[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
I NEW HAMPSHIRE czM. PROGW HT 393 .N4 C63 1976 Coastal Zone Information Genter Coastal Zone Management Program Final Report First Program Year c, L List.of Reports Boundaries A-1 Coastal Zone Definition A-2 Inventory. of State and Federal Property LA Permissible 'Uses 0@) B-1 Inventory of Land Uses B-2 Inventory of Historic Areas and Sites B-3 Public Access to Beaches and Shorelines B-4 Scenic Assessment B-5 Various Ecosystems and Their Response to Intrusion by Man B-6 Water Use Inventory B.-7 Operational Definition of Direct and Significant Impact B-8 Coastal Zone Land Use Capability Analyses' B-9 Water Uses Capability and Limitations D B-10 Permissible Uses - Priority,of Uses B-11 Alternative Procedures and Indi@es for Determining Permissible Land and Water Uses B-12, Performance Standards Based on Carrying Capacity -a Limitations B-13 Current Data on the Coastal Zone Planning Area iz- B-14 Economic Base Data B-15 Economic Impact of Certain Shoreline Users on CIO N.H. Coastal Zone -_o B-16 Socio-Economic Profile of Residents of the Coastal Zone Planning Area B-17 Socio-Economic Profile of,Users of Coastal Recreational Facilities B-18 Recreational Fishing and Boating B-19 Ocean Borne Shipping B-20 Offshore Sand and Gravel Mining B-21 Aquaculture B-22 Future Uses B-23 Arbitrary Exclusions by Municipalities of Land and Water Uses of Regional Benefit Geogra Dhic Areas of Particular Concern C-1 lnventory and Designation of Geographic Areas of Particular Concern C-2 Use Constraints to be Applied to Areas of Particular Concern 1976 The coastal zone definition, as recommend ed below, was arri'ved through the follow8Jng process: consultation was had with many agencies in federal, state, and local governmen-t.; a review was made of the 1-iterature to determine what other states 1. had done and how how they arrived at their determinations; and several. Ilew_-Engl.and and national conferences were attended Iwhere the matter was discussed.2 The starting point for-the deliniation is the definition of a coastal zone contained in the federal.Coastal Zone Manageirient Act of 1972: (a) -"Coastal zone" means the coastal water,, (including the lands therein and thereunder) and the ad jacent shorelands (including the: waters therein and thereunder), strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines of the several coastal states, and in- cludes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes,.wetlands, and beaches. The zone extends, in Great Lakes waters, to the international boundary between Ithe United States and Canada and, in other areas, sea- ward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea. The zone extends inland from the shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and.significant impact on the coastal wat-ers. Excluded from the coastal zones are lands the use of whichis by law subject:solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agents. PL 92-583 �304 Clearly then, New Hampshire's offshore waters, its estuarine waters, and its t; beaches, and its saltmarshes,are a part of t6he c4o4asLa4l zone, The difficult thing to ascertain was how much of the land ar0e4a of the state s i n -the coastal zone. Several approaches were used to 2gen(-r0ally define th-e N;H,. Coastal Resourc4s.. Management Program Ir32E 32940EI562 First Yee2kr Report Attachment A L.o energy, the siting of power 1) What.statewide policies exist relating plants, surface and subsurface mineral extraction, overall land and water con- servation that affect the coastal area? 2) What areas has the state heretofore defined as coastal for various pur- poses? 3) What natural features of the landscape would tend to define an area as coastal? 4)' In what places do residents think of themselves as living in the coastal area? A'discussion of each of these approaches follows: 1) What statewide policies exist relating to energy, thesiting of power Plants, surface and subsurface mineral extraction, overall land and water con- servation that affect the doastal area? A) A final recommendation for coastal. zone boundaries are derived after consideration of New Hampshire energy policies, the siting of power plants and other major water-dependent facilities, surface and subsurface mineral extraction policies, overall land and water conservation policies and other appropriate matters. New Hampshire has no unified energy policy.although it does have power plant and oil,refinery related siting policies which are.effective in the coastal zone. The state has no overall surface-and subsurface mineral extraction policy, neither does it have any overall land and water conservation policy. The state does have elements of all these kinds of policies and seems, to be moving toward adoption of all of these kinds of policies. The 1975 session of the legislature saw introduced and defeated measures which would have established overall policies in all of these areas. Some of these bills were defeated by very -2- narrow margin s (A bill which wou ld have established several major land use policies, jailed by one vote). Many other state actions, however, have had a special impact on the coastal area of the state. These were reviewed and assisted in the deri- vation of the recommended boundaries. Energy and Energy Siti.ng Policies: Despite*eigh teen months of avid concern about constructing an energy policy the state cannot be said to have "ddopted" any comp- rehensive,energy policy. The legislative branch has adopted several pieces of a policy, th e executive branch has proposed various other elements of a policy, some of which have taken on the nature of directives to the state agencies, others of which.-are in the form of suggestions to the state's citizens, and others of which have met with official and public resistance. Almost all impact on the coastal zone. 4, Legi!fl-a" ed.:polJci6s-,Are@ bu-_.1k poVer. generating and oil refinery siting legislation. Tthe state has recent statutes (RSA 162F and RSA 162H) whi*ch provide state review of proposals to site bulk power generating facilities (ove-r- 100 Kilovolts) and oil refineries anywhere in the state. By virtue of their nature, both kinds of facility are likely to locate in the coastal zone. Both statutes, althou.gh differing in the details, call for consideration of the effect of esthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural environment, the public health and safety and the orderly development of the region. The oil refinery siting statute also calls for consideration of the effect on coastal and estuarine waters, (RSA 162F: 8 1, RSA 162H: 9 (a) ) in arriving at a determina- tion of suitability. No other legislated policies are apparent. The -Executive branch has promulgated a series of energy policies being actively pursued by executive departments. They include: A. Encouragement of oil related development in the coastal zone, to include (i) refineries, (ii) petrochemical complexes, (iii) supertanker terminals, (iv) pipelines for oil transport from off- shore, (v) offshore drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. PurSUCAH't to these- -3- policies efforts have been made to (i) gauge public opinion*on desire for refin- eries through advisary-opinion questions on the 1974 town meeting and questions of seacoast local officials, (ii) locate suitable refinery sites from a physi,cal point of view, (iii) attempt to convince the pu@lic at large of the neces'sity for such facilities.. Testimony has been given by the Governor's office at federal hearings on energy related issues to encourage their siting quickly, and in New Hampshire if possible. B. Encouragement of use of wood as a fuel through public relations efforts. C.. Encourage conservation of energy resources by lowering speed limits and thermostats, closing public buildings in the dead of winter and encouraging use of insulation. D. Encourage the use of atomic energy by expediting thesiting processes of a facility now being proposed for Seabrook, New Hampshire. E. Waive air pollution regulations to permit burining of available high sulphur fuels and permit generating stations with inoperable pollution control devices to generate power without them. Analysis: Energy related policies recognize the dependence on the coastal zone as a place for energy related activity. Legislated policy recognizes the conflicts of the coastal zone in siting process and attempts to deal with them by placing on the siting board persons from agencies with interests in the coastal zone including: the executive director and the chief aquatic biologist of the water supply and pollution control commission, the commissioner of the department of resources and economic development, the director of fish and game, the director of the.office of planning, the chairman of the water resources board, the director of the radiation control agency, the executive secretary of the air pollution control commission, -4- the commissioner of the department of health and welfare, the director of the division of parks, and director of the division of resources, the chairman of the public utilities commission. Source: 1971, 587:3, eff. Amendments-1973. Re-enacted section. (RSA 162-F:3) B. Port Facilities: The state has a legislated policy relating to port facilities. It is embodied in the legislation creating the New Hampshire Port Authority. .,"The New Hampshire state port authority, in cooperation with the department of resources and economic development, shall: 1. Plan for the maintenance and-development of the ports, harbors and nav- igable tidal rivers of the state of New Hampshire from the head of navigation to the seaward limits within the jurisdiction of the state, in order to foster and stimulate commerce and the shipment of freight through the state's ports and, as an agency of the state, to assist shipping, and commercial and.industrial inter- ests as may be desirous of locating in tidewater areas of the state; as well.as to.encourage the establishment of accommodations for the boat traveler, the area boat owners, the pleasure fishermen, and others who pass up and down our coastline or in its tributaries; II. Aid in the development of salt water fisheries and associated industries; III. Cooperate with any agencies or departments of the federal government in planning the maintenance, development and use of the state ports, harbors, and navigable tidal rivers. IV. Plan, develop, maintain,.use and operate air navigation and land trans- portation facilities within a fifteen mile radius of the port authority headquarters at Portsmouth. Cooperate with departments, agencies or commissions of.the federal, state or local governments and accept grants, aids or services from such agencies in the carrying out of this purpose. Such authorization relating to air navigation and land transportation facilities shall include and be governed by all other provisions of this chapter. RSA 27-A: 2 The board is composed of members, five of whom shall be appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of the council. At least three of said appointive-members shall be residents of the cities and towns of the seacoast region and tidal waters and each shall serve for a term of five years,- providing that of the first appointments hereunder one shall be appointed for a term of one year, one for a term of two years, one for a term of three years, one for-a term of four years and one for a term of five years. Said members shall serve until their success.ors are appointed.and qualified. Any vacancy occurring in the member- ship of the appointive members shall be filled by the governor and council for the unexpired term.. In addition to the five appointive members the following officers shall be, by virtue of their offices, members of said board: the commissioner. .of the department of resources and economic development, and the president of the seacoast regional development association. RSA 271-A: 1 Analysis: The Port Authority has used its powers to control moorings and docking and navigating facilities for recreational, commercial fishing and in- dustrial uses. C. Surface and Subsurface Mineral Extraction. 1. On Land. The state has no policy on surface or subsurface mineral extraction except that municipalities Are assumed to have the power to control such extraction. Most municipalities with- in the coastal.zone have exercised,this power to control rock quarrying, sand, gravel. and clay excavation and removal. No other currently commercially valuable minerals have been located in the Seacoast (although granite was mined in the area a century ago). 2. Water'. The state has clear authority over excavation of minerals from under the state's waters. Such an excavation is subject to two approvals: a. The special Board of the Water Resources Board must approve under RSA 483-A: 1 (a) supplement. b. The Governor and Council must approve under RSA 4:40 (a) (e) supple- ment. A recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, Sibson vs. State of_pf@ A_Ham shi.re _NH 1975), has affirmed the' power of the state to legislatively protect critical salt marshes through the police power, giving great strength to-the state legislative policy on .wetlands. No policy is evident on attitude toward offshore mineral extraction other than that it shall be controlled by the state. C. Overall land and water conservation policies. The state has few over- all land and water conservation pol.icies. It has no state adopted land use plans. It does have state adopted Basin Plans which set water quality standards under �303 of-the federal Water Quality Act Amendments of 1972 and prior federal legislation and state legislation to implement the goals of the plans. The state also has an adopted set of air quality standards. The state has long enabled substate districts to adopt land use plans under the aegis of regional planning commissions. The coastal zone regions have done so. These plans are advisory only. The has long enabled municipalities to adopt land use plans and land use control measures. Many of the coastal municipalities have adopted such plans and all have adopted land use control measures. g 4 See Report #4 Zoning Controls Analysis, Southeastern New Hampshire Re lonal Planning Commission (1975) and Strafford Regional Planning Commission, Zoninq Composite (1975). -7- No general controls are exercised over water use - various departments and agencies regulation various aspects of water use as reported above. 2) What areas has the state heretofore defined as coastal for various purposq-_s? SLe e MaL A) Planning districts - the ocean or estuarine waters abut 2 regional planning districts - the Southeastern and the Strafford Regional Planning Commissions districts. These two district regions-have been merged with a third, the Southern Rockingham to form the Strafford- Rockingham Regional Council. B) Tourist promotion districts - one state recognized tourist promotion and economic development district exists; it is entitled the Seacoast Regional Developmen t Association. C). The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game has a seacoast district D) The New Hampshire Port Authority jurisdiction is defined as circle with a 15 mile radius from it's headquarters at Portsmouth. E) County boundaries - the boundaries of Rockingham and Str afford Counties are identified. F) Legislative districts are based on municipal bound ries. G) Districts of the New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways. Ck 4 None of these boundaries are totally cotern-iinous although several share boundary lines at various points. -8- The regional planning commission boundaries, for example, inclu'de all of Strafford County but only about two.thirds of Rockingham County. The only two boundaries which. one irilight assume were drawn based primarily on someone's concept- ion of the extract of the "Coastal" area, are that of the New Hampshire Pr,''- Authority, and that of the Seacoast Regional Development Association. 'Although -similar in their northerly area - both include Somersworth, Dover, Madbury and Lee, they diverge-thereafter, the Port Authority's juri@diction-,encompassing all of those -er, the Development Association's extending west- municipalities abutting salt wat ward to include Atkinson, Hamptstead and Sandown. Similar comparisons can be made for any of the other outlined districts. The Fish and Game district logically includes all municipalities abUtting salt wateri but also includes several other -inland municipalities as well. The highway depay-tment district extends further inland but there is no reason to suppose that the boundaries should have a logical connection with coastal waters. in summary, examination of existing political boundaries demonstrates that n o single,.except perhaps of that of the Port Authority, has as a primary purpose, a.relationship to coastal waters. \ jea, 3) What natural features'of the landscape woul+d tend to define an area as coastal? A) River Basins - the Piscataqua and coastal watersheds (as defined as a Basin by the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission in accord with 303(e), of the Water Quality Act Amendment of 1972) approximate the Southeastern and Strafford Regional Planning Comm- ission borders. A portion of the Merrimack basin is included in the area of the Southeastern and Southern Rockingham planning regions and is only 10 miles from the.ocean. The Merrimack is a very large basin, however. and, considering the language of the federal stai(Ite, an incusion of the whole Merrimack basin is clearly inappropriattr..'. -9- Yortions of the Merrimack basin that include the Pow Wow, Little, and.Spicket River watersheds are similar to the upper reaches of the Pis'cataqua Basin in potential.effects on coastal waters, i.e. they, are located at similar distances from estuaries and ocean waters, and land uses there would have a similar effect on coastal waters. B) Coastal Plain - the western edge of the coastal plain was determined' from geologic and topographic maps. C) Climate - no clearly defferentiated micro-climates were discovered which might have resulted in a determination. In summary, the natural features of the landscape do.not clearly define an area as coastal. Parts of the Merrimac River basin are (@O@e-z-rly as "coastal" as are- the upper reaches of the Piscataqua. The western edge of the coastal plain is ill defined in New Hampshire. The exact edge of the coastal plain varies within a mile or so depending on the defin- 6- ition used.- whether it be defined by soil type, bedrock type, aver.age slope, or other means., In any event, it is approximated by Route 125 from the Massachusetts border to Rochester. Route 125 follows the abandoned route of a railroad which was laid at the westerly edge of level land in the 19th century. 4) In what places do residents think of themselves as living*in the coastal area? A) A survey is underway by the University of New Hampshire funded by the Sea Grant Program which will assist in determining the answer to this question. No answers are available as of this writing. Summary existing definitions No existing single district was formed v%dth the g oals of the Coastal Zone Man- agement Act in mind. All of the many*districts in existance offer some assistance arriving at a boundary. Examination of the accompanying map reveals some [email protected] _10- similiarities the Port Authority limits, the Fish and Game Commission district,'and the coastal plain as roughly defined by Route 125, are similar in location, and enclose, roughly, the municipalities with frontage on @',alt water. County boundaries, regional planning commission boundar4.es and the afore- ment-ioned watershed boundaries roughly approximate each other at twice the distance inland of the boundaries citied in the preceeding paragraph. Ano ther incidental,consideration is the exista nce of ba@e maps at a suitable ry scale for planning purposes. NOAA has rather strongly suggested use of the nelq 71@ minute series by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) at the scale of 1:24,000 These maps are available only for the area approximating the coastal plain. -Definition In order to suggest a boundary, certain assumptions had to be made about the nature of a coastal zone management program in New Hampshire. The first set of assumptions is based on the exisicing governmental structure and attitudes toward that structure: 1) municipalities, not counties, and not the state, have been the basic land use decision making bodie@ in New Hampshire; 2) the state legislature is strongly inclined to defer decisions to the municipal level; 3) all coastal municipalities have a histroy of using land use control devices (such as zoning and subdivision regulations); 4) all coastal lands fall within the jurisdiction of a municipal govern- ment; 5) offshore waters are not under the jurisdictions of any municipal gov- ernments; 6) estuarine waters are under both local and state control; 7) the Coastal Zone Management Act calls for state control over matters of state concern, but recommends resolution of land and water use conflicts of local importance at the local level. The second set of assumptions is concerned with the subject matter of a regula- to ry statute: 1) the closer a use is to coast-al waters the greater the state's concern over it;. 2) the larger the magnitude of a use, the greater the state's concern. From these points sprung the concept expressed below, that there be several geographic areas within which differing degrees of control would be exercised by the state: 1) a primary zone where almost any land or water use Could h ave-a direct and significant impact on coastal waters; 2) a secondary zone where many uses could have a direct and significant impact on coastal water quality; 3) a tertiary zone where only a few large uses or use changes, would have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. The limits of the coastal, Piscataqua and the Pow Wow, Little and Spicket-t River watersheds is posited as the largest area with-in which a use change would have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. It is here called the tertiary zone. Municipalities with tidal water frontage were posited as seco4dary zone. A primary zone was posited which would include a) all areas over which there is no comprehensive land and/or water use policy exercised by anyone - i.e. offshore waters, and estuarine waters, and b), all areas which have a direct and significant impact on coastal zone management plan, particularly areas where there are fragile ecosystems and their-upland edges, and industrial port, docking and navigation areas. (It was strongly suggested by several local officials that the Primary Zone, where state standards, or regulations, or supervision would be most encompassing should be limited to the.area bel.ow'mean high water since that is the only area not currently subject to any comprehensive use controls since local zoning can, and in some municipalities does, effectively control amost every land use that a coastal zone management plan could hope for. In practice, however, most coastal municipal- _12- ities do not eXercise their full complement of powers, particulat-ly when protection of critical natural areas or developments of more than local concern are involved.) The @rocess of defining the areal extent of the primary zone: 3j; The initial understanding of which land based ecosystems are peculiar to the coast, and also fragile, produced the following list: A) beaches B) sand dunes C) salt marshes D) tide flats E) rocky shores F) the banks of salt water ways and marshes These were mapped. It was then posited than an area landward of these ecosystems probably ought to be used carefully in order to limit likely intrusions into the fragile ecosystems by side effects of various activities on dry land. Physical considerations inade.in determining that the landward extent of -the area were: a) the distance polluted effluent from septic tank and tile field sys tems is likely to travel in very well dra ined sand and gravel soils (75 feet or more is not uncommon). b) the elevation to which-1) hurricane purshed sea water and wave action can reach (wave action against rocky shores or seawalls can reach 50'-60' above MSQ, 2) rain and hurri.cane induced flooding has.reached or is likely to reach in the marshes,(approximately 10' above MSL). c) the distance which soil erroded from upland areas, and moved by storm water, will travel through a natural vegetated cover, before cleansing itsel-l" (sedi- ments such as sand particles drop out in a '15'-20' grassed strip - oils and other dist ilates of petroleum may stay in suspension for much greater distances.) d) tile distance that a 21-, story building (typical of the non-commercial/ industrial por tion of the seacoast) is clearly visable from the critical areas if intervening vegetation is left in place (50-100 feet). e) the distance inland, port and docking facilities are likely to'e'xtend, (1000 feet). Political Considerations Used In Determining the Landward Extent of the Area Were: Standards used previously by the legislature in determining a distance for regulation to protect waterways.in somewhat similar circumstances*were review-Ad. 1000 feet from waters edge was the jurisdict ion of the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission under RSA 149e as orginally passed, (regulation of subsurface septic system). Conclusions Finally, given all of these factors, it was determined by an exercise of judge- ment that 1000 feet horizontally or from the landward edge of saltwater or saltmarsh, or the 20 foot contour,Lwhichever wa's further inland, was the best approximation of an area within which most activities.would need to be regulated. More than 2000 feet horizontally was.clearly excessive and less than 500 feet was too little, less than 10 feet above MSL was clearly too little and 40 feet above MSL was clearly too much. The resulting numbers fell in the reasonable range. I There area host of zoning decisions which state the principle that, when the exact location of a bOUndary is fairly debateable, within.certain limits, that sin ce the "line must be drawn somewhere," it need not be absolute defensable to the last foot. Upon this principle rests the use of the approximation.) The secondary zone was defined as all those municipalities having frontage on tidal waters (with some mi nor exceptions, the landward extend of salt water and tidal water is identical within a few hundred feet at most duetothe presence of mill dams at the head of tidal water on all major rivers). Municipal boundaries were suggested since municipalities are the level of government at which the overwhelming -14- number of basic land use decisions are now made. A list of geographic areas where the coastal zone management system would come to play, and a list of uses that-will call the system into play, was posited as a part of this boundary determining process. For example: almost any use ofthe beaches, or barrier dunes or marshes, would probably have a direct and significant effect on-coastal waters. Any industrial or commercial use on dry land adjacent to coastal waters.that included a paved parking area from which the storm water runoff drained directly into coastal waters would have a direct'- and depending upon its size, and the various other factors perhaps a significant impact on coastal waters. Similarly septic tank installations, road building, and other various kinds of construction activities, 6n dry land, could have direct and significant impacts if located on parcels of land abutting marshes or salt waters. On the other hand, activities at the scale,of single family houses, or even mixed residential and commercial development typical of downtown Port--smouth, located on sewer lines on relatively "high" ground (20' above MSL), and not on'the ocean front, has little direct or significant impact on coastal waters, if problems caused by storm drai.nage and domestic sewage.are take care of. But, large industrial complexes which discharge large quantities of pollutants, or require large fresh water divisions, can be located many miles inland and still directly and significantly affect coastal waters. Legislative Action During the 1975 session of the New Hampshire General Court the House Committee @J on Agriculture and Environment with the assistance of regional planning commission- personnel, state planning personnel, and legislative services personnel ("legislative services" provides legal drafting service to the state's legislators) proposed a definition of a coastal zone. Since most land use decisions are now made by munici- palities, and since legislative and state administrative districts follow municipal boundaries, the legislative committee proposed a boundary which followed municipa.1 and l.egislative districts approximating the boundaries suggested above. The coastal zone was therefore described as follows: 'T Coastal Zone. The general courtestablishes the following areas as the coastal zone. All that land and water within the area deliniated by the easterly limits of the state jurisdiction in the Atlantic Ocean; the boundary with Massa- chusetts be inning at Seabrook and ending at the eastern boundary of Atkinson; the 9 western boundary of Maine beginning at Portsmouth and ending at the norther boundary of Wakefield; and a line commencing at the western juncture of Plaistow and the Massachusetts boundary following theline of the western and southern boundaries of the towns of Plaistow, Kingston, Danville, Sandown,,Chester, Candia, Deerfield, Northwood, Strafford, Farmington, Milton, Middleton and Brookfield; and ending at the northern boundary of Wakefield at@the Maine boundary line." House Bill 362 at passed by the New Hampshire House of Representati.ves. (The bill did not pass the New Hampshire Senate.) -16- ZONE MANAGEMENT AS DEFINED BY OTHER STATES Alabama The Coastal Areas Development Act defines the coastal area as "the coastal waters and adjacent shorelands strongly influenced by eachand in proximity to the shorelines of Alabama, and includes transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands and beaches. The area extends seward to the outer limit of the United States territorial sea and extends inland from the shoreline only to the extent necessary to control shorelines, the uses of which have a direct and sig- nificant impact on coastal waters." Coastal waters include sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous, ponds and estuaries. For planning purposes, the Co@stal Areas Board has divided the coastal area into a Primary, Secondary and Tertiary zone. The Coastal Areas Board will h.ave broad management authority over the Primary Zone, which includes all lands at or below 10 feet, above mean sea level and all submerg ed lands seaward to the terri- torial limit. In the Secondary Zone, the Board will have authority over "activities signi-f- icantly affecting the Primary Zone." This zone will include the area between the.inland boundary of.the Primary Zone and 50 feet above mean sea level. In the Tertiary*Zone, the Board will act in an advisory capacity to local and county governments and the Regional Planning Coinnission, and cooperate in various planning and implementation studies. The Tertiary Zone extends from the inland boudary of the Secondary Zone to 100 feet above mean sea level. Alaska A broad coastal zone area has been defined for intial planning purposes with -17- the seaward boundary corresponding to the three-mile territorial limit and the shoreward boundary approximating the upper limit of the coastal zone biome or ten miles from mean high water, whi"cheveris greater. The boundaries will vary. Jn estuarine areas to accommodate extensive portions of the river drainage basins of the estuaries. California Section 27100 of the Cal-ifornia Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 de- fines the boundaries of the coastal zone as extending seaward to the outer limit of State jurisdiction and extending inland to the highest elevation of the neareast coastal mountain range, except that in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, theinland boundary is the highest elevation of the nearest coastal mountain range on five miles from mean h igh tide, whichever is a shorter distance. Michigan The State is divided into 14 designated planning regions, each wi th a reg- ional planning commission or planning and development commission.. Ten of the fourteen regions include shoreland.areas and will participate in formulation of the coastal zone management program. As a rule, the planning area will include a zone extending about one-half mile inland from the shoreline of each region. Mississippi A refined definition of the c oastal. zone boundary is an early task in the development of Mississippi's comprehensive coastal zone management plan. -However, a tentative boundary for planning purposes has been deliniated employing the con- cept of primary and secondary zones. -18- Tentatively-, the primary zone will include lands inland one mile from mean high tide, or the limit of the critical hurricane exposure zone. The secondary zone, where the MMRC will assume the a dvisory,rathe'r than a management role, includes. all lands extending from the inland limits of the primary zone to the landward boundaries of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties. Oreg, on- The coastal zone of Orego.n is defined in enabling legislation as extending from the crest of the Coast Range on.the east to the State's territorial jurisdiction on the west (seaward). This zone is subdivided by counties into four districts, in each of which has been established a coordinating comittee. Virgin Islands The boundaries of the coastal zone are defined to include the land area and surrounding waters of the offshore islands and cays, all privately owned land within a national park bo undary below an elevation of 200 feet, the entire water areas surrounding the main island from mean high water to the established three- mile limit, and the land areas of the main islands which eXtend inland from mean high tide to an elevation of 200 feet, except where land is relatively flat the boundary will extend 800 feet inland. Washin2ton The landward area of Washington's coastal zone has been deliniated through the Shoreline Management Act. The area included in that within 200 feet (measured on a horizontal plane) of the mean high tide line but including all marshes, bogs, swamps, estuaries, floodplains and associated wetlands and streams of 20 cubic feet per second or more. One -task to be accomplished during theleardevoted to program development will be to reexamine the existing designation for adequacy. Wisconsin The planning area is composed of the 15 counties adjoining Lakes Michigan and Superior. In addition to providing a consistent political boundary, this relatively deep planning area will provide sufficient area to analyze the impact of land uses on the coastal waters and, if necessary, provide alternative manage- ment zones, particularly inthose cases where a standard land setback zone from the water will not be adequate to encompass the boundaries of certain critical resource areas. The shoreland management boundaries provide a feasible management area, in- cluding those u.nincorporated lands within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water- mark of navigable lakes, including the Great Lakes. Further, Section 87.,.30 of the Wiscon5in Statutes requires,that counties, cities and villages regulate the floodplains of streams including those tributary to the Great Lakes. Jointly, these two statutes provide a possible zone where-State and local authority may be imposed on land use. However, experience with these statutes and the proposed management needs in the-coastal zone indicate potential modification of this zone. From: State Coastal Zone Management Activities 1974, U.S. Department of Commerce, October 1974. 2 Coastal Zone Management Conference, Annapolis, Maryland, May 1973 Coastal Zone Management Conference, Charleton, South Carolina, March 1974 Meeting of coastal New England states sponsored by various organizations at Portland, Maine, Portsmouth, New Hampshire and Boston, Massachusetts. I i EUITJ@E MUM T V, A V a- n I N.H. Coastal Resources Management Program First Year Report Attachment A - 2 15Y -------------- - 181976 Ay INVENTORY OF STATE AND FEDERAL PROPERTY INTHE COASTAL ZONE Prepared by Strafford Rockingham Regional Council The preparation of this report was supported in part by a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 19712, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, Na-L,- ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Introduction In accordance with the contract between the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council and the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Plan- ning, dated May 25, 1975, this is a listing of all state and federal properties in the primary and secondary coastal zones as defined. State highways'and a description ofeasements connected with them have been included. Federal properties in the tertiary zone have been listed. Federal and State Properties Tax records and, where available, tax maps, of all towns located in the primary and secondary zones were checked. Listed state and fed- eral properties were recorded and the information was placed on the accompanying maps where possible. This information was not complete, however, and further research was necessary in order to complete the inventory. State properties were.fur ther inventoried by checking the records of various state agencies, such as -the Department of Public Works and Highways and the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game. Their recordr@-l contain a brief description of the parcel, but usually did not provide exact boundaries. This information was placed on the accompany- ing maps where possible. Copies of the pertainant records are included in this report. Further details are available at individual state agencies. A further survey of federal property was conducted, by contacting individual federal agencies known to be active in the coastal zone (in- eluding the tertiary zone). Department of Air Force, Department of -the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of Agriculture and the United States Postal Service were contacted. The General Services Administra- tion, which is responsible for the control of much federal property, was contacted as well. A number of towns in the tertiary zone were also contacted.. The resulting information was placed on the accompany- ing maps. The properties located by these efforts are included in the tables and data sheets contained in this report. Information is also graphically displayed where possible on the 1:24,000 scale maps which accompany the report. Two tables have been included in Table 1 - State and Federal Properties -- Primary and Secondary Coastal Zones and Table 2 Federal Property in the Tertiary Zone. .Table 1 lists, by town, state and fede ral property in the primary and secondary zones. Included are the owner (federal government, state, and where available, state agency, such as New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game); local tax map and parcel numbers; acreage; land and improvement (i.e. buildings and structures) values (where available); and an indication of whether or tracing of the tax map was made (trac- ings are in Strafford Rockingham Regional Council files). Table 2 provides a listing of federal properties in the tertiary zone. Indicated are ownership and lot size. Federal property.in this zone is in small parcels, primarily as post offices. These properties are not thought to be significant to the development of the New Hampshire Coastal Zone Management program. Following Table 2 are the source data sheets obtained from indi-- vidual state agencies consulted in developing the inventory. Data sheets are arranged alphabetically by town in which the property is located. Highway Rights-of-Way and Easement Descriptions - Table 3 This portion of the effort is composed of an inventory of highway rights-of-way and power line rights-of-way when adjacent to a highway. These right-of"way descriptions were obt.ained directly from the New Hampshire Department of, Public Works and Highways. Unless ot herwise noted, all rights-of-way belong to that agency. Prior to outlining the methodology used to identify right-of-ways, a few terms need to be defined: Right-of-way (ROW) is defined as that width of land over which a public utility is built. F or highways and powerlines, the ROW is ,usually measured equally on either side of the utility,, with the road centerline or center power line being the divider. State (Sta.) is the term applied to points marked along a highway at intervals of one hundred feet; facilitating the description of ROW's system would usually which vary from station to station. The nuri assign the number 0+00.00 to the first station and 5+50.00 to the point 550 further down the road. Unfortunately, stations are not always numbered consecutively along the same highway because subsequent road improvements often result in a new numbering system. A mathematical equation is used to convert a station number from an old system to one in the new system. For example, old station 0+01.55 might become new station 10+01.55 when the equation is applied. Changes in station numbering as a result of the equation system are indicated in the description of highway right-of-ways. The methodology used to determine ROW's involves locating blue- prints and plans of specific highways and measuring the ROW's from sta- tion to station. This process is complicated by the fact that the highway department utilizes two different filing systems for their plans. An "old system" is used when referencing roads which have not under- gone major improvements in the past 30 or 40 years. The "new systemit encompasses any road or portion of a road which has been more recently improved. A more complete description of these two systems follows: Old System. This system, initiated as part of the WPA pro- gram, uses U.S.G.S. topographical maps to locate highway projects. The U.S.G.S. system divides the state into numbered, uniform grids which can be found superimposed on an index map of the state included in the highway department records. This larger map is used to identify a specific geographical area and its associated grid number. It is.then possible to refer to a more detailed map of the specific grid, in order. to determine ROW's. Each highway included in the old system is ident- ified by two numbers, i.e., 10-58. The first number refers to the specific project and the latter to the grid number. Once the project number of a particular highway is known, it is then possible to obtain the plans for.that project and measure the ROW's. New System. This system consists of maps arranged by co@unty. On each map, areas of highway construction are delineated and numeric- ally labeled. These numbers identify the projects once they have been located on the map. On the page facing each map, these numbers are listed, followed by the job number, date of the project, and the number of the highway plan that contains a detailed description of the ROW's. On occasion, a brief verbal description and width of the ROW are also included. Information obtained from the Department of Public Works and Highways has been presented in Addendum Two -- Highway Right of Ways. Information is arranged alphabetically by towns in which the property is located. Each listing indicates whether the old or new systems (see above) has been used for classification. In the case of the new system, ID-numbers, job numbers, descriptions and the plan number containing a more detailed listing of right of way are given. Old system citations are limited to a road number, grid number, and width of right of way, in rods. Rights of way associated with the 1-95 widening project are listed separately at the end of Addendum Two. More detailed,descriptions of all listings can be obtained through the Department of Public Works and Highways using the given plan numbers or road and grid numbers as appropriate. The highways researched have been presented on maps accompanying this report. Highway on the maps have been coded to the numerical ID numbers listed for them in the tables presented in Addendum Two. They have also been color coded on the maps according to the following scheme: Blue - State Primary System (Class I) Orange - State Secondary System (Class II) Yellow - State Recreation Roads (Class III), ,Green - Maintained town road (Class V) Brown - Non-maintained t-own road (Class VI) Red - Forest development highway (Class VII) It should be noted that the state has recently completed classi- fication of all roads to comply with a new federal system. Full con- version has not been completed, however, and coding has been done to comply wi.th the old system. For future reference, the new system in- cludes the following classifications: (a) Freeways: Provide regional and metropolitan continuity. Limited access; no grade crossing, no traffic stops. (b) Expressways: Provide metropolitan and city continuity and unity. Limited access,,some channelized grade crossings and sig- nals at major intersections. Parking prohibited. (c) Major Roads: Provide unity throughout contiguous urban area. Usually form boundaries of neighborhoods. Minor access control; channelized intersections, parking generally prohibited. (d) Secondary Roads (Minor Arterials): Main feeder streets, Signals where needed; stop signs on side streets. Occasionally form boundaries for neighborhoods. (e) Collector Streets: Main interior streets. Stop signs on side streets. M Minor Streets: Local streets., Nonconducive to through traffic. (g) Loop: Same as minor streets. (h) Cul-de-sac: Street open only at one end with'provision for a practical-turn-around at the other. (i) Alleys: Used primarily for vehiculzix service access to the back or the side of properties abutting a street. Table 1 State and Federal Properties Primary and Secondary Zones Table 2 - Federal Property in the Tertiary Zone Inventory of State Property -- Individual Data Sheets Table 3 Highway Rigbts-of-Way and Easement Descriptions Map Parcel Land Value Improvemen-l, Value Town/Owner Number Number Acres in Dollars ir, Dollars Map Traced f-'x e ero 08-16 17 2 --- Yes _f -ighway Pipperty for additional listing) ife f N.H. (See lecord of I --- Greenland Fish & Game No taf maps Approx 5C --- ----- Approximated .Fish & Game 11 11 1 acre --- ----- If Highway Dept. Refer to record of highway prop- erty Hampton Yes State 006 002 2-.5A 1730 ----- Fish & Game 037A 019 2A J00 ----- Not mapped State 039 004 4360 Yes Highway Dept. 039A 020 4 100 - ----- Yes 096 300, Fish &.Game 031 Yes State 263 008 12 4100 Yes State 263 010 6.3 3000 - ----- Yes Highway 263 013 700 Yes Highway 263 614 2000 5100 Yes State 300 006 1.7 160 Yes H i ghway 310 009 1.1 80 Too small Highway 320 001 53.8 3810 Yes Highway 320 002 11.3 1430 Yes Highway 320 Oil 2.6 1460 Yes State 370 624A 20.3' 5300 Yes tate 370 030 4.2 1.3,700 Yes ighway 380 005, 6710 16,810 Yes. lighway 380 006 1.15 4000 -13,300 Yes Highway 410 001 5.7 5300 Yes Fish & Game 420 014 10.6 2120 Yes Fish & Game 420 5000 Yes State 998 057 4 120 Not mapped Fish & Game 998 070 172marsh 60 Not mapped I a,nl State Park Not apped w/ pprox 50 tax ecords Hampton Falls None New Castle State Fort Will4am & Mary Not mappeJ Approximated -Federal Gov't. Fort Star@ Not mappel Approximated Federal Gov't. Coast Guaid Station Not mappel (Approx.'ll icres) Approximated -Newfields Highway 6 34 Yes Newington Highway State gar@ge Yes State 7 Approx 3 Yes te 7 Approx 6 Yes eral Gov't. Pease AFB Not mappld TABLE I.