved channel;

and

1.7 to periodically and minimally dredge the harbor

channel when siltation begins to restrict channel

use.

2. to establish a clear and supportable limit on total

boat berthing opportunities in the Lamprey River.

2.1 to the extent possible, base boat number limits on

existing State, legal and regulatory precedent;

2.2 to secure institutional support and cooperation

from appropriate State and municipal agencies;

and,

2.3 to periodically review and/or reassign available

boat berthing opportunities as appropriate.

3. to improve and maintain acceptable standards for

Lamprey River natural resource protection:

3.1 to identify existing sources of Lamprey River

bacterial water pollution;

3.2 to develop methods by which existing sources of

bacterial pollution will be adequately abated;

3.3 to prevent future pollution sources from

compromising river water quality standards;

3.4 to determine an appropriate zone for "prohibited"

shellfishing below the sewer treatment plant

outfall;

3.5 to re-open the Lamprey River to shellfishing;

3.6 to protect tidal wetlands; and,

3.7 to provide for the conservation of the Lamprey

River's fish and wildlife habitat.

4. to develop a systematic harbor management plan

decision-making process;

4.1 to amend the plan periodically and provide

direction on important public policy questions;

4.2 to resolve conflicts between resource user groups;

4.3 to effectuate needed cooperation between the

State, municipalities, and private groups;

4.4 to adopt and amend, as necessary, a set of harbor

management regulations for harbormaster

enforcement;

4.5 to develop procedural standards for fire

suppression, hazardous spills, and medical

emergencies on the water; and,

4.6 to establish and administer a harbor management

fund which will finance the harbormaster's budget

and needed maintenance of capital facilities on

the river.

B. Land Side Goals and Obiectives

1. to encourage the municipal development of a clear

vision for reuse of waterfront land or structures;

1.1 to improve visual, pedestrian waterfront access;

1.2 to improve public infrastructure on the

waterfront;

1.3 to preserve significant historical elements of the

Town's marine heritage;

1.4 to facilitate the creative, adaptive reuse of

historical structures; and,

1.5 to encourage development of limited marine

recreational facilities including boat holding

tank pump-out facilities and public toilets.

2. to encourage modest augmentation of riverfront/harbor

access and enhancement of existing access;

2.1 to periodically and minimally dredge the area

around the Town launching ramp to permit low tide

usage;

2.2 to develop a limited set of posted use regulations

for the Town launching ramp, dock, and parking

area;

2.3 to encourage active fishing in the river by

purchase of fishing easements from private land

owners;

2.4 to investigate and interpretively sign historic

waterfront locations; and,

2.5 to designate "scenic" view areas along the Lamprey

River and negotiate for passive access;

3. to encourage greater public awareness of the harbor and

river history, resources, and uses;

3.1 to develop a public "bulletin board" for the

posting of Lamprey River information;

3.2 to develop a Lamprey River guide with river map,

navigational aid system, harbor regulations, etc.

for the general public; and,

3.3 to work with other groups to encourage the safe

and harmonious use of river resources.

V, MANAGEMEMT RECOMMEKDATIOKS

The following recommendations are advanced with the conviction

that they:

1. strike a balance between river use and protection;

2. are necessary and fair; and,

3. are practical and implementable.

The Lamprey River has a finite capacity to support boating use

and assimilate water pollution just as it has a finite capacity

to support smelt or shellfish. While different people will no

doubt perceive those "limits" or that "carrying capacity"

differently, it is nevertheless a concept which has broad

subscription. Furthermore, it is a concept of fundamental

importance in the management of the tidal Lamprey River. Most of

us want to do what we want to do when we want to do it!

However, most of us can also appreciate the need to know when

such "demand driven" attitudes are in real danger of threatening

a natural resource or degrading a quality of life.

