[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
NEW HAMPSHIRE Allk Im Jr-1111 PRIORITY CONSERVATION PLAN -let N 1989 QH is- addendum to the New Hampshire State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan N49 NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICE OF STATE PLANNING 1989 New Hampshire Wetlands Priority Conservation Platt 1989 An addendum to the New Hampshire State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan U DEPARTMENT OF Comm i COASI AL SERVICES'CENT K SOUTH H06,30ir S '2940 C . . ......... ..... ..... State of New Hampshire Judd Gregg, Governor Office of State Planning Jeffrey H. Taylor, Director i,A The preparation of this plan was financed in part through a planning grant from the National Park Service, US Department of the Interior under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Public Law 88-578 as amended, and in part through funds appropriated by the New Hampshire General Court. Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................... 1 Introduction ....................................... o .... 2 Defining Wetlands .......... o ........................... 3 Wetland Values ......................................... 7 Flood Control .... o ............................................... 7 Pollution Control ..................................... o.......... 7 Shoreline Stabilization ... o.-o .......................... o.... 0 .....8 Water Supply Augmentation ........................................ 8 Sediment Retention and Erosion Control ................. o....... o ...8 Food Web Productivity ............................................ 8 Wildlife Habitat ................. o................................ 9 CordwoodHarvest ................................................ 9 Recreation and Education ........... o ............................. 9 New Hampshire's Wetlands ...... o....................... 11 Estimating Wetland Loss .......... o ....................... o ...... I I Estimating Current Wetland Acreage ............................... 14 Swamps, Marshes, and Bogs ...................................... 15 Swamps, Marshes, and Bogs of Particular Value ..................... 15 Lake-Related Inland Freshwater Wetlands .......................... 19 Lake-Related Inland Freshwater Wetlands of Particular Value . o ...... 022 River-Related Inland Freshwater Wetlands ............. o ... o.. o ..... 24 River-Related Inland Freshwater Wetlands of Particular Value ......... 26 Tidal and Coastal Saltwater Wetlands .... o....................... o.27 Coastal and Estuarine Waters ........................................ 27 Coastal and Estuarine Waters of Particular Value ......................... 29 Tidal Marshes ..................................................... 32 Tidal Marshes of Particular Value ...................................... 32 Beaches, Rocky Shores, and Sand Dunes ................................ 33 Wetland Protection ..................................... 34 Federal Wetland Programs ....................................... 34 Federal Policy ..................................................... 34 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 ................................ 34 Regulatory Programs ................................................ 34 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 .................................... 34 Clean Water Act - Section 404 .................................... 34 Federal Assistance Programs - Technical ................................ 36 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) .............................. 36 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) .............................. 36 Army Corps of Engineers ......................................... 38 Federal Assistance Programs - Financial ................................. 38 Subsidized Flood Insurance ....................................... 38 Federal Income Tax Incentives .................................... 39 Grants-in-Aid ...................................................... 39 Pittman-Robertson Funds ........................................ 39 Dingell-Johnson Funds .......................................... 39 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 ................ 39 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ............................. 40 State Wetland Programs ......................................... 40 Direct State Regulatory Measures ...................................... 42 Fill and Dredge in Wetlands (RSA 483-A) ........................... 42 Prime Wetlands (RSA 483-A:7) ................................... 44 Indirect State Regulatory Measures ..................................... 46 Dredging (RSA 149:8-a) ......................................... 46 Wildlife Emblems; Wildlife Protection Fund (RSA 206:41) ............... 47 Waterfowl Conservation Program (RSA 214:1-d) ...................... 47 Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1979 (RSA 212-A) ............. 49 Nongame Species Management Act of 1988 (RSA 212-13): .............. 49 New Hampshire Native Plant Protection Act of 1987 (RSA 217-A) ........ 50 New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Program (RSA 227-F) ...................................... 50 Designating Rivers and Lakes Deserving Protection (Chapter 190, Laws of 1986) ............................... 50 Conservation Restrictions (RSA 477:45-48) ......................... 51 Current Use Taxation (RSA 79-A) .................................. 51 ii Local and Regional Programs ..................................... 53 Conservation Commissions ...................................... 53 Planning Boards .............................................. 53 Regional Planning Commissions .................................. 55 Conservation Districts .......................................... 55 Current Plans for Wetland Protection ...................... 57 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) ............... 57 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Action Program (NHORAP) ........ 59 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Waterfowl Management Plan .......................................... 60 Water Resources Management Plan ................................ 61 Water Protection Assistance Program .............................. 62 New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory ......................... 63 Governor's Conference on Outdoor Recreation ....................... 64 New Hampshire State Development Plan ............................ 65 New Hampshire Rivers and Lakes Protection Program ................ 66 New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Program .......... 66 New Hampshire Coastal Program .................................. 67 Great Buy National Estuarine Research Reserve ...................... 67 Land Conservation Investment Program ............................ 68 Recommendations ...................................... 69 Appendices ............................................ 73 A. Section 303 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 ..... 73 B. The US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Classification System Simplified ........................... 74 C. Rare Wetland Plants List ..................................... 81 D. Endangered and Threatened Species in New Hampshire ........... 88 Bibliography .......................................... 89 Footnotes ............................................. 92 iii Acknowledgements any people contributed to various aspects of this report. The members of the Wetlands Coordinating Panel assisted in identify- ing and coordinating existing informational resources, and estab- lishing recommendations for wetlands acquisition priorities. Others were contacted for assistance with information on historic losses of wetlands, as well as current losses and threats. In addition, several state and federal agencies, private organizations, and individuals reviewed and offered comments toward the writ- ing of this plan. To the extent possible, these comments have been incorporated into the plan. Office of State Planning Jeffrey H. Taylor - Director David G. Scott - Director of Policy Planning and Administration Christine Rowinski - Principal Planner, Project Manager Denise Adjutant - Word Processing Beatrice Jillette - Graphics and Electronic Typesetting Wetlands Coordinating Panel Kenneth Kettenring - Administrator, Wetlands Bureau, Department of Environmental Services Joseph Quinn - Recreational Services Director, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Resources and Economic Development Edward Robinson - Wildlife Biologist, Fish and Game Department Marjory Swope - Executive Director, New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions Other Contributors Frank Richardson - Inspector, New Hampshire Wetlands Bureau, Department of Environmental Services Frankie Brackley - Coordinator/Botanist, New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, Department of Resources and Economic Development Introduction n the past, coastal and inland wetlands were seen as worthless wastelands that could only become "productive" through human intervention. Colonists in America routinely drained marshes and swamps in order to transform these "marginal" lands into highly productive farmlands. This legacy of human-in- duced changes continues today with the alteration of wetlands for agriculture, residences, transportation, industry, and recreation. In New Hampshire, wetlands adjacent to water bodies are particularly susceptible to developmen- tal pressures due to the ever increasing demand for shorefront property. In recent decades, public awareness of wetland benefits and public concern over wetland losses have prompted state and federal governments to assume a greater