- State and Federal Properties Primary and Secondary Coastal Zones Map Parcel Land Value Improvement Value Town/Owner Number Number -Acres i n -Dol I ars-'--,- -1 n Dol 1 ars Map Traced Aorth Hampton tate No numbers given 16'05A Yes State 10.56A Yes State 8.4A Yes State -5A Yes Portsmouth Tort-Authority 014 068 43,840 Yes sq. ft. 'P.A. 014 069 4,025 Yes sq. ft. State 068 294 3,820 Yes sq. ft. State 070 002 3.25A Yes P.A. 075 003 32A Yes Highway 075 010 3,884 Yes sq. ft. Highway 075 Oil 3,171 Yes sq. ft. Highway 075 012 4,200 Yes sq. ft. P.A. 075 015 2.3A Yes P.A. 075 016 41,300 Yes sq. ft. H i ghway 075 017 11,318 Yes sq. ft. "ighway 082 060 Yes ghway 091 001 13!@180 Yes sq. ft. Highway 091 005 7,340 Yes. sq. ft. Highway 091 029 6,568. Yes sq, ft. Highway 091 030 7,340 Yes sq. ft State Armory 112 008 5.4A Yes 'State 209 002 8.8A Yes State 209 008 85A Yes State 209 009 8.78A Yes State 209 014 .5A Yes State 209 018 3.7A Yes State 211 031 3.2A Yes State 212 003 16.5A Yes S tate 212 004 14.6A Yes State 212 016 .95A Yes -State 213 008 16.2A Yes State 213 009 16.1A Yes State 213 019 .97A Yes State 213 020 14.9A Yes State 213 021 38.3A Yes Vocational Schoc)l 225 001 2.97A Yes 225 01.4 2.12A Yes 230 001 18.8A Yes 230 025 5.9A Yes Table 1 Continued Map Parcel Land Value Improvement Value Town/Owner Number NUMber Acres M in'Dollars . Traced "Ortsmouth (Con inued) Fed@r`a-F -Gov't. 213 13 .28A Yes 84 124 Too small 94 .014. 5000 sq. Ft. Yes 112 54 Fed. Bldg. Yes 114 Oil IA Yes 209 2 .6A Yes 209 3 2.7A. Yes 209 4 49.5A Yes 209 12 65A Yes 209 17 11.7A Ye s Rye Yes State Zoning Map 137 Odiorne's State Park State 15 5.25 Ragged Neck State Park Yes, State 18 Too small Jeness Beaci Yes State 8 Too small Wallis San# Yes Federal Gov't. 5 128 8424 sq. ft. Yes Federal Gov't. 5 115 9375 sq.,ft. Yes Federal Gov't. 5 116 10,368 sq,. ft. Yes Highway Patrol H(@adquarters 7 Acres I East side, of Route 1 @Refer-to recor rpripral Gov't. 15 68 42,000 s ft. I - 0f Highway Federal Gov't. White Island Light Station (Not mapped, pprox. 1 acre) @p roperty Seabrook None Yes tratham- None Yes Table I Continued Map Parcel Land Value Improvement Value Town/Owner Number Number Acres' in Dollars in Dollars Map trated Dover ighway Dept. 8 25.27 n/a yes 8 45 6/a yes L .51 17.8 yes 28 n/a yes M 46 n/a yes M 41 n/a' yes M 32 n/a yes A 25 n/a yes K 35A n/a yes. 16 31 n/a yes 25 34 n/a yes A 17 n/a yes A 34 6.0 yes D n/a yes D 7 Va yes D 5A n/a yes D 2C n/a yes Durham UA.H. Property Mips 38 164.9 24 72.7 32 23.0 27 .280.9 26 32.7 48 5.84, 33 8.9 34 35.3 35 14.9 25 21.3 49 17.8 25,28,45, 7 .11.1 10 33.4 9 23.7 20 31.3 11,29 106.6 23 125.4 36 42.8 15 28.9aprrox. 17 6.3 1 (west of tracks) 116.9 1 (between tracks 4.7 and Mil' Road) .25 *Pumping sfition 15.0 *No. of oll Beech Hill Road Land East f tracks Adiims,--Foint Fish and 6ime 80 M ladbury Whway Dept. Yes' Table 2 FEDERAL PROPERTYIN THE TERTIARY ZONE RochesLer U.S. Army Reserve Training Center approx. 3A Rochester Hill Road Owner: Department of the Army U.S. Post Office 16,900 feet2 Main and Bridge Street Owner: United States Postal Service Somersworth U.S. Post Office 1-7,131 feet2 Elm Street Owner: United States Postal Service INVENTORY OF STATE PROPERTY INDIVIDUAL DATA SHEETS (Listed alphabetically by town) DONTER 91.- UFSTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAT.OPRRTY J HIGHWAY Department Dat 9-1-3 U&YS1D!9 AM Pperty"Reported Location:. Town DVER---HT-LTN--YAPJ County k Describe Bounds: (NORTH) A certaiii parcel of laindsituated in Dover in theCounty: ord and said State, bounded and desc ibed as follows-, of Straf.% r Beginning On the oldbighway leading to the f o rme- rDover Point Arldge and at o th e rLand Of thb- Boston &Maine Railroad at a point South 5* 1 West from. Station 1-3+ on the center line of the locatlon of the Dover Branch of the.Boston & Islaine Rail- road- thence running North 5 51 East by said railroad land or loeation, crossing said centr!line of location at the statiola above named., ninety-six and nine tenths (9.9) feet: to land now Or forMarly Of. j P, Hanson* thence turning and running Sozz th 35 East by sall last named land three hundred twenty-five and siitenths (35.) feet to other landor location of said RaAlrone,- thence turning and running Sot-, ea 5* 9 West by said last named land or location ninety-four and five tenths (9.5) feet to FralA LY ..old higlway- thence turning and running Ho th 35 .51 West` said old high-my three hundred fortrfour and eight tenths (3.1) feet to the point of beginning,.be all of said ments more or less. 97/ Record of Title: Deed Reference Reg i s t r y S TRA" OP How Acuired DEED Improvements SinceAcuisition AM VACrMIES Extent of Property (Number Acres, iuildirigs, Etc.)_ 31,77 ft. Present Use 7MYS5ME AR5YA Signd: Title, 3Comms T1EP, 4 '947. -,1431., Q ST'ONNA"RE STATE OWN7D REAL T'ROr9RTk7 UE Departmen Da t TIT 3IGK1ZtM1_1A_7__ d ,C F Property Reporte TR X MUD11 191C S Locstion:. To*WR- _M1,MM___ Coun'y__Sl MAF@ Describe.Boun.ds: 'West Side Spaulding Tlui-apika. For more accurate descziption, contact the Record o fTitle- Deed Reference 646/136 Registr TWFORD gouwly How Acquired- DEW Improvements Since kr.(4,jisition Extent-of Property (Number Acres.. Buildings, Etd.) 6.0 ACRES VOODIAIM ent Use Pres N TO TRAC"P OF 1AND. ACQUIRED AS IT IMOU A ACCE WAS H Signed:@ CMAISSIONER le. qUE -,T!0N11%TA IRE STATE 0,.,@ANED REAL PROPR11TV Mepartmbnt Date 9 1 -0" 3 'r'T S OF Troperty Reportea LAYM' OMSMS, THE OMMI-41, RIGIFI-GF-KAY 'BEL .Location:. Town DOT4 County- STIU@FFORB Deacr--be Bounds, West Side SpauldivZ Turnpike. For =re accurate descriptionD ccnl@*acl" thle RiTht--of -Way Di-dwiwao Z2 P on" Record of Title: Deed Referen@ce 647/269 SVIRAFFORD COUNTY Registry-_ How Acquired Improvements Since Acquisition Extent of Property (Number Acres,: Buildings, Etc.)_ 10.0 ACRES MODLAND TRACT OF LAND ACQUIM AS IT Present Use VMS Q. !yM, QF- A SS@ Title, 1483 QUESTIONNAI.Re", STATE OWNED REAL PROP97:17Y Department 1) a t e Proper ty'Reported TFZACTS OF DkND OUTS"IDE THE -NO R J, a Ur @@_VAY_ DOVER STFII& @_OPJD Location: Town--.---------- County____@ Describe Bounds:. WeBt Side Spaulding Turnpike,, accurate desariptionF contac t td-, a For =ra RioQht.-o,0 'ay Division,, Record of Titlet. Deed Reference 6461300 STRAFFORD COUNTY Registr Y_ [email protected]__ Improvements Since Acquisition NONTH CRF Extent'of.Property (Nlumber Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 2 0. 0A 140ODLAIM NOIS MCT OF TJI\TD ACQUIRED AS IT' Present'Use WAS CUr. OFF FROM ALL ACCESS Signed:. NER 494T 1486 QUESTIONNAIRE STATE 01 MI) REAL PROrNRTY Department 'Property Reported Location: Town DOVER County -D.escribe Bowids: Wes t 15 1 d eSpaulding Turnpike. For =re.accurate description, contact the Right-of-Way Division, Record of -Title: Deed.Reference- 645L-153 ..Registx STWXFORD COUNTY How.'Acquired -Improvemei@ts-Since Acquisition NONE' Extent.-of Property (Number Acres, Buildings' Etc.) 2. 0. ACRES - WODDZAND - Present Use NOIYI T Arn.TTTRTM AR _IT_WAS CUT OFF FRNI ALL ACCESSO S-.,Lgrkeci* Title. cmziisslo. 9 4 91 QUESTION-NAIRE STAIE OWNED R'EAL PIR 0 P R RT Y 9 Department @y ..,--,Da',, e "W, C, "L S 0 1 IMOS TIM NMMAL RICU-107IF-WAY I , LAND 0 Froper@y' Reported Location: Town DOVE, R Countv Describe Bounds: Sids Spaulding rap ike IM rate description, contact the For more accuz. ,I- -of-Way Division. Record o fTitle4. Deed Reference Registry- . STPATT010 COUNTY. How@Acquired 101 Improvements Since Acquisition h M E-tent of Property (Number Acres,, Bu.ildingp, Etc.). .1.2.0 A C:32 STqO.ODLAIM. Present Use N! V TRACT Or, UND ACQUIRED AS IT VAS 'CUT 01-T F"R'014 ALL ACCEM, Signed: Title: 49?47.,,- 1492 UESTIONNAVRE STATE OWNED REAL PRorARTY' Department Date 9 1-63 Property Reported MACTS OF T-ANT) 01YV3 ME TIE NUM"k-L Location:. Town -MATER County, STRAFIFORM Describe Bounds: West Side Spaulding Turnpikd, For more accurate description, Contact the R 01-1 -of -Way Division ic, t 648/34 Record of..Title..', Deed.Reference Registr aMir ORD C(Y How.Acquired Improvements Since Acquisition -Extent,:of Property (Number.Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 4.5 ACR-ES B SZ-16 Present.Use 1100'fl TRACT OF WIM ACQUIRED As IT WAS CUT M ATT A f% Signed: _rON I Title- CC1%KffS1Sj_ HEM 91 -Y QUESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPER Department HIGHWAY Date 9*1-3 Property Reported WAITIDEAREA, Aoca.tion: Town DOVER HILTON PARK County_ OXIj Describe Bounds, T RTH The real estate, situate at Dover Point, so-called- in Dover County of Strafford, and State of New Hampshira and known "The Rookery" and bounded'and described as follawas generally as Northerly by land now or formerly -of Emily, Pinklh= aad land, now - -eastexly by the old highiay' leading or.formarly of. HerbertDame,, from' Pot ts=uth to Dover, southeasterly.by said highway'and land now or formerly-of the Boston Wne Railroad ,sou therly sou th- westerly, and westerlyby thePiscataua River, excepting ther Irom the land heretofore.conveyed,by Fanny Eo King to*the State, of:NEw.Haupshire forhi&y purposes by deed -dated 1-133 recorded Strafford County Regis try,, Vol.'57, Page 13,.. Record of Title: Deed Reference / Registry STR&"MD DEED How Acuired- AREA FACILITIES Improvemnts1ppnce Acuisition Extent of Propefty (Number Acres Buildings Etc.) Present Use WAYSIDE ARF5M C! Signed: Title: C5O5MITS5SIOUR WiZL TIONNAIRE STATE MiED REAL PROPERY UES -A -1- MGKWAY Dprtme Date 91-3 AIL S IDE VA. Property Reprted DOM MTONPAM Count STPLMM D Latiow. Tcyu-n Y Decr-ibe point & Cs -r the City of DoVer at the mean I.-Ligh vater mark o:C- the Ballamy Riverp said point b e iag the northeasterly corner of land ncm or forwrly of Fred P Header; and running thence S. lI* 31 W. with the easterly line of said Naaders land aad across the higbway which approaches the Cclon-A Alexamider Sca=ell Bridge, a dista=a of bout77 feet to = augla in said jjoadarla easterly line;,thanda S. 3 IV Wo about feet to the mean hisb water of Littla 3dyg thawo running ganaral tarly northerly, and northwastorly following the wymn high watar wa,a,- ofLittle Bayto the mouth og the Bellamy River-a distaace of approximately 9 feet to.thepoiat of beginning. Including in addition to the above all,rights to land uncovered by the ebb D f- the tide, Said area contains .1 acres exclusive o f t1,,j 13.ghT-% V previously mentioned. 911 Record of Title. Deed Reference Registry_ STFAFFORD HowAcuiied. A= Mciums Improvements Since Acuisition Extent of Property (Number Acres Buildings,Etc.) I AC-W. Present Use WAYS IDE AREA. Signed: Title:-.- C5MIISST-15MR I t me )erty-Rep i 9 1 7 UESTIONNNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPERTY . 9-1-3 Department Date orted 'WAYSIDE AREA Property Rep ati n own HILTON PARK p 0 DMR County- STR107-0V0OIL Describ e Boun (NORTH) Two certain pieces or parcels 0ol land situated in Dover in the County'. of Strafford and State of New 11-Limpshire, bounded and described as followss FIRM Beginning on the highway leading across the former location of thePortsmouth-and Dover Branch of the Boston & Maine Railroad at Ford's Crossing at land now-or 0fo=,a--rly of Azuban Card, et 0al at a point thirty-six(31)f0eet easterly from and measured radially to the center line of said location; thence running soi!t1---- --easterly on.a line conceatric with and thirty-six (31) feet ea..,., 0e-.'.'Ly -wo thousand eight from,sa0id center line having a radius of L twenty-nine (,91) feet, about one thousand six (,....'OW) -feet, to a point thirty-six (31)-feet northeas,terly measure_;-' radial0ly'to said center 0Une of location at Station 09+37-., t- nc turning and running South 50* 01 West across said 7ocation (z ight- three (31) feet to other land now or formerly of.sn0id Card'. 'said last, named thence turning and running, northwesterly by on a curve'to the-right having a radius of two thousand nine hu-Liet:red ( 0 twelve' (,91t) feet- about eight hundred feet (001)- thenci0e d (1000') feet- 0-, pp100;79;1;5,jng and running southwesterly about oneundrL ttirning.and running North * 01. West- by land now c -c former','.-y of Card about ninety (90Y feet to said highvay; thence tkiralrt, and running northeasterlv 0bv s7id highway three hund:,.,ed thirty- -.c Record of Title: -Deed Reference 975 3905 Registry STRAFFORD COUM DMD How"Acuired AREA FACILITIES JMproVeMentL Since Acuisition .13 A C BE S Extent of Property (Ndmber Acres, Buildings, Etc.) Presen0tuse WAYSIDE AREA Signed: COMMISSIONER Bounp ei0"Pnli Title QUESTIONNAIRE STATE OWN2D.REAL rROPERTY 4921 7 PAGE rM 2.0 De artment HIGWAY Datn 9-1-63 P Property Reported Locat4on:. T6;@n@ County Describe Bounds, (NORTH) J. said (332') feet to the point of beginning, be all of measurements, more or less, Record of Title: Deod Reference Registry Pow A@cquired-- Improvements Since Acquisition Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) Present Use Signed:_ Title- 9 L _UESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPERTV Department HIGMAY Date 9-IC3, Propert Reported PATROL' MPj)uART.ERs own County Locat DOVER Describe Bo A certain bf land together with the bldgs,, and other t S ructures thereonpc ed in the City'of-Dover in the County of Strafford and State a f Neur Iampshire, on the-highway leading from Dover to Dover Point as now tAvelled, and lying beL7,,een said highway and the Dover Point Road as travelled prior to 193-nearly opposite the junction of* the Cushing Roadv'so-called., bounded and-described as follows: Beginning at a concrete bound at-the northeasterly corner of land of Joh n E. Davy, said bound being 33. feet'distant southwesterly from and directly opposite Statioa +1, as-shown on a Ellan ofNational'Recovery Municipal:Froject # for.1933in the records of the New Hampshire State Highway.Department; thence running S. 1 W. with said Davy's a distance of.1.3 feet to a concrete bound on the northeaster" sideline of the Dover Point Road'as travelled prior to 193; thence running S. 39" 391 E. along-the'northeasterly side line Of said highwa a distance of 73, feet toa conci'ete bound at the soute'sterly corner-- of land of Rachael C. Brownell; thence running N. 5* 1 E. with the northwesterly line- of land of-said Brownell and land now or formr-Irly of:;. p1ps-H.Varney, a distance of 117.9 '' feet to a concrete bound in southwesterly line*of the present.travelled Dover Point.Road; thence turning and running northwesterly-curving to the rightwith the arc of o a circle having a radius of 1,,179' feet a distance of .5 feet t the point begun at. Containing 5 s f t. iaore or less d Recor of Title. Deed Reference STPA"ORD COUNTY Registry____ How Acuired. DEED Improvements Since Acuisition MAIMIaNCE BUILDING Ext eint' of Prope rty (Number Acres,.Buildihg, Etc . ACRE PATROL HEA7D.7ARTERS Present Use Signed:.' t Rep or te d "bn- o'Vn a - Xbd Ln \ rta loc eon a Title: COMTSSTO3NER 95 1 IONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL POPRTY M=Y Date Proporty..Reported SALT AN-D EUIPMENT STORAGE DOVER County STPAFFORD Location: Town Describe Bound Two parcels locate o alled, i the City of Dover, don Cushing Road, S -c n described as foll Beginning at a point, marked by concrete bound on the we!terly side'of Cusbuing Road,, so-called, in said Voer, at the Southeasterly corner of land now or formerly owned by Jame.s WID - - rG tbence along thowestarly si:de line of Cushing Road, Cullen$ .,rutmi bounded by a fence as it now stands S ' 7' W 115.11 feet -to a point marked by a concretelbound-, thence.coatinuing on the'said westerly side, line of Cushing Road S. 11' 31 W.' 71. feet to a point.marked by a Concrete bound, thence turning and running N. '53.W,, 39. feet acroso land of said Glidden-toa. point, marked by a concrete bound* thence.running N. " 1 W. 11. feet along the fence and westerly: R.,O. W. line of the Boston & 11,!aina Railr ad (now rzbandoned) to a point .marked by a concrete bound; thence i-unning 1. 3 351 E. 75.9 feet along the fence as it now stands and being the Southerly side line of land now or foMerly owned by James.W. CullenbD the point of beginning.:_.. Containing 1.35 acres. -.- A 'certain tract:of land situated in Dover, NH and described as follows- 'BeginnirZ at a point marRed by a concrete bound on the eas-terly side of Cushing Road, so-called,, in saidl.Dover, at the southwesterly corner Of land now or formerly owned by Norman J. Lord* running thvnce S. 5* 51 E. 377.-feet along theoundary line- between. said Lord. aad Norman H. -.and M,aria Glidden to a point marked by (COIJTID) 555/37' Recora,of Title. 'Deed Reference egistr STRAFFORD CO -My How Acuired DEED Improvemnt-sSince Acuisition Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 3. ACRES Present Use- SALT AND 5EUI5M5M :STORAGE Signed: Title: 5COMISS11"5Mr, 1 5 UESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPERTY epartment HIG 6MITAY Date '0FlYM STORAGE P SALT 0&ND EUI roperty Reported V Location: Town DOVER County TPz& 6U, T Describe Bounds: aconcrete bound,, thence rLirming'S -160' 01 W. 309.-5- feet along tlie .fence as it now stands by land now or formerly owned by V% A. Crockett to a point marked by a concrete bound; thence 6runa0ir0Z 6M,, 9* - 101 Wo 39-0.0 feet: aloa0z &a boundary line of said Glidden and land nov? 0d0r formerly. oxned by William Suudarland to a point marked by a concrete bound- thence running 1. 1' ' 6E. 31.00 feet alorZ the. easterly side of said Cushing Road to the point og beginning., Containing .35 acres,, Record of Title: -Deed Reference 555/37 Registry.- STRAFTORD COUNTY .How Acuired D6= Improvements Since Acuisition VS Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 3.6 ACM Present Use SALT AIM E00UIP1,1EI5NT STORAGE., Signed: Title: COMMISSIONER -CAL rRor UESTIONNAIRE STATE WD R Dte 9-1-3 1p1000;95;0;3-tmt perty Reported__I0V T L R0IGETA, 0=1a L? -A Location: Town 0D C) -KT Courty STRAF-701M Dribe Bounds* Sid0e S0paul0dlmg Tu0rr,,.0i0ke. West For =xe accurate desc0r, 0t0ion, Coa0t-act 0t"0he Di0ViSian. Rig 0b, 0/10. Record of Title,. Deed Reference Registry. STIR"FORD COU M. How Acuired *M DL Improvements Since Acuisition NONE Extent Of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 0. AC0RIZROUSE LOT Present IUSP-- NONE Title, C000111091JI0SSIO0"IM5R -17 4947 121""". QUESTIONNAIRE STATE OVNED REAL PROPERTY--- Department- Date-. Property Reported VINCTS OF LAM OUTS 0 E MT NOWAYL -T.7A3L Location: Town D OVE III, County-STRAFFORD Describe Boundj. t: S id eS p au I d ing Tu, rnp Vike F 0 z- more accurate de'scription, coratact the Right-of-Way Divls, ion. Record of Title; Deed Reference 639/338 UMFFORID COUWY How'Acquired DEVET) Improvements Since Acquisition HOME, Extent-of.Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.)- 0. '23 AX P, ZTWOODIAIM Present Use N 0 M, S n ig ed: Title- C1 4947 1095 QUESTIONNAIRE STATE 0 WME DREALPROPERtY Date Department H IG ITWI 9-11-63 Property Reported TRACTS OF UM. dInS ME 77MI TIORMT, RIGIM-T-EiT LATL-- Location: Town DOVER County..__jTRA-BT' ORD Describe Bounds, West Side Spaulding Turnpike. -a description, contact the For mDre accurat Right-of-Way Division. 634/268 Record of Title: Deed Reference "ORD COUNTY @egistr STRAFk How Acquired D= Improvements Since Acquisition NONE 1.5 A"M WOODWM Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) Present Use' N 0 11 0E Signed: Title- C0101ISS101MR 4947 1265 QUESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROrFRTY HM .Department 011WAY 6 3 Date Property Re orted M-kCTS OF YAI\'D' OUTS MIE T1U--- WORZ-L R p Location: Town D OVER Count S T RE, k 17- OR D Y- Describe BoundsT We s' Z: Side Spaulding Turnpike. For more accurate description, contact the Right-of-Way Division, C"I 6371356- Record o fTitle: Deed Reference FOP Registry ST&V 0 COUNTY DEM How Acquired Improvements Since Acquisition NONE R Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings., Etc.) 3. 0 ACUS BRUSHEAln TRACT Or, LAND ACQUIRED AS IT Present Use N 0 ""'RON WAS. CW OUT F M ALL ACCESS. Signed: Title-, COMMISSIONM 4947 .1458 QUESTIO,%AIRE STATE QYWNFD REAL PRO-FriRTY -e Department W TF Da, T TD, 1,10alA RIME Property Reported TRACTS Or' LMM OU E T I PL L -Or, -!v'AY' Location: Town D 0 VE R County_ STI@ Describe B6unds: Ve3t Side Spaulding '"I"urnpike.. MOA. -a accurate description, contact the Right-of-T.Jay 'Division,, Record o fTitle: Deed Reference, 643/l/ Registry STRAZT10M COUN7ry How Acquir'ed DEM-1 Improvements Since Acquisition NO nx Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 6.0 A RX S UOODY-AIM Present Use N 0 IM TRACT OF LAIM A.r,,Q',J!PP-D AS-1 T-- WAS C111' OT, F FROMI ALL ACCES.S.' signed: i t I e comms S 1 ol"""m QUESTIONNAIRE STATE 014NED REAL PRorRRTY Department Date Property-Reported TMCT-S- OF LAM MITSIDE VIE WQPI,%L RIM-OF-WAY. Location: Town County STRAFF00 Describe Bounds: Wes e S auld t W p ing.Turnpita. For more accurate'description, contac-t the Rizbt-of-Way Division. (7) 646/444 Record of Title: Deed Reference a Registr STRAYPORD COMM DEW How Acquired Improv'ements Since Acquisition NOIRE Extent of Property.(Number Acres,, B.uildings, Etc.) 30.0 ACRES VTOODLAND F LA A Present Use NONE TRACT % CQUI D AS -IT WAS CUT OFF FROM ALT, ACCESS. Signed- C DIM I S S 3: 0 MR Title: toe ew or,</. May 12, 1971 I r. E0x cc I I enci, Wa 1. ter Peterson znd 0Arabers, of the .11.oriarzb I aC ounc 11 Loncord, New liarrpshire 03301 Gea tereen AL thG regular mon.hly 0meating of the New Hampshire Council of iCSOL;rces and Developi.lent held on Apri 1 1, 1971, it wds Linani t ir,ous , y voted that the 2U.8 acres of land at Dover Point, hat ir su*rplus ,o the needs of the Department of Publ ic Works and. Hli,,hways, be transferred to the Nj Hampshire Fish and Game Deoart0ment for wildlife mana. the _zment purposes. 2We also have Op2proval. of the Departin ent af Pub) ic Works and Highways Com Miss ioner Robert J.* l2dhi taker. his tract of land was acui.0Od by.the State in 1955 as part of the land acuiiition for t,A Spaulding Turnpike. it has not boeen ....in use since then. One si e of the tract zbuts on the E;eilainy where the r;vcr enters GreatSay.and would provide 2br. Lccess d a. t .1; a Ywhen developed... TSis, we would plan to do undar.a IF 2Af.ral Aid p.roject. !.Is.becomln incrdasing)7 difficult lor people to rOach Great cry cue. to the high pnrcentage of posteO land. Great Day and the outstanding waterfavl e fellainy ?:iver section Pre one of L vntin areas in New Hainpshire, as well asexcellent striped bass* 0andvsaltwater smelt fishing your approval for the transfer of this land to our Department. is respectfully reues0lad, so that the Great Say area will be more readily avallabile f or recreation. Tfaznlk you. Respectfully submitted, Bernard W. Corson Director 0r,::0)osUra DURHAM it an" t wife, U i r f o co dat id, T) w Hh a t t" t 0 Fish and Gsme riepartment, wit"n Varranty. c vennats tj t, spAc t: a strip Of IPnd rar)roimiptely fity (50) f C. K 1 e.tendiaj rLrjutheasterly fro:i a V i?o ad i nsa id Durlnam t*10,111i Df U t IF, r Bald ted a P, foIlows 3eJrinii: at a poit oa t e P s to s i 3i U1 tr er) f a..r e: 0. a a stone. Wall and 0 L1,C Cra n t 3 r an c e by Baia s.one wall anc. laaa or fourtFer. a:ared (100) fect, more ol JCSS, to a point t.jejC0 Sou11 C d e,7 reeG Last, three hundred (300 ) f et t) a Point 0V, eace South 59 n: re a s last, flty 0 nC Of sou" (50) fe,t to a zerees :,a G t , one handred \100) feet to a ,oint thence South 37 ce=rees LaEt, sixt.`ive (5) feet, m)e Ies, to land of Lent Eoll tns Ij thence Southwesterly by ianc af Kent, Rollins., and the rantor, f fty 1,50) feet,more or less, to a thenze Korthwe s t eriy nineteen hundre(i an fifteen (1?15) feet, more or less, Tarallel to the irzt mentined bounde, to .Iie Fasterly s I d e I irie of :Y Ro ad t. e nc e No r t hea s t e r ay ad if t y (5, 0 e C t ,110 1" 011 t, the point f ns, al Reser I ra th the Grartors, tair he rs and as si. the ri,ts tnp Grantor "w krW0F A Yv r SraAl t W,, Ad JV It,= treez EL Dv, L t . ii IRD ul awy t, I .A.Lzo reservir. all timoer or ordwood cut irom the said strip of land. JL1so furlher reserving a rightofway over the herein `ezcribed DrOperty for the rrantors tl.eii hteirD and assigns Ralph ]. Kent, his heirs ana assizns, kad the heirs and assi:ns of the Sherwood .ollins est te, f P IGZ Bay Road to their respective properties. Being part of the premises asdeeded to the Grpntors by IM Sherwood Rollins December 1, 19<1, Straffo Count.,. Recoros, Book 5,09, Pa:e k5. 1, is acondition o ti conveyance that if the pro.,ased new access road, includinE a co:,u,ection to thE Grantor driveway, is not constructec vi t."Ja a period of 1 170 Years from the date of this tlaen the riht title an.L interest herein convey&.. snall revert to the Grantors, his heirs, leateeE or assi..ns, ar,0d this conveyance saall become null and void. 0nd Durlian Tnist a cori.cratioo dul.. ice o busincss in s3i 0Uzrl m , lai an0e haviriv0 a princ)al pI, Id a :i by Harry Allen, its 0treast:or duly niz0horized, for consi..L.ration aid, hercby releases lthcabovc descril0bcLl propcrty roin tj.e I I L: 1 cffcct of a ccrtain it JI0t( and recorded 0ir, tilic 0 0 -TS THAT A ivA T, ESA XNO W A Llr, ivjElv' F.K TH F-S)7 PRE "' EA NO ADAITS, A WIDOWS OF.DuRr-lA7TS COUNTY OF STRAFFORD A ND STATE OF NEw HAMPSHIRE, FOR CCNSIDE.RATIOAT PAID'S GRANT TO THE STATE OF NEW HAMPS-TlrRES FOR THE FISH AND ("AmE DEPART- KENTS WITH WARRANTY COVENANTS., A CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL 'OF L A ND, WITH THE BUILDINGS THEREON, SrTUATFD IN SAID DuRHAITL AND- CONSISTING OF iG H T Y k8U) ACREF, MORE OR L!@SS, BOUNDED AND DE SCRIBED AS FOL L 0 WS, NORTHERZY BY THE KENT FARM, SO-CALLED.- EA s THR - Lys SOU-THERLY AND WESTERLY PY 09REAT BAYS., ZITTLE BAY AND THE COVES AND CREEKS OF S.AID BAYS, AS DESCRIBED IN TWO CERTAIN DEEDS OF JOSEPH A', R. ADAMS To EDWARD H. ADAMS-9 I DATED DECEMBER 27S 1913, AND RECORDED 1,V THE STRAFFORD COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS' EOOK 372_, PAGE-576, AND BOOK 373, PAGE 127: TOGETHER, WITH ALL OF MY RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO SAID PREAfISES FROM THE DuRKAM POINT ROAVt.. HEANING A ND INTENDING TO CONVEY HEREBY THE ADAMS ]ARM LOCATED ON ADATf,T POINT.0 SO-CALLED, IN SAID DURHAM, WHICH I INHERITED UNDER T;TE WILL, OF mr LATE )YUSBAND, L-DWARD L,. ADAMS (SEE 6TRAFFORD UOUNTY PROBA TE FILE -!A9255),, RESERVING TO THE GRANTOR, HER HEIRS,--AND- ASSIGNS, THE FAMILY TOMB AND THE LAND ON WHICH IT STANDS.9 LOCATED APPROXIMATELY Two HUNDRED (200) YARDS IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION FROM THE.HOMESTEADS AND ACCESS TFIERETOp AS RESERVED IN THE DEED OF Ep.ASTus L. AND MARY A. SENTER To JOSEPH ff. R. ADAMS, UNDATED', RECORDED IN THE STRAFFORD COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS, BOOK 252, PAGE 15/8. THE GRANTOR FVRTU@R RESERVES THE RIGHT TO OCCUPr,! THE HOMESTEAD AND BARNS,, CR A PORTION THEREOF, FOP. AND DURING HER NATURAL LIFE OR UNTIL, THE EXPIRATIGN OF TWENTY (20) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DEED., WHICHEVER 1-,TR.3T OCCURS.@ WHIC9 RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY SH.AbL.- INCLUDE T 'HE. R ra. H T OF ACCESS TO SAID PREMISES FROM THE DURHAM POINT ROAD ON THE PRESENTL Y EXISTING OR A COIfPAR-4BLE ROADWAY, ACCESS TO AND FROM AND THE USE OF THE SPRING LrCATED APDROXIMATE LY ONE HuNDRED (100) Y,@R'DS SOUTHWESTERLY OF SAID HOPIEST-FAD BUILDING A AyD ACCESS TO AND. FROM Aj%rD T,YF. USE OF THE WgARVES,- BOATHOUSES AhrD BOATING FACILITIES LOCATED OPI SAID PRE.71ISES. EXETER 2 QUESTIONNAIRE STATE OrVICD REAL PROPERTY Department- 71111 '[711f T@ I? NY Date- 9 1 6 3 Property Reported TIRACTS 07 Ukj"'.@D OWLS100 B TMI 'ATORMM, ROCKIN"S I Location: Town - 2'YEE, T E R County' Describe Bounds: AA 'Ou Nan, For accurate da11-3c-.-,-ipUon, contact t h e av, D lon.. Record of Title: Deed Reference Registry ROICY'111.1211-42'i COU11177MIL, How Acquired D12ED Improvements Since Acquisition IT Vl Z Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 0 5 A C R, E Present Use T:I-w-,CT OF LAI F PTILGH'. AiLl. A=@3 Signed: Title: C OMIA Is S I MM, R QUE STIONNAIRE STAT" OWED REAL PROPERTY Department 1-1 1-G-- 7AY Date 9-1-053 Property Reported TIIACES LAID., 0 1 EK' S I D ETIMS -'NOPIALL F, 1G I!*,,- CIF -MW m'A' Location: Town E17 T Z R @f);Cl-@".I*""",@q,@'I'll'.@I County_- Describe Bounds: nown 101-C by-pass. Fa-- more accuurate rJteb6ri7'n.-;.0'15 Con(1--oCt the R-.7-Ight-02-Tvay N-1,71-slon. Record of Title: Deed Reference Mi T Registry- How Acquired- DrEED Improvements Since Acquisition Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 1.1 ACRE Present Use TRACT C1nF LATME CUT OFF FROI@l ALL ACCESS. Signed: Title: 4971 106 QUESTIONNAIRE STATE 014NED REAL PROPERTY Department T-.1117 I 5!Ay Date :7 Property Reported 13111SAICTS, 0-111 M-HD GIIU@"CSIXII T-11-TT, TZ: E, T rs R t7 Location: Town Coun TC 11@ 'I-, I I L" Describe Bounds: 33 3 C R -, E SS- 011-MI, OF 110=", 101 SQUAllv@ OT'll RDMR. 11.9 ACIMPS STUXII OF MOIITI'T 101 STATION 15 7 + 0 0to 159+00. For T""'Dre r4cc,,..,zatc description, contact the Ri ght-of-Way D v i,,:- on, Record of Title: Deed Reference 1 170 Registry D Ell How Acquired. Improvements Since Acquisition Extent of' Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 3 3 A-C 2E S 2.1.9 ACRES Present Use TRACT OF !ANID' CUT UP FROM. ALL ACCESS. Signed: Title: C cn, s S 'I, b"T. 917 UE TIONNIDD,A IRE STATE 01,NED REAL PROPFRTY Departm(-%.nt Date.- Property Reported ST0rJ1,11j,: hrJA , Location:. Town E M T0E R Countv Describe Bounds: ..A parcel of land Located on Charter Street in the Tmm of Exeter, cour.0--y of Rockin0gham Statre Of 111,W EIampshire, bounded arnd described rdary as folloivs,.* B_-Sinning, at a sra0nite bound -.Ln th_- sou healsa-carly bru OIL Cla-larter Street. said bound being con0mer hetweea land o0g Crant and land of the State: of New Ram shire thence runnir S. 30 E. a distance of 00 feet more or less, along- land oj- sa-11M Statci` of N&0w Kampsaire to a cor.L...-rete bound in narthumsterly riglilt-cf.-way line of the Western Div-Lsion of the Hos .:or. & Maine Railroad, which bound is corner 0bet..men land of the -a ntor and the said State or llew- Hanm,shire thencc turning and rui.Uling 1. 50 E. a distance ..)f 37 ft. mare or less along said right-of-tvay Une, of said Rai)road to a concrete. bound, said bound being corner beh:can land of Grantor and land now, or -os, and running..., formerly of Exeter Industries, Incorporated th n a.tur-n . N. -11* W. a distance.-of 00 0fe,,ct mre or less, along land of- said Exeter Industries, Inc. to a concrete bound in a southeastei-y boundary of said Charter Street said. bound bein-- corii-er between land of Grantor and land of said Exeter Zndustr-1-as, Inc. thenc- turnin-S and running S. 50 W. a diwit-ance of 37 Dt. more or less along said. Charter St. to the point of beginning. Containing 1.7 acres. Record of Title: Deed Reference _97/1 Registry. PlouKING1111111-Y, COUNTY How Acuired_ M0ED Improvements Since Ac-uisition SAT,,. Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 1.7 ACPr-.,S Present Use ST5OR5A:E, 5L0Y0R0EA Signed: t0itie: MIMS0S0IG0ICIM 97 1 UESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPERTY Department 7.1 M, lilt 7AY Date 1. W Property Reported PAT'010,1 R0EV-0 OUART0E0POV Location: Town- EMI, TER C o un t Describe Bounds:, A tract: of la,.-id cont-aining 10 acreo situated in Exeter, County of 0rwckinc-ham aLd of: New IT, as described La deed from the Socony-V0ac0uum 0--1 Tnc. to the State of Ney@., ll0a-0nmpolhir0e recorded in @'ham County Re--0Sistry Of Dlecds, Lilb. 97@ Fol. 3*datad- tj' @3 March 1@ 19-17. Record of Title: Deed Reference 97130 Registry RGC1'11NG-111-TV1:M1 C"OUNaly How Acuired- DEED Tmprovements.Since-Acuisition 1.0 ACRES Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) Present Use Signed: Title, C 01,0U0j I S S T r, TIT- j0j GREENLAND 9 1 UESTIONNAIRE STATE OWN= REAL PROPERTY r -i J:7 A TY Departi-,ient- H.LU'l CZ..L Da t e Property Reported GRAVEL A'11TD SIAT-T) PITS' Tj Location: Town- G11JEENLAND C o unty- Describe Bounds: A Parcel. oll.- Irm's Sit:Uftted eaotez-ly of the-, Post Road in the To-Un or- Grcen!-'irAd. bounded as follows: -t an ir-o pin in -11--bte ea-r-erly side Urm-z, of said Post Po-di- th nc e . art Iron pin; 1 73 91 W a. distaitcO. Of 11.5 fee- k- t1ienco N, ' 19' E..- diSta-ince Of 91,1 feet to all L:On P:Ln;, IT -en C C s. 3 Cef- to a fence corne thLmce N; 37 ' ' E. wl.th a ff-ncc- ae - -L ilArle to a fe ce cox- -r; L.11 ence J. e ( s. 5' 3' a'O E. with a fer,,tceine five- huncir d. fect to a st-.ke; thenace. S,, ' 3 IN, 19.5 ft,t to a stake; thence u. ifeet to a stake; 'G-hence NT. '' 1 E. -i. h eet to a st-ake; t, ance S. 5' 3 W. 3.7 ft. to a stake in the easterly side line of said Post Road; thence about 1 feet to the point oil- beginning. Record of Title: Deed -Reference 1.33/15 Registry. COUNIrl How Acuired Improvements Since Acuisition N(WE Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) AC, PE S Present Use GMVEIL AM) V-11 PIT Signed: Title: 3C M3MISSIOINE3R, 5 0 UESTIONNAIRE STATE 01NED REAL PROPRRTY JIT 1-j"Ily D e pa r t men t- . ....... .... :-- Date -11M -T AY Property Reported- 'M' TS OF LAM TIM NO'- 1 r CO' G R E F. IT L A D HILLSBORO Loca tion: . Town --- County--: Describe Bounds: East Side N.. IL Turnpike. the For more a-ccurate 0descri tion, coatac.. Right-of-Way Divisio.. Record of Title: Deed Reference 1093/00 Registry. HILLS0M0ORO C0TT-.TY How Acuired---- DIMM Improvements Since Acuisition 1101NE Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 50. 1 A0CT0EE, Present Use THIS T0r5I3C0"T OF LA-J,D V?,0N0S CUT OFF Ff"(0-1i LJ1 A'j0CESS. IT IS T0a BY. 0KL3L0D- U11,TILL Or! 110T.3E-ET3F-Vz--3T.`1 95 A 315fU- ON,-- T111 -0S BY T Y. F'0i7, NAM,, Signed: Title- C 30 T`il IS I r_; 1,-, 0T1 9 QUESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPFRTY Department II I1-o"P, 0Y Date-9- Property Reported NOM"IAl k JCTz O0E Location:. Town - (RE0Z-NJIANID County_ 1"U,T-1BO*f -Describe Bound s: West Side N. 11. T u r rip ike Fo: raore accurate de,=iption, contact the Right-of-Way Division. Record of Title: Deed Reference 1-101/01 gegistr IMILL-117-1107110 COUNTY Y How Acuired- E D Tmprovements Since Acuisition NONE Extent of Property (Number. Acres, Buildings, Etc.)_ 0.7 ACRE UTGGD0T-.ND Present Use I0r0fITS TRACT OF LA0ND 170AS CU.1 OFF ALL A0CC"0tZos. ITIG T5O5BE FIELD M5r.11L TIM C0101011"LET-10N, OF NIP0-0E0RSTI)5ml: 905 .v 011,50 M? TIM 0T-Im- 0Mpl IRV I M7 1P0R,PP A IT Irlir1Tr ITTr. Tz1V0- A Signed: Title- C 0M.N1 I S)S I 0,7.R 4946 420 UESTIONNAIRE STATE MINED REAL PROPARTY 01 Departmont T11GTA,'Y4YAY Property Reported 8TP6A-CT4S OF LAND 0OT SI0DF 4r D T Location: Town ": 8R' CK E 4NT2L4&I-4M County- _111j- 6P Describe Bounds: East 2S,.'Ld-- N. H. Turnpike. For,0more accurate description, contact the Ri6ght-of-W2ay Divisl8o'KI., Record of Title: Deed Reference 1093/161 Registry. HILLSBORO C4OU8M How Acuired- DEED Improvements Since Acuisition Extent'of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.)_ 5.0 ACRES 2-70440D2U3636M Present Use NONE T4183561S TRACT 48C VMS OFF 48TI48G8IM ALL ACCESS. -01 T I' T 520 BE 48MLD 44U44U-8P4I-7 T48B48UE- C0,,40T-j-j 4F 144HETI440148M Cyr, I1108TI44MRS48TI60M 09- A 28N 01,47,0PT16M84 52TT'0M08P, A 04T - 7 7L A t", I I T rg04gr8--4g-2, Signed: C36OA T 8i t 81. e; 4046 419 UESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PRONOTY Department Date 890L1-63 ITST 8r T4M7. 0M6OI0R6MAT. 8P0W- Property Reported---- 02F 8Wil8m- .111 --8W2&2Y Location: Town GRIT, E N6L A 6X2D C o un t Y-0ji-I2LIL6S03 60--2P-4"(-) Describe Bounds: Past Side. N. H. Turnpike., For more accurate description, contact the Right-of-Way Division. Record of Title: Deed keference 1106/227 Registry_ HILLS P1 8007110 COUNTY How Acuired----- DEED Improvements Since Acuisition Extent of Property (NUmbe.- Acres, Buildings, Etc.) -5 60 A C RE 4S 4T01 440 48G48D 48L44A 44N40D Present Use 40N40O40NT44E THIS T8RACT OF LA32N280 WAS 32CU36T-4802414EF.- FROM ALL A32LCIESS. IT 2IS TO BE HELD 32UI36NTIL THE C32OI,'JP32LETT36O8].\7 OF I-I2N36TERST6I4VrE 95 J- A 2T4I-0P16I4P8P6M;T\T8A6TT -04)2P6I-TrrCZ 8Ui',2V8n-7 A6V?Trr 'r,TTr T 6j0j-TT4C1.4T-4T TIME Signed: 96 1 UESTIONNAIRE STAT OWNED REAL PROPERTY Depeirtmont Dite 9- 1 6 3 Property Reported 8TP0V\CrS OF 2U-0ND OUTSID'8E Tili8r, N0O0R2Ni'A. 18G8KV-6&_-T_JA2VY Location: Town CRHENTAND County --H Describe Bounds: 6t S id 8e N. H. Turnpike. For more accurate 2d2es-c2ription, contact the Ri0gli6t-of -Way Div.