Most seasoned boaters will have a perception, based on their

experience, about how many boats should use the Lamprey River and

Harbor before boating safety becomes an issue. Likewise, most

sanitary engineers have similar perceptions about the inter-

relationships between sewer treatment plant design capacity and

receiving water assimilative-capacity. The difference between

the above two examples is that the latter has a scientific

derivation while the former represents non-scientific judgement.

The latter has standards which are repeatable, the former has

standards which are personal. The fact is that the latter

(scientific) example is perceived to be more legitimate, more

acceptable to us, without however, being necessarily any more

valid. Judgments can be subjectively personal or they can be

persuasive thereby serving as the basis for consensus.

The Lamprey River has a sewer'treatment plant which represents an

improvement over former Newmarket management of sanitary wastes.

Treatment (physical settling, biological digestion, chlorination)

is preferable to direct discharge of human wastes into the river.

Notwithstanding treatment, however, bacterial counts in the

Lamprey River exceed what they should be. We don't know from

where the problem(s) originate, but we do know:

1. we need to locate and abate the problem(s); and,

2. we need to prevent other like problems from arising if

the Lamprey River is going to achieve and maintain its

designated water quality standards.

To repeat, the water quality bacterial standard for the Lamprey

River is carried in New Hampshire law. This management plan

seeks to achieve that standard, and has no reason to believe

other governmental agencies and Newmarket citizens do not

likewise seek to achieve designated water quality standards for

the Lamprey River.

Boating access to the Lamprey or any other State waters sometimes

seems more managed by boater demands and budget, then by public

judgments based on clear standards. This plan recommends that

water quality is a standard which is a necessarv element in the

public management decision. Water quality and boating safety

should serve as the bases for determining river/harbor boat

11carrying capacity". All agencies of government with a role in

boat berthing decisions are, to some degree, now guided by water

quality standards. However, the acknowledgement of water quality

objectives should be a more explicit factor in decisions relating

to boat berthing.

Knowledge of a harbor's water quality or safety limit--for boats

allows management decisions to focus on apportionment of boat

numbers in the interest of fairness and balance. Without an

accepted and acceptable numerical boat limit, demand pressures

force management to establish a largely "first come - first

serve" decision-making structure, modified only by institutional

and sometimes by personal practice.

The essential basis for recommending the limitation of boat

numbers in the Lam prey River is the river's bacterial water

quality standard, the numbers of boaters with marine sanitation

devices, and what is known about use of these sanitary devices.

Given known practice, it would be foolish to assume boat owners

are not discharging sanitary wastes into the Lamprey River or

harbor.

A number of years ago, the Food and Drug Administration, the

Environmental Protection Agency and the Interstate Shellfish

Sanitation Conference, developed and modified a table (see below)

for determining how many boats a marina or harbor could support

based on shellfish bacterial standards (fecal coliform). Most

recently modified by the Marine Advisory Service in 1988, it is

actively used by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management, Water Resources Division, to regulate boat numbers

there.

Like determining the inter-relationship between sewer treatment

plant design capacity and receiving water assimilative capacity,

this determination of boat limits is scientifically based on the

volume of water, water quality standards, and assumptions about

sewage discharges:

Area In Depth in Feet Number
Square miles At M.L.W. of Boats

0.1 5 14
(64 Acres) 10 28
15 41
20 55
25 69
30 83
40 110

Area In Depth in Feet Number
Square Miles At M.L.W. of Boats

0.25 5 35
(160 acres) 10 69
15 104
20 138
25 173
30 207
.40 276

The formula is 14 Fc/100 ML = GPE/V where:

14 FC/100 ml is the water quality standard.

G = number of boats.

P = 2 x 109 Fc/person

E = population equivalent of 2 people/boat during
the boating season.

V = volume of dilution water.

For example, let's assume the tidal Lamprey River is roughly 0.1

square miles (64 acres) which equals 2.79 X 106 square feet. If

the mean low water depth averages 5 feet, the volume (V) equals
2.79 X 106 x 5. Since there are 283 (100 ml) units per cubic

foot of water, therefore:

14 Fc/100 ml = G x 2 x 2 x 109 / 3.95 x 109 (100 ml units)

G = 13.8 boats with marine sanitation devices.