role in coastal and inland wetland protection. Almost all 30 coastal states (including those bordering the Great Lakes) have some form of regulatory control over their coastal wetlands. Nine state s--including New Hampshire--have laws which address inland freshwater wetlands. On the federal level, the primary laws relative to wetland protection include Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Both are regulatory permitting programs and both were expanded and reinforced by President Carter's two executive orders (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990) which made wetland protection and floodplain management the official policy of all federal agencies. The recent "Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986" (Public Law 99-645) was enacted "to promote, in concert with other federal and state statutes and programs, the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation . . ."2 Under the requirements of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (see Appendix A), each State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) must specifically address wetlands within that state as an important outdoor recreation resource. New Hampshire Outdoors 1988 - 1993 is New Hampshire's most current SCORP. This wetlands component of New Hampshire's SCORP, New Hampshire Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, was developed with assistance from state agencies and a private non-profit organization involved in state wetlands planning. Initially, a coordinating panel composed of representatives from the NH Association of Conservation Commissions, NH Fish and Game Department, Wetlands Bureau, the Depart- ment of Resources and Economic Development, and the Office of State Planning met to identify and coordinate existing informational resources. A second and final meeting was then held to seek recommendations for establishing wetlands acquisition priorities. This Report--using panel input where appropriate--was developed by the Office of State Planning to meet the requirements of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. Every effort has been made to address all of New Hampshire's wetlands within this report. However, an overall imbalance does exist between freshwater and saltwater wetlands discussions (in favor of saltwater wetlands), simply because more detailed information and documentation concerning saltwater wetlands is currently available. Defining Wetlands s a first step in dis- been hydrology (the degree of flooding cussing New Hamp- or soil saturation), vegetation, and soils. shire's wetland One definition that utilizes all three resources, one must wetland attributes and which deserves first understand special mention is the US Fish and what wetlands are Wildlife Service's Classification of Wet- and what ecological lands and Deepwater Habitats of the role they play. United States. This detailed classifica- Various systems tion system (Figure 1 and Appendix B) is of wetland classification have been used by federal, state, local, and other employed by different agencies at all agencies involved with identifying and government levels. Such a diversified ap- classifying wetlands. This system has proach to defining wetlands results from been used by the National Wetlands In- the need of state and federal regulatory ventory Project (NWI) since its estab- 3 agencies to arrive at a wetland definition lishment in 1975. Likewise, the recent that suits their individual administrative National Wetlands Priority Conservation purposes (Table 1). Therefore, there is Plan--developed in accordance with Sec- no single definition of a wetland. How- tion 301 of the Emergency Wetlands ever, no matter what approach an agency Resources Act of 1986--also utilizes this has taken, the principal factors relied wetland classification system. 4 upon to determine wetland borders have 3 Table I WETILAND DEFINITIONS US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Definition: "Wetlands are lands transitional between ter- CoMments: This is the official Fish and Wildlife Service defini- (Cowardin, et al. 1979); restrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or tion and is being used for conducting an inventory of the Nation's near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For wetlands. It replaces the Circular 39 definition which is also purposes of this classification wetlands must have one or more of outlined in this table. It emphasizes flooding and/or soil satura- the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land tion, hydric soils, and vegetation. Shallow lakes and ponds are supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is included as wetlands. Comprehensive lists of wetland plants and predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non- soils are available to further clarify this definition. soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year." US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Definition: Wetlands are"lowlands covered with shallow Comments: Former Fish and Wildlife Service definition. Al- and USDA Soil Conservation and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters." They include though this definition is generally weak, 20 individual wetland Service (Shaw and Fredline marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, potholes, sloughs, river over- types were described in terms of water permanence and depth, 1956; commonly referred to as flow lands, and shallow lakes and ponds. salinity and vegetation. Wetland definition includes shallow "Circular 39"): lakes and ponds, but not permanent waters of streams, reser- voirs, and deep lakes. This is the official definition of the Soil Conservation Service. Environmental Protection Wetlands Definition: Wetlands are "those areas that are inundated Comments: Regulatory definition in response to Section 404 of Agency and US Army Corps of orsaturated bysurface orground water at a frequency and duration the Clean Water Act of 1977. Excludes similar areas lacking Engineers (Federal Register, sufficient, to support, and that under normal circumstances do vegetation, such as tidal flats, and does not define lakes, ponds July 19, 1977): support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in and rivers as wetland. saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, mar- shes, bogs and similar areas. State of New Hampshire (Fill Wetlands Definition: 1. "Wherever the tide ebbs and flows, this Comments: Statutory definition. Authorizes the Wetlands and Dredge in Wetlands, Chapter shall apply to all lands submerged or flowed by mean high Board to manage any activity within state coastal waters, sub- Chapter 483-A: I -a): tide as locally determined, and, in addition, to those areas within merged lands, fresh and tidal wetlands within 100 feet of the 100 feet of the highest observable tide line which border on tidal highest observable tide line. Changes in this statutory definition waters, such as, but not limited to, banks, upland areas, bogs, salt which occurred due to passage of Chapter 225 (Laws of 1989) marsh, swamps, meadows, flats or other lowlands subject to tidal are reflected in this definition. RSA 483-A is the state's most action." important law protecting inland and coastal wetlands. IL "Wherever fresh water flows or stands and in all areas above tidal waters not included in paragraph I of this section, it [Chapter 483-A: 11 shall apply (in addition to great ponds or lakes of 10 acres or more in natural area ... ) to those portions of great ponds or lakes created by the raising of the water level of the same, whether by public or private structure, and to all surface waters of the state as defined in RSA 149:1 [streams, lakes, ponds, and tidal waters within the jurisdiction of the state, including all streams, lakes, or ponds bordering on the state, marshes, water courses and other bodies of water, natural or artificial] which contain fresh water, including the portion of any bank or shore which borders such surface waters, and to any swamp or bog subject to periodical flooding by fresh water including the surrounding shore." III. " 'Mean high tide' as used in this section shall be determined according to the published tables and standards of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, adjusted to the locality from such tables." IV. "'Sand Dune' as used in this chapter, shall mean a hill or ridge of sand piled up by the wind and commonly found on the seacoast." Rules of the Wetlands Board Wetlands Definition: " 'Freshwater wetlands' means those areas (Wt 101.01, 601.01): that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." " 'Coastal wetlands' means lands that are transitional between upland areas and tidally influenced water bodies, as well as tidally influenced water bodies and the lands submerged by them, and areas that normally support, or are capable of supporting certain hydrophytic vegetation. Saltwater wetlands are further divided into categories with varying characteristics: (a) Areas with hydrophytes and hydric soils, such as high and low saltmarsh, swamps, and swales. (b) Areas without hydrophytes but with hydric soils, such as flats and tidal drainage channels. Ul (c) Areas with hydrophytes but nonhydric soils, which are areas where hydrophytic vegetation is establishing or re-establishing itself. (d) Areas without soils but with hydrophytes, such as rocky shores and cobble beaches where algae grows. (e) Areas without soils and without hydrophytes, such as rocky shores and cobble beaches where algae does not grow. (f) Areas with soils and vegetation influenced by irregular or occasional flooding or flowing, such as dunes and swales. (g) Areas normally submerged, such as ocean bottom, shoals, vegetated shallows, tidal rivers and creeks, reefs, pools, coastal bars, salt ponds, and stream bars." Sources: USFWS, USDA, and USACE descriptions were excerpted from Wetlands of Delaware (Tiner, R.W. Jr., 1985). State of New Hampshire description was excerpted from New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated. Figure 1. THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM System Subsystem Class Rock Bottom Subtidal -Unconsolidated Bottom -Aquatic Bed -Reef Marine Aquatic Bed Intertidal -Reef -Rocky Shore -Unconsolidated Shore Rock Bottom Subtidal -Unconsolidated Bottom -AquaticBed -Reef Aquatic Bed -Estuarine - Reef - Streambed Intertidal - Rocky Shore -Unconsolidated Shore -Emergent Wetland Scrub-Shrub Wetland Forested Wetland Rock Bottom E_ c@ Unconsolidated Bottom E- Aquatic Bed CQ Tidal Rocky Shore Unconsolidated Shore Emergent Wetland E_ < Rock Bottom Unconsolidated Bottom -Aquatic Bed Lower Perennial -Rocky Shore @z Riverine -Unconsolidated Shore Emergent Wetland Rock Bottom z < -Unconsolidated Bottom Upper Perennial Aquatic Red E_ -Rocky Shore -Unconsolidated Shore Intermittent Streambed Rock Bottom Linmetic F-Unconsolidated Bottom -Lacustrine LAquatic Bed Rock Bottom -Unconsolidated Bottom Littoral -Aquatic Bed -Rocky Shore Unconsolidated Shore Emergent Wetland Rock Bottom -Unconsolidated Bottom -Aquatic Bed Palustrine -Unconsolidated Shore - Moss-Lichen Wetland -Emergent Wetland -Scruh- Shrub Wetland L- Forested Wetland Fig. 1. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and deepwater habitats, showing systems, subsystems, and classes. The Palus- trine System does not include deepwater habitats. 6 Wetland Values egardless of the precipitation periods. Flat valley wet- variety or length of lands adjacent to rivers and lakes wetland definitions, (riverine and lacustrine [Figure 1 and all consider water the Appendix B]) can slow run-off from dominant factor. upland areas. The inflow is discharged Terms commonly used at a constant but slower rate, reducing to distinguish dif- the maximum flood level of surface ferent coastal and in- waters by releasing the storm water over land wetlands include a longer period of time. Wetlands are tidal flat, salt marsh, particularly effective in controlling run- freshwater marsh, swamp, wet meadow, off in "flashy" or flood-prone watersheds and bog. The inherent values of these which are usually characterized by steep wetlands are many. However, only slopes, shallow or highly compacted recently has it been recognized that wet- soils, sparse vegetation or development lands provide other public benefits be- with extensive paving. Storm water runs sides wildlife habitat and recreational off quickly because less water infiltrates opportunities. It is important that the the soil or is taken up by vegetation. functional roles of wetlands be taken into consideration when potential impacts from dredge, drain, fill, and construction Pollution Control activities are being evaluated. The ability of wetlands to filter pol- The following description of wetland lutants has earned them a reputation as functions taken from the Guide to the nature's free water treatment facility. By Designation of Prime Wetlands in New intercepting road salts, sediments and Hampshires provides a good overview of other pollutants carried by run-off, wet- the contribution wetlands make to main- lands can reduce contamination of sur- taining environmental quality. face waters. Nitrates and phosphates from wastewater effluent and agricul- Flood Control tural chemicals are absorbed and used by some wetland vascular plants and algae. Many wetlands act as natural Thick, organic wetland soils can trap and regulators of storm water run-off. Poorly hold harmful chemicals and heavy me- drained wetland soils are usually tals. When wetland soils are disturbed saturated with water, limiting their by excavation or construction, they may capacity to absorb additional moisture. release contaminants to area ground and surface water. (This is not to say that it However, some wetlands act as natural floodwater retention areas during peak is acceptable for wetlands to be subjected to the above mentioned types of run-off. 7 On the contrary, the constant onslaught Sediment Retention and of sediments and pollutants will cause Erosion Control severe problems. As an example, the Federal Refuge System is experiencing As precipitation falls or snow melts, severe wetland degradation due to water either infiltrates the ground or agricultural chemical and fertilizer flows over land towards a surface water seepage into wetlands.) drainage system. Especially at peak flow periods, run-off may cause erosion and additional particulate matter in surface Shoreline Stabilization water increasing the turbidity and color Vegetated coastal (marine and es- of the water. When water velocity decreases, soil particles settle out, form- tuarine [Figure 1 and Appendix B]) wet- ing sediment. If sedimentary particles lands not only provide flood control, but are very fine, their accumulation can ef- also serve as natural buffers from storm fectively seal the bottom of a body of damage. Thick mats of spartina grasses water, eliminating any interaction be- absorb the impacts of natural wave ener- tween it and an underlying aquifer. gy, limit potential wave generation, and Sedimentation may also smother aquatic protect against shoreline erosion. vegetation and the eggs and larvae of Vegetated wetlands adjacent to rivers aquatic insects. and streams (riverine) and lakes Wetland soils and vegetation retard (lacustrine) also serve as bank stabi- this process by trapping soil particles lizers, preventing erosion and resulting from storm water run-off, thereby reduc- sedimentation. Man-made stabilization ing the sediment load. The same ability efforts to achieve the same result may cost thousands of dollars per linear meter of a wetland to slow storm water run-off if an elaborate seawall is constructed. and, therefore, aiding in flood control also helps to reduce erosion downstream. Water Supply Augmentation Food Web Productivity A wetland's potential to augment sur- face water supplies is related to its ability Estuarine and coastal marshes are to delay storm water run-off. By releas- among the most productive areas in the ing storm water slowly, wetlands extend world. Energy from sunlight is utilized the period of time over which these by vascular plants which produce waters are available to surface water sup- hundreds of pounds of primary nutrients plies. per acre of salt marsh annually. Marsh grasses die and decay, combining with Most wetlands are underlain by rela- other wastes to form a rich particulate tively impermeable soils that do not mixture called detritus. Microorganisms transmit water well and, therefore, do convert detritus into basic elements and not recharge groundwater. However, nutrient sources for vascular plants, depending upon the hydrology of the microalgae or phytoplankton (minute, area, some wetlands do augment floating plant life). Phytoplankton are groundwater supplies. consumed by zooplankton (microscopic floating animals), an important food source for shellfish such as softshell 8 clams and quahogs, oysters, blue mus- such as beaver, muskrat, otter and mink, sels, crabs and shrimp, and for many and provide browse for white-tailed deer species of finfish. and moose. Wooded and shrub/scrub Estuaries are spawning, nursery, wetlands provide nesting habitat for feeding or wintering areas for many wood ducks, hooded mergansers, mal- species important to sport and commer- lards and black ducks. cial fishing. Finfish using the estuary during postlarval and juvenile stages in- Cordwood Harvest clude eels, striped bass, winter flounder and menhaden. Year-round species in- Wooded swamps dominated by such clude smelt and smooth flounder. species as red maple can be a source of American shad, Atlantic salmon and cordwood. With sound management alewives are species of anadromous fish practices, wooded swamps can be har- that travel through estuarine waters on vested without significantly altering their way to spawn in freshwater their other wetland values. Certain syl- upstream. NH Fish and Game restoration vicultural practices can render a wetland projects have emphasized the importance more valuable as wildlife habitat. A red of American shad and Atlantic salmon maple swamp, for example, can be har- fisheries. Coho Salmon, stocked by NH vested in scattered one acre plots on a Fish and Game as smolts in Great Bay rotating basis to stimulate growth of tributaries, also provide sport fishing vegetation to serve as browse for white- when they return to the Bay as adults. tailed deer. (It should be remembered that dead trees provide nest and food Wildlife Habitat sites for wildlife. Removal of all stand- ing dead timber should, therefore, be Coastal and estuarine wetlands are discouraged.) important wintering areas for waterfowl because tidal action keeps the creeks and Recreation and Education rivers relatively free of ice. Species that winter on New Hampshire's coast include The recreational and educational black duck, mallard, common goldeneye, values of wetlands need special mention bufflehead, red-breasted merganser, since this plan (as mandated by the Emer- greater scaup and Canada goose. New gency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986) Hampshire's coastal and estuarine wet- must address wetlands as an important lands are also significant breeding areas outdoor recreation resource. Whether for the black duck, as well as a stop-over tidal or inland, wetlands are natural for many species of migratory waterfowl. areas for community open space. Their Other shore birds of the NH coast include diversity and beauty provide visual relief sandpipers, yellowlegs, plovers, herons, in urban areas, and support such recrea- egrets and terns. tional activities as fishing, shellfishing, Inland freshwater wetlands adjacent hunting, nature observation/study, to rivers and lakes (riverine and birdwatching, hiking, and photography. lacustrine) are valuable nesting and Wetlands associated with open water- brood habitat for waterfowl. They are bodies also support recreational ac- also prime habitat for many furbearers, tivities such as boating and swimming. 