-Lsi2o-2all 1096/63 Record of Title: Deed Reference 'T Registry HILLSBORO C2OUN Y How Acuired' DEED Improvements Since Acuisition NOME '8S HOUSE LOT Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 1. 0 A Present Use THIS T0P6A36rT 0'.V 0I-0A32L6I6D 32V2Z0A36E 36C187810-C-6FIF 8FB80161' All A_;"r,-S. 0E JD IT IS TO BE 'MUD 8M87 TL T10, C891-5 ' LETIO8N 001" 112152M8ER60MATE 95 11:3 8M83 D '8111Y 8TEl8E DE0PA8I56M20D'0007,71' 110181,81 BE, IN56Y8Z52E. T8UIr8E A OF 8M 8S Signed: Title: 28C f_12:-_ 01i 8 T 8r. 8f ;89 81 68L0PI6 MADBURY 930 1 UESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPRRTY Department HIMMAY Date 9-1-63 Poperty Reported GRAVEL AND SAND PIT Location:- Tovn 2MAD6BU8RY County S6M1,870RD Describe Bounds: A ;small'. parcel. o:E land lying along the southerly side of"t6he old Stas6e Road, so-6ca]8U6ed, in the Town of 0M2adbury. adjacent to the division line bet aen said toi0m and the city of Dover described as foll2owso Beginning at,a concrete bound on.the southerly.si2de, of the old S6ta6g2a Road, so-called., leading from Central Road at Kelley's Corner to Mad0bury,- sa0idpo6i2nt being 2inh6e division line between. the Town, oZ` Madbu0r8y and the City of 2Dov2er.-,.and running thence S, 625* 11 E. with said to-Yin line and along the n6o"rthw2est6er8l6y line 6of,la2n6d of Bernard T,,. Pa8ci6tt2e and with other land of the Grantor a distance-of .575 ft. to a concrete, bound;. thence running S. 039* 201 W. wit2h,oth6er, land of the Grantor 2683 ft.. to a concrete bound; th6an8c6e running S. 65' 201 W. with other- land of the Grantor 300 ft. to a thence running S, 83' 120 W. with other land of concrete bound the Grantor 30.5 ft. to a concrete bound in the northeasterly line of land of Rosa Hayes; thence running 2W. 13* 51 W. with said Hayes land-8600 ft. to a concrete bound on 6thesouth2erly side of said'0old Sta8g0e'R2oa0d, said point being at th2eorth2easterly corner of a2a0id. Hayes land; thence running northeasterly with, the southeasterly side of the Old Stage Road &:distance of about 763 ft. to the point of beginning. .1ppd'of Title':- Deed Reference 502/119 R6gistr STRAFFORD COUNTY How Acuired Improvements Since Acuisiti.on N2ON6T Extent*,of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.)- 11,25 AMES Present Use GRAVEL AIM SAND P 56V_ Signed: Title: CO0MMI32SS36IOMR SEABROOK 5831-i QUESTIONNAIRE STATE OMNED REALPOPERTY Department I Ll G I 1148A, Y Dnte CA Property Reported PATROL RS Location: Town County_ Describe Bounds: Near Fo0g0gs Corner in Seabrook. For more accurate description, contact the 11 -21 .1 ;96;136t-of-Way Di6v`Ls4uo, Record of Title: Deed Reference Registry 4C0O0T4AV6Y How Acuired--- DEED Improvements Since Acuisition B0UI0LIDI4DITCY Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.)__ Present Use 40R`iT44R44OL 12D08U36O84UA44R36T Sign8ed:_-___ 36C 4V0n4jj'r1,1. I S 4C, T6ZX"i4Z 6T21 Title--, 587 30, 0 OWNED PEAL PROPERtY QUESTIONNAIRE STATE Department 1-1 IG 15TAY Date 9-1-3 o Property Reported TRACTS OF 1AZ8T) OUTSIDE T I I E I 10 RIG0EIT-OF-UNY ROCK INJHIM Location: Town- County_ Describe Bounds: North Side of 8Blacl8oiater Road, .1-at8e description, contact the For more accu.;. Rig8bI.t-of-Way Divisiono Record of-Title: Deed Reference 137/37 Registry_ PO0CK1110G0RA0M 8C0OMIT8TY-, How Acuired-- Df ', 0E D ImprovementsSince Acuisition-- 11CME Extnt of Property (Number Acres,Buildin0gs, Etc.) .0 ACRES i'MRSIHA8ND Present Use 111001,1E T0T-,8NC5T0L I3F TTA0S 8C 107; -TI : .0M TT OFF 0FITO0M 01.111 I-N0ESIC, I T 17-:. -7 88D 0U0IT, KI. '- I 0C C, 1, 0-: T,T i r,0(0)JJ70F, 95 t-,` '(,T Y0CH TTI0T, A 0D3E'I lj'0)ITI i7v NO OF 0TT0S, N0Z0ED rY T371, 'D0E3P3AM, 071,81073 ;87'111. 0T',017. E. S0igned: 0C0O NII, U S 810: ?-I TER 9 11 UESTIONNAIRE STATE 1NED REAL PROPERTY Department- HIGHWAY Date 9-1-3 Property Reported TRACTS OF LAND OUTSIDE TBE NML R1Gh-T-F-VTV,Y Location:. Town --- SEA BR, (71, County_ ROCKINGHAM. Describe Bounds: Eas t Wes t Sides N. H. Turnpike,,., For more accurate description, contact the Right-of-Way Division. Record of Title: Deed Reference 11/117 Registry ROCKUNIGHAM COUNTY How Acuired- DEM) T,mprovements Since Acuisition NONE " 19D 1 Ire Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) ACRES WOODLAND Present Use NONE THIS TRACT OF LAUD TY OFF FROM AL- ACCESS IT 111111 BE 171EIUD U--T.,,!L T1 C(rjT j.r, C TIT "I 17 LETI--1 OF ROUTE 95 AT 1,7111A3M TR-M, A DZT),37d1T-MT1G--T OF ITS U1M 77 T"M DEPARTZ-1MU I-117j, El; MADE. Signed: Title: COINMISSIONER 101 UESTIONNAIRE STATE OWNED REAL PROPERTY Departni,nt HIGPIUAY Date. Property Reported VWXTS OF LAlM 01TY'S ME TITE N0171-1-AL RICK0TI -00F'-jfLA'y Location: Town County Describe Bounds: East Side N. H. Turnpike, For more accurate description,, contact the Right-o0f-Way Division.. Record of Title: Deed Reference- 1117/00 -11 COUNTCY Registry R0O0CKIN0GM How Acuired- D EZLP- Improvements Since Acuisition NONE, Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildingr.,,Etc.) 7-0507**-A05RE'.0T-T55D5D51-&15z-- Present Use 5NOM THIS T37,L"ICT OF LAINTIDIVI-AS CU3T OFF 0F1150M ALL '.AC5UESS). IT WILL BEE 5RJELD U5MVIL THE '.."'OUPL0ETI0O'N OF 095 0l0Vml T I IT)T",7 0J) Ttl- AT VI0J3MT TIM3E A 3D5r9-0M-?' 001,' 7TS Signed: Title: UESTIONMAIRF UrDATED STATE OWNED REAL PROPERTY (Jbnury 1XXRk, through December 31, 1966 1967 Dpartaient Ilighway Date January 1,196 Nature of traneaction: Disposal Acuisition Ll Property Reported Trnct Location: Town Seabrook county Rockingham Describe Bounds: East side of 195 For more accurate description contact Right ofJay Division Record of Title: Deed Reference 15/160 Reglutr Rocktnz0ham Now Acuired or Disposed Deed Improvemente Since Acuisition None Extent of Property (Number Acres, Buildings, Etc.) 0.A Present Use None. Purchased entirety of lot. Signed Cormissioner Title: TABLE 3 HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT DESCRIPTIONS Dover Id. No. Job'No Description 'Year ',ROW- -"'1-07+92 f Jan @NO, Bridw-- '2122 F,262 2T T950 Froib 'Sta,'- 81+00 To Sta, 107+92 ROW=1001 From Sta, 107+92 To Sta, 142+100 ROR =661. 31 WPMH #54 1935 From Sta. 167+00 173 To Sta. 274+00 ROW=66 - 32 NRM #195 1933 Sta. 150+00 202 To Sta. 172+00 ROW= (See 33* 33 FA210-J 1937 From Sta. 76+30 292 FA109 To Sta. 274+75 FA 54 ROW=66 34 NRM #262 1933 From Sta. 26+52 327 To Sta. 289+61.75 ROW=66 35 Old Survey Map Showing Park 1937 235 Areas Area Part B =11.60 acres Area Part C =12.36 acres 36 SAC 1644 1950 From Sta. 79+12 904 To Sta. 85+00 ROW-661 From Sta 169+00 To Sta. 181+50 ROW=66 From Sta. 181+50 To Sta. 195+73 ROW=601 From Sta* 195+73 To Sta. i97+00 ROW=501 37 LS See L.S FILES ifting on 38 LS 11 3sponse 39 LS .-om NHDPNH 41 LS )r data 42 LS .d Road No Grid No ROW Is 49 4RODS=66' Id. No. ,e @j Yst@MT to 9 49 4RODS=661 18 49 4RODS=661 25 48 4RODS=66' Durham Id. No. Job No. Description Year ROW Plan No. em 80 NRH 211-C 1935 ROW=66'*** 168 81 NRS & M 249'' 1933 ROW=66'*** 189 82 TLR 14167 1950 From Sta. 20+50 865,509 To Sta. 31+50 83 TLR 141949 1953 ROW=100'*** 973 P-2418 84- F-012-2(4) 1964 From Sta. 146+K 9H P-3879-B To Sta. 602+50 ROW=264' 85 P-7779 BETTERMENT 1966 ROW=66'*** 2253 86 P-1779 BETTERMENT 1972 From Sta. 9+75 3112 Rte. 108 To Sta. 19+50 ROW=83' 87 WPGS 298 1936 ROW=66*** 189 Old Road No - Grid No ROW System F - 49 4RODS--C6 4 - 49 4RODS-661 .7 - 49 4RODS461 8 - 49 4RODS-661 20 - 49 4RODs-661 EXETER Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 30 F-018-2(l) 100' to Stratham TL 1955 2072 STA 30+20-STA 33+10 ROW 66' STA 33+10-STA 34+65 ROW 50' STA 34+65-STA 39+75.ROW IOC STA 39+75-STA 49 ROW 55"-66 STA 49+100-STA 63+100 ROW1C STA 63+00 ROW 66' 31 P1384 Betterment-Exeter- 1955 .3025 STA 3+50-STA 7+50 Brentwood ROW 75' Southern side and 25' Northern side Total ROW 100' 32 Rockingham County 2222 STA 8+00-STA 17+00 ROW 100' Courthouse-Route 101C to Route 88 33 F-018-2(8) 1959 4B STA 99+00-STA 102+00 ROW12E P3380A (Equation STA 103+00=249B+C STA 249B+00-STA 260B+00 ROW varies from 200'-500' STA 260B+OO-STA 269B+00 ROW 225' Northernside-125' Southern side (Equation STA 269B=STA 45) STA 45+00-STA 102+00 ROW 3E STA 102+00-STA 113+00 ROW 4001-500, STA 113+00-STA 165+50 ROW 300'-350' (Between STA 156-159 state own) 11.9 acres on Southern side of Road STA 165+50-STA 173+50 ROW varies from 100'-225' Southern side + 200'-500' Northern side (Junction 101+108) STA 174+50-STA 186 ROW 400' 230' Northernside ROW 550 3W Southern side 34@ EBF-020-1(2) Exeter to Hampton TL @F STA 200+00-STA 204+00 ROW 350'-750' Rte 101 by-pass STA 214+00-STA 217-00 ROW 325'-475' STA 217+00-STA 239-00 ROW 475-325' STA 239-STA 252+50 ROW 350' STA 253-00-STA 254+00 ROW 600' (Around Guinea R STA 254+00-STA 276+60 ROW 350-325 STA 276+60-STA 287+00 ROW 375' STA 287+00-STA 303+00 ROW 375'-800' (Junction 101-D) Exeter (Continued) &dent. Job Descriptions Year Plan ROW 35 TRA-.B Route 108 over Bridge (see Folder) C-7345 Little River 36 Southside Rd. Route 101 546 ROW varies' from 50'-100' 37 E-240-E Route 101 1933 169 ROW varies from,50'-100' 38 TLB Route 108, Exeter 1935 194 Bridge OLD SYSTEM Road Grid ROW 3 49 4 rods 7 57 3 rods 2 58 3 rods 11 58 3 rods GREENLAND Ident. Job Description Year Man ROW 71 SAR Winnecut Road 1968 2284 STA 69-64+50 ROW 50' S-7836 STA 64+50-60+50 ROW 75' STA 60+50-40+00 ROW 50' HAMPTON Ident. Job -Description Year Plan ROW 90 Marshes are to Mass. 1935. 2 Row generally 100.'. Varies border to 200' in places along shore. 91 WP6H-17 19.35. 172 STA 2-STA 15 ROW impossible to deter- mine.. At least the width of road 92 WP6H-37E Route 1 railway, overpass 1935 177 93 PLAN Route 1A 1933 186'. No-ROW indicated. State- owns-from Western shoulder to low tide line. Road wide varies.from 30'-50' .94 F318(1) mile strip.. Hampton 1946 186 STA 77+50-STA 49+60 bridge Beach and Bound Road is 40' wide from 49+60 including Hampton River state land widens up to Bridge 400' at STA 108+50 95 Ocean Blvd-Route 1A from 1936 751. ROW 100' Little Boars Head to Plaice Cove Road 96 F021-1(1) Route.1A 1955 2051 STA 158+00-STA 234+61 ROW 50' on Average. State owns some -property on Western side of Road-Old hotel lots 97 EBF 101-C .1961 2-F STA 302+00-STA 306+00- 020-(12) Hampton portion Intersection w/101-D ROW exceeds 700' STA 306' +OO-STA 312+00. ROW 700'-350' STA 312+00-STA 345+50 ROW 350'-375' STA 345+50-STA 35.8+00 ROW varies on both sides of of road between 175'-500' STA 358+00-STA 378+50 ROW 4001 STA 378+50-1-95 Intersectic ROW increases from 400' to 600' 98 F020-1(3) 1-95 Interchange 1962 4-H Intersection w/101-C ROW averages 550' along 1-95 99 F020-1(4) Intersection Route 1 1962 5-H STA 35+50-STA 47+75 and new 101-C ROW's are extensive-1900- around.intersection area HAMPTON (Continued) Ident. Job -Description Year Plan ROW 100 P4147-D Beach feeder 19.62 5-H STA 535+90 (Landing Road) STA 609 ROW 200. STA 6Q9 (Intersection w/ Glade Path) ROW widens to 350' Jacket 101 Bridge over Taylor 4997 8-STA 12 ROW 501-100, River OLD SYSTEM ..Road Grid ROW 10 58 3 Rods HAMPTON FALLS Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 130 SAB-C Route 84/Hampton Falls Jacket STA 209+00.-STA 202+00 River .5833-1.2 ROW approx 70' at widest. Aver RDW=150' point.near i@, OLD SYPU-I RMI Road Grid 10 58 3-4 rods Madbury .Id. No. JobAo- Description Year ROW Plan NO. System 6-o @-3498 Rts #4 & From Sta 69+00 2097 Over Mallego To Sta 92+00 Brook ROW=100' 61 SAB-C From Sta. 2+00 11-H S-7464 To.Sta. 18+00 ROW 1001 - 52 S-1136 From Sta. 86+00 3046 B-2144 To Sta. 97=00 ROW=66' w/ va- Mances to ran- dom location of structures 63 FA 67(2) 1939 From Sta. 116+13.1 731 To Sta. 158+20 ROW=66' 64 FAGS 13A (1) 1941 From Sta. 3+50'- 585 To Sta. 23+50 ROW=66' Old Road No - Grid No ROW System 6 - 49 4RODS=66' 8 - 49 4RODS=66' 18 - 48 4RODS=66' 25- - 48 4RODS=66' NEW CASTLE Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 5b MAP UNAVAILABLE NEWFIELDS Year Plan ROW Ident. Job Description 15 ..P-7670 1966 22-48' ROW-66 feet Old System Road Grid ROW 3 49 4 Rods .NEWINGTON Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 1 SN-FAP 101(2) 12901 1940 741 @STA 0+00-56+50 ROW 1001 .56+50-61. ROW=66' 61+66 1001-1501 66-75 1001 75-70 100'-125' 78-80 150 .80-84 2001-150, 84-100 100' 100-110+80 125' 2 Old General Sullivan Approach to General Bridge Sullivan Bridge from 1400' back on Newington side - to 700' on Dover side ROW=100' 3 F262(2) Route 16, 1950 874. Included in Dover descript ion 4 included in L.S. plans 5 Included in L.S. plans 6 Included in L.S. plans 7 Included in L.S. plans. 8 LS1820(1) Spaulding Turnpike 1955 86+19 Station Portsmouth. Newington T.L. 197S - Dover-Newington T.L ROW generally 100' on.eith, side of mediam strip. Own, ership of property.with I mediam strip varies. See L.S. files for specific details Old System None Newmarket -1d. P- M'0. Job No Description (ear ROW Plan No. YS WPGH 272-B 1936 ROW=66*** 178 Grade X-ING From Sta. 36+50 521 Rte. #108 & BMRR To Sta. 70+80.3 ROW S33 (1),C-2763 Bridge on.Rts. 108 From Sta. 3+00 996 To Sta. 6+00 ROW?** NRH 21 I-C 935 From Sta. 3+50 168 To Sta. 103+40 ROW=66' Ad 3y-s'tem Road No - Grid No ROW 2 - 49 .4RODS=661 3' - 49 4RODS=66' 5 - 49 4RODS=66' 23 49 4RODS=66' 24 .49 3RODS=49.5' 25 49 3RODS=49.5' v si, NORTH HAMPTON Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 80 S.-7840 Route -101-D 2?26 STA.6+07-STA.17+37 ROW 66 .81 NkH Route 1 1935 524 STA 4+00-STA 8+50 #37D Greenland Road & B&M RR ROW @381 82 1-95 See separate sheet for 1-95 description Old System Road Grid ROW 3 58 .3 Rods 4 58 4.5 Rods 5 58 3 Rods 6 58 3 Rods 8 58 40 feet 13 58 see layout 15 58 2.5 Rods 16 58 3 Rods 17 58 3 Rods 18 58 4 Rods 9.@ 49 Rods 19 49 3 Rods PORTSMOUTH Ident..# Job Description Year Plan ROW 15 NPM 152 19.33 1.83 1+50-49 Width of road 24' No ROW indicated beyond pavement 16 SN-FAP 129(2) 1940 741 Newington-Portsmouth TL 110-114 ROW=100 114-129 ROW 100'-160' 129-131 1251-661 131-156 66 17 P-399 1940 567 2+00 Bridge Extent of pavement 26' No other ROW indicated. Assumed to be 50' 18 SN-FAP 152 D(1) 1941 769 Map not available 19 P2582 1953 986 Bridge P2583 20, SAC 1648 1951 908 STA 3+00-30+00 ROW 100'- .21 WI-37(7) 1953 2016 STA B4+5.0-18-18 ROW 50 22 ..Route 1 By Pass approach 1954 982 tointerstate bridge 712 ROW varies from 100'-120' Except around interchanges where ROW is more exten- sive 23 F-018-2(4) P-2977 2118 STA 432+50-436 ROW 125' 436-441 ROW 100' 442-477 ROW 1501 477-480 ROW 125' 480-571 ROW 150 572-585 ROW 55-60' 585-5891. ROW 80' 24 VOO1-1(1) 1963. 9E 125+50 128 66.' 128-138 ROW 66 -901 138-158+60 ROW vanes 60-91 depending on.property line., 25 26 Included in 27 1-95 description 28 PORTSMOUTH (Continued) Ident. Job Description Year PI a n R014 1 29 .30 Ind uded in 1-95 description 8. Spaulding TLWIIP1,e fr'oi,,i Portsmouth STA 35-86S traffic circle to Nevii ngton TL ROW 200' Except in a rea, of new.1-95 construction Old Sys t ehl None Rollinsford Id. No. Job No Description Y6ar ROW Plan No. System TT S-224( Rt #4 T-958 From Sta, 30+50 2122'' To Sta 167+50 ROW=1001 12 S-7224 Roberts' Ro. From Sta, 11+50@ G710 To Sta, 43+50 501 North Bound Lane 331 South Bound Lane ROW=831 Total. 13 S-1072=A From Sta. 167+50 0-11 To Sta. 205+60 ROW VARIES FROM 190' to 95' D e to Random to- u cation of Struc7-'-4- e!@ tures '14 FAGS #1(0-51) B&MRR in From Sta. 10+50 3098 Vi 1 lage To Sta. 62+50 Old Road No. Grid No ROW System 18 49 4RODS=66' ,ROW not delineated by plans, however jog is duplicated and ROW given by the job associated 'with giyen reference numbel 4ROW, not delineated by plans, @@Because of changing equations stationi,ng not'giyen RYE-- Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 60 TLR 14200 195.4 2016 See Plan P-2449 491 61 Ocean Boulevar.d, Route 1A 638. Difficult to.determine. -n Width of.road varies froi 301-501 62 DA WRY Route 1A over Seavey's 1942 609 Creek 63 Ocean Boulevard, Route 1A 977 Same as above Old System. Road Grid ROW 9 49 4 Rods 16 49 See layout 17 49 3 Rods 1 .50 See layout 2 50- See layout SEABROOK Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 140 S 26(l) Route 286 Bridge over 1947., 714 126+50-140+90 ROW 100' Blackwater Road inter- 140+95-141+33 Bridge section on Route 1A at 141+33-152+50 ROW 100' Major's Rock 150+50-158+50 ROW varieE from 300'-500' 141 526(2) Route 286 1957 2074 STA 7+35-16+30 ROW 50' From Mass Bridge to 16+30-18+25 ROW 125' Blackwater Road 18+25-22+00 ROW 100' 22-25-1751-100, 25+00-175'-100' .25+00-126+50 ROW 100' with some minor varia tions 142 P-74.88-J 1-95 Mass border to 1967 '3088 ROW 3501 intersection Route 107 106-121 ROW 650' on southern side. 150' on N. 121-141+50 350' 141+50-146+50 350'-550' 146+50 - 150 725' (150 on N - 575 on S) 150-153 150' on N side 425' on South side 153-156 300' on N side 200' on.$ side (Rte 107 junction) 157-159+26 ROW narrows to 300' (150', ea. side) 143 S-68(3) TL Hampton Falls New Zealand Road 1972 3117 STA 1438-1445+70 ROW- Intersection w/Route 107. 150'-275 1445+70-1449 ROW 275'- 2251 1449-1461+50 ROW 225' 1461+50-1468 ROW 225'- 160' 1468-1510 ROW 1601 1510-1513 ROW 160'-200' STA 1513+64-STA 10+99 10+99-24+15 ROW 200' 144 FAGS 24A(l) Bridge over B&M RR 1940 710 145. FA 244A Mass border,to Tayl-or 1970 182 STA 0-5+00 ROW 60' R-1, R-17 River 5-8+80-ROW100'-125P 8+80-10+53-ROW 150' 10+53-24+50 ROW 50'-60' 24+50-30+00 ROW 70'-120' ROW 50'-65' 73-76 ROW 25' STA 138-155-ROW50'-60'-40' 77-115+60 ROW 50'-60' 155-157 ROW 25' Hampton Falls TL 118+00 121 ROW 45'-50' SEABROOK (Continued) Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 157-163. ROW 50 121-123 ROW 50 @OW 20' 123+50-126 ROW 100' 166-198 ROW,501-751-50' 127@137 ROW 60 -75'. 138-150 ROW 501-60 146 Ocean Road 1906 198 ROW-100' Route 1A 1935 until bridge where it Mass border widens to 215' Seabrook bridge 147 Traffic circle Smithtown 1936 200- Radius of circle lbo' TLR, Smithtown 201 .0+02-11+40 149. Area around traffic circ' 110 See plan for details STRATHAM Ident. Job Description Year Plan ROW 30 F-01&-2(l) 1955 2072 STA 73+00-84+00 @ROW 100 Cont. from -STA 84-86 ROW 851 Exeter TL. STA 87-90 ROW 1351 STA 91-118@ ROW IOOr STA 118-124 ROW expands to 190'. STA -124-164+50 75'-100' range STA 165-173 varies 75'- 85' w/property lines 173+50-175 ROW 150 ROW 100'. 175 112-188@ ROW 150'-200' 188-205-Interchange ROW Extends over 5bo' 205-227 66, 227-264 ROW varies 75'- 100 45 - FA272-A Route 108 1936 196 STA 4+50@-STA .72+00 ROW 4-A 46 S@220(1) 1959 STA 175+00-STA 182+00 650'-380' P3381 STA 182-STA 227+00 ROW 380 STA 227-STA 233 (101-C) 380'-750' F-018-2(9) 1959 STA 264+00-STA 310+00 ROW 100 P-3769 1959 8A STA 310-323 ROW 2001 323-330 ROW 100' .330-330+50 ROW 150' 339+50-341 ROW 100' 341-358+50 ROW 15GI 358+50-361 ROW 125' 361-367+50 ROW 100, 367+50-392 ROW 125' 392-417 - ROW 100' 417-427 ROW 150'-200'. Old System Road Grid ROW 10 49 3 Rods 12 49- See layout 13 49 3 Rods 14 49 1.5 Rods 14 49A 1.5 Rods 15 49 3 Rods 2 58 --- Interstate 95 Widening The following is an inventory of easements obtained as part of the Interstate 95 construction, and the p roject of 1974. Rather than separate this project by towns, we have included all the inproved sections in the following manner. The area concerned is basically the whole length of 1-95, from the Massachusetts border in Seabrook to the completion of the construction in Portsmouth. The plans consulted for Seabrook and North Hampton are S-3 and S-4. The Ports- mouth plans are P-8 and P-10, and also 6-F and 9-E. Job No. Seabrook - Portsmouth 142 STA 141-158: Route 107 Interchange. LAROW covers an area around quarter clover leaf of about 1000'. STA 158-165 ROW 3001 149 STA 66-68: ROW 350', because of additional easements of 50' on eastern side of road. Note: here STA numbers change from 165 to 66. STA 94+50: Relocation of Route 84, easements.vary-Consult S-3 STA 97+50-122+40: 350' ROW with eastern additions resumes 122-40-126+70:ROW increases towards maximum of 500' at latter station STA 126+70-150: 300'-'350' ROW resumes until Route 88, where ROW widens. Consult S-3. STA 150-194: ROW 350'-400'5 eastern easements. STA 194-200: Here 1-95 is bounded on the west by the Taylor River, at the expense of 100' of usual easements. To maintain the approximate-400' ROW, 100' of extra land was acquired on eastern side of 1-95. STA 200-229: 400' ROW STA 230-: Relocated Towle Farm Road. ROW many and varied. Consult plan. 82 STA 342-404: ROW approx. 400' extra ROW along South Road at STA 348 extra ROW along Route 101-D at STA 368 extra ROW along Walnut Avenue at STA 404 STA 405-429: 500' ROW increase of ROW due to PSC aquisition for power line re- location. STA 430-443: 350' ROW 82 STA 443-453+53: Intersection with Route 151. ROW large and varied. Much land acquired from Sagamore-Hampton Golf Clubs and private landowners, Consult plans S-3 and S-4. 83 STA 450-520: 375'-400' ROW 50' additional ROW now on western-side Job No. Seabrook - Portsmouth STA 520-536: approx. 525' ROW Highway ROW is approx. 375 including the extra 50' weste'rn easements In addition, on eastern side is 150' of power line ROW STA 536-549: 375' ROW by Highway Department +100' ROW by PSC for power lines 475' ROW total STA 549: Intersection of Breakfast Hill Road. Consult plan S-4 STA 551-638: 350' ROW by Highway Department +125' ROW by PSC for power lines 475 ROW total STA 638-640: Intersection with Relected Ocean Road. See S-4 375' ROW 100' PSC ROW 475' ROW tot 25 STA 670-683: 500' ROW 680-706: ROW exceeding 1000' Route 101 Interchange in Portsmouth. See Plans 6-F and P-8. Extensive easements. 26 Route 1 Bypass., rotary, Interchange with Route 4 and 16. Consult plan 9-E. 27 Route 1 Bypass continued. See plan P-8. *NOTE: Extensive ROWS within jobs 26 and 27, but all ROW outside LAROW deeded to the City of Portsmouth 28 STA 505+00-524+23.25: 1-95 continuation in Portsmouth 29 STA 524+23.25-end of N.H. portion at bank of Piscataqua River. Plan P-10, 1.970, shows ROW takes for completion of 1-95. Consult plan. lilt 0711 HEM, '@Ii'lulam CLUM 70 C;oastal' Resources Management Program First Year Report Attachment B ry INVENTORY OF LAND USES 00 N7') INVENTORY OF LAND USES In partial fulfillment of paragraph 2B of the FY '75 Coastal Zone Contract an inventory of existing land uses was undertaken. Rather than repeat at length the recent land use studies previously undertaken by both the Southeastern New Hampshire and Strafford Regional Planning Commissions, a brief summary and detailed maps are provided. For more specific land use descriptions see the following references: a. Existing Land Use, 1973. Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. b. Southern Strafford Region, An Environmental Planning Study, pending. Strafford Regional P lanning Commission. Land use was combined with vegetative cover for mapping purposes as is discussed below. All of the maps were based on aerial photographs, almost all of which were at a scale of oneinch equals approximately 1667 feet. Depending on the specific area of the coastal zone, however, different series of photographs were used. All towns that fell within the jurisdiction of the Strafford Planning Region were mapped from existing maps which were part of reference b above. These existing maps used 1962 and 1968 (Dover only) photos with detailed field checking. These photos were provided by the Strafford County Forester and the Dover city planner, respectively. The Kittery-Isles of Shoals, Portsmouth, Hampton- Newburyport Quads. were mapped from 1"=2000' acetate overlays provided by the Photographic Interpretation-Corporation (PIC). These overlays were part of their pilot mapping projec t for OCP. Much of the Newmarket and Exeter Quadrangles were mapped from 1974 photos provided by the Rockingham County Forester, These were also field checked. The coastal area of New Hampshire has a variety of land-uses ranging from remnants of early colonial farming to the recent residential, commercial, industrial and commercial-recreational developments. The historical blend of agriculture and industry in the mill towns such as Exeter*and Dover and the more marine or- iented commerce towns along the Atlantic coast have given way to residential subdivisions, strip commercial development, and intense commercial-recreational uses along much of the coast. Since the land use and vegetative cover maps show only an instant in time, it is difficult to protray this process, but the preponderance of the new types of development can easily be seen on the various maps. This map combines both land use--where there is evidence of manis activities on the land--and vegetative cover--where there i,s no permanent evidence of man's activities. Often planners distinguish these two factors by using separate maps for each. For purposes of this study it was felt there would be no real loss in information for coastal zone planning. It is essential to know how much of the area is currently used for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, etc. and how much is undeveloped. From this information and an analysis of competing demands for the land, allocation of future uses to remaining undeveloped spaces in a bal- anced pattern can be achieved. The land use classification system which follows was arrived at after much deliberation. Discussions with Paul Brunz at UNH who was engaging in a land use study)as well as the consultants from PIC helped clarify our own thinking..@ A -scbirerne was arrived at that is most appropriate for the scale of mapping and useful for planning purposes. -2- Land Use & Vegetative Cover Map Residential COUE; la-. Low density 1 D,U, per acre lb. Medium density 1-4 D.U. per.acre 1c. High density )o4 D.U. per acre ld. Mobile home park Commercial 2a. CBD, etc. 2b. Warehousing and storage 2c. Isolated business Industrial #-c' 3a. Heavy (power generations, e@- 3b. Light Extractive 4a. Fishing 4b. Mining Waste Disposal 5a. Dumps 5b. Sewage treatment facilities 5c. Junkyards 5d. Incinerators Recreation 6a. Marinas 6b. Beaches l/ Based on modifications to categories used in the Preliminary Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Substate District @k 6, and the Southeastern New Hampshire Land Use, Report -3- Recreation (cont) 6c. Athletic fields and Playgrounds 6d. Public Parks and Forests 6e. Campgrounds 6f. Gold courses Transportation, Communications and Utilities 7a. Highways .7b. Powerlines 7 c,. Railroads 7d. Airports 7e. Auto parking 7f. Railyards 7g. Water treatment 7h. Harbor and dock facilities 7i. Pipelines Agriculture 8a. Croplands 8b. Fields and Pastures 8c. Orchards 8d. Other Woodland 9a. Forest land Wetland 10a. Mud flat/sand bar 10b. Tidal marsh 10c. Fresh water Institutional 1,2a. Schools -4- Institutional (cont) 1-2b. Colleges 12c. Churches 12d. Hospitals l2e. -State Prisons 12f. County Farms 12g. Military (Pease Air Force Base) 12h'., Cemetary 12i. Historic 12j. Government function 13. Public Water Supply Lands Water:-@ 14a. Rivers 14b. Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs 15. Abandoned land (fields, orchards, etc.) -5- @@ . . G I COASTAL 11 ME I Nir Zl@@g 'Ill @Iffls @@, CE27ER I a' I Coastal Resources Management program I; First-Year Report &ttachment BI- 2 INVENTORY OF HISTORIC AREAS AND SITES r7 inventory of Historic Areas and Sites (See Map Areas of Particular Concern) In New Hampshire there are three ways of officially recognizing that a place has historic significance. They are: 1. Listing on the National Registers maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior, more particularly, the National Register of Historic Places; 2. Listing by the State of New Hampshire as an Historic Site; 3. Classification by the municipality as an Historic District. These listings are not mutually exclusive and one place may fit-criteria for all three listings - for example the site of-the (former) Exeter Town House is a state historic site located in a municipally created historic district, and the district is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Each listing implies that the place is of importance in the history of the local- ity, the state, or the-nation. Such a listing should sound an informal warning, in addition to any legal sanctions involved, that may well be an area not suitable for vast transformation and heavy development. Each listing has a slightly different purpose, entails different criteria for designation, and-results in a different legal situation. 1) Listing on the National Register of Historic Places is done under the National Historic Preservation Act of.1966. The register lists the nation's historic and architectually significant structures, sites, and areas of national, regional, state and local significance. Under the act, a federal Advisory Council was created which must review federal, or federally licensed actions which affect a building or site on the Register. This review, if negative, is not tantamount to a veto but is a factor to be considered in deciding whether or not the federal action should pro- -eed. This is a strong presumption, however, that federal actions should "not des- poil the environment or adversely affect property which has been officially designated as historically or architectually significant." El-Y-11 497 F. 2d 252, 256 (1974). The process for designation involves nomination by a private citizen or group., or a public agency, review and recommend at, i or, by the state Historic Review Board, and forwarding of this material to Washingt-on where it -is in turn reviewed. Desig- nation is by notice in the Federal R,_-,gister. Listing on the New Hamipshire listing of historic sites is done by the state t 4 Historic Commission under RSA 227A or RSA 249:39-a in coopera lon with the state 4- Department of Public Works, and Highways, and/or local governients. Such a listing is primarily for places where events have taken place rather than for places of architectual interest only. 111omination can be made by private citizens o@- groups or public agencies. Listing is consuruated by the placement of a state Histori.c Marker at or near the site. No additional legal protection is afford4-d the site by this process. Establishment of an historic district is accomplished under NH RSA 31-89a-li, by the municipal zoning authority (i.e. 'city council or town meeting). In a two step process, an Historic Dist rict Commission -is created by the zoning authority, the Commission in turn recommends the brjundaric-@s and regulations for a specific geographic area, the zoning aUthOity again acts to accept or reject the recommendation. If accepted the local commission must approve or disapprove all building permit appli- cations for the area. Its jurisdiction is confined to regulating the exterior A26peran-e of the district. The list which follows indicates all of the properties on an of the three, 6Y S 4 those place in the process of designation,, and those piaces the staff of the -Strafford Rockingham Regional Counc-il feels ought to be considered for designation in -L-.he futurp'- -2- 10RIC AREAS AND SITES (see maps) INVENTORY OF HISI, EXETER 1. FEDERAL REGISTER Official: Congregational Church, 1 Front Street Dudley House, 1 Front Street Front Street Historic District . STATE HISTORIC SITES Official: Exeter Town -House, Court. and Front S t1reets- 3. HISTORIC DISTRICTS Official: Front Street-Water Street-Pine Street-Spring Street Suggested: Park S-L-.reet Common High StrW.- and Hall Place, Franklin, River, Bow, Clifford and Sou-L'-.h Street GREENLAND . STATE HISTORIC SITES Breakfast Hi l I 3.HISTORIC DISTIRICT Suggested: Town Center HAMPTON FEDERAL REGISTER W-eare, Gov, Neshech House, Route STATE MARKERS ... STTES S0i Ueorge lwlash0ingt.pn's V' -3- HAWrON (Continued) 3. HISTORIC DISTRICT Suggested: Lafayette Road; Brimmers Lane-Depot Road, and Kensington Road NEW CASTLE FEDERAL REGISTER Fort Constitution of Route 1B) 2. STATE HISTORIC SITE Fort Constitution, '1111illiam and Mary Raids 3- HISTORIC DISTRICT Officially Proposed: Area between Portsmouth Bridge and Fort Constitution. Along 1B and including area between 1B and Water. (North) NEWFIELDS TRICT HISTORIC DISI Suggested: Town center along Route 5 and Piscassic Road NORTH HAMPTON 3. HISTORIC DISTRICT Suggested: Atlantic Avenue (101D) to beach Intersection of Atlantic Avenue, Hobb's Road and Post Road PORTSMOUTH FEDERAL REGISTER Official: Beck, Samuel H2OUSe, 4107 Deer Street' Benedict House, 30 0101ji4ddle Street Hart, Jerimiah House, 112 0I)4eer Street. Hart, John Hou-se 63 Deer St.., eet H a. rt- Ph4oel-)0e House, 0104 Deer 6Stre-e2l,- PRTSMOUTH (Continued) A Har+ -Rice lHouse, 77 Deer St-reetC. Jackson, Richard. House, North West _Street Jones, John Paul House, Middle and State Streets MacPheadris-Warner House, Chapel and Daniel Hoffatt-Ladd House,, 15. Market Street Neal, James House, 7 Deer Street Nutter-Rymes House, School Street Pinkham, Daniel [louse, 190 Deer Street Portsmouth Athenaeum, 9 1arket Stree7C PortSMOUth Pa-ade Historic District Portsmouth Public Library, islington Street Shapley Town House, 5-56 Court Street Sherburne, Henry House, 73 Deer Street Smith, Simeon P., House, 9 Russell Street Wentworth, Gov. John House, 1.6 Pleasant Street Wlentworth, Joshua House, Strawbery Banke Wentworth-Gardner House, 1.0 Mechanic Street Whidden-Ward House, 117 Deer Street OfficiallY Proposed: Strawbery Banke Historic District . STATE HISTORIC SITE Offir-1 Portsmouth Plains,-N.H. 101, East of Junction of Route 95 T r 3. HISTORIC, DISTRICT Officil: Strawbery Banke Historic District Vaughn Street Renewal Area "Deei- Street) Officia0ily Proposed: Market Suare PORTSMOUTH (Continued) Suggested: Christian Shores (42 pre-18-95 structures) Middle Street (51 Buildings, preceeding'182-5) South End (118 structures pre-1825) RYE 1. FEDERAL REGISTER Officially Proposed: Isles of Shoals 2. STATE HISTORIC SITES .Official: Isles of.Shoals Atlantic Cable and Sunken Forest Odiorne's Point Suggested: Brackett Massacre Burial Ground 3. HISTORIC DISTRICT Official: Rye Center Suggested: Expanding district to include: Washington Road, Brackett Road, Central.Road, Locke Road, and Grove Road -SEABROOK 1. FEDERAL REGISTER Salisbury Academy Building 2. STATE SITES 3. HISTORIC DISTRICTS Suggested: Lafayette Road frmc., Millpond to Deaborn Road STRATHAM C,r 3. HISTORIC DISTRI Suggested: Town Center DOVER T 1. FEDERAL REGISTER Official: County Farni Bridge Proposed: Wfoodiiian InstitUte 2. STATE HISTORIC SITES Hilton Point 3. HISTORIC DISTRICTS Proposed: Silver Street, Locust Street, parts of Central Street the Mills and adjacent hO -Sling ROLLINSFORD 3. HISTORIC DISTRICT Proposed: Salem Falls DURHAM 1. FEDERAL REGISTER Official: John Sullivan House 2. STATE HISTORIC 03ITE Off-ical: Site of Piscataua Bridge Oyster River Massacre 3. HISTORIC DISTRICT Official: Main S'Creet a0n0d Route 61008 NEWMARK ET 3. HISTORIC DISTRICT Dawntow00m, i n0cl, udi n0o granite block and sto0ne structure mills Proposed: m a mw CaRs'TaLl. NN"IE WORM-05"d 071m, I N.H. Coastal Resources -Management Program First Year Report Attachment B 4 4V-7 SCENIC ASSESIMINT Prepared by Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission 3 Water Street Exeter, New Hampshire ROME MEMNON cayffm Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is therefore difficult to assess the quality of scenic views. This assessment is necessarily subjective. The general criteria used were: 1. Highest value a coffibination of a. a distant vi@w - a relatively.stable backdrop b. a near view - some activity to watch, and c. a place to view from. The typical rocky ocean �horefront fullfills all these criteria: a. there is a distant view of the ocean, perhaps with a fishing boat, or tanker, and often the Isles of Shoals; b. there is a n@ar view with some activity such as.waves surging and spraying on -the rocks and gulls swooping and diving; c. there is a place to view from,.either a road to look out a car window from, a teawall to lean on, or a bench, or a rock to sit on. A scenic area need not be a natural area. Portsmouth Harbor,'which is highly Aeveloped, fullfills all these criteria. There is-a distant view oUdeveloped shoreline, a near view of shipping or boating or human activity, and there are many places -to stop and watch -from. Neither must the viewer eemain stationary to enjoy a scenic view. The older parts of New Castle can be b6�.t enjoyed on.foot or by bicycle. The "cottages" along the shore in North Hampon and Rye may be best enjoyed, by the public, from the window of a moving automobile. Highest value views are those that many people seem to enjoy going to see on purpose, as an end destinatiorT of a recreation oriented trip. Something people find worth taking a picture of or even worth using as a model for a sketch or painting. Medium value.views generally consist of either a distant, stable, view or a short range active view, but-not both. The viewer's interest is not held very long. A typical example is the view of the Atlantic from a sandy beach or the Great Bay from almost anywhere. Other than rather monotonous wave action and perhaps some bathers, orflshermen in.season, nothing much happens. Yet people do stop and look, and do enjoy riding in an automobile past such places. Most of the major roads in Rye, many roads in other towns, and the beaches all along the coast fall into this category. The final category, "some value" is just that a well trained, educated or peculiarly interested eye sees something worth viewing. The average man does not -- saltmarshes other than those, at Hampton-Seabrook, and downtown Ddver, are perhaps typical of this category, Some views can be enhanced by providing the missing basic element: 1) a distant view can sometimes be provided or enhanced by cutting trees, removing signs,.or by building an elevated view-point; 2) a near view can be improved by providing a place to view from usually a place to park cars, or a place to sit, or an activity to watch. The various "parkways" in and around this country's metropolitan areas were orginally constructed for the purpose of providing recreational driving for a scenic view, for example. Although there are a great many scenic views, the following lists only those in which coastal waters play a role. The maps.indicate other important views. -2- SCENIC AREAS The View: Of: From: 1. HIGHEST VALUE Great Boar's Head Hampton The Atlantic Ocean Little Boar's Head Fox Point North Hampton Rye Ledge Rye Rocky Shore North of Jenness Beach (No public access) Ragged Rock Point - Rye Rye North Beach - Rye Concord Point Rye Wallis Sands Rocky shore north to Witch Creek Rye Isles of Shoals Rye Isles of Shoals Atlantic Ocean Portsmouth Harbor Piscataqua River/Harbor Maine Shore Portsmouth shore New Castle Atlantic Ocean Harbor Islands Piscataqua River, Little Harbor, Sagamore Creek Sagamore Creek, Portsmouth Portsmouth shore Great Boar's Head Atlantic Ocean Great Bay Adams Point New Castle internal streets Rye most internal streets Downtown Portsmouth internal streets Odiorne's Point State Park internal streets and trails .Rye Harbor shoreland Hampton Harbor shoreland Seabrook Harbor shoreland 2.- MEDIUM VALUE Other shoreland of Portsmouth, Rye and Little Harbor New Castle New Castle shore Piscataqua River -3- Of: From: Remainder of Atlantic shore Atlantic Ocean Great Bay Stratham Hill (Public) Other high hills (Private) Ports of Portsmouth and other munici- internal streets palities Atlantic Ocean area along Atlantic shore not listed above primarily the beaches 3. SOME VALUE Shore of Great Bay and tributaries*to Great Bay and tributaries mill dams Shorefront cottages, other places Great Bay and tributaries, Atlantic Ocean Other parts of coastal towns internal streets -4- 7@4',@ .* . I COME MUM ME& ,d@ I I N.H. Cbastal Resources Management Program First Year Report Attadmient B 5 On Or NEW HAMPSHIRE COASTAL ZONE STUDY VARIOUS COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS AND THEIR RESPONSE TO INTRUSION BY MAN COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER COASTAL HABITATS Introduction In assessing a coastline for management planning, it is essential to consider each coastal habitat to estimate its sensitivity and capabilities for human en- deavors. It-must be borne in mind that an attempt to separately and completely evaluate the many inter-dependent ecotypes is impossible because of the complexities of their interactions. No one part of an ecosystem operates independently of any other. Looking at the coastal and estuarine waters of the State of New Hampshire as a series of natural habitats provides useful information. Aroas of high natural value, either as breeding and nursery grounds or areas of important nutrient production can can be delineated. This contributes to one part of the determination of "geographic areas of particular concern".., Otherareas of concern, such as areas of-industrial and commercial value, recreational value, or of value as resources,for economic development were investigated concurrently, and are described elsewhere in the program., This approach hel:ps to provide a framework for the analysis of future proposals for uses of the New Hampshire coastal zone. Detailed, though incomplete information has been gathered previously on various coastal ecosystems (TRIGOM (1973), TRIGOM J1974), Odum et. al. (1974) For the present, only a brief overview of the various coastal ecological systems occuring in New Hampshire is given. It is drawn largely from the sources listed. The relative value of the habitats is estimated, and some indication of ecosystem response to man-induced changes will be presented. The coastal ecosystem is considered as a highly 'interacting system, the estu- aries and the open ocean serving as key bases with migrating subsystems relating them in their transitions.. The interplay between the habitats is dealt with, emphasizing the interaction between them as functionally related entities. Habitats The ha'bitats.are defined as subsystems of the marine environment having similar physical/chemical variables, and which have characteristic populations or commun- ities. Great overlap inarealextent and species occur. The "selected species" discussed here are not necessarily ecologically dominant. They have been drawn from reference studies and knowledge of the New Hampshire seacoast because they are.of commercial/recreational interest, are unique in their nature, or are well known. Habitats whose location and importance will be dealt with here have been derived from TRIGOM (1973) and Odum, et. al. (1974). These are existing natural habitats to be discussed: 1. Estuarine 2. Worm- Cl am flat 3. Oyster-Miussel. reef 4. High velocity ecosystems 5. Salt marsh 6. Rocky shores 7. Sandy beach/shore 8. Coastal and open water pelagic 9. Offshore bottom Generally, the coastal ecosystem is a dynamic one. Response to man-induced stress can be predicted for each habitat when one realizes its requirements, energetics, The life there has had to adapt very specifically to a rather intense regime. Tlis reduces it, flexibility to adapt to new environments, and makes for a system highly vulnerable to changes. -2- and sensitivities. Estuarine An estuarine ecosystem is defined by Clark (1974) as any semi-enclosed coastal water body with an open connection to the sea and a measurable quantity of salt in its waters (greater than 0.5 ppt).