If one assumes that 30% of the boats in the Lamprey River have

toilets, and that there are now in excess of 80 boats approved

(but not yet located) in the river, the above standard is already

exceeded.

It is for that reason that we recommend a moratorium on further

permits for boat moorings or boat slips. Further recommendations

include:

A. Water Side Recommendations

1. The NH State Port Authority should prepare an application to
the U.S. Coast Guard and"Corps of Engineers for approval of

an aid-to-navigation system in the Lamprey River and, as

needed, in the Great Bay to connect with the existing,

approved buoy makers.

2. Upon approval by the U.S. Coast Guard and corps of

Engineers, the NH Port Authority should purchase and instal 1

buoy markers and ground tackle in approved locations which

will then be initially displayed in the first Coast Guard

District publication "Local Notice to Mariners" and

FIGURE 7-4

co
a
ROAD

-Zo
0

*,NUN BUOY
A CAN BUOY

LAMPREY RIVER: PROPOSED AIDS-TO-NAVIGATIOlt

subsequently by the (NOAA) National Ocean service in its

chart updates.

3. Capital costs associated with the purchase of needed buoy

markers, ground tackle, and transportation should be

financed by the State of.New Hampshire Legislature.

Operating costs for personnel and maintenance.should be

assumed by the State Port Authority and State of New

Hampshire.

4. A full-time Harbormaster should be assigned part-time

responsibility for boating safety enforcement and education

in the Lamprey River by the State Port Authority.

5. The Harbormaster assigned to the Lamprey River should

develop, in conjunction with the Town of Newmarket, a

harbor/river ordinance and guide respecting use and location

of the channel, channel setbacks for moorings, docks and

other structures; use of the Town landing, dock and parking

lot; control of boat traffic; use of moorings, slips, and

other boat facilities; unsafe behavior or unseaworthy

vessels; and boating sanitary standards. Appropriate

penalties should be assessed violations of these standards

and served to boating violators.

6. The Harbormaster, Port Authority Director, and Town Chief

Executive should serve as the Lamprey River Harbor Committee

for the purpose of resolving disputes which may arise in

connection with the harbor ordinance and decisions of the

harbormaster; the need to periodically amend the harbor

management plan; and the-need to periodically review,

approve, or amend the harbormaster's budget.

.7. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should assume joint

responsibility for all financial, legal, or policy decisions

felt to be necessary to the adequate management of the

Lamprey Harbor and River. A memorandum of understanding to

that effect should be drawn and signed by the Newmarket

Board of Selectmen and Port Authority Board.

8. The Consultant to the Port Authority should establish survey

control for Lamprey River aerials and maintain information

on buoy locations, mooring areas, and the like for

subsequent Port Authority use.

9. No sailboards, jet skis, or waterskis should be -permitted to

be used in the Lamprey Harbor or river. No swimming should

be permitted in the Lamprey River above the Lower Narrows.

10. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should negotiate with the

State Wetlands Board to amend its regulations to eliminate

references to shore frontage requirements in marine waters

for commercial and non-commercial boat slip applications.

Further, the Harbor Committee should seek from the State

Wetlands board a moratorium on any further boat slip

approvals in the Lamprey River until such time as it can be

established that neither boating safety nor water quality

standards will be compromised. Finally, we recommend that

the NH State Port Authority solicit a legal opinion from the

Attorney General respecting whether State agencies are

obligated to reflect State water quality standards in their

day-to-day administrative decisions, and whether the Public

Trust Doctrine offers potential injunctive relief in the

event it can be reasonably established a State agency may

have acted in such a fashion so as to potentially abrogate

those water quality standards.

11. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should petition the Water

Supply and Pollution control Division, the Division of

Public Health Services, and the Town of Newmarket to conduct

a sanitary survey of the tidal Lamprey River in order to

locate and abate sources of long-standing bacterial

pollution there.