9 Quite often, it is these activities which bance as are rare plant.habitats and contribute an economic value to wet- natural communities. lands. The recreational value of wet- Due to their often unique and multi- lands may be further increased when faceted environmental characteristics, culturally significant sites containing his- wetlands are well-suited for use as en- toric or archaeological values are located vironmental classrooms and research within their boundaries. The proximity laboratories. They provide opportunities of quality wetlands to highly populated to observe a variety of plants and animals areas also contribute to their recreational and to conduct long-term research into and perceived values. the structure and functions of wetland While recreational use can be a ecosystems. As research efforts identify favored attribute of wetlands, careful the overall values associated with wet- management guidelines are essential in lands, the costs and benefits associated order to prevent unwanted negative im- with the conversion of wetlands to other pacts due to human activity. Such uses will become more readily identifi- wildlife species as loons, eagles, and able. ospreys are vulnerable to human distur- 10 New Hampshire's Wetlands Imost all of New cumulation of snow, the margin of the Hampshire's lakes, glacier retreated. This retreat left behind ponds, rivers, and large quantities of unsorted debris. wetlands are the Since this material was deposited by ice result of the most rather than flowing water, its distribu- recent period of tion was independent of pre-existing glaciation which water courses. In many areas of the ended with the disap- state, surface drainage has not yet re-es- peaTance of glacial tablished itself and areas of marsh and ice approximately 12,000 years ago. The swamp are the result. cooler and most likely wetter climate of Large blocks of ice broke away from about 75,000 years ago caused centuries the glacial margin and were buried in the of accumulated snow to change into a outwash deposits in front of the retreat- large sheet of ice. This ice sheet, ing glacier. These blocks were insulated originating in the Hudson Bay area of by overlying sediments for many cen- central Canada, eventually flowed south- turies, but when they eventually melted, ward across New England and terminated they left depressions known as kettle in the area of Martha's Vineyard, Nan- holes. These kettle holes go through a tucket, and the other islands south of 6 natural progression from pond to wet- Cape Cod. land to upland vegetation. Unsorted debris, ranging in size from Large wetland areas are found mostly clay to boulders, was frozen into the in the northern and the coastal regions flowing ice and transported to the mar- of the state where the relatively level gins of the glacier. At the glacial mar- topography permits their development. gins, meltwater streams selectively transported clay, sand, and gravel-sized materials away from the glacier resulting Estimating Wetland Loss in the thick sand and gravel outwash deposits found throughout the state. The following discussion of the his- Some of the clay material settled out in torical loss of natural wetlands is based ice-dammed lakes forming the thin im- on several sources including review of pervious clay layers found in many loca- literature, and personal communications tions. with university faculty, other re- 7 searchers, and soil scientists. As the climate changed and the rate of melting exceeded the winter's ac- Coastal and estuarine tidal marshes, developed over a salt marsh which in turn which are found in 17 municipalities overlays an ancient cedar swamp. As along the Atlantic coastline and around noted in the recent Office of State Plan- the Great Bay/Little Bay estuarine sys- ning report Wetlands Mitigation/Res- tem, comprise approximately 7,500 toration Issues (January 1988), relative acres. The study that determined this sea level is and will continue rising, acreage, The Soil Survey of New bringing with it shoreline changes and Hampshire Tidal Marshes (Breeding and wetlands alteration. Most scientists Richardson, 1974), also concluded that agree that wetlands will respond to sea many more acres of tidal wetlands ex- level rise by migrating landward. This isted in the past. Field study and aerial becomes a problem when, due to photographs revealed evidence of tidal development and existing physical bar- wetland disturbance via filling of salt riers, there are no open upland areas to marshes and road, tidal dam, and accommodate wetland migration. This tidegate construction. State Planning report--which examines It is apparent from current aerial issues important to developing state photographs that road construction-- regulations governing restoration and especially along the coastline--has trun- creation of tidal wetlands- -suggests that cated the original extent of tidal the permitting process should include an wetlands. By tracing the extent of the option that would set aside buffer areas original marsh system through as a condition of the permit. topographic observation, it is estimated Currently, substantial acreages of salt that approximately 15,000 acres of tidal marsh are undergoing a transformation marshes existed at the time of European to lesser productive freshwater systems settlement. Of the approximately 7,500 due to inadequate tidal flushing resulting acres of tidal marsh lost since that time, from undersized culverts, tidegates, and only a portion was filled. The remaining blocked drainage ways. Three major salt wetland areas have been "cut-off' from marsh areas in New Hampshire, the Bass their tidal source by roads and other con- Beach and Little River Salt Marshes in struction, and have become freshwater North Hampton and Parson's Creek Salt wetlands. These wetlands are less valu- Marsh in Rye, provide dramatic examples able than salt marshes because they have of salt marsh degradation due to these lost much of their productivity. Never- factors. Further loss of habitat value is theless, these areas do provide wet- also occurring due to the encroachment land/wildlife habitat values and other of alien plant species such as Purple wetland functions such as flood control. Loosetrife (Lythrum salicaria). Studies Soil borings in these wetlands confirm on these marshes to determine problems their progression from tidal to freshwater and propose solutions have been done. systems. As of yet, however, none of the proposed Tidal marsh development over the solutions have been implemented. Some past 3,000-6,000 years has paralleled the seacoast communities are presently general rise in sea level. There are cases reviewing new marsh management and where salt marshes have developed over marsh restoration proposals. Hopefully, Atlantic White Cedar freshwater coastal the result will be funding and actual on- swamps. Situations also exist today site restoration work programs. where a freshwater wetland has 12 Estimating inland freshwater wet- factors. Unfortunately, low altitude lands loss is more difficult since no per- photographs are not available statewide. tinent documentation concerning this On the other hand, beaver impound- subject is available. Local planning ments and those impoundments created documents, conservation commission an- by dams for water supply and nual reports, and extant Wetlands Board hydroelectric power may have resulted in files may provide scattered bits of infor- wetland development. Local changes in mation; however, compiling this data drainage patterns due to various terrain would be an enormously time consuming alterations may have also caused some task. There are, nevertheless, some pub- sites to become wetter. Gravel excava- lications available that provide a perspec- tions, abandoned when the water table tive on nationwide wetlands assessment. was reached, are examples. Still, the The US Department of Interior Fish and general consensus is that there has been Wildlife Service National Wetlands In- a net loss of wetlands in New Hampshire, ventory publications Wetlands of the and that the quality of many existing United States: Current Status of Recent wetlands has been reduced by adverse Trends (March 1984), and Wetlands of environmental impacts, development New Jersey (July 1985) are valuable pressures, and improper land use sources. The 1984 study actually cites several references of wetland losses in management practices. Most recent es various states. However, New timates, based on New Hampshire wet- Hampshire is not listed. Although seven lands permit data, indicate that the of the state's coastal towns have mapped permitting process allows the filling of both fresh and tidal wetlands by aerial up to 50 acres of wetland, both fresh- photography, statewide maps identify- water and saltwater, per year. This does ing, documenting, and mapping wetlands not mean, however, that some type of are only slowly becoming available. yearly limit of fill is associated with the permitting process. Wetlands Board per- Nationwide, agriculture has been the mit review procedures are, by statutory major factor contributing to wetland los- requirement, done on a case-by-case ap- ses. In New Hampshire, agriculture has proach. A very small portion of wetland also been a contributing factor to inland acreage filled (estimated to be less than freshwater wetland losses. Wetlands 1 acre in 1987) involved saltwater