* Estuaries are strongly affected by tidal action,.and within it sea water is mixed with fresh.water from land drainage, thus forming three characteristic water types: low salinity, medium salinity and high salinity. 'The oligohaline (low salinity) estuarine system generally exists at the river mouth. The uni-directional river fl'ow changes to circulational flow such as that found in a wide, shallow body of water. The point where.the Squamscott River enters Great Bay is one such example. The oligohaline a:reas gradually blend into areas of medium salinity,,so it is difficult to distinguish the two,,. According to Odum, et. al. (1974), there are no'precise boundaries due to variations caused by tidal cycles, rainfall,, circulation, evaporation and so forth. The estuarine environment provides protection from wave action, allowing plants to root, clams to set, and the retention of suspended life and nutrients. Light penetration to the bottom enhances plant growth and tide flat biota. The fresh water inflow constitutes the top layer over the salty, heavier waters, permitting stratiffcation and circulation. This enables transport.for suspended life and nutrients which flow in under the salty layer and out via the surface. The tidal rhythm acts as a regulator of feeding, breeding, and other functions. The estuary is generally silty and variably turbid and is protected f-rom predators due to the ..variable salinity and shallow water. The estuarine ecosystem is a vital area with high value as a natural habitat. The Great and Little Bays and the Hampton- Sea b rook estuary comprise principal estuarine systems in New Hampshire. -3- Varying levels of salinity provide primary support for a number of species that are dependent upon a particular saline concentration. Estuaries are required by invertebrates and marine fish for residence during part or all of their life cycle. Bluefish, menhaden, shrimp and fluke spawn in open sea and then migrate to the estuaries. Clams are abundant here, in lower salinity areas,and migrating species such as the striped bass, Atlantic mackerel, and Atlantic cod use this system at various times of the year (See Table #1 - Occurrence of Important Migratory Fishes in Great Bay Estuary).' For recreational use, the clam flats present in Great Bay and Hampton-Seabrook are important, and there is a recognized striped bass and smelt fishery at various times of the year. -Striped bass occur in the estuaries primarily from May through November and smelt from October through June. Areas of the Piscataqua River, Great Bay, and Hampton-Seabrook estuaries are also used as breeding- nursery areas by alewife, coho salman and winter flounder. It is an accepted assump- tion that oceanic fishes in general are primarily dependent on the estuary (Clark, 1974). The es'tuary is extremely productive, as it supports'heavy beds of underwater vegetation. The photsyntheticprocesses of the vegetation convert energy to a useable food source, providing high food production. The grasses also produce oxygen, necessary for an aerobi c system, and they stabilize the bottom sediment (Clark, 1974). Estuaries also serve as.traps for nutrients, utilized by young migrating species for growth. The estuarine habitat also acts.therefore as a route through which many pollutants pass to become concentrated elsewhere. A number of waterfowl might be added to indicate the significance*of the estuary as a natural habitat. In Great Bay, Stevenson, et. al. (1974) determined that more than 27 species of waterfowl use the area, with Canada Geese, Greater Scaup and Black Duck totalling 90 percent of the population. Their report goes on to state that during the fall the Great Bay area is used extensively for the hunting of these species. -4- Characteristics of estuarine systems to be noted include.the presence of a plankton-based food chain. Herring-like fish eat the tiny plankton and are in .turn eaten by larger fish or harvested by man. Coastal plankton exist between the estuary and the open ocean, and along with other migrating subsystews, links the two. The estuarine system is used as a breeding and nursery area, and migrating species provide visible indication'of the interrelatedness of various ecological systems. The organic production of tidal marsh is exported to the estuary where- species feed on it to convert otherwise unusable organic.material into animal matter. Characteristically, estuaries are more productive-than.either the sea or freshwater. Estuarine responses.to man-induced stress have 'not been completely investigated. Odum, et. al. (1974) report that "by and large the popular impression that'a general decline in the pppulation of migrating organisms has occurred over the past several years it correct."' Among the modifications of the estuary which affects migrating species are dam,construction (present on e .ach of the major'rivers emptying into the Great Bay), dredging and filling of wetlands and waterways, and disposal of various chemical and organic wastes. All of these have occured to some extent in New Hampshire coastal*waters. Locally, Normandeau Associates (1970) indicated the following: "Historical evidence indicates that the Piscataqua River Estuary was noted for its richness of marine life. Salmon, shad, cod, lobster, clams and oyster were present in such abundance that they not only supplied the populace with a major supply of seafood,', but were even used as food for domestic animals. A noticable decline in these marine sources occurred after the beginning of local industrial development about 1800. This decline has been traced to destruction of bottom habitat through sedimentation, exclusion of fish and breeding grounds by dams on the rivers, and domestic and industrial pollution." Estuarine organisms can react to environmental, stres s as all other existing life forms do. They have three alternat'ives: either adapt, mi .grate or die. Since the coastal environment has intense natural stresses to which the organisms have adapted in a very specifically and highly "specialized manner, the alternatives are not favorable. The source of pollutants which might affect estuaries is, in most instances, inflowing streams. Fish in particular are vulnerable to toxic elements, such as heavy*metals or hydrocarbons. Once a. contaminant has entered the food chain, and the large organisms incorporate it into their tissues, the concentration becomes, magnified. This is called biomagnification. Hence, humans and fish who are at the end of the food chain incorporate the highest levels of toxins. Fish are also extremely sensitive to alterations in water temperature, a problem associated with power plant effluent. Disposal of sewage waste into the estuary encourages the development of photo- synthesic plants, resulting in algalblooms (Weiss and Wilkes, 1974) and grasses floating on the surface. The high production of plant material cannot be utilized, so they accummulate at the bottom, leading to eutrophication. (Oxygen is depleted, producing anoxic conditi-ons and an unhealthy appearance and smell). The fish and other organisms begin to die, as the death of the estuary begins. Odum, et. al. (1974) have identified a portion of the Great Bay Estuary as being a sewage affected system. A study recently completed by the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Comnission (Staff Report No. 67 - "Piscataqua River and Coastal New Hampshire Basins, Water Quality Management Plan") shows large portions of the Piscataqua River, Great Bay and tributaries as having high concen- trations of coliform bacteria. Coliform bacteria are pathogenic organisms associa- ted with increased levels of domestic dui,,qping of sewage wastes. The nears.hore -6- coastal waters and Hampton-Seabrook Harbor are in better condition. Increased use of the liscata,ua liver and Ireat lay Istu8ry by the various in lustrial and mun i c- ipal interests'and various oil terminal operators will increase stress on the .systems involved, changing their nature by altering'turbidity. Dredging is a serious threat to the estuary, as it increases sedimentation. Destruction of the grass bed.results in highly turbid waters, deficient in oxygen, light and life. (Copeland and Dickens, 1974). The inflow of oil develops a special new ecosystem .JMcMahan, 1974), dominated by organisms.that can adapt, but reducing the diversity of organisms drastically. Oil is particularly stressful to'larger. organisms, due to biomagnification. It is interesting.to note that the most desir- able species*to Man are usually those which are.affected.:the most. A good example of-this is polluted freshwater lakes, where the fish that overpopulate are dace, suckers, etc., i.e. the undesirables. Clearing the adjacent land of vegetation has many detrimental effects. One is a decrease in the watershed's ability to hold back storm waters. An increase in total volume of freshwater will be delivered.to the estuary also, providing unfavor- able'environments for species that require a certain level of salinity. Dfver@ions-of,water from the watershed,channelling rivers or clearing and surfacing of land may result in reduction of sources of dissolved nutrients to coastal waters or cause the inflow to move so quickly to sea that the ecosystem is deprived of needed nutrients. The fresh water inflow should not be altered because it may be result in a reduction of the natural supply of nutrients. Uncontrolled construction activities greatly increases the amount of sediments and contaminants carried down to the estuary with fresh water runoff. Barren soil must be stablized by replanting vegetation. Finished grades are to be designed so as to direct water flow along natural drainage course's and through natural terrain where the vegetation can cleanse runoff waters. (Clark, 1974). -7- It has bee6 determined that an estuary can recover after pollution abatement, but not from extended periods of pollution (Dean and liaskin, 1964). It must be kept in mind that if the plankton population is affected, the whole system suffers because it is dependent on the particular plankton community as the food supply basis. Any intrusion that affects the circulation, flow or bottom of the estuary will have deleterious effects. Worm-Clam Flat Spreading virtually throught the entire seacoast region is a general habitat known as the worm-claw, flat. These areas are characterized as accumulatio.ns of silt and clay which, in the intertidal areas, form a low profile zone of particles .sorted with fine fractions in the upper zone. The bottom material can be.quite sandy and hence may overlap with the beach-sandy bottom category. Worm, and clam flats are always in.protected embayments. The flats are located in sheltered bays and estuaries, in regions of silt and detritus deposition and require a constant flow of organic matter to the sediment. New Hampshire worm-dlam flats are extensive- ly located adjacent to the Hampton-Seabrook and Rye Harbor marshes, and in tidal flat areas of the Great Bay/Little Bay estuary. (See Clams and_Oysters map) The worm-clam flat ecosystem requires benthic diatoms and dinoglagellates as -ri,buting to the sources the primary producers with phytoplankton and detritus cont of energy (nutrient) flow. Nutrients pass out of the habitat as pelagic larvae, bird and fish food. Common intertidal species present in the flats include the important soft-shelled clam (Mya arenaria) and the pea clam (Gemma gemma). -Typically, eelgrass and quahog clams (Mercenariamercenaria) are found in substantial numbers. Also using worm-clay flat areas are various shore birds such as gulls., crow, sand- pipers and ducks.. Horseshoe crabs and flounders-are also common here (See Table #3). Sandworms and bloodworms are also located in such regions, sandworms being dug commercially in New Hampshire. The clams activate the food web interaction by incorporating organic matter into food for birds, fish and crabs. A number of fish which utilize the estuary as a breeding and nursery area such as the striped bass, smelt and pollock obtain their food source from the clam flats. Other fish usually found here are mummichog, eel, codfish and winter flounder. The organisms that inhabit this region have certain requirements necessary for life.'.1f an intrusion by man upsets the nutrient balance and cycling by affecting one organism, adverse effects will extend everywhere. The result of oil infiltra- tion into this habitat is long-lived. Oil sinks into the sediment, where the organisms live. Heavily oiled areas result in the mortality of clams and those,. that survive do not recover after one year observation (Sanders, et. al., 1972). Oil does not seem to concentrate in crabs, indicating that it isn't transmitted via biomagnification in the food chain.' Most probably the filter feeders (clams) filter i,t out of the system, thereby suffering the most as they accumulate it in their systems. Minor spills are tolerable. Dredging causes the most serious damage, as it reduces worm and clam population' drastically. (Syk es and Hall, 1970). An average sample in dredged bottoms pro- duced 1.1 individuals and .6 species, as compared with 60.5 individuals and 3.8 species in undredged areas. The study was taken in Florida, and it was mentioned that such effects would be even more severe in northern regions, due to an initial lower diversity. The clam flat is situated in a precarious position, as it requires protection but also needs a constant flo-vi of nutrients. A shift in either'direction will be damaging. Salinity and sediment type are determining factors in the distrib- ution of this habitat, and alterations affecting these factors will destroy it. This habitat can tolerate a limited input of waste but excessive qUantititCS Cannot -9- be dealt with. Oyster-Mussel Reef Mussel-oyster reefs are intertidal and subt-idal communities based on and dom- i6ated by beds of mussels and/or oysters. They may overlap with the rocky shores, community or be found among mud flat communities. A preliminary source of attach- ment (s.uch as a small, rock or bou.1deri allows initial settlement (Emery et. al., 1957). They may also be found attached to' foreign objects such as pilings. Their intertidal location renders them relatively well protected from predators. In New.Hampshire, locations of oyster-mussel reefs are not well documented. Some oyster reefs do exist in the Great Bay area, the Oyster River and upper stre tches of the Piscataqua River. Mussels exist throughout New Hampshire coastal areas. Generally, they are common throughout embayment regions (See Clams and Oysters maps).. Oyster's and mussels are filter feeding bivalves, filtering organic matter and recycling nutrients primarily from othersources such as the salt marsh. The reefs are highly.producti-ve, and an acre of mussels is thought to strain itts food from 2.0 to 22,000 metric tons of water per day (Anon, 1973). Their function as cleansers of the coastalsystem cannot be underestimated. They are most successful with a strong current to bring in food and carry out waste. Their waste products contain valuable nutrients for burrowing species, and they are also prey for birds, fish, man, and predatory scavengers such as crabs. The reproduction of an oyster- mussel reef is primarily affected by temperature. The shells of dead mussels or oysters serve to attract other organisms, which are fed upon by crabs, etc. The species present, are similar to those found ill rocky shore areas (See Table #3). If the muss@els (or oysters) are located on weed flats, species found in the flats %,.1ould be interspersed among them as well, which emphasizes the degree of interdependence between the va.ri.ous categories of ecotypes described here. An idea of how complex even one interaction can be illustrated by this relationship: mussels filter the products of plankton systems (both open ocean and estuary) from the water and regenerate nutrients among the algal beds which return oganic matter to the plankton. Oysters react to environmental stress by closing their valves (Laird, 1961). If conditions do not subside, they will die and the result will be the establish- ment of a community of bacteria and protozoa. Reefs may be smothered with silt or -be scoured. away when currents are altered (dredging, erection of jetties, establish- ment of marinas). Silt-laden waters constitute a harsh environment for their plank- tonic young stages, and layers of mud are an unsuitable substate. Even a thin layer of silt over an otherwise clean surface will prevent oyster larvae from attaching .(Clark, 1974). [email protected] reefs are vulneftble to water-borne pollutants. Hydrocarbon pollution results in the formation of hard inclusions within the organism's body (Scattergood and Taylor, 1949). The oyster-mussel reefs are frequently located with- in an estuarine system. If estuarine water eutrophies, the composition of-the phyto- plankton is altered. The oysters are likely to be unable to utilize the emergent community of phytoplankton an'd will vanish. Since the oysters and mussels filter the water, the eutophication process will.worsen, and since the estuarine and open ocean systems are inter-rblated and interdependent, this will create the disruption of the entire coastal ecosystem. High Velocity Ecosystems Odum, et. al. (1974) has defined an ecosystem termed 'high velocity". It ockurs in channels where water flows at speeds from 3 to 20 miles per hour. Stretches of the Piscataqua River flow at those speeds and d-Aailed studies of the biology of this high velocity ecosystem have been accomplished by NormandeauAssociates for. the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Normandeau et. al.', 1970). Odum, et. al. (1974) indicates that "very strong current dominates the system and allows dense patterns of attached organisms . . . If the surface is:within range of light, heavy algal growths develop This has been documented in the Piscat@qua by Normandeau Msociates. (An interesting analogy is.to currents in .a cooling intake pipe using salt water cooling -- such as that proposed for the Seabrook Power Plant.) Also, fouling.organisms on ships are characteristic of a high velocity ecosystem. Two species common to such ecosystems include the barnacle (Balanus Balanoides) and the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Various species. of marine algae also are found in this environment. Odum, et. al. (1974) characterize these ecosystems as being "important to man as a concentrating mechanism for food (through the feeding of such species as the barnacle and mussels),.sports, waste purification, and as problems in maintain ing ships, cooling pipes and inlets." No relative ranking in importance with other ecosystems has been offered, though this system does depend on other areas for its basic nutrients. Disruption of this system would result from any alterations in current flow. Contaminants pass through this system quickly enough so that at low concentration minimal damage would be evident.- As soon as the system transects another, the effects of pollution are not so predictable, as another system with its different properties may not react similarly. Salt Marsh The salt marsh habitat is defined as wetland areas where the emergent vegeta- tion is composed of salt-tolerant grasses. Features also include salt pans, tidal -12- creeks, and the subtidal areas of soft mud adjacent to the grass areas. They occur in protected waters as a result of mud deposition, shoaling and colonization by salt tolerant grasses. The physical extent of salt marshes in New Hampshire has been determined by Breeding, et. al.*(1974) to be approximately 7,500 acres, primar- ily in the coastal towns of Seabrook, Hampton, Hampton Falls and Rye. Other' areas, of salt marsh habitat are-spread t-hroughout the shores of Great Bay and its trib- utaries. The salt marsh is a time-built community and requires unrestricted entry of the tidal waters as tides are the determining factor in salt marsh. production. The marsh is a highly productive component for the estuary, with half of its plant tissue exported into the estuary. The habitat is widely accepted as contrIbuting significantly to the food source of various species. TRIGOM (1973) reports that "the emergent marsh is highly productive, forming an important source of food . . . along the-coast When the tide ebbs it carries nutrients out of the marsh and the nutrients are in turn utilized by shoreline and open ocean communities. .The,salt marsh ecosystem is important as a spawning and nursery ground as well as a source of.crustaceans and small fish for supplying larger predators. The annual value of food production for marin e species has been estimated at $4,000.00 per acre. (Allan in Breeding, et. al., 1974) or an annual'value in New Hampshire- of around $30,000,000. Two-thirds of all fish and shellfish are dependent on the marsh-estuarine system some time in their life cycle (Clark, 1974). Twenty-six species of fish were reported as spending all or part of their lives in the Hampton- Seabrook estuary as a whole, attracted by the nutrients there. These fish range from cod, pollock and striped bass down to killifish and sand lance (Normandeau et. al., 1971). (See Table 0). Marshes also stabilize the coastline and protect it against major flooding and storms. It comprises a necessary buffer zone, minimizing erosion and flood water -13- damage. Oxygen is produced and organic wastes are disposed of through primary nutrient production and are returned into the food chain. The inarsh utilizes materia 1 that would ordinarily accumulate. Nutrient production of the salt marsh links the food chain among wildlife, fin and shellfish, vegetation and future food,-product- ion.- The grass in marshes such as Hampton-Seabrook (Spartina alterniflora and Spartina patens used to be harvested as hay by early settlers. The salt marsh and the adjacent mud flats supply an abundance of worms and mollusks for wintering waterfowl and shorebirds. Migrating geese and ducks rely on the marshes as resting and feeding grounds, and frequent them in their migrations, providing hunting as a popular recreat ional sport. The birds are relatively safe from predators, and the tall marsh grasses and other flora offers protective color- ation. If the birds rested in other regions, they would be more susceptible to attack. Besides being invaluable aesth.etically, the marsh is important in purifying the water by acting as an absorbant sediment trap. The marsh removes toxic materials and excess nutrients from the interacting estuarine waters. A 1,000 acre marsh may be capable of purifying nitrogenous wastes from a town of up to 20,000 peop le (Clark, 1974). Vstudy by John Teal (1974),..who terms the marsh the ."living filter," indicates that sewage-derived fertilization of the marsh is beneficial in that animal and plant production increased,with minimal change in the marsh. This s,ub- stantiates, the possibility of utilizing marshes for a limited sewage dumping ground. Teal also recognizes the marsh as a "valuable seafood producer, wildlife refuge and coastal fishery nursery area." The marsh, in mechanically and chemically re- moving sediment and other suspended matter, reduces sedimentation of navigation channels and shellfish beds. The vegetation of the marsh is extremely important, for without it the loose sand and peat layers would automatically erode. The spilling of oil has a major effect on the vegetation. Oil can seep'from the flats onto the salt marsh peat layers. There, it destroys the grasses underground root system (rhizomes) by preventing oxygen from diffusing to them (Thomas, 1973) Cooler regions are particularly sensitive to this type of salt marsh deterioration. Of all the critters that inhabit the marsh, perhaps the most sensitive is the unique fiddler crab. They are the only major species which are known to be h.armed by sewage waste disposal (Teal, et. al., 1974), and are also extremely sensitive to persistent pesticides. Besides the fiddler crab, blue and green crab as well as shrimp are also essential members of the marsh system. Until recently, salt marshes were relatively safe from human intrusion. Presently, marshes are being subjected to waste disposal, dredging and oil.pollution as well as destruction for commercial uses or mosquito control. Dredging and fill- ing is unquestionably the most destructive force of intrusion by man. Permanent marsh destruction is probable and predictable. It blocks the natural tidal flow, destroys the vegetation and results in anoxic conditions. Only anaerobic species are able to survive, which is an unhealthy situation exacerbated by the hydrogen sulfide elimination - the characteristic "rotten egg"@smell. Unhealthy or polluted marshes breed mosquitos, whereas normally their popula- tion is reasonably controlled by the birds and fish that are their natural predalt-lors. Industrial waste (as opposed to sewage) is almost as detrimental as dredging, only the response is slower, and therefore less evident. Rocky Shore Habitat This habitat is defined as including intertidal and subtidal rock formations such as headlands, rocky ledges, outcroppings, boulders and pilings. All shores was hed by saline waters or wetted by spray to 20 1 .ieters depth with a rock substrate can be considered rocky. In New Hampshire, such areas as Boar's [lead, Little Boar's _15- [lead, Odiorne Point, Rye Ledge, and portions of the New Castle coast would be in- cluded in this category. Various submerged areas, particularly* in the area between Rye and the Isles of Shoals are included as well. These areas are characterized as. having high natural value. Dominating plants aft kelp, irish moss and rockweed which attach to hard stationary surfaces. They are important because they are the producers*which are exported to become the basis ..Of the food chain in other habitats (pelagic, worm and clam flats, sandy shores). Rocky shores contribute to the production, consumption and cycling of estuary components. Species such as lobsters, crabs, mussels and periwinkles frequent this habitat, making it a productive.source of food for people as well. It serves as a resource with potential for greater use of algal beds, mussels, crustaceans and fish trapping that move into these rock beds with the tide (Odum, et. al. (1974). The scenic and recreational value of rocky shores to man increases their value. .Perhaps mostAmportant is their function.as a natural barrier for breaking waves, and a protective barrier against storm waves and erosion of the land. The breaking waves against the rocks also supply beneficial aeration of the ocean water. Rocks stabilize the New Hampshire shoreline and the rocky shore community is a unique one, with long-lived organisms, high competition and simple interactions. For ex- ample, urchins are destructive grazers of the kelp bed, and their population is controlled by lobsters that prey on them. Hence, the sigi,iificance of the lobster and the consequence of drastically'redLiCing its population. Symbiotic relation- ships exist between the sessile (attached) organisms. The barnacles with the sweeping motion of their feathery feet help to cleanse the systems by removing the particulates in the water. The sessile organisms eliminate nutrients which in turn are utilized by others as an important food source (See Table 1/3). Sensitivities to man induced stress are relatively low *in this environment, espec.ially under minor disturbances. Minor oi.1 concentrations are not entirely deleterious but heavily oiled sites are completely harmful. Sewage outfall in the immediate area results in total elimination of all the species there (Borowitzka, 1972). 'Removal or disruption of the rock formation would result in erosion of the land and elimination of the life that inhabit it. The disturbance inflicted, whether it be a pollutant or excessive foot traffic, will be felt as soon as the most sensitive organism respondsS as one organism effects the entire food web. One of the principal.destructive effects is that the sessile organisms lose the ability to attach themselves to the rocks, and fall off under pollutant invasion of the water, such as dredging spoils or oil spills. The effects of pollution are ampli- fied by the fact that water borne contaminants may settle into the rock cyannies and be ingested by the organisms to be passed into the food chain. Sandy Beach/Shore This area includes beaches at the shoreline on out to the limit of effective light penetration for photosynthesis and effective wave action (about 20 to 110 feet in dep th). Zonation of this ecosystem would include subtidal, intertidal and upper tidal regions, as well as a berm and a dune strand. In New Hampshire, 70 per cent of the coastline is beach, comprising the Seabrook Beach, Hampton Beach State Park,,North Beach, Wallis Sands and similar areas such as Rye Beach. Hampton Beach is actually a barrier island, subject to erosion at the north face and dep- osition of sand at southern portions due to the action of the sublittoral current. Overwash during the high seas is characteristic of such shores, which functions to build the dune system. The sandy beach ecosystem is the least productive marine habitat. Th e environ- ment is quite harsh, and the animals that inhabit it (Usually burroi,.,ing types according to Clark, 1974) can withstand high stress due -their adaption to intense natural stress. Thi-s makes the beach portions of the shore (not the dUnes) -17- particularly adaptable to recreational use. Vario'us species associated with the habitat include sand worms,surf clams, hermit and horseshoe crabs, sand dollars, starfish, scallops and striped bass.. Birds such as gulls, terns, sandpipers and dowitchers also frequent this habitat (See Table 0). The sand dunes associated with this environment have a high natural value in the protection of the marshes located behind (Hampton-Seabrook for example).- Beaches- are recreationally and commercially valuable, but a beach cannot exist alone. The dunes behind it are naturally occurring products of wind and wave action. They perform a protective function which is quite expensive to duplicate. The dunes also function to build the beach as they store sand to replace that eroded by waves, thereby providing long term stability to the shorefront (Clark, 1974). It'makes economic sense, as well as environmental.sense, to preserve the dunes. It should be noted that in only one or two spots along New Hampshire's coast do duties exist in 'relatively natural*fo rm, at Seabrook and (possibly) at Odiorne's loint Stale.lark. The Hampton dune system has been replaced by a recreat ional complex, and several areas along the coast are diked to provide the function dunes usually perform. The barricades along the coast are not only inadequate, unappeal- ing, and do not solve the problem, but actually increase the risk of property destruction relative to the protection afforded by a stabilized dune system. Vegetation on the dunes (beach grass, wormwood, dusty miller, rose and seaside goldenrod to name a few (Petry, 1968) impede sand movement in the dunes' receding inland movement.-If the vegetation is destroyed, the dutie's movement is accelerated, resulting in erosion. The vegetation often yields beautiful flowers, aesthetically pleasing as well as attracting other species to the habitat. Dunes are especially necessary to barrier islands, as they offer the oniy means of stability absorb ing the brunt of the physical forces., Also,'portions of the dune and the berm serve as nesting areas for shore birds. Heavy foot traffic disturbs the ne-sting habitat, disrupting reproduction. Seawalls and bulkheads do not provide the effective protection against inundation of seawater a natural dune system affords and, if improperly placed, will often in- crease beach erosion with. resultant collapse of shoreside buildings. Jetties.cause .accumulation of sand at one end and erosion at the other. The beac h front is a constantly.changing environment and is by no means permanent, ..and permanent-structures located there require consistent expenditures for protection and maintenance. Behind the shifting dunes are stable dunes which consist of more permanent surroundings typified by deciduous growth. Buildings are relatively safe in this region and beyond. The beach front is quite resistant to oil pollution and other contaminants. Sewage waste would be unnacceptable hygienically due to bathers in the water. The most dangerous situat.ion arises with destruction of the dune strand. Improperly located t adways lead to deterioration of the dunes, and should always run perpendicular rather an parallel to the shoreline,. Natural forces are unpredictable and uncontrollable. It makes,sense to utilize nature's intrinsic means of conservation to allow long-term appreciation and benefit from the dynamic shore. -Coastal and Open Water Pelagic System Here we are concerned with the plankton based pelagic habitat. It ranges in geographic location from the coastal estuaries to deep ocean areas beyond the Gulf of Maine. This makes the pelagic habitat the most widespread of habitats occurring in Net%, Hampshire's coastal zone, as it is overlayed to a greater or lesser degree on all ier�,present. In this coas'. and open ocean habitat larvae of Atlantic herring, silver hake, and Atlantic salmon have been included in the selected species list (Moore et. al., 1974). Other fish that are found here are menhaden, dogfish, smelt,, ma 'erel ' tuna an' (ra rely) salmon. References to the Final Environmental- ue" c' ttate t _ ro its @eveals a number of planktonic forms of well known jen Seab ok, Un 1 and 2 1 species existing in the Hampt on-Seabrook area (See Tables-1/3 and #4). Larvae Of the softshelled clam, surf clam and pea clam have been reported. A wide range of fish larvae, -including yellowtail flounder, mackerel, pollock and cod have been encountered by Normandeau, et. al. (1974) in their studies of the environmental impact of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. The most important aspect of this ecotype is the photosynthetic production of the @p-hytoplankton. The pelagic habitat has a relatively complicated food web. The coastal _plankton system is the principal location of commercial and sport.fishing and the plankton play a significant role in the food cycle of hake, cod, pollock, swordfish and herring. Phytoplankton form the essential basis of the entire food chain, upon which everything else depends, converting energy to food and oxygenating the system. e open ocean-supports migrating species which interrelate with the estuarine habitat reproductive cycles. The open and coastal ocean also provides a "buffer" between deep systems and the-highly productive estuaries. Adaptions to this environment are less intense than in more variable coastal regions. Coastal and inland portions of this habitat are under stress primarily due to increasing -encroa.chment by man. Activities which increase water turbidity (dredging) are the -greatest single threat to coastal waters, decreasing light penetration thereby decreasing Oxygen conce ntration and photosynthesis. The entire food cha-in suffers. Sensitivity to temperature changes in felt by fish larvae., zooplankton and cope- Pods (which are prey for fish). I-lot water effluents can be extremely detrimental. The controversy over the effect of entrainment of clam larvae by the proposed Seabrook -20- Power Plant typifies such problems. If the larvae killed are from the Hampton- Seabrook area alone, a decrease in clam population will be detectable locally. If the larvae are part of an essentially "infinite" system, there will be no noticeable decrease in clam population in the area. The pelagic habitat, with its complicated food web.may escape moderate levels of contamination. An excess of nutrient input is detrimental. The problem of en- croachment enters as the highly productive marshes are under increasing pressure for development'. incrementally reducing the extent of naturally productive areas. This can only contribute to a decrease in the vitality of the pelagic ecosystem (highly valuable as a food source). The problem is exacerbated by the fact that estuarine and marsh areas are not limitless either in New Hampshire or elsewhere, New coastal activities may have a serious effect on these systems either directly, if they are large enough, or through incremental changes in nutrient-producing areas of the coastal zone. Effecfs of new activities on the coastal and nearshore open water systems are subject to'debate, however, as the obviously limited estuaries are no longer the primary impact area. The open water pelagic habitat is much more extensive and there appears to..be a popular feeling that the resource is essentially infinite that no one action will have a noticeable effect, due to the extent of area affect- ed and quantity of life it contains. Associations with the more vulnerable inland systems are incompletely known, however, and in selected cases the effects may manifest themselves much more noticeably than first thought, especially when one reali209 that a nUmber of migrating species use both coastal and inland habitats at various stages of their lives; or are carried back and forth by the current. Offshore Bottom Habitat On a regional. basis, the offshore bottom habitat is the most extensive, com- prising an area greater than all other habitats combined, except foi- tile pelagic -21- habitat. Bottom characteristics are highly variable, but generally one can characterize topographic highs such as Jeffrey's Ledge as being of hard substrate, and adjacent lows such as Jeffrey's Basin or Scantum Basin.of the softer muds and mud sand mixtures. Soft substrates (mostly sand) are also located adjacent to sandy beaches and in pockets throughout the immediate nearshore area. Two subdivisions of species exist: those that inhabit the surface and those that burrow into it. Data on community interrelationships in this system are sparse. Species may be grouped, however according to the bottom type in which they live. The following sediment types are thought to harbor different species: 1) Mud Soft 2) Sand 3) Mixture of mud, sand and shell 4) Gravel Hard 5) Bedrock outcropping 6) Rocks and cobbles The biota is dependent on debris and detritus originating outside the habitat. Species living qn the soft-bottomed areas include the.commercially important mahog- any quahog, the s urf clam, the sea scallop and the lobster. (See Table #3). This habitat also supports a variety of detritavores which feed on organic material on the bottom as detritus and are in turn fed upon by haddock, cod, pollock and other commercially valuable groundfish. Hard bottom species are present over relatively large masses of favorable habitat or in such limited places as abandoned clam shells. Many of the species which live in this habitat are very tiny, and will often attach themselves to the bottom in what appear to be sheets. These species filter organic matter out of the water and are fed upon by "larger and more easily recognizable types including starfish, lobster, and groundfish Such as haddock, and cod, -22- Thechief importance of this ecosystem to man appears to lie in its support of commercially caught marine species, such as lobster, various species of ground- fish, and a number of commercial shellfish. Many of the species dwelling in the level bottom habitat aid in the over*all function of the marine environment by the recycling-of organic matter, which would otherwise be lost, out of the food chain. Phosphorous and nitrogen appear to be.the limiting factors in this environment, -as they are usually in a relatively low concentration (Hobbie, 1974). But increased quantities have led to different@pecies that adapt favorably to becoming the most significant members, out-competing commercially important species, An increase of phosphorus.and nitrogen (household wastes and sewage) tendsto lead to deep water anaerobic layers. Aerobic organisms die, and recycling slows down as excess matter accumulates. This is not a common occurrenceto open ocean systems, however. Heavy metal wastes would render the'sediment containing the benthic organisms toxic to settling larvae, and would deoress productivity. Sewage and dredging spoil increase the organic content of the sediment and would lower the oxygen supply of overlying waters. Since most of the organisms in the habitat are bottom feeders, any alteration in the sediment population would be unfavorable. An increase in turbidity would alter the balance between suspension feeders and deposition feeders toward the latter in many communities, decreasing the bottom fish catch. Bottom feeders include cod, haddock, hake, flounder and scup (See Table W4). SUMMARY Environmental management of the coastal zone must have as one of its fundamental goals the maintenance of coastal ecosystems in their best condition. It is often advantageous both economically and ecologically to maii-litain the coastal ecosystems at the level of the best achievable eco'system function, or as near to the natural -23- state as possible. An important thing to remcmber is that the introduction of new ccastal uses by man will result in a corresponding adaption of existing ecological systems a change in lifeforms found there. There is no reason to assume that all changes will necessarily be detrimental, or that they are not manageable. Fish farming in the heated effluent of a power plant, for example, is being considered today. Given the cbmplexity of the interactions demonstrated -here, however, it is best to proceed with some caution and forekhowledge of likely e.ffects'of ones actions. -24- Table I OCCURRENCE OF 114PORTANT MIGRATORY FIS14ES IN GREAT BAY ESTUARY- SPECIES COMMON-.NAME ADULT JUVENILES Alosa aestivalis Blueback herring April-June klay-oct Alosa pseudobarengus Alewife April-July May-Oct Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden July-sept.. July-Oct I*sm rus mordax Rainbow.smelt Oct-June April-Nov illachius V1 reris Pollock July-rlov April-June May-Nov rone saxatiiiS bass i--f co Scomber _-cbmbrus Atlantic mackerel July-Oct Gadus morhua Atlantic cod March-June Oct & Dec Oncorhynchus klsutcl) coho sallnoll Aug -Apri 1 April-Sept (Oct) Source: Stevenson, et. al. (1974) -25- Table 2 SPECIES OF FINFISH IN GREAT BAY ESTUARY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON Nmwic DEMERSAL EGG, SPAVINEk.; Anguilla rostrata American eel Alosa aestivalis Blueback herring Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife Clupea harengus harengus Atlantic herring Osmrus mordax Rainbow smelt- Flicrogadus tomcod Atlantic tomcod Pollahius virens Pollo'ck Umphycis chuss Red hake urophycis 'tenuis W1tite hake Fundulus beteroclitus mum6michog V/ Fundulus majalis Striped killifish Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside Apeltes uadracus Fourspine stickleback Gas terosteus aculeatus Thrbespine stickleback v/ Pung itius pungitius Ninespine stickleback Syngnathus fuscus Northern pipefish Tautogolabrus adspersus Canner Pholis gunnellus Rock gunnel Ammodytes americanus American sand launce Myoxocephalus aenaeus Grubb y cyclopterus lumpus Lwnpf ish- Liopsetta putnami Smoth f lovnder Pudopleuronecte.s americanus Winter flounder V Mone saxatilis Striped bass Plrone amricanus White perch Hoca'nthus hispidus Pianchead filefit'll. Stnotomus chrysops Sca6p Tutoga onitis autog V/ Raja crjnace, LittLe skate Ptromyzon marinus Sea lamprey Cyptacanthodes maculatus Wrymouth Somber scombrus 'Atlantic mackerel Gdus wrhus Atlantic cod Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon Voeroides naculatus Northern puffer Lophius ank--ricanus Goosefish Salmo trutta Brown trout Drevoort6ia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden B'Yoxocephalus octodecim- Wnghorn scu6lp2in spinosug Penltr2j2pterus americanus Sea raven I'Omatomus saltatrix Blue-fish Source: Stevenson, et. al. (197) _26- TABLE 3 Selected Species for Bay of Fundy to Cape Cod PELAGIC 0Ceratium spp. dinoflagellate Chaetoceros spp. diatom Thalasaiosira spp. diatom Pleurobrachia pileus ctenophore Calanus finmarchicus copepod Pseudocalanus minutus copepod 0ithona similis copepod MicroseteZla no0rvegica copepod Eucheata norvegica copepod .cartia spp. copepod Tortanus discaudatus copepod Evadne.nordmanni cladoceran Meganyctiphanes norvegica euphausid shrimp Sagitta elegans arroworm. Limacina retroversa sea butterfly Polychaete, mollusca, and decapod larvae Fish larvae Clupea harengus herring Merluccius bilinea0ris silver hake Satmo saZar atlantic salmon PZautus.aZle dovekie Rissa tridactyZa OFFSHORE BOTTOM Aureli-a aurita coelenterate Nepthys incisa polychaete worm Nu0cuZa proxima clam Arctica istandica mahogany uahog SpisuZa solidissima surf clam Placopecten ?0mge1Zanimzs sea scallop Ampetisca vadorwn amphipod Homa0rus a0mericanus lobster Pandulus boreaZis northern shrimp Ophiura 1obusta brittle star Cadus morhua cod Pse&opeuronectes americanus winter flounder ROCKY SHORE Ascophy0Z017tm nodosum rock-weed algae Laminctria spp. kelp Metridi*um dianthus sea anemone Thais 0Zapi0Zlus dog wbelk Mytilis edulis mussel Littorina 0Zittorea periwinkle Balanus baZanoides barnacle llo0w0wus 00wrericanu0s lobster 'Stro0ngyZocentrotus droebachien0si0s sea urchin Son.iateria spectabilis eider duck SOURCE:- Moore, et. 1. (19'7)' -7- TABLE (Contd) SAND SliORE 0Nephthys caeca sand worm TeZZina agiZis clam Spicuta solidissima surf clam -.