12. The Lamprey River.Harbor Committee should petition the Water

Supply and Pollution control Division and the Town of

Newmarket to revise the Newmarket sewer treatment plant

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit to reflect the river's 70 total coliform/100 ml water

quality standard, and to make needed changes to plant

facilities in order to achieve that standard in discharge

waters without detrimental chlorine residuals.

13. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should establish

composition of bottom sediments in areas proposed for

limited dredging; should determine the most appropriate

scheduling of any dredging activity and should explore

alternative locations for potential disposal of dredged

sediments.

14. Beyond this, the Lamprey River Harbor Committee should

seriously consider State legislation to create a boating no

discharge zone for the Lamprey River*. Such legislation

(passed in Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and other mid-

western states) would require installation of a boat sewer

pump-out facility and strong enforcement by appropriate

authorities, but may ultimately prove to be necessary

throughout the Great Bay estuary to effectively manage boat

sanitary waste discharges.

See Public Law 95-576, Section 312 [1977]).

FIGURE. 8:

APPROVED 30 SINGLE
FAMILY UNITS
JM._D@REDGING
AREA

SE W_ -A _GE,
TREATMENT

-LAMPREY RIVER HARBOR: PROPOSED-- DRED-GING

B. Land Side Recommendations

1. The NH State Port Authority and Newmarket Fire Department

should establish the needed emergency procedures and

facilities which are required to adequately protect the

Lamprey Harbor area and Newmarket waterfront.

2. The NH State Port Authority should establish a revolving

fund account for Lamprey River Harbor management expenses,

including normal personnel and maintenance costs.

3. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should encourage

Newmarket to develop a clear set of shorefront goals and

objectives as it seeks to amend the Town plan and Town

development controls. Efforts should be made to coordinate

harbor management goals and objectives with those of Town

planners. Subsequent proposals for revision to the

municipal plan or regulations in connection with the river,

should emanate from the Lamprey River Harbor Committee.

4. The Town should seek to secure needed improvements in

shorefront utilities during private property owner

redevelopment proposals and the regulatory approval process.

--FIGURE 9:

l�AY

APPROVED 30 SIN
FAMILY UNITS

POTENTIAL
--REUSE- AREAS

SEWAGE
-TREATMENT.

LAMPREY RIVER HARBOR: POTENTIAL REUSE_-AREAS

5. The Lamprey River Harbor committee should work with the

State of New Hampshire and the Town of Newmarket to

establish a location for a boat sanitary waste pump-out

facility and public toilets which should utilize the public

sewerage system.

6. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should solicit State

Department of Fish and Game and municipal Conservation

Commission participation in locating potential fishing

access points along the river, and should negotiate fishing

easements from appropriate property owners.

7. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should seek to establish

the feasibility of securing public access to the Lamprey

River for passive pedestrian "scenic" opportunities.

8 The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should work with

appropriate municipal authorities to develop a location and

design for a Lamprey River Bulletin Board. Use of the board

would be controlled by the Committee and would be limited to

appropriate events/announcements on the harbor/river or bay.

The above recommendations do not reflect any adjustment to

existing inter-relationships between boaters who may be transient

and boaters who are property,owners. The Lamprey Harbor

currently has only 2-7 berthing opportunities (moorings and

slips) for transient boaters. Additionally, we do not propose at

this time a transient anchorage for boaters since shoreside

facilities are not adequate and since approved boat numbers are

now a management problem.

Further, we recommend that the Port Authority establish a total

of 2-3 additional transient moorings, marked and enforced as

such, when existing harbor area permittees relinquish moorings

due to relocation or other cause. Fees associated with their use

should be collected by the Harbormaster. Monies should be

returned to the harbor management fund.

The harbor management fund has already been proposed by the State

Port Authority to assist in underwriting harbor management costs.

Proposals to raise revenues, such as leasing land below the mean

high tide or securing monies from marine boat registrations, go

beyond the scope of this plan for the Lamprey River. However,

additional revenue sources such as violation fines, clearly

directed at financing harbor management costs, are much needed.