wet- have been drained for timber cutting, and lands. An earlier estimate by the Wet- ditched and drained for hay, grain, lands Board calculated the annual rate of forage, and vegetable crops. Moreover, wetlands loss statewide as 1/40 of 1% inland wetlands have been lost to road per year.' Applying this rate of loss to and highway construction, building con- the 1973 USGS wetlands estimate of ap- struction, and peat and mineral/gravel proximately 95,000 acres for the state mining. In addition to the high altitude (see Table 2) yields an annual wetland aerial photography being carried out by loss of roughly 24 acres per year. This the US Fish and Wildlife Service under its loss has occurred primarily in small iso- National Wetlands Inventory program, lated areas, and not in larger wetland low altitude, high resolution aerial areas. photography would be of significant help in assessing wetland loss due to these 13 Estimating Current Wetland western part of the state, and then Acreage northward. New Hampshire encompasses a total 3. National Quality Control - Photos area of 9,304 square miles, including 280 that have passed regional quality square miles of inland water. Its Atlantic control are sent to NWI Head- shoreline is only 18 miles long; its tidal quarters in St. Petersburg, FL for coastline totals 131 miles.9 Until recent- further quality control inspection. ly the focus of most detailed wetland inventories has centered around the 4. Draft Map Production - Draft maps state's ponds, lakes, and coast. In the are developed from photos that late 1970's, the US Fish and Wildlife Ser- have passed all quality control vice (USFWS), as part of its National stages. It is expected that some Wetlands Inventory (NWI), began inven- draft maps (which are usable) for torying wetlands state-wide via color southeastern New Hampshire will infra-red aerial photography. Ap- become available in the next few proximately 25-30% of the state was months. photographed using existing USGS 5. Final Maps - Draft maps are topographic maps. These maps, how- reviewed for corr ections and final ever, lacked consistency since they varied maps are then printed. in scale. Aerial photography was suspended when the NWI determined A map report briefly outlining NWI that using larger scale maps would pro- procedures and findings (e.g. list of wet- vide more detailed, compatible, and, land plant communities, photo inter- therefore, more usable wetlands data. in pretation problems) will also be 1986 aerial photography of the state--at developed. In addition, a more com- the revised 1:24,000 scale--began anew. prehensive state wetland report will fol- Through NWI mapping, wetlands as low. This state report will include small as 1/2 to 1 acre will be identified.10 wetland statistics and detailed discus- NWI mapping of New Hampshire in- sions of NWI techniques, wetland plant communities, hydric soils, and wetland volves the following stages:" 12 values. I. Photo Interpretation and First Because NWI wetland maps for New Round Quality Control - As of June Hampshire are not yet available, and be- 1989, photo interpretation and cause no other detailed, current data con- first round quality control of in- cerning existing inland wetland terpreted photos have been com- resources exists, discussion of inland pleted for the entire state. wetlands will for now have to rely on 2. Regional Quality Control - The earlier, less comprehensive studies. Coastal wetlands, on the other hand, USFWS Northeast Office in New- have been the subject of study by the ton, MA is currently conducting State's Coastal Resources Management regional quality control of inter- Program and relatively detailed informa- preted photos covering tion is available in this area. southeastern New Hampshire. The only source of information avail- Regional Quality Control work able to estimate acreage of wetlands will then shift to the south- 14 statewide is the USGS Land Use and Land munities specifically adapted to survive Cover Classification System. This system on little or no nutrients. Due to their classifies land use and land cover into 9 uniqueness and their extreme sensitivity separate categories including a separate to disturbances, bogs are given the category for wetlands of 40 acres or more highest priority for protection under in size. Using 1973 USGS Land Use and state law RSA 483-A, Fill and Dredge in Land Cover Maps, all areas classified as Wetlands--New Hampshire's most impor- "wetland" were totaled and wetland tant law protecting both inland and coas- acreage was estimated by county and by tal wetlands. river basin (Table 2). Figure 2, entitled "New Hampshire's Wetlands," shows the distribution of these wetlands statewide. Swamps, Marshes, and Bogs of This map was generated by the GRANIT Particular Value (Geographically Referenced ANalysis A number of freshwater wetlands in and Information Transfer) System. This the state have been recognized as natural computerized geographic information areas of national significance and thus, system is being developed to apply com- puter mapping to land use planning and worthy of being designated Registered resource management. Natural Landmarks. The National Natural Landmarks Program, which is ad- ministered by the National Park Service, Swamps, Marshes, and Bogs was established in 1963 to identify and protect areas of national ecologic or The freshwater wetland communities geologic significance. An area's sig- of New Hampshire (graded from driest to nificance is determined by regional in- wettest) are swamps, marshes, and bogs. ventories and comparative analysis. Swamps contain predominantly woody Once identified, sites are listed in the vegetation and are divided into shrub National Registry of Natural Landmarks. swamps (woody plants less than 15 feet Designation and listing do not affect tall) and wooded swamps (woody plants ownership, nor do they afford permanent greater than 15 feet tall). protection. An owner of a National Marshes are characterized by her- Natural Landmark is invited to enter into baceous (soft-stemmed) vegetation, and a voluntary, nonbinding agreement with are divided into shallow marshes (con- the National Park Service to help protect taining cattails, sedge, and grasses) or the nationally significant values of the deep marshes (containing water lilies, property by adopting basic conservation pondweeds, pickerelweed, and ar- practices. An owner who chooses to 13 make this commitment is eligible for a rowheads). bronze plaque and certificate that for- Bogs are highly acidic wetlands mally recognize the significance of the where the woody vegetation forms a site. Among those wetlands possessing floating root mat which rises and falls this distinction are the following:15 with the water level. The most prevalent Heath Pond Bog: Located in Car- vegetation is sphagnum moss which roll County, this 110-acre site is a prime acidifies the water and forms a thick sponge among the roots of the woody example of bog succession from open 14 - water to sphagnum heath-black spruce plants. Bogs contain unique plant com 15 Table 2 ESTIMATED ACREAGE PER COUNTY AND RIVER BASIN OF WETLANDS 40 ACRES OR MORE IN SIZE County Wetland Acreage Belknap 4,425.58 Carroll 12,649.30 Cheshire 15,773.58 Coos 25,113.65 Grafton 2,578.44 Hillsborough 5,022.37 Merrimack 8,817.56 Rockingham 15,885.91 Strafford 4,711.65 Sullivan 463.36 95,441.40 River Basin Wetland Acreage Androscoggin 10,762.88 Lower Connecticut 14,713.39 Middle Connecticut 4,181.48 Upper Connecticut 11,834.84 Lower Merrimack 6,333.49 Middle Merrimack 12,654.87 Pemigewasset 1,611.98 Piscataqua 18,199.96 Saco 9,593.35 Winnipesaukee 5,555.17 95,441.41 Source. 1973 USGS Land Use and Land Cover Maps. 16 Figure 2 NEW HAMPSHIRE'S WETLANDS UPP CON Wetlands and Watershed Boundaries Waterbodies and Rivers 4P NDR OGGIN County Borders coos SOURCE(S): USGS Land Use & Land Cover, 1973 USGS Ground Water Availability Maps, 1975-1977 DATE PRODUCED: December, 1987 E NECT U PRODUCED BY: Complex Systems Research CO Center, UNH, NH Office of State Planning GRAFTON CARROLL MIdE ASS 4 rk 4 0 A NIP Qo BE' Q &Mf ERDK qq SULLIVAd D -f ILE rqE M K WER AQUA C NNECTI T. R- 'KING HILLSBOROUGH % ;Ak H11 LOWER MER OV 17 BOG TRANSITION ZONES A Few Selected Representative Species (Not all flora are shown to scale) from a drawing by Gene Parker 00 jr SEDGES ttt Tv- F Cotton .44 Sensitive Soft Grass SPHAGNUM Fern Maple Sheep Black Tamarack Net-Veined Laurel Rose Spruce Chain Fern Sweet Pogonia High Bush Bog Labrador Sweet Pepperbu h Blueberry Laurel Tea Bog Leather-Leaf Gale Cranberry Pitcher-Plant Aster Sundew Source: New England Wetlands - Plant Identification and Protective Laws, EPA, May 1981. bog. It is said to contain more variety of restrial and aquatic systems. The water plant species than any other peat bog in table is usually at or near the surface or the state, thus offering an outstanding the land may be covered by shallow opportunity for study. This state-owned water. With respect to lakes and ponds, site is administered by the Division of this transitional zone is limited to Parks. shorelines and to shallow waterbodies. Spruce Hole Bog: Located in The data available with respect to the Strafford County, this bog is an excellent state's great ponds (natural water bodies example of a complete ecological com- over 10 acres) has, up till now, con- munity occupying a true kettle hole. The centrated on the surface area of these site contains a pond surrounded by a waterbodies. For this reason, the follow- floating mat of predominantly sphagnum ing discussion of lake-related wetlands and leatherleaf followed by a high shrub focuses primarily on water surface zone. The wooded slopes of the kettle acreage--most of which does not fall into hole rise steadily on all sides to a rim the "transitional