-Pagurus longicarpus hermit crab Vaustorius canadensis amphipod. Echinarachnius parma sand dollar Ammodytes americanus sand launc.e WORM and CLAX FLAT Nereis virens sand worm ArenicoZa marina lugworm, Strebtospio benedicti polychaete worm Gtycera dibranchiata blood worm Mya arenaria soft clam PoZynices heros snail Nassarius obsoZetus- snail Macoma baZthica clam Merceraria mercenaria uahog or hardelam Corophi?.vn volutator -amphipod Crangon septemspinosus mud shrimp Li0m0us poZyphemus horseshoe crab 1USSEL REEFS Rarmotl0we imbricata polychaete worm Harmothoe extenuata polychaete worm Crassostrea virginica virginia oyster. Mytilus edutis edible mussel du -ornicata Crepi Za f slipper shell Asterias vutgaris starfish Asterias forbesi starfish SALT MARSH Spartina alternifZora marsh grass Clymene0Na toruata polychaete worm MeZampus bidentatus snail Orchestiidae amphipod C0rangon septemspinosus mud shrimp Diptera larvae (Aedes-0soZlicitan0s) mosuitoes (ChiXIO0Wn0US Spp.) flies 3Fundulus heterocUtus mummichog 0Pseudopleuronectes americanus winter flounder Amospiza Zeconte0U sharptail-sparrow -- TABLE 4 SPECIES TAKEN D FISI= SURVEYS FROM CAPE COD NORTH TO THE ISLES Or, SHOALS 0 0 H f 0 0) ca C/I 0 M Al evri f e A8losa pseudoharen0gus x x x American eel An ailla rostrata x x x American plaice (dab) 0Hi6pDo4-ossoides Dlatessoides x x American sand launce Ammodytes pericanus 0x x American shad 8Alosa sapidissima Atlantic cod Gadis morhua x x x -Dogl Atlantic halibut Hi ossus hippoglossus Atlantic herring Clupea hare2n.Zus- 2F-.x x 27 Atlantic mackerel Scomber scom0brus x x x Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus x x Atlantic silverside Menidia mei-0Ll 0dia x x Atlantic spiny lumpsucker 4B)-imicrostomus s-oinosus x Atlantic sturgeon Acij2enser ox4yrhincus. x X. x Atlantic tomcod Micro.-adus tomcod Atlantic torpedo Torpedo nobiliana 5f Atlantic wolffish Anarhichul-I 1UTDUS x x Banded r8udderfish Seriola 7,onata x x .Barndoor skate. 4E6jla laevis x x 3 .Barrelfish 4LI8Mergl8ahe 2perciformis x -Dri -riata Black bea bass Centro -stos st x Bldckspotted stickleback Gasterosteus wheat-1 andi x -imora rosrta Blue hake Ant U Blue runner Caranx cl0Zsos x Bl:ueback herring Alosa aestivalis x x x Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix x 8Butterfish Pe2prilus triacenthus $ x -)on: Chub mackerel Scoinber Jai icus x egl x Cleaznose skate 0E0l6La anteria Conger eel Conger oceanica Crevelle jack 4zaranx hi-wos x Ciu ner Tautoaolabrus ads2ersus x X x x 1aubed shanny i-naculatus X Fluke Paralic-[-.hys dentat-lis X, Cusk Brosme bromne Four0beard rockling 0Enchclyopus cimb2ius x x x Fourspine stic6l20aeback 80h44p36a72L0L40236L ouadnacus 2x 8x Fourspot flounder Paralicht24hys ob0loy)-2 8x 8x 8z48ms Goosef0ish Lonh16d-as zt4mex16d c anus 6x 4x 8x Grubby aencus 2x 2x 8X- Haddock Mel a2no8i-,-ra,,i-8mus aec, 0lef0inis 2x 2x 2X Hickory shad 20A4losa 32pediocris Little skate Raja er4i8ne,.cea X 24L,o6n6ghor8nsculpin 64YJV0-:-.occr)-ja1us actodec0iins-2ninosus 4x 28D,2nipf4ish 8G e4looto2ra- 2x Mackerel scad DecayDtcrus 24Muni8m4ic4ho0g 24FL2MdU.21-U3 J N2inespi2ne st6ic12k0leback TABILE 4 (continued) 0 k d .0 Cj CO 0 U) 0 Northern kingfish Menticirrhus saxatilis x Northern pipefish Syr2k,nathus fuscus -x Northern,puffer S haeroides maculatus x Northern searobin Priono-bus carolinus x x Ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus x x x 06ean sunfish Mola mola Pollock Pollachius virens 0x x x Radiated shannyr)- 8Ulvaria subbifurcata x x x Rain8bowsmelt smerus inordax x Red hake 8Uro4Rhycis chuss x x X Redfish (or rosefish) Sebastes marinus x x Rock gunnel Pholis 2giu-n-iellus x x x Scu0p Stenotornus c8hr4ysops x x Sea lamprey Petrorll4vzon mariniis x Sea raven 4Hemitrij)terus americanus x x -J8ptris atlanticus Seasnail x x x Shorthorn scu10pin roxoce8phalus scorpius x x x Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis x x x Smootli dogfish ML-istelus canis x x Smooth flounder 8Lio0psetta putnami x Snake blenny Lum-Denus 2Iumnretaeformis x Spiny dogfish SS0Lualus acan-thias x x x Striped anchovy 8Anchoa hei:)setus x St7riped bass Morone saxatilis x x Striped 4killifish 8Fandulus majalis x x Striped searobin Prionotus evolans 2Tautog TauoFa onitis x x x Thorny skate Raja radiata x Threespine stickleback Gas-berosteus ac-aleatus -27- White hake 4h4v0cis tenuis x x x White perch Morone americani.s Windowpane flounder Scophthalnus aauoslas x x x Winter flounder Pseudopleuro0nectos airiericamis x -K :1, Winter skate 4E0a0L, ocel-L,i-t-.a x Witch flounder Glyl 1-0 -U cei-)halus cynoFlossus .7 Yello4wtail flo-L2mder L6imanda f erru,60inea 12=1 Sources: 16MIGOM 6(197840) N0818U28V.J24M24EA4I4J ASSOCIATES (83-97418) REFERENCES Borowitzka, M., 1972. Intertidal algal species diversity and the effect of pollu- tion. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res., 23:73-84 Breeding, H.J., F.D. Richardson and S.A. Pilgrim. 1974. Soil survey of New Hampshire tidal marshes. University of NeW,Hampshire, Research Report No. 40. Clark, J., 1974. Coastal Ecosystems Ecological considerations for management of the coastal zone. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. Copeland, B.J. and F. Dickens. 1974. Systems resulting from dredging spoil. Edited by Odum, et.al., Coastal Ecosystems of the U.S., The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., Vol. 3.@ Dean, D. and H.H. Haskin. 1964. Benthic repopulation of the Raritan River estuary following pollution abatement. Limnol. Oceanogr. 9:551-563. Hobbie, J.E., 1974. Ecosystems receiving phosphate wastes. Edited by Odum et. al., Coastal Ecosystems of the United States, The Conservation Foundation, Washi.ngton, D. C. Vol 3.. Laird, M. 1961. Microecological factors in oyster epizootics. Can. J. Zool. 39:449-485. McMahan, E., 1974. Oil Shores. Edited by Odum, et. al., Coast6l Ecosystems'of the U.S.5 the Conservation Foundatio n, Washington, D.C., Vol. 3. Moore, S.F. et. al., 1974. Potential biolgical effects of hypothetical oil discharges in the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Alaska. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Report No. MITSG 74-19, Index No. 74-819. Normandeau, D.A., et. al., 1971. Piscataqua River ecological study. Normandeau Associates, Inc., Manchester, New Hampshire, Report No. 1. Odum, H., B.J..Copeland and E. McMahan. 1974.. Coastal Ecosystems of the United States. The Conservation Foundation,, Washington, D.C. Petry, L. 1968. A Beachcomber's Botany. The Chatham Conservation Foundation, Inc.'s Chatham, Massachusetts. Sanders, H., J.F.Grassl"e and G.R. Hampson, 1972. The West Falmouth oil spill 1. Biology 11. WHOI Tech. Rept. WHOI 27-20. Unpbl. Manusc. Scattergood, L. and C.C. Taylor. 1949. The mussel resources of the.North Atlantic region. Part I. Conemer. Fish. Rev., 11(9): 1-10. Stevenson, K. et. al., 1974. Great Bay Recreational Study, University of'New Hampshire, Sea Grant Program. Great Bay Recreational Group, Report No. 1. Sykes, J. and J.R. Hall. 1970. Comparative distribution of mollusks in dredged ..and undredged-portions of an estuary with a systematic list of species. Fish... Bull. 68:299-306. Teal, J.- and I. Valiela. 1973. The living filter. Oceanus, WHOI, Woods Hole, Mass., Vol, XVII. The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine @TRIGOM). 1973 and 1974. A socio- economic and environmental inventory of the North Atlantic region. The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine, South Portland, Maine. Thomas, M., 1973. Effects of Bunker C. oil on intertidal and lagoonal biota in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can., 30:83-90. Weiss, C. and F. Wilkes. 1974. Estuarine ecosystems that receive sewage wastes Edited by Odum, et. al., Coastal Ecosystems of the U.S.-, the Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., Vol. 3. I . 4 WITIMM MILE EF C111--lb@12f2lyu Ej @@ cab"M2 -Ak '141, - IN @% ,f--, I N.H. Coastal Resources Management Progran First Year Report AttahTent B 6 MIZE 2R8K4T0R6TU8I0v8g[, MOM, WATER USES INVENTORY An inventory of industrial, commercial, and recreational uses of the coastal waters of New Hampshire has been undertaken as part of the state's Coastal Zone Manag ement planning effort. The ultimate objective of the study is to develop an understanding of the nature and extent of the existing use and potential uses of New Hampshire's coastal waters in order to determine what land and 'water uses having a direct and significant impact on coastal waters should be permitted or prohibited. The information obtained during this phase of the@study is also being used to designate geographic areas of particular concern. These areas include: 1) areas of significiknt-natural value or importance; 2) transitional or intensity developed areas where reclamation, restoration, public access and other actions are especially needed; 3) areas especially suited for intensive use or development. The offshore planning area chosen for investigation corresponds to that shown on the nautical chart Coast & Geodetic Survey 1206 (NOS. 13113). This encompasses an offshore area approximately 40 miles long by 40 miles wide, all contained within thle Gulf.of Maine, and includes the area from Cape Ann to a point in Maine just north of Portsmouth Harbor, and from the'New Hampshire coastline east to Jeffrey's Ledge. All New Hampshire-.based near- shore marine activities and most of those further off-shore are examined, as well as many of those based in the neighboring areas of Maine and Massachusetts. Inventories of uses in the Great Bay and Hampton-Seabrook estuaries, the Piscataqua River, and various.other locations in the New Hampshire coastal zone were also conducted. The planning area for these studies coincides with that chosen for the land-use and natural.resources inventory portion of the New Hampshire coastal Zone Study. Activities in these areas will typically have a more geographically limited effect1than those activities which occur offshoIre (the ocean waters are no respectors of state or local boundaries). Estuarine information is presented on maps derived from United State Geological Survey 7k minute series quadrangl.e maps. In,assessing the "nature and extent" of the marine and estuarine uses of New'Hampshire waters, a number of factors are considered. Generally, the effects of these uses on each other, and on coastal land use, are taken into account. Some of the factors which will be considered at Various times during the inventory process include economic factors (i.e. monetary factors, such as wage and salary levels, transfer payments, such.as unemployment compensa- tion, tax levels, commodity prices, and changes in regional income), natural resource factors (i.e. effects on various coastal habitats in New Hampshire and on breeding and nursery areas fot marine and estuarine.species), and social factors (i.e. effects on state and local objectives for the future uses of the coastal zone, access-to public facilities for recreation, quality of public healt h and welfare facilities and services, etc.). It should be understood that this first inventory is only intended to identify existing and potential uses and obtain a quite generalized view of the above factors. Specific studies with detailed considerations are scattered in their coverage and a.full comprehensive data gathering effort was not feasible in this fiscal year given the time and money available. It is anticipated that future work will result in amplification of much of the following information. EXISTING USES Current activity off the coast of New Hampshire is not at such high levels that serious conflicts result because of demands for a limited amount of ocean space. Future uses of sufficiently large scale, such as sand and gravel dredg- ing, or a deep water port facility could change this situation. -2- The New Hampshire coastal waters are presently used for a variety of activities. Among them are: domestic commercial fishing and lobstering, .foreign commercial fishing, recreational fishing and boating, ocean shipping, national defense, cable areas, and research and education. These activities will be briefly discussed in order to give an indication of their intensity and what resources they demand, and to give a broad indication of their relationship to coastal land use and the various economic, social, and natural resource factors under study. DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL FISHING AND LOBSTERING Fishing and lobstering by U.S. boats takes place within t he entire study area.. Approximately 90% of the New Hampshire lobstering activity occurs within ten miles of the seacoast, predominantly in waters less than 100 feet deep. This is shown as a five to ten mile wide area on the Marine Uses map which accompanies this report. Lobstering occurs throughout that area, with heavier effort in areas of irregular or rocky bottom., Lobsters are also caught in scattered spots located further offshore. Some of this catch is intentional, and some is incidental to dragging activities. These areas are shown on both the Marine Uses map and the Offshore Fishing Areas map, which also shows other areas of importance to New Hampshire fishermen, including such fishing sites as Old Scantum, New Scantum, and the area generally southeast of the Isle of Shoals. In 1973, the National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that New Hampshire had a total of 497 full and part-time commercial fisherman, of whom 72 fished on a full-time basis. New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game licensing reports for the same year revealed 261 lobster licenses issued for commercial purposes (full and part-time). (There were 102 recreational, or five lobster pot licenses issue d.) Other commercial fishermen were involved in shrimp net trawling, gill net fishing (predominantly for cod and pollock) and handl.ining or longlining, among other methods. A number of fisherman convert to and from lobstering during the year. M6 re* detailed br eakdowns 'could not be obtained. Commercial finfishing activity off the New Hampshire seacoast complements the lobstering ac tivity geographically, with major activities beginning just seaward of the areas most heavily trapped forlobster, due in part to state, laws (RSA 211:49) which forbid certain dragging activities within 2 miles of shore. The heaviest fishing activity is located about twenty miles off the coast, in the vicinity of Jeffrey's Ledge. Commercially important species include cod, herring, pollock, redfish, shrimp, and silver hake (whiting). The total catch of these species off the New Hampshire coast that were landed in Portland and Gloucester in 1973, was about 8.8 million pounds, according to NMFS data. That year, New Hampshire landings of these species totalled 1.4 million pounds. Landings in Portland and Gloucester are from boats based in Maine and Massachusetts, as well as in New Hampshire. Data on catch in this area by New Hampshire boats alone is not available, though their relative contribution is thought to be significant. In order to estimate the economic importance of fisheries in the offshore area, unpublished data from the National Marine Fisheries Service has been analyzed. These data detail reported commercial fishing activity off the New Hampshire coast only and identify important commercial species, the locale where caught, and their gross landed value. Similar data pertaining to com- mercial catch in the Great Bay is not collected as such and is not available from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game was unable to provide more detailed data for Great Bay.. Con- sequently,this report deals only with commercial catch off the New Hampshire coast. -4- The activity off New Hampshire's coast is not confined solely to that of New Hampshire-based fishermen, though they take the majority of the lobster catch. Landings of finfish are made principally in Glo ucester and Portland, though some caught by locally based operators are landed in New Hampshire. .NMFS data estimate of the finfish and shrimp caught within 100 square mile grids off of the New Hampshire coast has been gathered mostly by interviews at Gloucester and Portland and relies on the cooperation of.the fishermen questioned as well as their subjective estimates of how much of each species was caught and where. Additionally, not all boats landing fish in theseports can be inter- viewed by NMFS personnel.* It is thus subject to considerable error. Because of these error sources, NMFS estimates reported catch data to be low by as much as a factor of two. The problem is especially acute for fish caught off the New.Hampshire coast, principally because of the relatively small number of vessel owners viewed during the course of a year. This small sample size introduces a wide variance into the results, as one or two additional inter- views may change the nature of the data entirely- It is important to realize that interviews in Gloucester and Por'tland are generally conducted in the morning and are geared to the arrival of larger and more.far rang ing vessels which fish the Georges Bank and Nova Scotia areas. The smaller coastal vessels, which comprise the.bulk of the fleet operating off New Hampshire arrive primarily in the afternoon and are not interviewed as frequently. Estimates of landings in New Hampshire, including lobsters (not listed in the Portland and Gloucester landings) are based on even less frequent interviews a nd.are only summarized annually. They rely primarily on the judgment of the in4-erviewees and subjective evaluation by NMFS personnel. *Oral Communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA, 8/74. A survey of catch data reveals the commercial catch directly adjacent to the New Hampshire seacoast consists primarily of lobster. Further offshore, cod, pollock, silver hake, shrimp and herring are caught. A number of other species (haddock, redfish, flounders) are caught in less significant numbers throughout the area. See the Offshore Fisheries map for a detailed breakdown. The major commercial species caught also spawn in or near New Hampshire waters. See the Spawning Areas map. Table I contains a listing of tile yearly reported catch in pounds of the prominent commercial species. In deriving these figures, the assumption. was made that all fish reported as landed in New Hampshire (See Table 2) were caught in the study area. The value of all fish reported as caught off New Hampshire and landed at Portland or Gloucester is summarized in Table 3. The values were obtained by applying the per pound landed value of catch for each of the years indicated to the estimated value of landings. Addendum 1 to this report provides the methodology used in deriving these figures. Table 3 reflects an approximate estimate of the actual value of catch in the same area making allowance for NMFS's assumption that reported landings are low by a factor of two. (Reasons for this assumption have been presented earlier.) Table 3 shows the real value of fish caught off the New Hampshire coast to have increased from just above $500,000 In 1971 to almost $1,400,000 in 1973. The values shown in Table 3 correspond to the catch in the entire study area. The area of most greatest potential use for other activities (e.g. recreational fishing and boating, shipping, etc.) and therefore of primary concern is a broad band approximately 10 miles out from the.New Hampshire coast. This area is roughly equivalent to 1, 2, 5, 6, & 7 on the Commercial Fisheries map. The estimated value of lands at Gloucester and Portland for these areas are summarized in Table 4. -6- TABLE 1 IMPORTANT SPECIES CAUGHT OFF OF NE14 HAMPSHIRE SPECIES 1971 3.9722 19732 COD3 459,300 285,100 :102,400 HERRING 3,023,000 5,797,100 5,377,400 POLLOCK 200,600 606,700 135,800 REDFISH 226,000 147,600 43,300 SHRjMp3 358,700 806,600 1,485,000 SILVER HAKE' 1,579,100 796@000 1,693,900 LOBSTERS3 4 6672,000 1 Vicinity C & GS Chart 1206. (See Offshore Fisheries map) 2 No data for New Hampshire landings in these years. 3 Fished heavily by New Hampshire vessels. (See Marine Uses Map) 4 New Hampshire landings only. TABLE 2 NEW ENGLAND FISHERIES LANDINGS BY STATES, 1971 SPECIES PAINE NEW HAMPSHIRE MASSACHUSETTS THOUSAND THOUSAND THOUSAND THOUSAND THOUSAND THOUSAND FISH POUNDS G-OCL -AR S 7 -01-- N UST -55CL-AR-Y POUNDS '55CMR-S ALEWIVES . . . . . 40 25 1 222 4 ANGLERFISH 143 BLUEFISH. 2 272 34 BONITO. 13 2 BUTTERFISH . . . '70 6 COD . . . . . . . 4.3W 335 201 30 46,554 5.-m CUSK . . . . . . . 309 24 2 0) 1,490 136 EELS: COf4-iON . . . . . . . . . . 54 is 7 2 77 23 CONGER. (1) 0) FLOUNDERS: BLACKBACK . . . . . ... . 146 12 7 1 14,542 2,351 DAB . . . . . . . . . . . 510 49 5 (1) 4,211 626 FLUKE . . . . . . . . . . - 89 38 GPAY SOLE . . . . . . . . 514 57 4 1 5.533 935 LEMON SOLE . . . . . . . . 1 2.633 '701 YELLOWTAIL . . . . . . . . 87 9 53 6 41,940 6,889 TOTAL FLOUNDERS . . . 1,258 IZ7 8 68o948 11,540 PADDOCK . . . ... . . . . . 821 180 19 5 20,345 5.324 MAKE: RED . . . . . . . . . . . - 607 41 WHITE . . . . . . . . . . .1,972 107 2 (1) 3,564 228 HALIBUT . . . . . . . . . . 77 37 1 1 167 121 HERRING. SEA . . . . . . . .. 20. un 43,354 -rZ7 LAL94CE . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5 12 4 MACKEREL, ATLANTIC. 225 14 3. (1) 3,117 V47 WN14ADEN . . . . . . . . . . 6,312 117 OCEAN PERCH . . . . . . . . 46,630 2.347 12 13,3d-O -m POLLOCK . . . . . . . . . . 690 55 2 9,960 773 $CUP OR PORGY . . . . . . . 554 2m SEA BASS . . . . . . . . . . 19 12 SEA TROUT OR WEAKFISH, GRAY SHARKS: GRAYFISH . . . . . . . . . UNCLASSIFIED . . . . . . . SKATES . . . . . . . . . . . 137 9 SMELT . . . . . . . . . . . 7a Is 51 21 3 2 STRIPED BASS . . . . . . . . 15 4 749- 199 STURGEONt COMMON . . . . . . 0) 2 0) SWORDFISH . . . . . . . . . '23 71 TAUTOG . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1 TILEFISH . . . . . . . . . . I TUNA: BLUEFIN . . . 136 13 32 2 2.924 469 SKIPJACK . . . : : : : : : - 354 54 UNCLASSIFIED . . . . . . . 110 9 TOTAL TUNA . . . . . . 136 13 32 2 3,388 532 TURBOT . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5 WHITE PERCH . . . . . . . . 2 0) WHITING . . . . . . . . . . 9,900 480 15' 1 15,cm ase WOLFFISH . . . . . . . . . . 14 1 585 40 UNCLASSIFIED- Foft FOOD . . . . . . . . . 601 45 1 4,959 508 FOR BAIT. REDUCTION, AND ANIMAL FOOD . . . . . . . 131 3 2 (1) 8,647 142 TOTAL FISH . . . . . . 98,002 4,534 463 al 253,027 28,336 SHELLFISH ET AL. CRASS- GREEN 35 5 - - ROCK. 52 is 1 82 7 TOTAL CRABS . . . . . . wo 52 53 6 82 LOOSTERS. AMERICAN. 17.556 17,481 667 741 6.146 6.8v- SHRIMP . . . . . . . . . . . 18,419 3t671 112 is 6,OC5 964 CLAMS. - HARD: PUBLIC . . . . . . . . . 6 a 678 992 PRIVATE . . . . . . . . 297 329 OCEAN QUAHOG . . . . . . . 5 2 RA Z OR . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 SOFT- PUBL I C. . . . . . . . . 5.m 2,694 1.137 m PRIVATE . . . . . . . . 29 25 SURF . . . . . . . . . . . is 5 TOTAL CLAMS . . . . . 5,256 2,365 2,323 SEE FOOT140TES AT [NO OF TABLE. (CONTINUED U4 HE-XT PAGE) Source: National Marine Fisheries Service TABLE 2 (Continued) NEW ENGLAND FISHIERIES LANDINGS BY STATES, '1971 Continued SPECIES REW R&MP SHIRE MASSACHUSETTS THOUSAND THOUSAND THOUSAND T14OUSA NO THOUSAND THOUSAND SHELLFISH ET AL. - CONTINUED POUNDS DOLLARS POUNDS VXLAR@ CONCHS. . . . 10 1 47 11 MUSSELS, SEA. 150 35 209 so OYSTERS, MARKET. PUSL I C: SPRING . . . . . . . . . 3 FALL . . . . . . . . . . 3 PRIVATE: SPRING ... . . . . . . . 22 64, FALL . . . . . . . . . . 26 72 TOTAL OYSTERS . . . . 54 152 PERIWIWLES AND COCgLES . 29 15 SCALLOPS: SAY .. . . . . . . . . . . - 2,050 3,507 SEA . . . . . . . . . ... 337 564 3,949 5,040 TOTAL SCALLOPS... 367 554 5.999 r -9,34-7 SQUID . . . . 0) (1) 979 76 SEA URCHINS . 52 4 IRISH moss . . . . . . . . . 4-70 14 1,600 48 BLOONV@ms BOO 1,382 1 R SANDWORMS 753 -674 1- 17 .1 18 1 112 138 TOTAL SHELLFISH ET AL . . . . . . . . 44.682 26,595 B49 783 23.M ZO,012 GRAND TOTAL . . . . . 1 142,6&4 31.129 1.337 SE4 276,626 4-a.348 TABLE 3 VALUE OF CATCH NEW HMIPSHIRE OFFSHORE AREA .(Gloucester and Portland Landings) AREA 1972 1973 TOTAL $18,200 $0 $54,600 $72,800 28,000 34,200 30,200 92,400 3 23,600 97,200 201,000 .321,800 4 33,800 98,800 @224,400 357,000 5 38,800 1,200 800 40,800 6 32,800 100 1000 147,400 280,200 7 33,800 98,200 . 192,600 324,600 8 49,000 140,600 192,000 381,600 9 109,200 68,000 105,200 277,400 10 21,000 6,600 30',800 58,400 @11 53,400 45,600 58,000 1579000 -12 56,400 151,000 104,600 312,000 13 24,000 120,000 22,200 .166,200 14 1.7,400 20,800 57,200 (1967 $536,000 $978,800 $1,384,600 $2,899,400 Dollar NOTE: Figures doubled to account for sampling error. (See text for explanation.) SOURCE: Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (See text). TABLE 4 VALUE OF COMMERCIAL CATCH @TEN MILE BAND OFF NEW HAMPSHIRE COAST AREA 1971 1972 1973 TOTAL $18,200 0 154,600 $72,800 2, 34,200 30,200 92,400 5 38,800 1,200 800 40,800 6 @32,800 100,000 147,400 280,200 7 33,800 098s200- 1922600 324,600, TOTALS $151,600 @$233,600 $425,600 $810,800 A1967 Dollars) NOTE: Portland and Gloucester landings only. Figures doubled over those reported. .(See text for explanation.) SOURCE:. Southeastern New Hampshire.Regional Pl.anning Commission (See*.text). The value of shellfish (primarily lobster) must be added to these figures, in addition to finfish caught commerciall3in the area and landed in New Hampshire. The NMFS estimates (Table 2) that New Hampshire finfish landings (mostly cod, flounder, .and shrimp) were valued at $81,000 in 1971 or about $67,000 using 1967 dollar values. ,Lobsters landed in New Hampshire in 1971 total led 667,000 pounds and were valued at -$74-1,000 ($610,600 in 1967 dollars). Assuming that 90% of those l'andings are caught in the ten mile band, the 1971 catch there would be valued at-$666,900 (in 1967 dollars, $549,500). An approximation to the total catch within approximately 10 miles of the New Hampshire c oast is summarized in Table 5. It is the sum of the estimated catch landed at Gloucester and Portland from grid areas 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, plus 90 per cent of the New Hampshire lobs-kll-er landings-' plus an arbitrary 50% of New Hampshire finfish landings assumed to have been caught in the area. TABLE 5 TOTAL VALUE OF CATCH 1971 APPROXIMATE 10 MILE BAND OFF N.H. COAST (All figures in 1967 dollars) Finfish New Hampshire Landings $33,500 Finfish Gloucester and Portland 125,000 1andings 'Lobsters New Hampshire Landings 542.800 $708,300 (1967 Dollars) or. 1,123,400 (1975 Dollars) Source: Southeastern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (See text). In absolute dollars, these numbers appear to be substantial. They need to be put into regional perspective, however, particularly as to the amount of catch, reported from other known fishing areas. The highly productive Georges Bank area was chosen for comparison purposes. Two year catch data (1969-1970) is readily available from an MIT research effort, The Georges Bank Petroleum Study. Figure I indicates the location of the various areas for which data is available,' while Figure 2 gives an indication of the two_year value of catch. The data indicates that, as far as New England fishing is concerned, the effort and yield on Georges Bank per 100 square mile grid is approximately four times greater on an annual basis than those areas off New Hampshire, such as Jeffrey's Ledge. A review of foreign effort shows a similar trend (see section on foreiqn fishing). Comparison of lobster catch data with Maine and Massachusetts, reveals that New Hampshire landings, on a pounds per-mile-of-coast basis, is comparable. This is to be expected as virtually all of New Hampshire's limited territorial waters and occasional areas further offshore, harbor exploitable lobster concentrations. -12- o"I 0 69 7?0 1 2 34 4 20- GEORGES BANr\. 3-2 13 14 15 16, 171 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 13 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 474 V 54 55 56 5T 58 59 6ol 61 62 63 61 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 .77 78 79 808 86 87 881891 90 91 192193 194 95 96, 97 9@ 4 1 03 o4 05 o6 OT 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 32 33 34 35 36 3T 4o 41 42 43 44 45 4 49 150 to 710 70d 690 680 -@38 39 Figure 1. Area covered by NMFS Catch Data and Coding.of Grid Squa Source: Georges Bank Petroleum Study 69 68 670 ......... ....... ....... ........ ............ ........ . ........ N ...... .. .. .. ....... 0 42 ..... ......... .. .......... .......... W %!Z@ . ..... ....... ....... .... . ...... d: . .......... ........... ......... ... .......... . . .......... ........ .......... ... ....... ........ ............. . ....... .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... .... ................. ....... .... .......... ...... .......... ........ ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .% . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ....... 4 1'* Above $490,000 ... .... ... .... .. ........ ...... ......... . . . . . . . $ 17 3, 0 0 0 $ 4 87, 000 S 84,000 $171 000 39,000 0 8310 0 L *- 690 680 670 66'0 Figure 2.t Distribution of 1969-1970 U.S.A.Yield Across Bank. Source: Georges Bank Petroleum Study FOREIGN COMMERCIAL FISHING Ther e has been considerable discussion throughout coastal New England about the effects of foreign fishing activity on United States fishing fleets, especially the decreased catch by U.S. boats. Large numbers of vessels from the Soviet Union and other countries fish throughout the region, particularly on the Georges Bank. Closer to New Hampshire a number of foreign vessels (primarily Eastern European) fish Jeffrey's Ledge each summer - principally for herring. According to vessel sighting reports furnished by the National Marine Fisheries Service, individual foreign fishing and support vessels located off the entire New England and Middle Atlantic coasts in 1972 generally numbered more than two hundred. Exceptions to this were during July, November, and December of 1972 when the number dropped slightly below this level. Of these, about half were from the Soviet Union. (See Table 6). The Sovi.et vessels were comprised largely of freezer and factory stern trawlers and medium size trawlers, but support vessels. such as factory base ships, refrigerated fish carriers, and tankers were also counted in the totals. The Soviet effort was largely concen- trated in the Georges Bank area and off southern New England. Other countries with major fishing fleets off the New England and Middle Atlantic states were Poland and East Germany, but their representation was far less significant than that of the Soviets. The general pattern of Soviet dominance does not hold for the Jeffrey's Ledge fishing area. According to 1972 sighting reports, the area is generally fished for herring by vessels from countries such as Bulgaria, East Germany, and Poland. Fishing activity in this region is primarily accomplished in the summer and early fall. (See Table 7.) These vessels were largely stern trawlers with some side trawlers also working inthe area. T FIS-=Gft@IrITY BY MO =1 1972 FORE10 L-A-10 An 111IDD-TAE, ATLANT13:C COASTS INDIVIDUAL VESSEL SIGHTINGS JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT, NOV, DEC. C O-U-N=, BULGARIA 9 8 8 7 7 6 5 5 5 3 3 5 CUBA 1 EAST GETMANY 21 18 27 27 11 22, 16 30 49 50 10 18 FAER065 ISLLMS 3 FEA YUCE 2 C-F=CE 2 1 TTALY 5 JAYAN 5 10 7 6 6 7. 1.01. 15 12. 17 N 0 _R". I A y 2 43 49 63 65 38 33- 11 26 55 52 31 RUMIOU:A 3 3 .2 4 5 3 OVIE- TTENT OIN -1.67 i88 213 201 166 143, 135 141 133 101 87 12 17 8 .5 3' 2 -2 i8 8 1 8. 17EZT GERY@ANITY 3 14 15 14 2 TU17AL 258 291 3o6 329 267 236 187 241 294 272 147 173 CHOGE IFFROIT, 1971 (+50%) (+11%) (+16%) (+12,-,,,) (-14%) (+38%) (+33%) (0) (0) (-33%) (-30,%) I\T=: Results of visual sightings from aircraft be in error Doss not include Canadian vessels Stern trawlers are the most visually evident vessels on.Jeffrey's Ledge. Although exact size relationships are difficult to establish, the National Marine Fisheries Service indicates that these stern trawlers run up to ten times the size of smaller United States draggers and present an "awesome" sight to crewmen on these smaller boats. National Marine Fisheries Service representativesAndicate that the side trawlers, while less imposing than the stern trawlers- (one and one half to two times the size of a "typical" United States vessel of some 80 feet) may, curiously enough, pose a greater threat to United States fisheries due to the sophisticated fish locating gear which they carry -despite their obviously smaller capacity. The reasoning behind this statement is that the la.rger stern trawlers are more efficient with their better fish locating equipment,enab-ling -them to-concentrate on the species of primary interest to them. The smaller vessels @.have less.control over their activities, and may account for substantial "by-catch" Of species other than their primary quarry. Foreign catch data for the Jeffrey's Ledge area similar to that obtained for U.S.,fleets is not available. The most detailed data available from the International Commission for the Northwes t Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), which maintains -international catch records in-the region, covers a much wider geographical (ICHAF Subarea 5Y shown on Figure 3) than the study area. The data does serve, however, as an indicator ..-by species, of broad foreign effort. Interpretation as to the size of the Jeffrey's Ledge catch can not be made from this data. Tables 8 and 9 give information pertaining to comparative levels of U.S. and foreign effort in.the ICNAF subarea 5Y, both by general type of species (groundfish, pelagic, etc.) and by detailed listing of species. What the data indicates is that the United States catch in Subarea 5Y is considerably greater than the combined reported foreign effort in the area. (This is a reflection of an international quota system set up by ICNAF which depends on voluntary adherence by mem ber countries. -17- t4b 1972 FOREIGN VE T ACTIVITY BY MC-71M JET=Y' S LEDGE YIS=G AREA (VICIN= C.&GS CHART 12o6) INDIVIDUAL VESSEL SIGHTINGS MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER COTJ BTJLGAPjA 4 (Stern) EAST GERNP= 4 (Stern) 4 (Stern) 1 (Stern) 2 (Side) 1 (Side) POLAND 3 (Stern) NOTE: Results of visual sightings from aircraft - may be in error Does not include Canadian vessels AREAS STATISTICAL 1079BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY 110AA. WOODS HOLE, MASS. 00 17 6't ON N Oro FIGURE 3: Location of ICNAF and. NMFS statistic TABLE 8 1972 Reported ICNAF Landin@s by Species Group by Nation for Subarea 5Y in Metric Tons (round fresh) Finfish Groundfish Pelagic Shellfish Other All Canada 11887 249 11638 11887 West Germany 3666 538 %0J097 3666 Poland 239 238 1 239 USSR 0 48 1122 2273 100 2253. 