The alternative to a harbor management fund will certainly be

reflected in the Port Authority budget, or will be reflected in

so me considerably less ambitious management perspective than is

embodied herein.

VI. HARBOR MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

Political support for recommendations advanced herein will not be

easy to secure, particularly since they will often require the

expenditure of funds which are always limited and for which

competition is always keen.

However, the Lamprey River's recent water quality and
navigational safety history confront'those of us who seek to

solve our public problems with difficult choices. Public law

requires approved aids-to-navigation, which are always more

costly than non-approved alternatives. Public law requires a

water quality standard for the Lamprey River which has not been

met for several years at least. There is no inexpensive

alternative if that problem is to be abated. Laws can always be

ignored and occasionally overturned, but this plan cannot

responsibly propose such alternatives.

Management recommendations advanced in the previous section

simply seek to build an organizational and financial capacity

which would make Lamprey River Harbor Management a self-

sufficient, or largely self-sufficient, process. Problems are

not solved unless they sta solved, and that doesn't happen

unless someone is managing the problem monitoring and abatement

process.

Water Use Plan

1. Navigation Aid System: 'There are three principal

alternatives, only one of which is responsible (do nothing,

develop an informal, non-authorized system, or apply for and

seek approval of a Coast Guard approved navigation system).

Cost items are:

(a) application process (base maps, engineering);

(b) buoys and ground tackle - $300 - $500/each;

(d) annual maintenance $1,000 - $3,000.

Capital expenditures could range from $14,000 $24,000

depending on buoy numbers and cost. It may be possible to

coordinate purchase with the U.S. Coast Guard or-some other

buyer to achieve cost economies.

Costs for needed buoys and ground tackle can theoretically

be paid for by either municipal, State, or Federal

government sources. The likelihood of securing Federal

funds for a river not involved in commerce of any kind is

remote. The Town of Newmarket divested itself of river

navigational responsibility some time ago so the

municipality will be difficult to involve in funding. These

are "state waters" by dint of the Public Trust Doctrine.

Furthermore, the State directly benefits from boat

registration revenues. Costs for Lamprey River navigational

marking should be either a line item in the Port Authority

budget or authorized by a special piece of legislation.

2. Operating and maintenance costs associated with buoy

emplacement and removal can be either financed by annual

appropriations and/or incrementally financed by a harbor

management fund established for the purpose which is largely

"user feel'-oriented. The latter offers the potential to be

largely self-sustaining. Fees for leasing moorings are

well-established. Fees for boat slip leaseholds and other

similar uses of "State waters" would be analagous. Inland

boat registrations, in part, provide revenues for Department

of Safety personnel. Marine boat registrations can be

similarly structured for operating expenses associated with

harbor management in the coastal environment. It is

prudent, to the extent possible, to recapture marine

administrative costs from users of marine safety and

enforcement services, and from those who would use "state

waters" (at no cost) for their own profit. The State of New

Hampshire can certainly use additional revenues, and the

lease of submerged tidal land is practiced elsewhere.

3. An experienced marine harbormaster, with knowledge of

boaters (as well as boats), is needed to:

3.1 develop a harbor ordinance, guide, and necessary

memoranda of understanding;

3.2 develop working relationships with theTown of

Newmarket, Wetlands Board, Department of Safety, and

Fish and Game Department, etc.;

3.3 monitor compliance and enforce the ordinance;

3.4 "fine tune" and assist in amending the harbor

management plan; and,

3.5 maintain the navigational aid and mooring system and

collect all fees and fines.

Such an individual should be retained by the State Port

Authority. Alternative employment by the Town, common in

other states, does not offer the same potential for rigorous

enforcement (when necessary) nor for close coordination with

other harbormasters or other State agencies.

4. The Lamprey River Harbormaster should bear major

responsibility for establishing the needed elements of a

harbor/river ordinance. Some of the particulars are now

well-known, but preparation and adoption of such an

ordinance should not precede acceptance of the harbor

management plan by the Port Authority and Town of Newmarket.