zone" definition of a averaging 50 feet above the bog. wetland. Determining shoreline length of the state's great ponds is an approach Floating Island: Located in Coos more compatible with the "transitional County, this 750-acre wetland includes a zone" wetland definition. It is estimated 260-acre northern heath bog surrounded that the total shoreline of the state's 780 on three sides by a mixed bog swamp great ponds is 1737.3 mileS.16 forest, and an intricate water complex of According to the State Planning meandering river, oxbows, and ponds. Project's 1964 Water Body Inventory, The area is one of the finest wildlife there are approximately 1400 standing habitats in northern New England sup- fresh water bodies in New Hampshire. porting moose, the endangered osprey, This figure includes all natural water American bald eagle, and common loon. bodies, natural water bodies controlled Additional significant New by dams, artificial impoundments, and Hampshire wetlands identified by New the larger river impoundments. Of this England Natural Areas Project, including total, approximately 983 water bodies other Registered Natural Landmarks, ap- are over ten acres in size 17 and ap- pear in Table 3. proximately 417 water bodies are less than ten acres in size. By statute, all of Lake-Related Inland New Hampshire's natural fresh water bodies of ten acres or more are known as Freshwater Wetlands great ponds and are owned by the state in general, wetlands are recognized (RSA 271). as being transitional lands between ter- 19 Table 3 OTHER SIGNIFICANT INLAND FRESHWATER WETLANDS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE Name County Acres Value Hulbert Swamp Coos Soo Boreal swamp forest associated with a stream rather than a bog. Black Gum Hillsborough 5 Red maple-black gum Swamp swamp containing several gum trees of great age. (A potential Registered National Landmark) Moose Coos 185 Black spruce-tamarack bog Pasture containing habitat of unusual significance to bird life. (Part of 310-acre East Inlet Nature Preserve having Registered Natural Land-mark designation) Pondicherry Coos 300 Pond-marsh-bog forest Wildlife Refuge community containing important nest and resting areas for bird-life. (A Registered Natural Landmark) Ossipee Lake Carroll 484 Classic delta marsh and one Natural Area of the few remaining undisturbed beaches in the state. Source: 1977 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan, New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development and New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning. 20 A FRESH WATER MARSH TRANSITION ZONES A Few Selected Representative Species (Not all flora shown are to scale) from a drawing by Gene Parker 04 -7 Xt. 4 .4 Mountain Beech Laurel White Pine Paper Birch Poison 0, Ivy Hemlock Sheep Laurel Tupelo Fern Skunk ts'a " '@ Withe-Rod Cabbage Sweet Viburnum Slippery Alder Pepperbush Loosestrife BuIlrush Spike-Rush Elm Poison Tussock Branching Arrow-Arum Pickerelwee Sumac Sedge Woolgrass Bur-Reed Cattail Source: New England Wetlands - Plant identification and Protective Laws, EPA, May 1981. In 1934, the total acreage listed for inland fresh water ponds--rate very high- all standing fresh water bodies was ly as waterfowl food in New 149,344.5 acres."' In 1964, the acreage Hampshire .21 Smaller pond-type water- for only those bodies over ten acres was ways, 10 acres or less in area, have computed to be 160,971 acres- -excluding proven to be significant breeding areas acreages extending into bordering as well as important feeding and nesting 22 states.19 The increase may be due to the sites during migration. Likewise, many fact that US Geological Survey Maps water bodies over 10 acres are also sig- were used as a base for measurement in nificant to waterfowl (Table 4). 1934. In 1964, aerial photographs flown in 1963 were used to determine the size of a large number of water bodies for Lake-Related Inland which the 1934 figures did not appear Freshwater Wetlands of accurate. Several man-made impound- Particular Value ments which were either inadvertently omitted from the 1934 survey or had not As previously stated, all of New yet been constructed were included in the Hampshire's natural fresh water bodies 1964 total. ten acres or more in size are known, by In size, New Hampshire's lakes and statute, as great ponds. Of the ap- ponds range from the large Lake Win- proximately 780 lakes and ponds which nipesaukee at 44,586 acres to the small fall into this category, 105 of them har- bor endangered, threatened or rare plant Unnamed Pond #3 in Wentworth at .15 23 acres.20 Lake of the Clouds, located in and animal species. Plant species are particularly susceptible to water pollu- the Presidential Range, is the state's tion and habitat modification. Appendix highest, while several ponds along the C contains a listing of New Hampshire's coast are only 10 feet above sea level. rare wetland plants categorized by Regardless of their size or elevation, habitat type, including ponds. lakes and ponds contribute greatly to the Some specific examples of water quality of our environment. Many of the bodies of particular value are as follows: state's lakes and ponds play an important role in regulating storm water run-off Lake Untbagog Region: Lo- (e.g. Surry Mountain Lake, Drew Lake, cated in Coos County, this region Gunnerson Lake), and in providing is probably the finest overall quality water supplies (e.g. Little Mas- wildlife area in New Hampshire. sabesic, Waukewan Lake, Loon Pond). This complex land/water ecosys- Lakes and ponds provide important tem consists primarily of the dam wildlife and plantlife habitat. Shorelines controlled 8,000 acre Lake Um- are used for travel, banks for dens and bagog which straddles New nesting. Aquatic species such as fish, Hampshire and Maine. The entire crayfish, and frogs are important food area contains high quality fresh- sources for mink, otter, osprey, and other water marshes and swamps, float- aquatic feeders. Water bodies provide ing bogs, and an open lake--all breeding grounds for the insects upon supporting an abundance of which songbirds and waterfowl feed. wildlife including: moose, black Pondweeds, burreeds, pickerelweed, and bear, beaver, bobcat, fisher, rare arrowhead--commonly associated with 22 Table 4 PERMANENT WATER AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO WATERFOWL IN NEW HAMPSHIRE Inland Fresh Inland Fresh Coves Lakes and Bays County No. Acres No. Acres Belknap 10 Soo 4 25 Carroll 26 3,065 3 65 Cheshire 34 2,180 1 75 Coos 41 2,240 2 360 Grafton 17 1,070 2 140 Hillsborough 6 300 Merrimack 14 370 Rockingham 10 1,265 Strafford 11 1,560 Sullivan 4 610 TOTAL 173 13,160 12 665 Source: Inventory of Permanent Water Areas of Significant Value to Waterfowl in the State of New Hampshire. Boston: US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Branch of River Basins, 1958. canada lynx and pine marten, loon also a significant warm water and the endangered bald eagle fishery, and habitat to unique and osprey. In April of this year, lowland stands of jack pine, north- a pair of bald eagles was dis- ern white pine and white cedar covered nesting at Lake Umbagog, spruce-fir and deciduous foreSt.24 the first such nesting of bald Lakes of the Clouds: Located eagles in New Hampshire in 40 in Coos County, these two small years. in addition, this region lakes of glacial origin are on the provides nesting habitat for a southwest shoulder of Mount variety of waterfowl species in- Washington. The larger, southern- cluding Canada geese, ring-neck- most lake is one of the few truly ed ducks, and black ducks. It is 23 alpine lakes in the eastern United Piscataqua reaches the sea within New States and offers excellent re- Hampshire's borders. Each brook, search opportunity for alpine stream, and river in the state belongs to aquatic ecosystems. This water one of five major river systems that body is also the highest lake east originate in a corresponding number of of the Rocky Mountains .25 drainage basins. A drainage basin is a Profile, Echo, and Lonesome geographic entity surrounded by a height of land from which runoff is collected to Lakes: Are located in the White feed the numerous brooks that flow 27 Mountain's Franconia Notch--a together to form a river. The five major Registered Natural Landmark. drainage basins in the state are named Profile Lake, a 13 acre eutrophic after the rivers that flow out of them lake of glacial origin, derives its toward the sea (Table 5). name from the view over it toward The following descriptions of New the "Old- Man-of-the- Mountain" Hampshire's five major watersheds are profile. Echo and Lonesome taken from A Guide to the Physical En- Lakes are also of glacial origin. 28 vironment of New Hampshire. Merrimack Basin: This large River-Related inland basin lies mostly in New Hampshire and Freshwater Wetlands drains the entire central region of the state. The Pemigewasset and Win- With respect to rivers and streams, nipesaukee Rivers come together in the transitional lands between terrestrial Franklin to form the Merrimack River. and aquatic systems (i.e. wetlands) are, From Franklin, the Merrimack River then in general, limited to river and stream flows southward into Massachusetts. shoreline. With the total length of the Along its 116 mile course, it drops rather state's rivers and streams being ap- uniformly at a rate of approximately proximately 12,000 linear miles, it can be three feet per mile. The last 22 miles of estimated that the total length of the river are tidal. river/stream shoreline is roughly 24,000 The Pemigewasset River, the basin's linear miles. This interface between northernmost tributary, begins in Profile aquatic and terrestrial environments Lake in Franconia Notch, where it flows creates a variety of habitat types along out of the White Mountains and con- river corridors. Riparian edges, fresh- tinues through the hills and valleys of the water marshes, riverside seeps, and flood New England Upland near Plymouth. plains provide productive fisheries, Other significant rivers within this basin wildlife, and plantlife habitat. Oxbows- include the Contoocook Warner, Black- -abandoned river channels--provide ad- P ditional wetland habitat. water, Suncook, Soucook, Souhegan, and Piscataquog Rivers. New Hampshire's rivers and streams Lake Winnipesaukee, the state's add approximately 32,000 acres of fresh 26 largest lake, and numerous other lakes water surface to the area of the state. including Newfound Lake and Squam The state is drained by five major rivers: Lakes are located in this basin. The the Merrimack, Connecticut, Saco, Pis- northern reaches of this basin continue cataqua, and Androscoggin. Only the to be a forest and agricultural region. 