5748 USA 78686 32826 44678 38507 1182 117193 East Germany 12987 2852 10078 57 12987 Total 113113 37587 72002 38607 3624 151720 NOTE: Figures do not add horizontally because there is an overlap of finfish with groundfish and pelagic. ALL refers to species totals. SOURCE: International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries -20- TABLE 9 1972 Reported Landings by Species by Nation for Subarea 5Y in Metric Tons (round fresh) West East Canada Germany Pdland USSR USA Germany Total Cod 53 13 11- 6776 64 69 17 Haddock 23 4 909 936 Silver Hake 131 857 5570 93 6651 Red Hake 5 367 372 Redfish 14 60 7150 20 7244 Pollock 147 394 32 3171 267.5 6419 Witch 1 .3 1121 1125 Yellowtail 1 1005 1006 Sculpins 60 60 Sea Robins 90 90 White Hake 8 2119 2127 Wolfishes 2 98 100 Herring 11638 2930 100 256 38196 9296 62416 Mackerel 166 138 1934 937 782 3957 Butterfish 83 24 107 Pelagic (NS) Alewife 1 42 1006 33 1082 Dogfish 17 17 -S had 30 30 Sharks, 183 183 Skates 200 64 264 Other (NS) 1 160 7 168 Shellfish 20 20 Squids - - - 80 45 - 125 IOTAL 11887 3666 239 4080 68558 12987 101417 Also: Argentine 1668 1668 Total 5748 103085 Source: International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Quotas, and therefore fishing effort may change from year to year). Foreign effort in the region appears to be almost totally concentrated on herring, while United States fishermen concentrate heavily on ground fish such as cod,'silver hake and pollock, as well as the lower-valued herring. Discussion with National.Marine Fisheries Service representatives reveals that this pattern does persist in the immediate study area. Caution must be used when attempting to draw any conclusions from available data,regarding the foreign fishing effort in the Jeffrey's Ledge region and its effect on New Hampshire fishermen. In addition to the difficulty in obtaining an accurate indication of catch on the ledge, the nature of the foreign fishing effort itself results in the loss of data of interest to United States coastal fishermen. Although the foreign effort is generally species specific, smaller quantities of other species caught in the process, such as cod, which may be significant to United States.fishermen, go entirely unreported by foreigners. Thus, in addition to the lack of data specifically applicable to the area of concern, we are also subject to a lack of resolution of the data wil-th respect to species of concern to New Hampshire and other coastal United States fishermen. In this respect, foreign reported landings will be misleading with respect to ground fish. New Hampshire fishermen do not appear to be overly concerned about direct interference from foreign vessels, though they feel that they can be affected indirectly in a number of ways. Direct effects of foreign fishing on New Hampshire fishermen are largely confined to occasional run-ins between foreign mid-water trawls and the gill nets of local fishermen. These run-ins are infrequent, due to the fact that most New Hampshire vessels stay closer to shore and fish for lobster's during most of the year, seeking other species only in the less productive (for lobsters) winter months. It should also be noted that encroachment of -foreign vessels into the U.S. fisheries zone (twelve-mile limit) is not deemed a major prob- lem by the New Hampshire fishermen. Indirect, or secondary, effects may be more severe than the immediate concerns mentioned above. New Hampshirefishermen have indicated that over-fishing for herrin g (by U.S. and Canadian boats as well as Eastern European) is becoming a problem as stocks are being depleted and herring catch has fallen. National Marine Fisheries Service data indicates that between 1971 and 1973 the foreign herring catch in the general area of Jeffrey's Ledge has decreased by a factor of more than two. In addition, stocks of juvenile herring along the Maine coast have shown a noticeable decline. The effect on herring fishermen is direct and obvious -- less fish. Indirectly, decreases in the stocks of such fish as cod, pollock, haddock, silver hake and others which feed upon herring can be expected. Significant catches of these fish are made in the Gulf of Maine by vessels from New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts, as indicatedi-nthe earlier' section on domestic fisheries. -23- ADDrNDU14 I METHODOLOGY CALUCULATION OF LANDED VALUE 100 SQUARE MILE GRIDS OFF OF NEW HAMPSHIRE COAST Landed values presented in Table 3 in the body of this appendix represent 1967 dollar values for Portland and Gloucester finfish landings in 1971, 1972 and 1973. Portland and Gloucester reports on fish landings in pounds are' summarized for' 100 square mile grids on the map entitled Offshore Fisheries. This information was obtained from the National Marine Fisheries Service at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. --Massachusetts average prices for.ea%-.h speciev:were also obtained.from NMFS-data-. These were reduced back to the 1967 dollar value base and used to calculate aggre- gate value of catch. The reported value of catch was rounded and then doubled to account for reporting error. Values were then totalled by area and year, and are presented in the body of this appendix as Table 3, "Value of Catch New Hampshire Offshore Area." A sample calculation follows. (Complete calculations are available from the Southeastern New'Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.) PRICES BY SPECIES 1971 Cod .1230 (.1014) Fluke .4055 (.3342) Haddock .2616 (.2156) Herring .0167 (.0137) Miscellaneous (Food) .1141 (.0943) NOTE: indicates 1967 dollar value of landed price. Consumer price ind6x, 1971 = 1.213 (1967 1.00) 1971 price for cod = .1230 1967 equivalent .1230 1.213 .1014 -24- LANDED.VALUE Area 1 1971 No. Pounds Value Per'Pound Landed Value Cod 2000 (.1014) $202.80 Fluke 1000 (.3342) 334.20 Haddock 500 .(.2156) 107.80 Herring 600,000 (.0137) 8,220.00 Misc. (Food) 2400 (.0943) 226.32 Total 9,091.12 Rounded 9,100.00 Doubled 18,200.00 -25- BIBLIOGRAPHY International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, 1974, "Statistical Bulletin, v.-.22, for the year 1902, " Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada: Inter- national Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973, The Georges Bank Petroleum Study, MIT Sea Grant Report No. 73-5, C.ambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Sea Grant Program. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1971,.U.S. Department of Commerce, fishery Statistics of the-United States, 1971, Washington: United States Government Printing Office. -26- 1-71 C@D N..H. Coastal Resources Managerrent Program First Year Report Attachment B 8 COASTAL ZONE LAND USE CAPABILITY ANALYSIS MOW- 10M A MOR M OYER, COASTAL ZONE LAND USE CAPABILITY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION A. Terminology B. Methodology II. INVENTORY, ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATION A. Topography B. Earth Materials 1. Surficial Geology -2. Soils C. Slope D. Groundwater E. Surface Water F. Land Use and Vegetative Cover G. Water and Sewer III. CLASSIFICATION INTRODUCTION The following section deals'with the'land-related resources for the coastal zone of New Hampshire. It fulfills in part the relevant sections, Paragraph B of the FY'75 CZM Contract, and (CZM PAR 923, 12 (a) TERMINOLOGY Before a discussion of land use capability begins, it will be helpful to clarify some of the terminology employed. The CZM Act uses the terms "capability" and 'Isuitability". The semantic arguments over the differences between these two terms is enough to make Joyce's Ulysses read like a fairy tale. In that the Act clearly represents an application of the environmental planning method,@the term I'suitability" is probably most appropriate. The word has become "such a part of the jargon of environmental plan- ning that suggesting an alternative seems counterproductive (Brandes, 1973). Because of the confusion raised by the Act and the concern of OCP over the use of these terms,.a definition of each, as used in the subsequent discussions., follows: Capability the ability of a given natural resource or set of resources on a.given geographic site to sustain urban development. Suitability. the ability of a specific geographic site to sustain urban development based on site licapability" as well as such factors as water/ sewer, highway access, and socio-economic demand. The term development and urban development are used inter- changeably to apply to those uses.requiring significant physical alterations to coastal lands. These uses might include, but not be limited to; residential, commercial, industrial, and commercial- recreational construction. The term "natural factor" will refer to a feature such as slope, soil conditions, or groundwater. The term natural factor 11categ6ry" or "characteristic" will be used interchangeably to refer to a particular type of natural factor such as "0-8% slope" or sand and gravel" soils. The term natural "resource" is svnony-. mous with both natural factor (eg., "groundwater") and natural ,characteristic (eg., "aquifer/aquifer recharge area"). It was used where it was deemed appropriate to the discussion, but not .intended to confuse the reader. METHODOLOGY As part of the procedure for "defining permissable land and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and signi- ficant impact-upon the coastal waters" (CZM PAR 923 (a) -):both an "inventory" and "analysis" of the various land-related "natural and man-made coastal resources" was undertaken (CZ11 PAR 923, 12 (a) (2) The aim of this effort was to determine the "capa- bility and suitability for each type of resource and application to all existing, projected or potential uses." (CZM PAR 923, 12 (a) (3) Although the "state of the art" in land use planning can employ rather sophisticated models and methods for determining land use capability, such methods require large inputs of time, money, and relevant data. Since such luxuries were not available to OCP or the Strafford-Ro*ckingham Regional Council, a more simplistic, though nonetheless valid approach to land use capa- -2- bility was utilized. This approach or model (as well as most other capability models) employs the proposition that the natural environment should significantly determine future land use. By analyzing and understanding coastal.natural resources one can determine not only the best places to develop, but also the best places not to develop. The land use capability model can conceptually be broken down into four parts: (1) Inventory, (2) Analysis, (3) Evaluation, and (4) Classification. However, for the purposes of this discussion, the first three steps will be included subsequently within each section of the relevant natural factors considered in the capability analysis. These four steps are briefly dis- cussed below. INVENTORY In this step all relevant natural factor data and man-made features are collected and mapped. Each factor was broken down into appropriate map categories. For example, the slope map con- tained the following categories: (1) 0-8%, (2) 15%, (3) 15-25% and (4)> 25%. Most of the information for the inventory is derived from published sources. For some of the data, however, field investigation were necessary to supplement existing informa- tion. The detailed inventory for land-based natural factors was conducted only in the primary and secondary coastal communities (as defined per section 2A of the FY '75 Contract). The data were mapped at a scale of one inch equals 2000 feet using all or parts of the appropriate coastal zone 7k-minute U.S.G..S. quadrangle maps as.base map's. The following chart shows the natural factor maps that were comp leted for each quadrangle. For mapping purposes the relevant portions of the Newburyport East, Mass. Quadrangle was -3- combined with the Hampton, New Hampshire Quadrangle; and the Kittery and Isles of Shoals, New Hampshire Quadrangles-were combined. Paper print maps were used for the Newmarket and Hampton Quadrangles. All other maps were on mylar overlays, except the "Areas of Particular Concern Maps". These were also put on paper prints, because it was much less confusing than using mylars. -4- rt ;j 0 m CL 1-h PO 1-h C-4 H. .4 0 0 21 m 0 P* P3 0 P) ct F-A P) (D C.4 rt I FJ- 0 0 co 0 (D ag rt 09 m (D 0 rt rt 03 H. rt P) 0 DOVER NEWMARKET EXETER DOVER W 0 PORTSMOUTH KITTERY - ISLES 0 HAMPTON - NEWBURY ANALYSIS Once the data was gathered and mapped, it was then analyzed to gain a full und erstanding of the various coastal resources. For instance, wetland soils were discovered to be poorly drained and to act as natural sponges during periods of high runoff, thereby pre- venting excessive flooding. These facts by themselves had important implications for land use capability. However, it was soon discovered that consideration of individual natural factors and natural factor categories in isolation was not wholly appropriate. It was not good enough to know just that a particular soil was poorly drained or well drained. Although such characteristics have implications for development by themselves, they become more significant when considered with factors like slope, vegetation, and nearness to water bodies. When these factors are considered together, a better understanding of coastal ecosystems and natural pr-ocesses can be achieved. This approach also has value because it leads to appropriate land use capability classifications and definition of "permissible land uses The Coastal Zone Management Act requires a definition of permis- sible land uses based upon their impact on coastal waters. In order to assess such impacts'a more holistic natural resource analysis was decided upon. If marine estuarine organisms depend on the natural cycle of nutrient flow from upstream waters and land areas, any significant alteration of these areas will have a decided impact on the nutrient flow and thus, the marine habitat. It was crucial then to understand the coastal area as a set of resources interacting over time and space. #@!EVALUATION Once the natural factors were fully analyzed, they were evaluated 6- individually for their ability to support general urban development. The "values" attached to the various categories or characteristics of each natural factor were subjective in nature basedupon: (1) adopted plans and policies of the coastal zone communities as well'as the adopted Preliminary Comprehensive Land Use Plan@for Substate District # 6, (2) state land use policies as expressed in the statutes, @such-as the Dredge and Fill Act, RSA 483-A, and (3) the best reasoned judgement of the planners at the Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council.. These judgements were based uponthe following criteria with assistance from expert natural scientists including hydrologists, geologists, and soil scientists: (1) Potential "cost savings".if area were developed (2) Presence or absence of physical limitations to development (3) Whether the resource was a potential "area of particular concernit (See discussion on areas of particular concern) (4) Potential unreasonable environmental impact if resources were developed. The initial evaluation sorted out various natural features into general capability groupings based on their ability to sustain urban development. For instance, 0-8% slopes are more capable of sustaining development than 15-25% slopes. The subsequent discussions for each @natural factor makes the specific evaluations clea'rer, This evaluation represents the initial step in determining geographic "areas of particular concern", permissible uses and determination of priority of uses in the coastal zone. For instance, such areas as lakes, coastal wetlands, and aquifer/aquifer recharge because of thier inherent vulnerability to man's intrusions become potential "areas ,,of .particular concern". On the other hand better drained, moregentle. sites are more appropriate for residential, commercial or industrial uses. -7- CLASSIFICATION The formulation of land use capability classes - which trans- late to more specific areas on the base maps - is based upon the specific values derived from the above procedure. Natural resources that have value for man when left undeveloped (wetlands, etc.) become areas of resource protection, generally analogous to areas of parti- cular concern. (The latter includes areas other than just valuable natural resources. Areas that represent unusual economic opportunity may also be considered.) Areas that are more capable of development, are ranked according to their ability to sustain development. .The subsequent section will discuss the inventory, analysis, and evaluation of each of the relevant natural factors in more detail. This will be followed by a discussion of the capability classification system and how,the various classes or areas can be related to appropr.iate coastal zone land uses. (See discussion of Permissible Land Uses). INVENTORYj ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION TOPOGRAPHY The coastal zone lies geographically in what has been called the Seaboard Lowland section of the New England Physiographic province (Fenneman.1938). Elevations range from sea level to about 200 feet for most of the area. The highest point in the region is Hicks Hill in Madbury -- 320 feet. The undulating topography of the coastal region generally conforms to the underlying ledge or bedrock, although a number of the hills ar e composed of glacial deposits. The features of great- est relief are generally the rock-cored hills, such as Great Pill- in Newmarket. The other hills are of glacial origin such as -8- Garrison Hill in Dover which is geologically known as a drumlin (a massive deposit of glacial till). Many of the flat sites and river. valleys contain swamps and wetland areas. Much of Rye and Durham Point are covered by these wet areas. The wetlands are often flanked by glacial terraces or outwash plains that tend to be very sandy and flat, and are anywhere from 30 to 80 feet higher than the low areas. It is important to evaluate the topography of the coastal zone, because it provides much of aesthetic quality that makes the area so unique. Since there are so few areas of relatively bigh relief, these become a visual asset. In addition to being the most visible elements in the landscape, these prominences provide long views. The scenic and recreational value is of both local and regional significance, .A number of hills were,considered as areas of resource pro- tection (see Classification discussion following) and as potential "areas of particular concern". These hills were chosen on the basis of their relative relief. They had to provide unobstructed views of their surroundings and/or be features which provided prominent observable relief from their surroundings, Specific decisions were based on contour map investigation and field observation using -these criteria. EARTH MATERIALS An investigation of earth materials is important for under- standing and evaluating their potential for numerous uses such as water supply, agriculture, residential development, and mineral excavation. -7or purposes of the Coastal Zone resource inventory only surficia 1 deposits -- those unconsolidated material overlying -9- the ledge or bedrock -- and soils -- the layer of material that extends from the earth's surface to 3-4 feet -- are being considered. Although the ledge or bedrock is an important element of earth materials, it is not of major value in coastal zone planning and will be treated only when it becomes significant to other natural factors, ie., soils. Surficial Geology The surficial geology investigation relied heavily on the work of Edward Bradley (1964). Although his studies were somewhat limited, they are the most definitive geologic work done in coastal New Hampshire. The surficial materials which contribute much to the present day landscape of New Hampshire's coastal area are primarily the result of the last.of four c.ontinental glaciers, that occurred more than 10,000 years ago, This glacier was a mass of ice about one mile thick which advanced across New Hampshire from the northwest, then melted and retreated. As it moved across the earth's surface, it deposited a layer of poorly-sorted debris called till. This material is made up of-a mixture of sand, silt, clay, gravel, and boulders and is usually 15 to 40 feet thick. As the glacier began to melt and retreat, debris from the ice was transported and deposited in a seemingly random fashion. (See the Surficial Geology Maps). The sand and gravel deposits (ice- contact) are among the more common surficial materials T.7b-ich.w ere laid down close to the melting ice. They consist of the stratified sands, gravel, and boulders, and vary in thickness to maximum of 190-feet. Pudding Hill in Madbury serves as an excellent example of such a deposit. These materials are relatively coarse since there was little sorting by the meltwater. -10- Similar to the coarse sands and gravels, are the outwash -sands and fine gravels (outwash). These types of deposits, were better sorted by the meltwate r and thus are made up of finer parti- cles than the sands and gravels. Closely associated with the outwash are the.sandy shore.deposits that formed along shorelines of an ancient sea, which occurred during the latter stages of the glacial period. Both these deposits range in thickness from one to fifty feet and usually occur as broad sand plains as in central.Seabrook. These deposits are combined into one category on the Surficial Geology Map Outwash .and Shore Deposits. As the ice sheet continued to retreat, the great quantity of meltwater combined with the then ancient sea to create a sea level which extended about fifteen to twenty miles inland from the present sea level. Fine sand, silt, and clay were deposited to a maximum thickness of 75 feet. These marine clays are recognized by their blue-gray color. Marine clays are generally poorly drained and in many instances highly unstable particularly when wet. And while they may hold a lot of water,.they do not easily transmit it (low permeability). Thus, these deposits are generally unsuitable for wells, building sites with septic tanks, and heavy loads. The surficial deposits have remained much today as they did after the retreat of the glacier and the lowering of the ancient sea to its present level. The only surficial materials that.have accumulated recently are the locally poorly drained swamp deposits in low-lying areas and alluvium that has been deposited along streams. Because of their excellent drainage and high permeability the sand and gravel deposits often provide excellent building sites. They also have a high bearing capacity and are easily excavated, However, there are competing demands for these resources. Because of drainage and load-bearing characteristics they also make excellent fill for highways, etc. The pressure to excavate these deposits is enormous. In addition, some of these deposits can hold large quantities of water (called aquifers); enough in some instances to Provide the source for municipal water supplies, such as Dover, It is quite clear that a rational policy of land use regulation be adopted for the more valuable sands and gravels in order to avoid .contamination of groundwater supplies. In order to satisfy the competing demands for this resource, a multiple-use policy should be adopted. Initially this would in- clude a detailed hydrologic study of the coastal area to determine the best sources of water, including both ground and surface water. Once this has been completed, regulations can be adopted to protect the most valuable aquifers while the other sand and gravel deposits can be used for development and excavation. The valuable sand and gravel deposits were identified on the Areas of Particular Concern Map. The critical aquifer/aquifer re- charge sands and gravels were also identified as areas of parti- cular concern on this map. These areas are further discussed in the groundwater section of the inventory. Where geologic sands and gravels coincide with sand and gravel soils, they become identi- fied as areas more capable of development. These areas are dealt with more specifically in the soils section of the inventory and the land use suitability section of the classification discussion. Soils Soils form the upper organic layer of earth materials which -12- have developed from the interaction of climate, vegetation, slope, and surficial geology. The present characteristics of each soil type are highly dependent on its position in one of the major surfi- cial deposits. For example, the Hinckley and Windsor soils are located in the level portions of sand and gravel deposits. (See Figure 1.) The soil conditions maps are interpreted from the Strafford and Rockingham County Soil Surveys, since communities from both counties are within the primary and secondary coastal zone. Al- though all the inventory maps have essentially the same soil cate- gories, the Strafford County section of the region has generally more accurate and reliable@information. This is due to the fact that the 1959 Rockingham County Soil Silrvey was done for-agricultural purposes and with less accuracy control The Strafford County Sur- vey was completed in 1973 and the soils interpretations were done for a variety of uses including suitability for community devel- opment, forestry, wildlife, and recreation as well as agriculture. For purposes of the inventory and land capability mapping, the existing soil information was considered to be of equal value. However, it must be emphatically stressed that the soil information and capability analysis is much more accurate and defensible in Strafford County than in Rockingham County. The Soil Conservation Service will legally stand behind the Strafford County Soil Survey, but not the Rockingham Survey. Soil conditions are a major factor in determining suitable locations for such urban uses as residential,development and re- creation. Below is a description of each soil condition category with suggested recommendations for potential development. These categories were developed with assistance from the state Soil -13- ---HINCKLEY A12Z_@ WINDSOR@__ A=15 _:Z: Z_ 'S AN OAND 'GPAV L. E 0. rigure Typical pattern of soils and underlying material in the Hinckley-Windsor-Saugatuck association. Source: S.C.S., Soil Survey of Strafford County, 1973 7;R, -14- Conservation Service, The soils are listed generally according to their capability for urban development, from least to most capable. Wetland Soils These usually formed in association with the marine silts-and clays, the sand and gravel deposits, till, _@and the more recent alluvial sediments deposited by streams and rivers. They include all the poorly and very poorly drained mineral and organic soils, i.e., those having a water table at or near the ground surface for seven or more months of the year (Kelsey, 1973-74), Wetland soils are best left undeveloped because many occur in natural drainage ways and are valuable when left untouched. Not only do they act as natural s.ponges to collect excess runoff, thus preventing flooding downstream, but they also serve as a habitat for fish and wildlife. These areas have open space and recreational potential. See areas of particular concern discussion. Highly Erodible Soils The highly erodible soils are lo cated in marine clay deposits, often adjacent to the tidal rivers such as the Cocheco. Development on these soils is generally not recommended, because of the high potential for erosion and stream pollution. They are best left in vegetative cover. Where construction is necessary, proper erosion and sediment controls must be used. Seasonally Wet Soils These soils formed in association with parent materials similar to those of the wetland soils, a'-though they are generally better drained. This group includes all moderately well-drained soils or those having a water table within U@ to 2k feet of the -15- ground surface during parts of the year (Kelsey, 1973-74). Development of seasonally wet soils- should be avoided where at all possible. Wet basements and submerged leach fields of septic tanks can be expected, with a distinct possibility of groundwater pol- lution. Only when waterproof municipal sewer facilities or similar protective measures can be provided should these soils be developed. Waste disposal and fertilizer application should be discouraged. Shallow to Bedrock Soils These soils are located on thin deposits of glacial till. Bedrock or ledge in much of the delineated areas is typically 30 inches or less below the ground surface. Shallow to bedrock soils are so thin to bedrock that high density or commercial development is usually unwise because of high costs of constructing foundation and septic tanks or sewer lines. Any kind of development should be of low density on large lots. However, a community may want to overcome the bedrock limitation by constructing water and sewer faciliti es to serve high density development, which would offset the cost of these services. Newmarket, is a good example of this practice. Clays and Sands Over Clay Soils The"group consists of all well-drained clays and all well- drained sands over clay soils. Although these soils are generally well-drained, they are somewhat slowly permeable because of the clay layer. As a result a drainage system around the foundation is sug- gested to carry off water to a settling pond or storm sewer. This system can be quite expensive, but needed in order to avoid any possibility of flooded basements. No on-site,septic systems should be allowed because of the potential for groundwater pollution. Only developments that can afford to offset the above limitations should be -16- considered here. Deep, Well-Drained, Stony (with hardpan) Soils These soils occur under @he same conditions as the above but typically have a hardpan at about two feet that restricts the downward and lateral movement of water (Kelsey,.1974-75). While the deep, stony hardpan soils may be well-drained, on-' site septic systems should not be used on small lots. The moderately slow permeability and the possibility of a perched water table above the pan ate limitations that could lead to groundwater pollution. Development with water and sewer is recommended especially where densities are relatively high. In Rockingham County the previous two categories are combined into the following one,' since there was no distinction in the soil survey between those deep stony soils that had a hardpan and those that did not. Deep Stony Soils This group of soils formed in glacial till and comprise all well-drained and small areas of poorly-drained stony soils. These soils may or may not have hardpan layers. These soils have the. same limitations as-the deep, well-drained stony, hardpan soils of Strafford County. Deep, Well-Drained, Stony (non-hardpan) Soils The deep well-drained stony group consists of well-drained loamy soils that are formed in deep, sandy, stony, glacial till. Although these soils are quite variable in character, most types of development can be considered. The only limitations.are stones and clay lenses that might hinder foundation and septic t,ank construction and drainage. _17- Sandy and Gravelly Soils This group includes all well-drained to excessively well-drained soils that have formed in thick sand and gravel deposits. Sand and gravel soils have the best potential for development since they offer few if any restrictions to construction. However, intensive development with impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, etc.) can prevent recharge to the groundwater reservoirs in these deposits which may be needed for future water supplies. In addition, if septic tanks are used, they must be carefully constructed and regulated to prevent groundwater contamination from the effluent. High density development must definitely be discouraged in sand and gravel areas where municipal wells are located. The Groundwater section of the inventory covers this more fully. In conclusion, it must be recognized that neither soil survey is accurate to the site specific level, particularly Rockingham County's. Therefore, rigid land use regulations should not be formulated for specific soil categories or soil types. Where land use ordinances depend on soil criteria, standards and regulations should be flexible enough to allow intelligent planning and manage- ment decisions. Such requirements as on-site investigations for certain types or sizes of development is one method for encouraging good planning. SLOPE Consideration of slope or steepness of the land in the natural resource inventory is important, because it plays a significant role in the capability of any site for most land uses. For instance, flat sites are suitable for such uses as roads and highways, large commercial and industrial buildings, agriculture, and intensive recreation. As the slopes'become steeper many of the uses are not -18- suitable. In addition, development and service costs increase. Development on.such slopes also contributes to the potential for greater erosion and siltation, and pollution of waterways. Using the U.S.G.S. contour base maps four categories of slope were designated: 0-8%, 8.-15%, 15-25%, and 25% and greater. Per- cent slope is determined by expressing the vertical change as a ratio of the horizontal change. For example, a vertical change of 5 feet with a horizontal change of 20 feet is equivalent to a 25% slope. See Figure 2. Some suggested land uses for each slope category: l/ 0-3% Flat lands are suitable for most large buildings-- industrial and commercial. Roads, highways and active recreation uses such a's ball fields are also suitable for these flat areas. Very flat sites may pose such problems as (1) inadequate drainage especially during peak storms; and (2) inadequate gravity flow for sanitary sewers. 3-8% These gently undulating areas are suitable for single family housing on small and medium lots., apartment buildings, secondary roads, as well as most of the activities above, with increasing limitations at the upper extreme of the category. 8-15% Development costs and the potential for runoff and erosion begin to increase. These areas are suitable for single family housing on large lots, tovmhouses, and garden apartments. 15-25% Townhouses with multi-levelentrances, using the cluster technique, can be considered in these areas. The cost of development becomes a major factor. Runoff and _19- MAP 15c' 20 26' 30, A 60 45 40' 35- GRADUAL SLOPE STEEP SL PE 8% 15% 257, Figure 2. DiagTam to illustrate percent slope. evsion control is essential. 25 A.1most all development should be prevented. Development and over 4c4c8sts and potential environmental impact are high. Such 6f-8rtors as shallow to bedrock, drainage problems, runoff a8r-18A erosion severely limit construction on these slopes. GROUNDWATER Groun6dnwater occurs in openings or pores in the bedrock or surficial T-.---terials. The amount of water that these materials can hold de4pends upon the size and number of the openings and the particle s--7-e of the geologic material. If ageologic deposit or unit has numerotz8s openings it is said eo be porous. Permeability is the capacity o6E a given geologic unit to transmit water. In order to have la-ge yields of groundwater, the deposit must have high porosity a__3 permeability. Since sands and gravels have large particles large pore spaces, they are permeable enough to pro- duce high 4y-76f-0el ds of groundwater. This type of deposit is called an auifer 1a geologic unit that yields significant amounts of water). The c4h:4lef source of groundwater is precipitation. Of the precipitat8Liz.--4n that falls to the earths surface a small fraction Tuns direc4ti2l0y off the surface, while much of it flows toward streams jus--. below the earths surface by a means of a process called nterflow. -Much of the rest returns to the atmosphere through evaporatio2m, from surfacewater or transpiration from vegetation (evapotran_8---_ 4i ration). In the coastal area of New Hampshire of the approximat00e8:-.y 42 inches of precipitation received annually, half or about 281- inches is lost to evapotranspiration. The remainder infiltrates through the soil to recharge the groundwater. The point at w48E_,2,ch the geologic unit is completely saturated is known as the wate:6 table. See Figure 3 PRECIPITATION N_'@ 0_ffAt i_ON_ A-0M VEGETAT I ON= ,@g C. F k-AT -REA ---SOILS 61 RECHARGEX-1- -SURFACE WATER@ WAft-R- ABLE OF SATURAT-1-01W Figure 3 Relat--l onship o*f Groundwater to the Hydrologic Cyc The best potential aquifers in New Hampshire's Coastal Zone are the large sand and gravel deposits. See Groundwater Potential Maps, Good Potential Areas. Because of their excellent permeability yield s as high as 700 gallons per minute (gpm) may be obtained (Bradley, 1964). On the groundwater potential maps these areas are either in dark blue or coded as the number 1 (good potential). In some instances these deposits are too thin or too small to provide sizeable reservoirs of water. These are indicated by medium blue color and categorized as moderate potential. The outwash and shore deposits are moderately permeable and can:be expected to yield up to 100 gpm (Bradley, 1964). This kind of yield,is suitable for residential, farm, and small industrial supplies. Where well-sorted medium or coarse sands' occur in known ancient geologic valleys, the saturated thickness may be quite deep. According to Cotton (1975) these aquifers could yield over a million gallons of water per day. Field work is necessary to make determina- tions about such deposits and is highly recommended. Till and marine clay have generally poor potential for any- thing but domestic water supplies although the groundwater potential maps have distinguished between the two. This was done to indicate a potentially good supply of water under the marine clays. In some instances these clays lie above excellent sand and gravel or outwash deposits, particularly adjacent to rivers. This situation occurs along the Exeter River in Exeter where the town has a muni- cipal well. The small areas of alluvium and si,,7amp deposits were classified as poor potential. Of all the natural resources, groundwater is probably the single most limiting factor to the amount And type of development in the coa stal zone of New Hampshire. Right nOW groundwater is -22- the principal source of water in the area. According to Hall (1974) of the 16 million gallons per day water consumption in the seacoast area, 10.5 mgd comes from groundwater. Present population projection indicates that the seacoast area will run out of groundwater supplies by the middle 1980's. This is based on a sustained water yield figure of 25 mgd, which both Hall (1973) and Anderson-Nichols (1969- 72) calculate. It is quite clear that the coastal area is facing a potential crisis. In order to meet this need, new sources of water will soon have to be developed either locally or from outside sources. Any such water supply development should be coordinated with growth management policies. For these reasons it is essential that groundwater resources be protected from contamination in areas that are presently being used as water supplies or that are potential future water supplies. These areas include many sand and gravel deposits as well as some outwash and shore deposits. In some instances medium density development on water and sewer is appropriate in these areas. It is important to prevent incompatible uses, such as oil storage facilities, that might eventurally lead to groundwater contamination. ,Growth should also be controlled to regulate the amount of impermeable cover, such as roofs and parking lots, in or.der to maintain adequate recharge of the aquifers. See Mettee, pending for a more detailed discussion of-groundwater and its implications for growth in the coastal area of New Hampshire. For purposes of the inventory mapping the surficial deposits were interpreted for their ability to yield water. The categories for the Groundwater Potential Maps are: Class Deposit 1) Good Potential Excellent sand and gravel aquifers -23- 2) Moderate Potential Thin or small sand and gravel deposits -'Outwash and shore deposits 3) Poor Potential Till, Alluvium, Swamp deposits, Marine clays* These were distinguished from the other deposits of poor, potential. While they usually are of poor potential, they often overlie extensive sand and gravel aquifers as noted in the discussion. It was decided that this circumstance was worth noting. SURFACE WATER The Surface Drainage Maps indicate the relative vulnerability of the various sub-basing in the primary and secondary coastal zone which are part of the Coastal Watershed. In general, surface water that originates at the headwaters of small watersheds are-most vulnerable..to development. They have less water volume to assimilate contaminants and di lute solids than do surface waters that have flowed through several stream orders before reaching major rivers. Since ponds and lakes are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of development, they are considered to be in the same class as the headwaters or first order basins. The textured overlay on the maps indicates this. The coastal zone has many first order basins. Because these basins have little stream flow capacity, they have little assimi- lative capacity. Therefore, the first order basins are much less desirable to develop than the second, third, and fourth order basins. Each stream on the surface drainage maps is assigned a stream order designation based upon the tributaries of each stream. For -instance, a headwater stream with-no tributaries is classified as -24- a first order stream while a second order stream has at least two first order tributaries, and no tributary larger than a first order. Similarly, a third order stream has at least two second order tributaties, and no tributaries greater than a second order. WATER AND SEWER Although these systems are man-made, they were treated here because of the important implications they have for development and defining "permissible land uses" in the coastal zone. The connotation of "suitability" is introduced when these types of factors are considered. The majority of the towns and cities in the coastal area have municipal water and sewer systems. The Water and Sewer Maps indi- .cate the extent and coverage of each of these systems. These ser- vices generally lie within the major population centers of these communities such as urban areas of Dover and Portsmouth. These maps were based on information and maps provided by the appropriate communities. These facilities provide flexibility to growth patterns because they allow de velopers the opportunity of overcoming some of the natural limitations to urban growth such as high bedrock or ledge. Where it is appropriate a community can develop at higher densities than with private wells and septic systems. Clustering of develop- ment on such facilities encourages a wiser use of land and is generally more economical in the long run. However, provision of water and sewer services does not imply that any kind of development can go anywhere. Critical areas such as wetlands and steep slopes should still be avoided. For environmental and long-term economic reasons these areas should be protected through proper land use regulation. -25- It is not the purpose of this study to make specific recommenda- tions for future water and sewer systems. However, it is recommended that where possible communities should cooperate in construction of such facilities. This app'roach would allow greater system flexibility and would result in lower long term costs to the communi- ties involved. It is also recommended that water@and sewer planning be done on a watershed basis for ecological and economic reasons. CLASSIFICATION Once the -@rarious natural factors of the Coastal Zone were evaluated lor their ability to support urban development, capa- bility map classes were defined based upon the convergence of given natural factor characteristics. For example, since 0-8% slopes, sand and gravel soils, and fourth order drainage repre- sent the most propitious natural characteristics for development, they were synthesized in Capability Class 1. At the risk of making a relatively simple process become complex, it was decided that the capability classes should identify the specific natural characteristics that were in con- vergence. The alternative would have been to aggregate more charac- teristics into one class, resulting in fewer capability classes.. By using the former process loss of valuable data was kept to a minimum in going from the individual factor maps to the land use capability map. Such a system of natural factorsynthesis requires numerous capability classes. However, it is infinitely easier for prospective users to determine, when necessary I, specific resources from the capability map, ratherthan continually referring to individual natural factor maps. By definition, Capability Class 1 -26- in the previous example illustrates this point. At the same time OCP requested that these numerous individual c@asses be aggregated @nto four tapability classes, which for the sake of simplicity will be referred to as capability "areas" in the discussion. This procedure was followed and the individual map legends reflect both systems of classification, In the.aggre- gated system Ca pability Clas's I becomes Capability Area 1 or those areas representing "Excellent" capability for development. The capability classes and areas are defined at the end of this section. More specifically, the process of mapping the various capa- bili ty classes was achieved through an ordered overlay technique. The first step was to extract from the individual factor maps those areas which by the evaluation process were considered to present particular hazards for development (eg., floodplains) or to represent areas ofhigh social, economic, or environmental cost (eg., coastal wetlands) if improperly developed. These re- sources fall into what was defined as a resource protection dis- trict or the "Poor" development capability area. This area (district) represents a grouping of.resources that leads to an initial determination of "areas of particular concern". The term resource protection was employed to identify those areas whose integrity should be protected for the go od of the whole coastal zone community. Such a designation does not imply that these areas not be used, but only that uses commensurate with the tolerance of the resource be allowed. Special regulations for these areas may be needed. Each resource has been numbered and colored where appropriate and identified in the map legend. These resources are listed below, generally in decreasing order of criticality or value from top to bottom. -27- The next step was to identify the capability of the remaining areas on the maps based on a particular combination of soil conditions, slope, and surface drainage. Each of thesemaps was overlaid successively to determine the various capability classes on each of the seven Land Use Capability Maps. Twelve capability classes ranging from most capable (#l) to least capable (#12) for urban development have been designated. On the capability maps these have been coded appropriately so that they are easily identifiable. To satisfy the request of the state, these twelve classes have been divided into three-groups. The dividing points were chosen because in each instance there was a significant enough change in one or more of the resource characteri.stics (categories) to warrant a division. These groups were identified as follows: Excellent potential for development, (Capability Area 1), Good potential for development (Capability Area.2), and Fair potential for development (Capability Area 3). They are defined below. Where water and'sewer are available the capability of a given area will usually improve. While these factors were not considered in the capability analysis per se, they will provide an essential element in determining "permissible land uses",as discussed in a subsequent section. This classification system leads to a definition of "per- missible land uses" for the coastal zone. Knowing the inherent capability of the coastal zone for urban development, and then assessing the requirements for various land uses, the most appro- priate uses can be guided to the most capable area. Industrial development could be appropriately acconmodated on Class 3 land (Excellent potential for development) but not on Class 9 land <Fair potential for development). -28- Land Use Capability Classification Capability Soil l/ Class Slope Conditi'jn Surface Drainage Capability Area 1 Excellent Potential 1 0-8% 1 Fourth Order 2 0-8% 1 Second, or Third 3 0--r8% 1 First; Lake Shore Buffers Capability Area 2 Good Potential 4 0-8% 2 Second, Third, or Fourth 5 0-8% 2 First, or Lake Shore Buffer Capability Area 3 Fair Potential. 