Once this plan has been accepted by the Port Authority Board

and Newmarket Planning Board, there is clear direction for a

harbor ordinance which should be accepted by the Lamprey

River Harbor Committee upon completion. Subsequent

revisions to the Lamprey River Harbor ordinance should be

accepted by the committee and posted on the bulletin board

and local newspaper before being enforced.

5. Upon emplacement of the navigational aid system, the

Harbormaster, through the Lamprey River Harbor Committee,

should prepare a river/harbor guide, the purpose of which

would be to inform mariners about buoy location, harbor

safety rules, marine services, local restaurants, and the

like. Costs associated with publication and distribution

could be assumed by advertisers.

6. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee should investigate

purchase and location of a boat sewer pump-out facility

(such as Keco), and also-establish educational and

enforcement programs with its use. The objective should be

zero discharge of marine sanitation devices in the

river/harbor, and penalties for discharge should effectively

encourage use of the facility. If enforcement services are

partially provided by the Harbormaster,, some monies from use

of the facility should be returned to the harbor management

fund.

7. A moratorium on boat slip and mooring approvals is a

prospectively limited-in-time management strategy which

should be pursued:

7.1 because it is initially cost effective and provides for

needed coordination between the Port Authority and

Wetlands Board; and,

7.2 because it allows time for the Lamprey River Harbor

Committee to create the opportunity for effective no

boat sanitary discharge in the river.

8. The goals, objectives, and specific management

recommendations contained herein should be the subject of a

memorandum of understanding jointly signed by the Port

Authority Board and the Newmarket Board of Selectmen.

9. The management objectives for State interagency cooperation

are:

9.1 recognition between the Port Authority and Wetlands

Board that they share responsibility for boat berthing

numbers in marine rivers and harbors;

9.2 recognition between the Port Authority and Wetlands

Board that New Hampshire has no effective control on

boating sanitary discharges in marine waters at this

time;

9.3 recognition between the Port Authority and Wetlands

board that in marine waters which do not meet

legislated water quality standards there is no "by

right" property-owner entitlement to a boat slip(s) or

mooring(s); and,

9.4 a joint resolution of both the Port Authority and the

Wetlands Board to coordinate decision-making in marine

waters and to issue no further approvals in the Lamprey
River until the impacts of existing approva-ls can be
assessed, a sanitar]@ survey of the river is conducted,

and the wisdom of approving additional boat berthing

opportunities can be reassessed.

10. Background bacterial water quality problems in the Lamprey

River are not primarily caused now by boat marine sanitation

devices! Sources of existing problems must be uncovered and

abated. However, once existing problems are abated is not

the time to begin to address boat sanitary discharges.

There is a good case to be made for limiting boat numbers,

but an even better case can be made for effectively

controlling boat sanitary discharges. The former is a water

quality surrogate for the latter, in the absence of existing

political and financial commitments to prevent and penalize

boat discharge. We see no alternative to this approach

given the non-collaborative nature of the state/municipal

dialogue and funding constraints associated with water

quality protection.

11. The State of New Hampshire and Town of Newmarket should

jointly conduct and finance a sanitary survey of the tidal

Lamprey River. Until such a survey is completed, it will be

impossible to determine from what sources bacterial

pollution is entering the river.

12. This plan concurs with many of the recommendations contained

in the Interagency Report on the Shellfish Waters of New

Hampshire (1989) and most especially with the letter from

Raymond Grizzle, a research scientist at the Jackson

Estuarine Laboratory in Durham:

12.1 the goal is to reopen shellfish beds;

12.2 performance of the Newmarket Sewage Treatment Plant

needs to be improved;

12.3 sources of river pollution need to be ascertained;

12.4 a "prohibited" zone around the treatment plant outfall

needs to be established; and

12.5 "water quality problems should be the ... concern of

the State" (Grizzle).