24 Table 5 MAJOR WATERSHEDS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE % of the Total Square Area of NH Miles Merrimack Drainage Basin 40 3,770 Connecticut Drainage Basin 33 3,058 Saco Drainage Basin 9 862 Piscataqua Drainage Basin 9 848 Androscoggin Drainage Basin 8 743 Source: Lee, James A. Waterways of New Hampshire. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 1956. However, the southern Portion of this monoosuc and Ashuelot Rivers are the basin has undergone considerable ur- Connecticut's major New Hampshire banization and continues to be under tributaries. Other rivers found in this strong developmental pressures. basin include the Sugar, Mascoma, Cold, Connecticut Basin: This basin oc- Upper Ammonoosuc, and Israel Rivers. cupies a total of 11,265 square miles of Saco Basin: Approximately half of which 3,059 square miles are within the the Saco watershed lies in New state's borders. The Connecticut River Hampshire, the remainder in Maine. The originates near the Canadian border at upper reaches of the New Hampshire sec- the mouth of the Third Connecticut Lake tion drain the eastern slope of the White and flows entirely within the state for its Mountains. The basin then becomes a first 29 miles. The river's west bank be- broad plain encased by mountain ridges comes the New Hampshire-Vermont bor- (Mount Washington Valley). In its der for 238 miles. After flowing another southwestern reaches, the watershed 138 miles through Massachusetts and consists of flat, open land. Connecticut, it empties into Long Island The glacially formed Saco Lake gives Sound. rise to the Saco River which, in turn, For the first 30 miles, the headwaters flows 124 miles to its ocean outlet in of the Connecticut drop some 30 feet per Maine. The river's first 14 miles drop at mile. The river descends another 400 a rate of approximately 90 feet per mile; feet over a 30 mile stretch centered on thereafter, the slope decreases to about 6 Moore Reservoir. Below this region, the feet per mile. The Swift and the Ossipee river descends more gradually--ap- Rivers are the Saco's two major New proximately 2 feet per mile. The Am- Hampshire tributaries. 25 Piscataqua Basin: Approximately scale water power, water supply, fish and 75% of this basin lies within New wildlife habitat, and recreation. With Hampshire's boundaries with the remain- the coming of large scale industrializa- ing 25% lying in Maine. The Piscataqua tion, conflicts developed over the use of River is only 13 miles long, originating at the state's rivers. By the close of the 19th the confluence of the Cocheco and Sal- century, the primary role of the rivers mon Falls Rivers and terminating at was to produce power and receive Odiorne Point south of Portsmouth. wastes. It was not until the 1960's that Together with the Salmon Falls River, the increased environmental awareness led Piscataqua forms part of the Maine-New to renewed attention to the other values Hampshire border. The Piscataqua River of New Hampshire's rivers--recreation, is tidal throughout its length. Nine miles fish habitat, and water supply. from its mouth, two large tidal bays, Today, improvements in water Great and Little Bays, connect with the quality together with rapid population river to form large inland tidal pools. growth have greatly increased river use The Great and Little Bay estuarine system conflicts. The problem lies in determin- covers approximately 17 square miles of ing which river benefits will outweigh tide waters. Eight percent of the others. Demands for residential, com- estuarine's total area (838 acres) is salt mercial and industrial development, marsh. The Lamprey, Exeter, and Oyster water supply, natural area protection, Rivers are also located within this Basin. and recreational opportunities will have Androscoggin Basin: Most of this to be reconciled. The challenge will be watershed lies in Maine. The 20% of the determining which river benefits will basin which lies within New Hampshire outweigh others. is generally a forested region containing New Hampshire's rivers and lakes numerous mountains and lakes. Its continue to receive much legislative and headwaters are in Umbagog Lake--a lake administrative attention. The Rivers and fed by several lakes and streams in Lakes Protection Program (Chapter 190, Maine. The river, 161 miles long, drops Laws of 1986) was the start toward es- approximately 1.5 feet per mile, except tablishing a comprehensive policy to for a rapid stretch near Berlin where it guide decisions affecting the state's rivers drops 100 feet per mile, for a distance of and lakes. Under Chapter 190, the Upper approximately 2.5 miles. Merrimack River which stretches from Franklin to Concord is being studied for River-Related Inland designation. The riparian edges, fresh- Freshwater Wetlands of water wetlands, and flood plain intervals Particular Value of the Upper Merrimack are valuable habitat to migratory birds which use the New Hampshire's history and Merrimack as a central flyway, and to economy have been heavily influenced by over 135 waterfowl, shore and song its rivers. The state's major rivers have birds, and raptors which make the River long been an important resource for their home. In addition, the Upper Mer- transportation, industry, and recreation. rimack was nominated in 1986 by the Up to the mid 1800's, the rivers were used Fish and Game Commission "as a unique for transportation, log driving, small and important fish and wildlife unit area deserving of protection." The 1988 26 Legislature passed a law creating the partial listing is taken from the National New Hampshire Rivers Management and Rivers Inventory: Final List of Rivers. Protection Program, placing it within the Department of Environmental Services. The legislation, RSA 227-F, established a Tidal and Coastal Saltwater process whereby New Hampshire or- Wetlands ganizations and residents may nominate New Hampshire's Atlantic shoreline any river or river segment for special designation and protection by the state is 18 miles long, while its tidal coastline legislature. Rivers or river segments totals 131 miles. The state's waters, mar- which will be considered for protection shes, beaches, sand dunes, rocky shores, under RSA 227-F include but are not and other natural resources are impor- limited to the following: Pemigewasset, tant local, state, and national resources. Saco, Swift, Contoocook, Merrimack, Coastal waters are commercially and Connecticut, Isinglass, Lamprey, Smith, recreationally important, and provide Ashuelot, Nashua, Nissitissit, and Pis- habitat for a wide variety of fish, cataquog Rivers. Any River Corridor shellfish, birds, and plants. Salt marshes Management Plans developed for desig- are valuable fish and wildlife habitat ' are nated rivers must address wetland and an integral part of the coastal and es- flood plain protection. More detailed tuarine food chain, and serve as a descriptions of Chapter 190 and RSA lonatural treatment" for runoff. New 227-F are found under the "State Wet- Hampshire's beaches are some of the land Programs" section. state's primary tourist attractions. In ad- Numerous New Hampshire rivers and dition, undeveloped beaches are a good river segments have been identified as first line defense against storms. meeting the minimum criteria for further Coastal and Estuarine Waters study and/or potential inclusion into the Tidal waters of the state include the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. offshore waters to the limits of territorial in order to meet this criteria, a river MUSt:29 sea, and the Great Bay and Hampton- Seabrook estuaries and associated 1. Be five miles or more in length tributary rivers. The Great and Little Bay 2. Be a free-flowing river or stream estuarine system (Figure 3) covers ap- 3. Be generally undeveloped proximately 17 square miles (11,000 acres) of tide-waters making it one of the 4. Be adjacent to or within a related largest estuarine systems on the eastern land area that possesses an out- seaboard of the United States .30 It is standingly remarkable geologic, formed by the convergence of seven ecologic, cultural, historic, scenic, rivers: the Salmon Falls, Cocheco, Bel- botanical, recreational or other lamy, Oyster, Lamprey, Squamscott, and similar value (interpreted to mean Winnicut with a combined watershed of an area of multi-state or national approximately 930 square miles. The significance) system has 838 acres of salt marsh or 8% A listing of some of New Hampshire's of its total area.31 The Hampton Harbor river and river segments meeting the estuarine system includes the Taylor, above criteria appear in Table 6. This Hampton, and Blackwater Rivers and 27 Table 6 SAMPLING OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RIVERS MEETING NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER MINIMUM CRITERIA River Name County Segment Reach Length Narrative Description of Values Description (Miles) Androscoggin Coos Above Berlin to 10 Fish: River is an historic Atlantic River Pontook Reservoir Salmon fishery. Hydrologic: One of two remaining sparsely developed free-flowing segments of a unique high order river. Androscoggin Coos Above Errol to 3 Fish: Historic Atlantic Salmon fishery. River Umbagog Lake Botanic: Flows from Umbagog Lake, the finest wildlife area in the state. Contains open tamarack-black spruce bog, northern bog plants, and is breeding habitat for Lincoln Sparrow. Saco River Carroll North Conway to 276 Recreation: One of the most Coos headwaters significant white water runs in central New England. Connecticut Coos North Strafford to 22 Hydrologic: Unique sparsely River Essex Beecher Falls developed high order river. Scenic: Segment possesses one of the highest ranges of view in the entire northeast. Contoocook Merrimack West Hopkinton Dam 26 Recreation: Segment includes some of River to Bennington the most significant white water canoeing in all of New England. Nash Stream Coos Confluence with 14 Wild: Corridor and surrounding Ammonoosuc River watersheds are virtually undeveloped to headwaters and remote. Hydrologic: An excellent example of an undeveloped, free-flowing low order river. 