6 0-8% 3 First, or Lake Shore Buffer 8-15% 1 Second, Third or Fourth 7 8-15% 1 First, or Lake Shore Buffer 8 0-8% 3 Second, Third, or Fourth 9 8-15% 2 or 3 Second, Third, or Fourth 10 8-15% 2 First, or Lake Shore Buffer 8-15% 3 Second, Third, or Fourth 11 8-15% 3 First, or Lake Shore Buffer 12 15-25% 1, 2, or 3- Any drainage Capability Area 4 Poor Potential (Resource Protection) 1. Floodplains 2/ and/or Wetlands 3/ Highly Erodible Soils 3/ 2. Floodplains and prime agricultural land 3/ 3. Floodplains 4. Wetlands in Valuable Forest Areas 4/ 5. Wetlands 6. Highly Erodible Soils on Steep Slopes 5/ -29- 7. Highly Erodible Soils 8. Steep Slopes in Valuable Forest Areas 9. Slopes over 25% 6/ 10. Ice-Contact Deposits in Valuable Forest Areas 11. Ice-Contact Deposits 12. Prime Agricultural Soils Natural Areas 7/ Higher Hills 57' I/ Soil Conditions Groups 1. Sand and Gravelly Soils Deep, Well-Drained Stony (non-hardpan) Soils 2. Deep, Well-Drained Stony Hardpan Soils Clays and Sands over Clayey Soils 3. Seasonally Wet Soils Shallow to Bedrock toils 2/ S.C.S. 100-year'floodplain boundaries and ln foot boundary for all tidal waters based on Hall.(1975), Hayden (1975), and Corps of Engineers (unknown). 3/ S.C.S. Rockingham and Strafford Soil Survey 4/ Brunz and Lane (1969), "A Timber In-@entory of the Seacoast Region." 5/ 'U.S.G.S. 7k-minute quadrangles 6/ Bradley (1964), Geolo and Groundwater Resources of Southeastern New Hampshire, Cotton (1974), personal communication 7/ Natural Areas Inventory, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests -30- REFERENCES Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc...1969 1972. Public Water Supplz Study. 4 Volumes, prepared-To-r tfie-State of New Hampshire, Department of Re sources and Economic Development, Concord, New Hampshire. Bradley, Edward, 1964. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southe@i`stern New Hampshire. Geo- Tiogical Survey Water-Supply Paper 1695, prepared in cooperation with the New-Hampshire Water Re- sources Board, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,. D.C. Brunz, Paul E. and William Lane, 1969. "A Timber Inventory of the Seacoast Region." Regional Planning: New Hampshire - Maine, Part 1. Uni-' versity of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire and Department of Resources and Economic Devel- opment, Concord, New Hampshire. Clark, John, 1974 Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations Fo-rManagement of the Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1960. Report on Metropoli- tan Water Supply for Seacoast Area. Prepared Tor tHe New Hampshire Water Resources Board by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Consulting Firm, Boston, Massachusetts. Cotton, John, 1973 - 1974. Geologist, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Concord, New Hampshire, personal communication. Federer, C. Anthony, 1970. "Effects of Trees in Modi- fying Urban Microclimate", Trees and Forests in an Urbanizing Environment. Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Fenneman, W.M., 1938. Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hi ook Co., Inc., Ne.wYork, New York.' Frederick, Jr., C.J. and'Luty, J.J., 1972. Problem' Recognition Study, Central New Hampshir-e-Pl-anning Region. The Regional Field Service, Harvard Grad- uate School of Design, Department of Landscape Architecture, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hall, Francis, 1974a. Professor of Hydrology, Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hamp- shire, personal communications. ____,1974b. "Water Requirements and Possible Sources of Supply". Chapter VI, The Impacts of an Oil Refinery Located in Southeastern New H@jmpshire; -Preliminary Study. The University of New Rampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. Hayden, James, 1975. Rockingham County District Con- servationist of Soil Conservation Service, per- sonal communication. Kelsey, Theodore, 1973-1974. Resource Planning Specialist. Soil Conservation Service, Durham, New Hampshire, personal comm@inication. Knowles, Stanley, 1974'. Extension Forester, United States Department of Agriculture, Extension Service, Brentwood, New Hampshire, personal com- munication. Myers, T.R., and Bradley, Edward, 1960. Suburban and Rural Water Supplies in Southeas@Eern, New Hampshire. New Hampshire State Planning and Development Commission, Concord, New Hampshire. Novotony, Robert R., 1969. The Geology of the Sea- coast Region, New HampsE71-re.State Department of -Resources and Economic Development, Concord, New Hampshire. Pope, Dale A., 1973. Planning for Groundwater Protection: Amherst, Massachusetts. Unpublished paper, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Reed, Alonzo B., Inc., 1968. Comprehensive Report on Water Supply and Sewerage foi RocFilin_gham and StrafTord Counties. Prepared for New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission by Alonzo B. Reed, Inc., Manchester, New Hamp- shire. Sheridan, Christopher, et. al., 1973. Open Space in Dover: A Natural Resources Inventory. Dover Planning Board, Dover, New Hampshire. Van der Voet, Dirk, et. al., 1959. Soil Survey of Rockingham County, New Hampshire. United States Department ot Agriculture, 5-o onservation Service in cooperation with New Hampshire. Vieira, Frank, J. and Bond, Richard V., 1973. Soil Survey of Strafford County, New Hampshire, Un-ited States Department of Agriculture, boil Conserva- tion Service in cooperation with New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. N.H. Coastal Resources Management Program First Year Report Attachment B 9 gmsjyR WATER USES CAPABILITY AND LIMITATIONS WATER USE ANALYSES WATER USE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS This water use suitability analysis constitutes a preliminary attem pt at the water-related aspects of the "establishment of-a method for analysis of the capability and suitability for each type of re- source and application to existing, projected, or potential uses." (CZMPAR 923.12 (a) (3) Also conducted, as a part of this effort was "an inventory of natural and man-made (marine and estuarine) re- sources." (CZMPAR 923.12 (a) (2) That inventory work has been included in the first year completion report. (Note: That work in- cluded an inventory of existing and potential uses of the New Hampshire coastal zone, the location of potential sand and gravel resources off the New Hampshire coast, and an identification of coastal ecoysystems and response to intrusion by man.plus supporting data). Similar efforts have been undertaken for land in the application to the New Hampshire coastal zone of a land-use capability analysis developed by McHarg. Unlike the land capability model, the water-use suitability model is not based totally on the proposition that the natural environment should significantly determine all future water use. Rather, beca@se of the paucity of detailed data on the marine and estuarine environment, a pure capability analysis is not yet!.possible. The situation demands that a closer look at existing uses be taken in order to provide an idea of use suitability. That is, due to the unusual number of unknowns in dealing with the marine and estuarine environment, existing uses, whichimplicity account for the natural factors involved in a usage decision are the basic guide. To the extent that the free-market economic system dictat ed exis t-. ing water uses, these uses imp licity account,for a large number of furtive economic factors as well, and thus stand as a measure of society's desires as to what water uses should be now, and to some extent in the future. The development of a rational methodology for water use capability, properly based on detailed scientific data, would require years of effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars. One need only look at the e tensive survey work being done to support the location of a single x discharge outlet at the Seabrook power plant site to find proof that relatively little is known about the natural capability of the offshore waters to support many of man's uses. Standing alone,, the water-use suitability analysis, and resulting maps, determine suitabilities for tidal marine and estuarine waters only. Existing land uses and capabilities have been surveyed in mak- ing these watersuitability determinations. Additionally, it should be stated that thisanalysis represents a.totally new application of existing information. As such, it is advancing, rather than approach- ing, the state of the art. It is not a complete, fully detailed, method- ology such as the McHarg analysis for land use capability. Finally, a note about the ap plicability of these maps and findings to the New Hampshire Coastal Zone Management program: It is not expected that the results of these analyses will stand alone as absolute guides to decision-making. Under no circumstances should the maps be considered as "zoning" for coastal waters. Such a deterministic use of these work products has not been anticipated by the staff of the Strafford Rocking- ham Regional Council. The water use suitability analysis can be used as background data to support the development of a coastal -2- management system in New Hampshire, through use in the definition of permissible water uses, the ordering of relative priorities of water uses and the identification of,areas of particular concern. Later use can be made of this information, again as bac kground data and in con- junction'with site specific environmental and economic data, to support case by case determinations of the capability of specific land and/or '-water areas to support proposed uses. Inventory The initial step in defining water-use. guitability was to inventory the following natural phenomena and man-induced uses of New Hampshire's coastal waters: 1) Coastal ecosystems 2) Marine and estuarine species 3) Bottom sediments - offshore 4) Existing marine uses 5) Potential marine uses The following maps were prepared and serve to indicate the loca- tion of selected coastal resources and existing water uses:- 1) Spawning Areas - Major Marine Species 2) Offshore Fishery Areas - Of Importance to New Hampshire .3) Clamming and Oystering Areas (Three maps) 4) Offshore Fisheries - Portsmouth and Gloucester Landings 5) Existing Uses - Offshore, 6) Offshore Sand and Gravel Deposits Additionally, information on adjacent land-uses and capabilities was extracted from coastal zone land-use capability analyses. The New New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission offered -3- water quality data-and assistance in its interpretation. The natural phenomena and man-induced uses of New Hampshire's coastal waters inventoried during the first-year effort were reviewed to determine: 1) the presence of marine and estuarine resources-of potential value to man and 2) what major increases in existing m arine and.estuarine uses could conc eivably occur and what new uses might be introduced into New Hampshire coastal waters in the future. The review revealed that significant increase in the levels of the following existing uses could occur in New Hampshire coastal waters: 1) Commercial fishing/lobstering. 2) Recreational fishing/boating 3) Ocean shipping 4) National defense 5) Research and education 6) Cable areas The following uses are considered a possibility within and in close proximity to New Hampshire coastal waters: 1) Deepwater port 2) Offshore sand and gravel mining 3)" Aquaculture @4) Ocean dumping It was originally felt that, in order to provide a degree of immediate applicability to the New Hampshire Coastal Zone program, the sui-tability./-analysis and classification scheme should most directly address these uses. Additional uses have also been included on suggestion of the Office of Comprehensive Planning. These are: anchorage, pipeline, swimming and visual enjoyment. The major resource areas identified during the first-year effort s -4- were located on the maps submitted to the Of f ice of Comprehensive Planning in June, 1975. Heavy-consideration was given to these through- out the analysis. Classification System Orginally, it was felt that numeri6al indicators of use intensity and resource availability would be used whenever possible in making suitability.classifications. It was.soon evident, however, that numerical data was (except in isolated cases) either spotty, outdated, or non- existent. Assessing suitability became a more subjective problem. The possibility of suitability classification on the basis of resource-usage conflicts was suggested. Review by SRRC staff revealed that all present or potential uses identified for inclusion in this analysis posed conflicts of multiple resource use with,at least one other use,and little.pro-ress towards water use suitability classification could be made on this basis alone. This concept of resource analysis was retained for the determination of priority of uses, however. It was determined at the outset by the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning that, primarily for purposes of graphic clarity, there would be four suitability areas established for coastal waters.. These areas were identified in a preliminary manner as ranging from areas of "least development potential" to areas of "good development" potential." Staff efforts at working with these four areas were an attempt to identify a series of subjective parameters which could be used in the determination of water use suitability, given the inventory data available. The parameters shosen represents the staff's best estimate of key determinants of the suitability of coastal waters for supporting some or all of the diverse uses being considered. -5- Parameters chosen to separate New Hampshire coastal waters into suitability areas included the following: 1)' Location and intensity of existing coastal and estuarine water uses 2) Presence or proximity of marine and estuarine* --esources of value to the natural environment (e.g. salt marsh habitat, rocky shores habitat) 3) Existing land uses adjacent to these areas and capability of adjacent lands for supporting development, 4) Presence of marine and estuarine resources of potential value to man, either industrially, commercially or recreationally (including lob- sters, finfish, sand and gravel, water depth and bottom type suitable for offshore structures). 5) Expected impact on coastal waters and adjacent land of possible future uses of coastal and estuarine uses either in, or in close proximity t1o, waters under New Hampshire control. This includes in- creased intensity of present uses as well as the introduction of new uses. 6) Presence of physical restrictions on development and use (shallow water depths, bridges, currents) 7) Existing water quality and subsequent limitations on water use. These parameters were chosen by the staff of the Strafford Rock- ingham Regional Council, with some alterations suggested by the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning. -6- The suitability. classification system was based primarily on t he seven identified parameters and was designed to apply as uniformly as possible to those water.uses identified earlier. Uniform application to both marine and estuarine coastal waters was considered-a desirable goal of this.process. Classifications have been extended beyond simple "development potential." They include an "intensity of use" component as well. It was felt that to be confined to development potential alone would have resulted in great loss in generality of the suitability model. (Note: The term "development" has been applied to those uses requiring significant physical alterations to coastal waters and. sub- merged lands beneath. This might include industrial uses such as sand and gravel dredging, the construction of mooring structures, pleasure boat docking facilities, and so forth. "Intensity of use", however, is more general, applying to those uses which do not result in significant physical alteration to coastal lands and waters. Extraction of renewable living marine resources, swimming, and much boating fall into those activities controlled by the "intensity of use" category.) The following constitute the four suitability classes and a brief characterization of each. Characterizations are made to conform to the seven parameters listed earlier. These are recounted for convenience: 1) Location and intensity of existing coastal and estuarine water uses. 2) Presence or proximity of marine and estuarine habitats of significant value to the natural environment. 3) Existing land uses adjacent to these areas and. capability of adjacent lands for supporting development. 4) Presence of marine and estuarine resources of potential -her indirectly, commercially or value to man, ei't recreationally. 5 Expec ted impact on coastal waters and adjacent land of possible future coastal and estuarine uses either in, or in close proximity to, waters under New Hampshire control. This includes increased intensity of present uses as well as introduction of new uses. 6) Presence of-physical restrictions on development and use (shallow water depths, bridges, currents). 7) Water quality. The suitability classes may be characterized as follows: Class IV Poor development potential/low-use intensity 1) Existing water uses generally of low intensity, and generally confined to recreational boating, fishing,' and shellfishing when they exist. 2) May be located in or.adjacent to estuarine, salt marsh, or rocky shores habitat, or other ecologically sensitive areas. 3) Adjacent land generally falls into the "poor" development capability class, into the resource protection class, or may be identified as an area of particular concern.. 4) Either supports living marine resources such as finfish, lobsters, and shellfish, or provides habitat for them, such as worm-clan flat or oyster- mussel reef. (Complements item 2) above). Over- exploitation of resources possible in this area, should be guarded against. -8- 5) Impacts on natural and man-induced uses of coastal waters, either from the introduction of new uses by man, or an increase in the intensity of existing uses by man, may be termed "direct and significant" under procedures presently being developed by the Office of Comprehensive Planning. 6) Water depths., bridge obstruction and/or currents may contribute to existing low usage levels. 7) Water quality class A, B, C, or D. Class.-:.Il.I,- Fair-development potential/moderate-high use in@ensity 1) Existing water uses may be of moderate-high intensity, and generally confined to recreational boating, fishing and shellfishing. Mooring and docking facilities may exist. 2) May be located in, or adjacent to, estuarine, salt marsh, or rocky shores habitat if existing uses do not generally result in "direct and significant" impact. Some potential for increased intensity of use exists. 3) Adjacent land may already be classified as urban, open-space for preservation and recreation, or as having at least poor development potential. 4) Harbors living marine.resources of value to man, such as finfish, shellfish, lobsters. Non-living resources of concern may be present. Overexploita- tion of living resources possible. 5) Impact by uses in this zone on coastal waters and adjacent land uses may be "adverse", but not large -9- enough to be termed "direct and significant." This may be largely because the t1olerance of systems receiving the impact is higher or be- cause of the nature of adverse effects emanating from uses. 6) Water depths, bridge obstructions, currents, generally admit of recreational and small commercial boat usage and/or shellfishing at various tidal levels. 7) Water quality class A, B, or C. Class II.- Good'development potential/moderate-high use intensity 1) Existing uses typically the same as in-area II, with additional usage.by ocean-going'vessels and traffic headed to or from national defense facilities. May be used for anchorage of large vessels. 2) Distance from ecologically important areas le.g. salt mars h, rocky shores) ameliorates most impacts from existing uses. Offshore spawning areas are not significantly affected by existing uses. Future uses could have adverse effects -- significance to be determined on a case by case basis. 3) Where in close proximity to land, land is generally classified as of "fair" to "good" development potential. Adjacent land uses may be directly tied to marine waters, either for transportation purposes or the presence of unique resources. -10- 4) Offshore waters generally harbor commercially extractable finfish, shellfish and crustaceans. River and estuarine areas serve as migration path- ways for anadromous fish; life support provided to finfish, shellfish and crustaceans. Overexploita- tion of living resources possible. 5) Impact on coastal waters and adjacent lands from increase in level of existing activity probably not significant, in light of value of these areas to man for transportation and reasonable resource extraction. The introduction of major new uses could have poten- tially direct and significant impacts, and should be handled on a case by case basis. 6) Physical features, primarily bathymetry, allow'for generally unr estricted navigation. Some obstructions applicable to particular uses, such as deepwater port or sand and gravel mining, may exist in certain sub- areas of this zone. 7) Water quality class A or B offshore; A, B, or C in river areas. Class I Excellent development potential/moderal-high use intensity 1) Existing use typically the sane as area TI, though at less intense levels for recreational boating and fishing. Shellfishing (primarily for scallops) has occurred in the past, but is not a significant activity in this zone. 2) Distance from.ecologically important coastal areas (salt marsh, rocky shores) ameliorates most impacts from -il- existing uses.' Offshore spawning areas may be present, but direct impacts from existing activity appear slight. Future uses could have adverse impacts - significance to be determined on a case by case basis. 3) Distance from land (at least 14 miles) diminishes importance of adjacent land use in classifying this capability area. Potential future uses (such as a deepwater port or sand and gravel dredging) may require adjacent onshore land suitable for support and/or processing facilities. 4) Harbors living marine resources of value to man, including finfish, �hellfish, and crus-taceans. Non- living resources confined to sand and gravel. Over- exploitation of living resources possible.' 5) Impacts on coastal waters and adjace nt lands from increases in levels of existing activity are probably not significant. The introduction of major new uses could have potentially direct and significant impacts on both water and land and should be handled on a case by case basis.. 6) Physical features allow for generally unrestricted navigation. Water depth reduces chances of grounding of deep-draft vessels. May be too deep for certain activities (sand and gravel mining). 7) Water quality class A or B. Several items pertaining to the use of these classification characteristics should be noted. First, the transition between one -12- capability area and another is nowhere near as abrupt as a line on a map: pollution levels change gradually, depths,change gradually, veg- etation alters slowly, composition of marine life alters gradually, to name but a few of the transitions that take place. Second, the designation of suit.@ibility areas will remain approxima- tion of reality and not reality itself. In fact, large-scale inclusions of areas not fitting the parameters of a given suitability class will occur as a matter of course. These do not detract from the usefulness of the map as background data for CZM program development but makes an extension to a hard and fast zoning concept indefensible. Third, tides in the vicinity of eight feet occur throughout the seacoast region of New Hampshire. Thus, an area which might have water depths too shallow for use by boats at low tide may be perfectly useable at mid or high tide.Use--assumptions werelmade'bas6d on-midtide water depths. This was complemented by consideration of alternative low tide uses (such as shellfishing) as well. Fourth, the parameters chosen do not adequately represent inter- temporal changes. The coastal environment is dynamic. In the water, sand bars may appear and disappear during the course of a winter; changes in water depth through silt deposits may occur. Adjacent land use may change. Needs and desires of society change as,well. Water-use suitability analysis is static. It does not change with the changing environment. Continual reassessment and updating of the model is necessary for it to remain useful. Finally, this analysis only accounts for what activities a given water area might be suitable for supporting. It does not deal with how those activities might be conducted or in what manner they should or could be regulated. The suitability of a water area for supporting a given use is changed radically as the adverse impacts of that use are ameliorated either through technology or prudent use. Strict application of the suit@bility &I-assifitdtion� -would -resillt -in a,- -rikid:systeih which unlesg applied on a case by case basis and as one factor of many to beconsidered, may have only limited applicability to sound coastal resource-management. Analysis and Classification Given the parameters identified earlier and the information available from the first-year inventory effort, an analysis was under- taken which resulted in the placing of New Hampshire marine and estuarine waters into one of four suitability classes. Though all parameters were considered equally, certain of them were found to be more restrictive outright. than others. For example, a class D water quality classification carries with it a description of "Aesthetically acceptable. Suitable for certain industrial purposes, power and navigation" (See Staff Report No. 67 of the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, "Piscataqua River and Coastal N.H. Basins -- Water Quality Management Plan", p 1-2) Such water is not deemed acceptable for recreational boating and fishing. Thus, class D water was placed into the low development potential/low use intensity category. Physical restrictions such as low water depths, bridges, and similar obstructions would also strongly affect the suitability classification afforded a particular body of water. The other parameters allowed more latitude in interpretation. The following is a general description of the suitability areas by locale, and presents some of the more important reasons for such classification: Offshore Waters An approximate two mile buffer strip, classifie d as -14- "Class III" lies adjacent to all coastal areas and the Isles of Shoals. (RSA 211:49, Subparagraph I, restricts certain types of dragging with- in two miles of shore. RSA 211:49, Subparagraph II restricts traps and weirs and certain other equipment in waters under state jurisdiction during summer months. These provide a basis for the buffer zone being two miles wide.) Additionally, these areas are subjected to shore and adjacent areas of high recreational value restricts the use of a higher classification. Particular note is made here of the fact that the waters surround- ing the Isles of Shoals has been placed in suitability class III -- which effectively remo-N7es them from consideration as a site for a deep- water port. The Office of Comprehensive Planning suggested that further consideration be given to the classification, particularly as it related to@the establishment of a fixed port on or near the Isles of Shoals. A fixed port on or near the Isles of Shoals is not considered feasible'for a number of reasons. First, the construction costs of such a facility would be greatly higher compared with other feasible alternatives such as a single-point mooring system. Significant dredg- ing and blasting of bedrock to make the area immediately adjacent to the Isles of suitable depth to handle supertankers would be ne-cessary. This would be both expensive compared to the single-point mooring altern- ative and would result in significant damage to the marine environment. Little advantage as compared to a single-point mooring would be obtained from this additional expense, even if one were considering a facility capable of loading tankers with refined product following onshore processing. The facility would be visible from virtually the entire New Hamp- shire seacoast. It would appear likely that some decrease in income of the tourist indu'stry would occur. Additionally waters surrounding the -15- Isles of Shoals are.intensely f ished for recreational purposes and commercially trapped for lobster. Reduction in these activities would occur. It is certain that use of the Isles as a convention and edu- cational center would decrease, if not stop completely. Also, prox- imity to shore (five to seven miles), when coupled with existent current patterns off the New Hampshire coast, indicate that a significant chance of oil spills making landfall along the New Hampshire coast exists. Some guidance is available from the federal government for not deeming waters in the vicinity of the Isles of Shoals suitable for deepwater port.development of anytype, let alone a facility located on the Isles themselves. The Region I office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency hAs stated: "(Supertanker) port facilities should be located some distance from the coast -- between 10 and 25 miles -- and in areas assuring freedom from navigational hazards, protection of unique environmental values, and having the capability to absorb or contain oil spills. We favor a monobuoy type system where tankers could unload crude oil offshore and have it piped underground to refineries onshore .... EPA Region I policy statement on refineries and deepwater ports in New England Make note that the classification of the waters surrounding the Isles is of only fair development suitability does not constitute a flat rejection of the concept of a deepwater port in waters off the New Hampshire coast. Such a facility has, in fact, been considered as a possibility in waters designated as suitability class I, yet to be discussed. Suitability class II designations have been made.further offshore, an area presently used by a number of interests, including ocean shippers recreational and commercial fishermen, and the federal government. Here, depths are more amenable to ocean shipping, few restrictions are placed on commercial fishing, and generally fewer recreational boaters and fishermen are present, lowering chances of conflict overuse of, the water sur face.- Distance from adjacent land and the less critical nature of natural systems in this area reduces the chance of signifi- cant adverse impact from heavier uses. Much of this area-is in waters under federal jurisdiction. At a distance of approximately 14 miles, a class I designation was made. Present intensity of use in the area might be termed-mod- erate to low. Concentrations of finfish and crustaceans occur in specific areas, but adverse impacts on these resources may be amelio- rated by proper review of siting for certain major developments, such as a deepwater port or sand and gravel mining. The-14-mile distance from shore results in this area being substantially away from inferred spawning areas for cod, Pollock, and silver hake. The distance from shore also will reduce many direct impacts of operation or construction of major facilities, at least when taken from a coastal perspective. These would include visual impacts as well as physical impacts on the coastal environment. Hampton-Seabrook Harbor Area Much,of the Hampton-Seabrook Harbor area has been designated as suitability class III. Key determinants in this decision were the existence of a large recreational and commercial fleet, the presence of heavily utilized shellfishing flats, and the existence of nearby land of state and locally supported,recreational facilities. Additionally, many physical restrictions on navigation in the harbor area proper have been removed by dredging accomplished by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is in the harbors and estuaries that'the problem of tidal var- iation enters into the suitability classification picture. Hampton- -17- Seabrook harbor is no different. At high tide, virtually all of the harbor can be traversed by boat traffic. At low tide, many tidal flats are exposed.. making much of the area unsuitable for boating. Yet at the same time these areas are valuable as a resource for shell- fish extraction. In this case, a prime determinant of an area' II class- ification in the main portion of Hampton-Seabrook harbor was existing intensity of use which is high. Furtheriup the tributaries:to the main.harbor area (Hampton and Taylor Rivers, Blackwater River, Mill Creek and Brown River) the classification changes to Class IV. In these cases, the proximity to highly vulnerable saltmarsh habitat, the shallow depth of waters and general inaccessibility to small craft, and value of the area as a spawning and nursery area all combined to justify class IV designation. Portsmouth and Rye Harbor Area Class II, III, and IV designations are all accorded to various waters in this area. The most prominent inclusion is that of class II from offshore into and up the Piscataqua River. The distinction in this case is primarily made to account for ocean shipping traveling to and from industrial facilities and national defense facilities loca- ted along the Piscataqua River. Natural systems in the river (generally high-velocity ecosystems) are less diversified and relatively less supportive of natural systems than tidal marsh areas, for example. The Piscataqua retains one natural function of paramount importance, however -- that of serving as the single entryway from Great Bay to the ocean, and its importance cannot be downgraded. The Piscataqua River as far west as Newington is bordered by land capable of supporting industrial faciliti62, and the transportation link to the ocean is of high value to New Hampshire. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has maintained a channel dredged to 35 foot depth. Class III-designations are afforded Little Harbor and the lower stretches of Sagamore Creek as well as Rye Harbor. Also, the North Mill Pond in Portsmouth has retained that classification. Key to classifying these areas has been their value as mooring and docking areas for recreational and commercial boats. Existing use is generally intensive. Occeasional areas of shellfish are located in the Little and Rye Harbor vicinity as well. These areas are generally surrounded by urban areas or areas designated as open space for preservation, land uses particularly amenable to a class III designation. Tributaries emptying into Rye Harbor (numerous creeks) and Little Harbor (upper reaches of Sagamore Creek, Witch Cr-ek, Seavey Creek and. Berry's Brook) are generally surrounded by open space lands and tidal marsh. Some urban land, although not much,.is found as well. Additionally, Berry's Brook has been identified as maintaining a unique population of sea-run brook trout. All of these areas have therefore, been characterized as suitability class IV, Great Bay, Little Bay and Tributaries By far thb most complex area to categorize is the Great Bay- Little Bay complex, along with its tributaries. A multitude of vari- ations of water quality, water depth, and surrounding land capability classifications are present. Suitability for supporting boating uses varies greatly with the tides, but the situation is not unlike the Hampton-Seabrook Harbor area where suitability for one use (b'oating) changes to another (shelifishing) with the tide. Resolution of.the problem is similar. Most of Great Bay and Little Bay proper has been classified as suitability class III. Key determinant's in this are existing uses (largely confied to recreational boating and*fishi.ng, with some low- level commerc ial lobstering in Little Bay) and adjacent land capability (largely resource protection districts such as wetlands, f-loodplains,, and steep slopes). Lower portions of the Lamprey River, Squamscot River, Oyster River, Bellamy River, and Piscataqua River have been similarly categorized. No areas-have been categorized as.class.I orJI. Physical re- strictions (depth, tidal.currents) and higher value of contained resources in other uses are primary determinants of this. Class IV designations have been. made for the following regions: Winnicut River, Squamscot River above the B & M railroad bridge, upper areas of the Lamprey River, Crommet Creek, the Johnson Creek estuary (adjacent to the Oyster River), upper reaches of the Bellamy River and upper reaches of thePiscataqta River, (Note: classifications apply to tidal portions only). Reasons for class IV designation was made primarily because of adjacency to ecologically sensitive areas. The Winnicut River valley (which has class D water as-well) is an important anadromous fish run, and is an important wildlife habitat. The area in the vicinity of Adam's Point and Crommet Creek is estuarine with salt marsh.and rare plant species, including flowering dogwood. The Johnson Creek estuary in Durham (off of the-Oyster River) is an unspoi."i.ed tidal estuary which supports a number of rare plants. Physical restrictions to navigatio.n and adjacent land in the resource protection class also contributed -to area I designations. No complelling reasons for higher classification were found among the other parameters surveyed. _20- N.H. Coastal Resources Management Progrwn First Year Report Attachment B 10 PERMISSIBLE USES PRIORITY OF USES IN THE COASTAL ZONE Prepared by Strafford Rockingham Regional Council COME 8K4ol8m 71 11 2M FERNIa6nj 678W OVER X The preparation of this report was supported in part by a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, Nat- ional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Preface This report was prepared' in satisfaction of a contract between the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council and the Office of Comprehensive Planning'. It discusses permissible land and water use�-andthe priority of various uses for various places in the coastal zone. It should be understood throughout that there are many varieties of coastal lands and waters. They cannot be rigidly categorized into four !types each. The recommendations here presented should be viewed as guidance to those using coastal areas, not commandments. Moreover, it should be recognized that the uses have been viewed as utilizing " average" technology. Advanced engineering, or new technology, can make "prohibited" uses permissible. And, likewise, failure to uti- lize currently accepted good construction or operating practices may render some uses, listed here as "permissible", highly objectionable. Furthermore, effects on areas of particular concern must be considered in any decisions. Here follows: 1) permissible land uses 2) Permissible water uses 3) Priority of uses: Land Water Permissible Land Uses Identification of permissible land uses by coastal sub- zone and capability area follows logically from the land use capability analysis. This identification process represents the initial step in.determination of priority of uses. 