13. utilizing existing bathymetric information, the Lamprey
River Harbor Committee should explore with the NH Department

of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers procedures and

potential difficulties in undertaking limited maintenance

dredging of the Lamprey Harbor. The size, location,

characteristics, and schedule for any dredging should be

known in addition to proposed area for disposal of

materials.

Land Use Plan

1. The Port Authority can materially assist the Town of

Newmarket Volunteer Fire Department prepare for potential

waterfront fires on the basis of its existing experience in

this area. Discussions between appropriate personnel should

strive to establish needed emergency procedures and needed

capital facilities. Emergency procedures can, through the

Lamprey River Harbor Committee, be made part of the

ordinance and guide. Capital facility needs can be made

part of the Town's capital budget, to be potentially

underwritten as an "off-site" expense by private property

owners interested in waterfront reuse or expansion.

2. A Lamprey River Harbor Management fund under the control of

the Lamprey River Harbor Committee should be established.

The use of monies should be generally circumscribed in the

Lamprey River Harbor Ordinance. Sources of funds can

include Town appropriations, mooring permit and -harbor

waiting list fees, fees from mooring or boat slip leasing

and fees for other services specifically provided in the

Lamprey River by the Harbormaster or the Town.

3. The consultant regional planning agency should seek to

assist the Town of Newmarket draft a "Mill Reuse Zone" as

part of its land development controls. Such a zone could

either be an "overlay" option through special exemption

provisions of the Board of Adjustment,or a zone offering "by

right" and "bonus" provisions in exchange for public policy

objectives like improved visual, pedestrian access, improved

infrastructure facilities, marine-related services, parking

and the like. Design details could then be negotiated with

prospective developers on a more flexible basis.

4. The Lamprey River Harbor Committee, through the consultant

regional planning agency, should solicit Newmarket

Conservation Commission, NH Department of Fish and Game, and

Trust for NH Lands involvement in prioritizing, negotiating

for, and securing fishing rights and scenic easements along

the Lamprey River. The monies available to Fish and Game

and the Trust are competitive, but assuming Town, Port

Authority, and property owner support, chances for funding

assistance could be good.

5. Prospective locations for a "harbor bulletin boa-rd" could be

in the Town park, in the vicinity of Joyce's Kitchen or

alternatively near the Town dock. The concept need not be

grand or expensive, but if well-located could provide a

useful means of communicating information.on boating, the

river, and similar subjects.

Implementation of the above, which has no substantial cost

associated with it, can be accomplished by means of

organizational push. The emphasis on a small committee of

committed players is reflective of a belief that a track record

of accomplishing a few, less expensive items will potentially

draw resources for implementation of some of the larger items.

Many potential supporters of this plan will wait to see what

happens, but will "jump aboard" if the ride looks to be going

somewhere.

VII, SUMMARY A" CONCLUSIONS

Conditions in the Lamprey River warrant concern. The same can be

said of other tidal rivers, the bays, and the Piscataqua River as

well. Institutions of government, whose role it is to protect

the public health, safety, and welfare of residents using these

waters need both encouragement in that effort, and support in

abating problems herein described. Encouragement and support

must, by need, be long-term.

In the Lamprey River, much can be accomplished by cooperation

between levels and agencies of government. There are good, very

dedicated people in government who want to solve problems, but

there are also those who haven't the personal or political will

to tackle tough problems. It is not difficult to learn which

governmental employees are among the former, and which are not.

So too there are citizens who can appreciate the competition of

uses to which the Lamprey River is put, and can see their

interest in perspective with others. Likewise, there are those

whose only interest is their use of the river.

It is clear that the Lamprey River can and must be more actively,

more aggressively managed if its problems are to be solved and

solved consistently. That means clear, coordinated, equitable

management and supportive, understanding, vigilant participation
in the management process. That means, very simply, putting the
river's long-term needs as the primary objective of river/harbor

management.

DA7E DUE

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTEDINU.S.A.