'The capability analysis concentrated on the most appropriate locations forurban development only in a general way.. Assessment of the impacts and requirements. of existing uses, however, (see Figure 1), makes it possible to identify the capability of more specific uses in defined geographical areas (capability areas). Using in part the language of the Coastal Zone Management Program Regulations .(Para- graph 923.12 12.(b) (iii) the following criteria were utilized in determining permissible uses. "Those uses which: -can be reasonably and safely supported by the resources of the Coastal zone; -rcan be sustained without undue impact on the coastal environment; -are compatible with the coastal environment and/or are appropriate to coastal areas." In attempting to assign permissible uses to the various capa- bility areas, it became immediately clear that certain uses are com- patible in all of the defined capability areas,,whereas others are appropriate in only the "Excellent" or "Good" capability areas. A hierarchy of uses can be identified, where' thosewith the most restrict- ive requirements, or the greatest potential impact, are assigned to those capability areas most able to sustain the given use.(Excellent or Good). Commercial and industrial uses are an example. Conversely, Figure 1 Some Criteria for Determining Allocation of Permissible Land Uses Use Criteria Sand and Gravel Extraction -Locationsthat possess a suitabDe gravel resource -Adequate berm and vegetative buffer -Provision of suitable reclamation plan -Access to major transportation routes Light-Industry (Industrial -Compatibility with surrounding area Park) -Availability of access to major trans- portatioh routes -Open space and vegetative buffers -Relatively flat land -Land suitable for heavy building sites -Consistent with sewer development phasing Site free from flood or other hazards Heavy Industrial -Large, relatively flat sites -Proximity to-major transportation routes -Adequate buffer for mini-mization of nega- ...tive impact on other surrounding land uses -Land suitable for heavy building sites -Land free from flood or other hazard -Consistent with sewer development phasing Commercial and Office -Size consiste.nt with market'demand -Location conduci;ve to conve-hiente access -Consistent with Isewer phasing -Relatively leve, hazard free locations suitable generally for heavy buildingsites Institutional -Land suitable for the facility required -Location near adequate circulation route -elimination of negative impact on surround- ing land use High Density Residential -Market demand 4 DU/acres or greater- --Slopes under.about 10% -Land free from slide, flood and excessive erosion hazard -Consistent with sewer phasing -Location near arterial circulation routes -Location on promontorysites -Land suitable for homesites or heavy buildings Medium Density Residential -Market demand 1-4 DU/acres -Slopes up to 15%,pending analysis -Land free from slide, flood and excessive erosion hazard -Consistent with sewer phasing -Land suitability for homesites -2- Figure 1 - Continued Low Density -Market demand I less than 1 DU/acres -Approval on steep slopes subject to land an;@lysis Agriculture -Relatively level land -Productive soils -Limitations for more intensive uses silch as peat bogs and f loodplains Park and Recreation -Need for recreation facilities -Availability of scenic or other amenities -Protection of areas highly suitable for conservation those uses with the least potential impact are more appropriate in the areas less capable of supporting development. Agriculture and recreation are appropriate here. These uses can also be considered for the less limiting capability areas where'there is no conflict with the more intense uses. Before assigning the appropriate permissible uses to each of the capability areas, it is important to note that this is basically an organizational exercise. It is not intended to be used as a final guide for controlling uses by capability area. Several factors sup- port this qualification. The designation of uses was based on analysis of their impacts and the capability of coastal resources to sustain them. In some instances a given use is inappropriate in a certain area. If it can be demonstrated, however, that by proper design and site modifications, a given use overcomes the limitations (slope, high bedrock, etc.) of the capability area, it should be allowed. In addition, the waters which receive effluent are not uniform. Since impacts can best be measured by changes in water quality, location of land uses can be very important. Unlike freshwater lakes with a more predictable response to a particular impact, the ability of estuaries and salt water bodies to assimilate pollutants is a direct function of dilution rates. Since there are so many factors which determine the dilution rate, it is difficult to predict the impact of a given use on coastal water from one geographic area to the next, even if the use occurs in the same capability area. Finally, both the capability areas and the coastal zone sub-zones (primary, secondary, and tertiary) are not defined specifically by boundaries sensitive to the micro-features of the land (slope, hydro- logy, soil types,-etc.). The capability areas are aggregated from -4- specific site classes in-the process; these areas have become gen- eralized. Some uses generally appropriate for a capability area. may not always be so, because of the fact that in the-.*generalited areas there are different conditions. Specific reviews are therefore sometimes necessary. The following list of uses was used in a determination of per- missible uses. Within a specific area the permissible uses were designated either as (1) Permitted by Right or (2) Permitted by Re- view.(Review would be by a coastal management agency). "Review" indicates those uses, which while appropriate in a given area, might have an adverse environmental impact. Where the use was not listed it was considered "not permissible." Uses Listed Low density residential 1 dwelling unit (DU) or less less/acre Medium density residential '1-4 DU/acre High density residential 4 DU/acre Commercial and Office a. Motels b.. Restaurants c. Other tourist related commercial Light industrial (industrial-parks) Heavy industrial Sand and gravel extraction Waste disposal Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) Marine-related uses (marinas; boat-launching ramps; boat rental, repairs, and sales) Transportation and utilities Agriculture Forestry (forest management) Wildlife habitat (wildlife management) Water supply Primary Zone Poor (Area 4) 1. Uses permitted by right. a.. Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, -etc.) b. Agriculture c.' Wildlife habitat (wildlife management) 2. Uses permitted by review. a. Water supply b. Marine-related uses (marinas-- boat-launching ramps; boat rental, repairs and sales) C. Transportation and utilities @d. Forestry (forest management) Fair (Area 3) 1. Uses permitted by right. a. All of those in "Poor" b. Low density residential 1-dwelling unit (DU) or less less/acre c. Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre d. High density residential 4 DU/acre e. Commercial and Office 1. Motels 2. Restaurants 3. Other tourist related commercial .2. Uses permitted by review. a. Light industrial (industrial.parks) b. Heavy industrial c. Sand and gravel extraction d. Waste disposal e. Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) Good (Area 2) 1. Uses permitted by right. a. All of those in "Poor" b. Those uses permitted by right in "Fair" C. Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) 2. Uses permitted by review. a. Light industrial (industrial parks) b. Heavy industrial C. Sand and gravel extraction d. Waste disposal Excellent (Area 1) 1. Uses permitted by right. All of those in "Poor" a. b. Those uses permitted by right in "Fair" and "Good" -6- 2. Uses permitted by review. a. Light industrial (industrial parks) b. 'Heavy industrial c. Sand and gravel extraction d. Waste disposal Secondary Zone Poor (Area 4) 1. Uses permitted by right. a. Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting,.ete'.) *b. Marine-related uses (marinas; boat-launchihg ramps; rental, repairs, and sales) C. Agriculture d. Forestry (forest management) e. Wildlife habitat (wildlife management) f. Water supply *Marine related uses while permissible, do notlogically "fit" in this area. Fair (Area 3) 1. Uses permitted by right. a. All of those uses in "Poor" b. Low density residential I-dwelling unit (DU) or less less/acre C. Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre Id. High density residential 4 DU/acre e. Commercial and Office 1. Motels 2. Restaurants Other tourist related commerci f. -Light industrial (industrial parks) 2. Uses permitted by review. a. Heavy industrial b. Sand and gravel extraction c. Waste disposal 'Good.(Area 2) 1. Uses permitted by right. All of those in "Poor" Those permitted by right in "Fair" 2. Uses permitted by review. Heavy industrial Sand and gravel extraction Waste disposal -7- Excellent 1. Uses permitted by right. All of those in. "Poor" Those permitted by right in "Fair" 2. Uses permitted by review. Heavy industrial Sand and gravel extraction Waste disposal Tertiary Zone Poor (Area 4) 1. All uses permitted subject to state and local regulations. Only large uses of water (heavy industry) should be subject to review. Fair (Area 3) Same as "Poor" Good (Area 2) Same as "Poor" Excellent (Area 1) Same as "Poor" 'PERMISSIBLE WATER USES The designation of permissible water uses by geographic area in the New Hampshire Coastal Zone follows logically from the riater suit.- Ability analysis. Indeed, existing water uses played a signif- icant part in the development of the suit abi L-Et-y-'elassifications. Thus, it is difficult to separate the@two. Present uses posed little problem --they were all designated as permissible in the areas in which they presently occur. Where it was anticipated that there would be demand for increased levels of certain usesi these were analyzed with respect to the four suitability class- ifications. Determinations of permissibility were made according to expected increases in levels of impacts these uses might have at higher intensity. Anticipated future uses. posed more of a problem. For these, the inventory effort was geared towards obtaining data which would measure the extent of impacts which these would have on coastal waters and on other uses of those coastal waters. For example, data on navigation restrictions associated with a deep-water port was qurveyed along with data pertaining to chances of a spill making landfall from certain locations offshore. Certainly, these provide some guide to the deter- mination of permissible water uses and this information has been re-' f lected in suitability area determinations. For example, research uncovered that at a ten to fifteen mile distance from shore, the visual impact of a deepwater port itself was almost zero and the visual impact from tankers greatly lessened from one closer inshore. The chance of a spill hitting shore decreases from 50 percent at five miles from shore to less than 20 percent at -9- 15 miles from shore. Additionally, large surface acreage would be denied to other uses, a factor which would tend to mitigate against locating such a facility in a high use area. A statement could thus be made that a deepwater port, say, less than five to ten miles from shore is, therefore, not permissible, while one at perhaps 15 miles.or greater could not be rejected out of hand given present evidence.. Associated pipelines running to shore, a necessary portion of such a facility, were not rejected either, partly because of their importance' to a deepwater port project and partly because there are indications that effects associated with pipeline construction are transitory. Similar subjective analyses were conducted for.each of the poten tial uses. and expansion of present uses.. :'I Together they determined siiit- bLbIlity classif ications and permissible uses in geographic areas. The uses considered for designation as permissible by v@uitability area are the following (these are represented by those existing and ' potential uses identified during the first-year inventory effort, plus additional suggestions by the Office of Comprehensive Planning which are starred): Anchorage* Aquaculture Cable areas Commercial fishing/lobstering .Debpwater port (including single point mooring facilities) National defense Ocean dumping Pipeline* Recreational fishing/boating Research and education Sand and gravel mining _10- Swimming* Visual enjoyment The following is a summary of permissible uses by auithbility area,.according to best knowledge of existing *ater activities and anticipation of future activities. The list' is subject to change as more data becomes available. Area IV Aquaculture (open-@range) Commercial fishing/lobstering Recreational fishing/boating (including shellfishing) (low intensity and in other than class D waters for fishing and sh6llfishing) Research and education Swimming (low intensity and in other class D waters) Visual enjoyment Area III Anchorage (srpall vessels only) Aquaculture (fixed and open-range) Cable areas Commercial fishing/lobstering (including construction of supporting mooring and docking facilities) Pipeline (in conjunction with deep-water port) Recreational fishing/boating (including shellfishing) (m oderate-high intensity, including construction of supporting mooring and docking facilities) Research and.education Swimming Visual enjoyment Area II Anchorage lincluding ocean-going vessels) Aquaculture (fixed and open-range) Cable areas (where necessary) Commercial fishing/lobstering Pipeline (in conjunction with deep-water port) Recreational fishing/boating Research and education Shipping Swimming Visual enjoyment Area-I Anchorage Aquaculture (fixed and open-range) Cable areas Commercial fishing/lobstering Deepwater port Od6an dumping (with federal permit) Pipeline -(in conjunction with deepwater port) Recreational fishing/boating Research and education Sand and gravel mining Shipping Visual enjoyment National defense activities are permitted in each of the above areas. It is anticipated that large-scale changes in levels of national defense activities will be discussed between states and federal officials. Note that a permissible designation at this point in the develop- ment of the management program should not constitute a carte-blanche approval of such activities. Neither should a non-permissible designa- tion be considered an outright rejection. The right of review and appeal should be retained by all interested parties, and the possibility of case by case review must be considered. -13- PRIORITY OF USES Introduction This portion of the analysis deals with the recommenda-. tion of"prfor!fty"uses of land and water within specific geographic areas throughout the coastal zone." It builds on the land and water use analysis and the permissible land and water uses by area, developed earlier. Land and water use priorities are listed for all identified permissible uses and are categorized by area. Particular attention is paid to those uses of lowest priority. Accomplishment of the identification of land and water use prior- ities was made by first consulting applicable regulations and guidelines issued by the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management. Appropriate portions of Public Law 92-583,. the Coastal Zone Management of 1972, were consulted as well.- Additional input was provided by the Office of Comprehensive Planning, which identified several considerations which were to be included-in the determination of priority of water uses. Strafford Rockingham Regional Council staff added to this the informa- tion developed from the aforementioned land and water use analysis. Federal Guidelines The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (PL 92-583) as well as final rulemaking on Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grants (15 CFR � 920ff) and Coastal Zone Management Program Administrative Grants (15 CFR � 923 ff) were consulted in order to develop an under- standing of federal intent as to the content of a priority of uses methodology. The following paragraphs describe applicable passages of these documents. _14- Section 305 (b) (5) of Public Law 92-583, the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972 makes the following reference to guidelines for determ- ining priority of uses within'specific geographic areas throughout (New Hampshire) coastal zone:- Such management program shall include ... broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas, including specifically those of lowest priority." According to 15 CFR 920.15 (contained within "Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program Development Grants -- Final Rulemaking"), priority guidelines will serve three purposes: "a) To provide the basis for regulating land and .water uses in the coastal zone. b) To provide the state, local governments, areawide/ regional agencies, and citizens with a common reference point for resolving conflicts, and c) To articulate.the state's interest in the preser- vation, conservation, and orderly development of specific areas in its coastal zone." Further elucidation cn developing guidelines on priority of-uses comes from 15 CFR 923.14 (contained within "Coastal Zone Management Program Administrative Grants -- Final Rulemaking"). This reference requires that the following be accomplished: "The management program shall include broad policies or guideline s governing.the relative priorities which will be accorded in particular areas to at least those permissible land and water uses identified pursuant to 923.12. The priorities will be bas ed upon an analysis of state and local needs as well as the effect of the uses on the area. Uses of lowest priority will be specifically stated for each type of area." OCP Guidelines - Water On July 25, 1975, the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning and the Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council reached agreement on a series of guidelines which would aid in the development of water-use priorities. These guidelines are summarized as follows: a) A "resource analysis" approach was to be used. A matrix was to be developed with identified water-uses arrayed against various resources existent in coastal waters. b) Potential conflicts over the use of various coastal resources were to be identified for the use.listed in. the matrix. These would be indicated by a check in the appropriate box. c) The following criteria were to be used in making priority of -use determinations - Where no conflict over resource is involved, the -particular use-would be the priority use. 2) Where there-is a conflict as to the use of resources, the use dependent upon the resource would be the priority use. 3) Where-two or more uses are dependent upon the same resource, the conflict would be resolved based upon the national interest, economic need, health, safety, and welfare. These criteria were to be expanded upon by Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council staff as necessary to ensure continuity. -16- LAND In addition to the above, the following criteria were broadly considered in determining land uses: 1. State and local needs.(specifically adequate housing, enough jobs and a livable environment) 2. The ability of a given capability area to sustain a particular use. This follows from the designation of permissible uses. 3. The resolution of potential use conflict in the same resource area. The Act is clearly concerned with the management of uses that have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters. It is reason- able to assume t hat the majority of such uses will occur in the primary subzone. There is already intense competition for the use of this area for a variety of uses. Based on the previously stated criteria and the inherent geographic character of this zone,, certain uses immed- iately become of high priority. Marine-related or marine dependent in- dustrial and commercial uses are of high priority. Commercial-recrea- tion uses are also of.high priority. While the groupings may not re- flect these specific types of uses, they are implied. Part of what makes this zone of particular interest is the convergence of valuable natural and ecologically sensitive resources. Thus, while it is import- ant to provide for the needs and priority uses of the primary zone, the land uses to meet these needs require certain performance standards to prevent environmental degradation. Priority uses are recommended with this qualification in mind.. It-would be an exercise in futility to rank order each use for a given capability area and coastal subzone. In fact the Act calls only -47- for "broad guidelines on priority of uses" (CZM 305 (b) (5) Rather the permissible uses were ranked into groups of high, medium, and low priority. Where uses were considered non-permissible, they were deemed to be of "lowest priority". Having grouped permissible uses by capability area and coastal subzone, in accordance with previosly stated criteria, it is logical to use these same groupings for priority uses. Next to each use, one of the following symbols was placed: high priority + medium priority low priority 0 not permissible N -18- Permissible Land Uses Primary Poor N Low density residential 1-dwelling unit (DU) or less less/acre N Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre N High density residential >4 DU/acre N Commercial and Office a. Motels b. Restaurants c. Other tourist related commercial Light industrial (Andustrial parks) N Heavy industrial N Sand and gravel extraction N Waste disposal N Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) � -Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) � Marine@related u ses (marinas; boat-launching ramps; bo-at rental, repairs, and sales) 0 Transportation and Utilities 0 Agriculture Forestry (forest management) + Wildlife habitat (wildlife management) + Water supply Permissible Land Uses Primary Fair + Low density residential 1-dwelling unit (DU) or less less/acre 0 Medium density residential) 1-4 DU/acre Commercial and Office +a. Motels +b. Restaurants +c: Other tourist related commercial Light industrial (industrial parks) Marine relatedgets + Heavy industrial > Sand and gravel extraction Waste disposal + .Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) 0 Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) + Marine-related uses (marinas; boat launching ramps; boat rental, repairs and sales) 0 Transportation and Utilities 0 Agriculture 0 Forestry (forest management) + ..Wildlife habitat (wildlife management) 0 Water supply _20- Permissible Land Uses Primary Good + Low density residential 1/'dwelling unit (DU) or less/acre + Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre 0 High density residential) 4 DU/acres Commercial and Office +a. Motels +b. Restaurants +c. Other tourist related commercial 0. Light'industry (industrial parks Marine related gets + - Heavy industrial > Sand and gravel extraction Waste disposal + Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) 0 Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths., hunting, etc.) + Marine-related uses (marinas; boat launching ramps; boat rental, repairs and sales) 0 Transportation and Utilities 0 Agriculture 0 Forestry (forest management) 0 Wildlife habitat (wildlife management) 0 Water supply -21- Permissible Land Uses Primary Excellent 0 - Low density residential I unit (DU) or 1weslAffe + Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre + High density residential )4 DU/acre Commercial and Office +a. Motels +b. Restaurants +c. Other tourist related commercial + Light industrial-(industrial parks) 0 Heavy industrial- Marine related gets + 0 Sand and gravel extraction 0 Waste disposal + Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) 0 Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) Marine"related uses (marinas; boat launching ramps; boat rental, repairs and sales) 0 Transportation and Utilities 0 Agriculture 0 Forestry (forest management) 0 *Wildlife (wildlife management) 0 Water supply -22- Permissible Land Uses Secondary Excell.ent 0 Low density residential 1 dwell.in.z unit (DU) or less/acre + Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre @High density residential >4 DU/acre. ..0. Commercial and Office a.. Motels b.- Restaurants C. Other tourist related commercial + Light industrial (industrial parks) 0 Heavy industrial Sand and gravel extraction - Waste disposal Intensive recreation (parks,-playgrounds,.sports fields) 0 Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) Marine-related uses (marinas; boat launching ramps; boat rental,, repairs, and sales) 0 Transportation and Utilities .0 Agriculture 0 Forestry (forest management) 0 Wildlife (wildlife management) Water supply -23- Permissible Land Uses Sec_onda'r-@ Pbor N Low density residential 1 dwelline unit (DU) or less/acre N Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre N High density residential-)4 DU/acre N. Commercial and Office a. Motels b.:, Restaurants c. Other tourist related commercial .N Light industrial(industrial parks) N Heavy industrial Sand and gravel extraction N. Waste disposal + Intensive recreation (parks,,playgrounds, sports fields) + Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) Marine-related uses (marinas; boat launching ramps; boat rental, repairs., and sales) 0 Transportation and Utilities + Agriculture 0 Forestry (forest management) 0 Wildlife (wildlife management) Water supply -24- Permissible.Land Uses Secondary i3ood' 4 Low density residential I dwelline unit (DU) or less/acre + Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre 0 High density residential >4 DU/acre Commercial and Office a. Motels b. Restaurants c. Other tourist related commercial @0 Light industrial.(industrial parks) 0 Heavy industrial 0 Sand and gravel extraction +. Waste disposal 0 Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) .0 Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting,-etc.) Marine-related uses (marinas; boat launching ramps;. boat rental, repairs, and sales) 0 Transportation.and Utilities + Agriculture 0 Forestry,(forest management) 0 ..Wildlife (wildlife management) 0-----Water supply -25- Permissible Land Uses Secondary Fair*'.*-. Low density residential 1 dwelling unit (DU) or less/acre Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre High density.residential) 4.DUjacre Commercial and Office a. Motels b. Restaurants c. Other tourist related commercial Light industrial (industrial parks) Heavy industrial @O Sand and gravel extractioli 0 Waste disposal 0 Intensive recreation (parks,-playgrounds, sports fields) Extensive"recreation-(trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) Marine-related uses (marinas; boat -launching, ramps; boat rental, repairs, and sales) 0 Transportation.and Utilities 0 Agriculture + Forestry (forest management) Wildlife (wildlife management) @0 Water supply -26- Permissible Land Uses Tertiary' 4. Low density residential 1 dwelling unit (DU) or less/acre + Medium density residential 1-4 DU/acre 0 High density residential 4 DU/acre .+ Commercial and Office a. Motels b. Restaurants c. Other tourist related commercial Light industrial (industrial parks) + Heavy industrial 0 Sand and gravel extraction 0 Waste disposal 0 Intensive recreation (parks, playgrounds, sports fields) 0 Extensive recreation (trails, bikepaths, hunting, etc.) Marine-related uses (marinas; boatlaunching ramps; boat rental, repairs, and sales) 0 Transportation and Utilities .0 Agriculture + Forestry (forest management) Wildlife (wildlife management) o Water supply -27- Water The method C-developed to detetmine priority of water uses@ was based in large part on the guidance provided by the Office of Coastal Zone Management and the New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning. Water-use quitability analyses and permissible use.analyses were adapted as well. Significant alteration to both the matrix and.criteria offered.by the Office of Comprehensive Planning was found necessary, largely in order to maintain uniform terminology with the water suitability and. permissible use analyses.* The concept.of a stepped approach to priority of use identification including analysis of resource conflicts was retained, however, and forms the basis for the methodology which appears here. It was determined that the priority designations would be applied to all identified water-uses somewhere listed as being permissible. Priority of use designations were to be applicable uniformly within each suitability area. Uses designated as permissible *6re ranked in order of'hig*h, medium, and low priority. Non-permissible uses were given no priority at all. This scheme was chosen instead of numerical ranking primarily because the Coastal Zone Management Act federal guidelines only calls for "broad guidelines on priority of uses in particular areas, including specifically those o f lowest priority" (� 305 (b) (5). Subsequent federal guidelines reflect this fact (15 CPR 923.14, quoted earlier). Thus, "lowest priority" is assigned to non-permissible uses. Relative priorities of high, medium, and low.have been assigned to permissible uses. Alterations in the matrix suggested by the Office of Comprehensive Planning were made as follows: -28- 1) Uses listed were altered somewhat. The deepwater port use and single-point mooring are, for these purposes, synonymous and were combined. Ocean-dumping was added. 2) Resources listed were altered. The columns titled "seasonal variations" and "pre-empted water uses" were dropped. (These are not re- sources, but characteristics of uses). New listings of resources and uses in the matrix are as follows: Uses Anchorage Aquaculture Cable areas Commercial fishing/lobstering Deepwater port Ocean dump ing Pipeline Recreational fishing/boating Research/Education Sand and gravel mining Shipping Swimming Visual enjoyment Resources- Living Finfish Shellfish Lobsters Marine vegetation -29- Non-Living Beaches Currents Scenery Sea-floor -bathymetry -load bearing sediments -physical area Water column Water surface (physical area) The system of checking resource dependency was retained. Addi- tionally, an-A was placed in a box where a use has a potentially significant adverse impact on other resources. The matrix was completed in that f ashion. The matrix was completed as one entity and then adapted to the permissible uses in each suitability area. Usage priorities were adjusted as follows: 1) Non-permissible uses in each area were assigned lowest priority automatically. 2) Permissible uses were scanned for resource conflicts. a) where no conflicts were noted, permissible uses were assigned a high, medium, or low priority according.to the following criteria. i) impacts on natural environment ii) impacts on adjacent land uses iii) degree of dependence on resources used iv) affects on use of physical restriction, such as currents, shallow water, bridges, etc. V) impacts on water quality. _30- b) where conflicts were noted, the following criteria were used: 1) displaceable uses (those not critically dependent on-resources) receive lower priority. ii) non-exclusionary uses receive higher priority than those which pre-empt other uses. iii) items i) - v) above iv) national interest, economic need, health, safety and welfare. Note that the criteria listed above include, and indeed are expansions of, priority.of use guidelines furnished by the Office of Comprehensive Planning. Additionally, the classification scheme meets applicable federal guidelines. ,Ranking of Priorities The completed matrix is illustrated as figure 1. Every use listed, without exception, poses multiple resource use problems. Additionally, none of the uses are displaceable. (See criteria 2(a) and 2(b) (i) listed previously).. Therefore,-priority rankings cannot be made on .that basis. Thus, non-exclusionary usage characteristics, impacts on the natural environment.and on.adjacent land use', the degree of depend- ence on resources.used,,effects on usage of physical restriction, and impacts on water quality become guiding factors. These have been. subjectively considered. Priorities have been attached to each of the permissible water uses by capability area. The following list identifies those priorities, as well as those uses of lowest priority (non-permissible): bD k 0. 0 Q) .0 Cd Cd RESOURCE, k >% H tH 0 ft k k N ;4 , r-q k rq 0 +-) Cd 4J 0 0 :3 k 4J 02 U a)Z 0 0) a) Cd Q) k a (D r-4 Permissible In rq r-q -P 0 4J 4 0 w >1 IE k 'Siiitability AreE USE r-q w -H Q) 0 Cd 0 .0 'd H W a) 0 4) @0 P U Cd Q) a) -P Cd 10 Cd -P 4J .rq 4 0 Cd a) Q) 0 0 Cd 0 a) a) Cd Cd I III IV PL, cc @4 > M 0 co M @-4 to V) Anchorage A X X X X Yes Aquaculture X X X X@ X X Yes Cable areas X X Yesl Commercial fishing/lobstering X/A @X/A X X X Yes Dee_pwater port A A-, A A A A X X X X X Yes Ocean dumping_ A A A A A X A X Yes Pipeline A A A A A X X Yes CA3 Recreational fishing/boating X/A X/A -X/A X X X X -Yes Research/Education X X X X X X X X X I X X IlYes I Sand and Gravel Mining A A A A A A X A X/A X/A X Yes Shipping A A A A X X X Ye S Swimming X X iYes Visual enjoyment X hes X = depends on resource FIGURE I RESOURCE USAGE MATRIX A = potentially significant adverse impact on resource \RESqURCE, See Figure II - Distance of Visability of Objects at Sea. Figure II T-13 Distance.of Visibility of Objects at Sea The follouing table gives the approximate geographic range of visibility for an object which may be seen by an observer whose eye is at sea level; in practice, therefore, It is nocessary to add to these a distance of visibility corresponding to the height of the observer's eye above so& level. Height, Nautical Height. Nautical Height, Nautical Height. Nautical Height, Nautical fed MUGS feet Whi (eet miles feet mileas feet Miles 6 18 48 7.9 220 17.0 660 29.4 2,000 51.2 8 3.1 50 1 240 17.7 680 29.9 2,200 53.8 10 3.6 fis & 5 260 18.5 700 30.3 2,400 56.2 12 4.0 60 8.9 280 19.2 720 3M 7 2,600 K5 14 4.3 65 9.2 300 19.9 740 31.1 2,800 60.6 15 4.4 70 9.6 320 20.5 760 31.6 3,000 62.8 .16 4.6 75 9.9 340 21. 1 780 32.0 3,200 64.9 is 9 so 10.3 360 21.7 goo 32.4 3,400 66. S) 20 & 1 85 10.6 380 22.3 820 32.8 3,600 69.6 22 & 4 90 10.9 400 22.9 840 33.2 3,800 70.7 24 & 6 95 11.2 420 23.5 860 33.6 4,000 72.5 26 & 8 100 11.5 440 24. 1 880 34.0 4,200 74.3 28 & 1 110 12.0 460 24.6 900 34.4 4,400 76. 1 so & a .120 12.6 480 25.1 920 34.7 4,600 77. 7 82 6.5 130 13. 1 500 2& 6 940 35.2 4,800 79.4 34 6.7 140 13.6 520 26.1 960 35.5 5,000 81.0 so 6.9 150 14.1 540 26.7 980 35.9 6,000 88.8 as 7.0 160 14.5 560 27.1 1,000 36.2 7,000 96.0 40 7.2 170 14.9 580 27.6 1 200 39.6 8,000 102.6 42 7.4 180 15.4 600 28.0 1: 400 42: 9 9,000 108.7 44 7.6 190 15 8 620 28.6 1 600 45.8 11 10,000 114..6 40 7.8 200 Ii. 2 640 29.0 1: 800 4& 6 Source: United States Coastal Pilot, 10th ed., Nov. 1973, Atlantic Coast Eastport to Cape Cod. -33- Area IV- Low development potential/low-moderate use intensity Permissible Uses/usage priority Aquaculture/medium Commercial fishing and/or lobstering/low Recreational fishing and boating/low Research and Education/high Swimming/medium (Class A and B.waters only) Visual enjoyment/high Non-Permissible Uses/lowest usage priority Anchorage Cable areas Deepwater port Ocean dumping Pipeline Sand and gravel mining Shipping Area III- Low development potential/moderat6-high use intensity Permissible Uses/usage priority Anchorage (small'boat)/medium-high Aquaculture/medium Cable area/low Commercial fishing and lobstering/medium Pipelines/low Recreational fishing and boating/high Research and Education/medium Swimmihg/high Visual enjoyment/high -34- Non-Permissible Uses/lowest usage priority Deepwater port Ocean dumping Sand and gravel mining Shipping Area II - Fair development potential/moderate-high use intensity Permissible,Uses/usage priority Anchorage/medium-high Aquaculture/medium Cable areas/medium Commercial fishing and lobstering/high Pipeline/low Recreational fishing and boating/high Research and Education/medium Shipping/high Swimming/low Visual enjoyment/high Non-Permissible Uses/lowest usage priority Deepwater port Ocean dumping .'Sand and gravel mining Area I - Good development potential/moderate-high use intensity Permissible Uses/usage priority Anchoragelmedium Aquaculture/medium Cable areas/medium Commercial f ishing and lobstering/high Deepwater port/medium Ocean dumping/low -35- Pipeline/medium Recreational fishing and boating/high Research and Education/medium Sand and gravel mining/low Shipping/high Swimming/loW Visual enjoyment/medium (from shore) -36- 901MURI ROOTIE WORMER, CLTILINER N.H`'Coastal.Resou,rces Management.Program First Yedr Report Attachment B - 11 01 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES AND INDICES FOR DETERMINING PERMISSIBLE LAND AND WATER USES Prepared by STRAFFORD ROCKINGHAM REGIONAL COUNCIL COMM ME This report was financed by the Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972, administered by the Office of .Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration. 15 September 1975 ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES AND INDICES FOR DETERMINING PERMISSIBLE LAND AND WATER USES Tfie*methods used by the staff of the Strafford Rockingham*Regional@'. Council to lead to a determination of permissible land and water uses are fully described in the material submitted in compliance with para- graph 2B of this-contract. Those methods include a land use capability model based on the intrinsive suitability of various land areas for various activities and a wateruse suitability analysis based upon a capability analysis where possible and otherwise on a suitability analysis. One basic alternative to the methods actually used is the "trad- itional" land use planning approach. The traditional approach begins by making projections for the population of an area, then works to allocate these people, and a corresponding amount of industrial and commercial land, commercial land, open space land is also recommended for reservation,@and transpottation systems are devised to tie it together All is pr:edicated on the best estimate of future population. The approach used here, by contrast, starts with the capability of the land to support various activities and can conclude with an esti- mate of the maximum population that can be accommodated in a given. region. This maximum may exceed,or be greatly below,& projection derived under the traditional land use planning method. Both,methods weigh existing uses heavily in their considerations for areasalready inhabited. No other technical methods were discovered that could be of use in this @planning -2process. There are, however, many possible alternative refinements to the, capability-suitability analysis.. The goal of all of them is the determining the basic natural capability of the land and water to support man's uses. The end measure is."carrying capacity A variety of procedures has been suggested to reach numerical estimates of carrying capacity" for various coastal areas. All suffer from man's basic lack of knowledge about the effects of various activi- ties on'coastal areas. The basic,problem.with reliance on the natural factor approach is that not enough scientific study'has been done on various 'parts of the coastal waters to arrive at many firm conclusions, nor has enough study been done on New Hampshire coastal areas in particular, to predict, with great accuracy, the impacts of various uses in various places. Such a" determination, if possible,,would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take many years. Decisions on use of coastal land and waters must be made immedi- ately and can not wait for such a determination, even if possible.. Consequently much carrying capacity decision-making will be on a trial and error basis. The carrying capacity of a land or water-area will be recognized when it is in fact reached but, in many instances, will not be entirely predictable. Some carrying capacities are known, however,. within various -degrees of certainty. These "knowns" have beenutilized in the work under this contract -to arrive at the recommendations for permissible uses. i'@' WO, N @ @ @ I@jj jjj@j$ I p@ @pj[ @f J[ @j @ jj@@[ 11 jj@ 1 3 6668 14104 8910