28 Tide Mill Creek, as well as the relatively Exserted Knotweed (Polygonum ex- small but well protected harbor, which sertum) - found at 2 sites in New remains open during the winter. Hampshire, both in the estuary. Coastal and Estuarine Waters Large Salt Marsh Aster (Aster of Particular Value tenufolius) - found at only I site in The Great Bay is a classic example Of New Hampshire. an estuarine system and represents one The estuary is also an important of the finest remaining, relatively un- breeding ground for many species of fin- spoiled systems on the Atlantic coast. fish. An inventory of the natural re- The diverse environments within the es- sources of Great Bay, conducted by the tuary (shallow bays, exposed mud flats, Fish and Game Department, identified 52 different finfish species, some resident rivers, rocky islands, and tidal wetlands) some anadromous, and some migrant. 33 provide varied habitat for many plants, fish, and wildlife. This same resource inventory sighted Marine algae, seaweeds, salt grasses, over 90,000 birds representing 71 dif- and fresh water marsh grasses are the ferent species during the two year period. driving force behind estuarine produc- Five endangered or threatened species tivity providing oxygen to the water, were also sighted--the bald eagle, osprey, stabilizing the estuary bottom, and marsh hawk, common tern, and common providing food and habitat for fish loon. With respect to the bald eagle, the Great Bay estuary has a long history of shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. Rare winter eagle use. This estuary has ac- and endangered plants are also found within the Great Bay area and include :32 counted for 2 7% of all winter eagle sight- ings reported to the Audubon Society of Prolific Knotweed (Polygonum New Hampshire between 1949 and prolificum) - found at 3 sites in New 1981. 34 The estuary is also home to many Hampshire, all in the estuary. species of mammals including: harbor seals, raccoons, white-tail deer, red fox, Eastern Lilaeopsis (Litaeopsis cotton-tail rabbits, and muskrats. chinensis) - found at 2 sites in New . In recognition of the importance of Hampshire, 1 in the estuary. Great Bay as a vital natural resource of Turks-cap Lily (Lilium superbum) - national significance, the state has desig- found at only one site in New nated Great Bay and selected sites in the Hampshire. Towns of Durham, Newmarket, New- fields, Newington and Stratham as a Na- Marsh Elder (hafrutescens) - found tional Estuarine Research Reserve under at 6 sites in New Ham shire, 5 in the the National Estuarine Research Reserve estuary. p Program. 35 More information on this na- tional program is provided under the Stout Bulrush (Scirpus robustus) - "Federal Wetland Programs" section. found at 4 sites in New Hampshire, all in the estuary. 29 Figure 3 GREAT BAY ESTUARY SYSTEM Cocheco River Salmon Falls River DOV NEW HAMPSHIRE ellamy River MAINE Oyster River DURHAM Piscataqua KITTERY River NEWINGTON Lamprey NEWMARKET Rive PORTSMOUTH Squarnscott GREENLAND River STRATHAM RYE NEW HAMPSHIRE Great Bay Estuary System. Great Bay Estuary Inventory Survey, 1980-1981. 30 SALT MARSH TRANSITION ZONES A Few Selected Representative Species (Not all flora are shown to scale) from a drawing by Gene Parker Beach Pit Grass Pi Beach Poison Plum Beach Ivy Rose Marsh PANNE Elder 11 fall Seaside Seaside Black Grass Spike Gerardia Salt Meadow Plantain Sea Halberd-Leaved Grass Cord Grass Salt Slender Lavender Orach Cord Glasswort Perennial Glasswort Source: New England Wetlands - Plant Identification and Protective Laws, EPA, May 1981. Tidal Marshes on high marsh surfaces are two condi- tions that most severely affect salt marsh The tidal marshes of New Hampshire viability.39 lie in the southeastern corner of the state and occupy an area of approximately According to a 1986 study of three 7,500 acres. The bulk of these marshes salt marshes in North Hampton and Rye, is found in the coastal communities of clogged and slow running channels Seabrook, Hampton, Hampton Falls, resulting in inadequate flushing of the 4 North Hampton, and Rye, having formed marshes were a major problem. 0 The along the seacoast in embayments study found that development projects protected from the direct force of the sea. abutting the salt marshes were affecting The remaining tidal marshes are strung the amount and quality of water entering in coves and shallows along the margins the marshes, increasing roadway run-off of Great Bay and the complex of tidal into the marshes, and in some instances streams and rivers flowing into it. clogging and narrowing marsh channels. New Hampshire's tidal marshes are With the rapid development of New typical of what has been called the "New Hampshire's coastal communities, pres- ,,36 sures on tidal wetlands in the state will England type. That is, the develop undoubtedly continue. ment of the state's marshes has been de- pendent upon the post-glacial Tidal Marshes of Particular Value submergence of the land or the concur- rent rise in sea level, or both. Studies of As discussed above, the salt marshes the Hampton-Seabrook marsh peat show of Great Bay, approximately 838 acres, it to be between 2,700 and 6,800 years are a vital resource. They act as a natural old .31 secondary treatment plant and are criti- From the European settlement of the cal to the estuarine food chain. They New England coast up to the early 19th absorb wave and storm action and are habitat to many plant and animal species. century, tidal marshes provided valuable According to NH Fish and Game assess- hay and pasture land to seacoast farms. ments, the monetary value of this During this time, efforts were made to resource is estimated at $68 million per improve the production of marshes main- year. 41 ly through diking. Diking efforts were not succes7sful in New Hampshire, how- The tidal marshes of the Hampton ever, leaving marshes essentially in their River Estuary are also vital. Salt marshes 38 original condition. found in the Towns of North Hampton, New Hampshire's coastal marshes Hampton, Hampton Falls, Seabrook, and have experienced degradation and loss Rye make up the largest expanse of salt due to the altering of their hydrology. ma .rsh in the State. All contain plant and Earlier in this century, mosquito ditches animal communities of unusual diversity and productivity. Of particular interest were excavated to promote more is the 160-acre Seabrook Salt Marsh drainage of standing water. Levees which borders the last, unspoiled dunes created by the excavated peat have created enclosed areas that are flooded in the state. in the higher spring tides and then are prevented from draining. The restriction of tidal flow and the retention of water 32 Beaches, Rocky Shores, and Sand Dunes are rare in New Sand Dunes Hampshire. Only three sand dune areas New Hampshire has 10.2 miles of At- remain on the seacoast: the state owned lantic beachfront. All wet sand beach is and managed Hampton Beach State Park owned by the state and o en to the public dunes and the town owned Seabrook S.42 p fore-dunes and back-dunes. In 1985, as recreation area Great Boars Head state legislation was enacted prohibiting and Odiorne Point are the state's two any alteration of sand dunes including largest rocky shore outcroppings. Many the removal of vegetation and use of smaller outcroppings also exist within off-highway vehicles. Subsequent to Great Bay, at the upper part of the tidally these actions, the Town of Seabrook pur- influenced section of the Bellamy River, chased the 53 acres of back duneS.44 and the Piscataqua River along the These dunes represented the last un- Portsmouth/Newington line. Most of spoiled dune formation in the state and these areas are as yet undeveloped. are habitat for a number of rare and These rocky shores serve as storm protec- endangered plant species. tion for the land forms behind them, and 43 are considered high in aesthetic value. 33 Wetland Protection Federal Wetland Programs agencies a-re directed to avoid assisting or undertaking new construction in wet- ver the years, federal lands unless no practical alternative is programs and policies available. Proposed actions must con- have had both positive tain measures to minimize harm to wet- and negative effects on lands. this country's wetland resources. For almost Regulatory Programs 200 years the federal government provided Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 encouragement and, at Section 9 of this statute forbids the times, strong financial construction of dams or dikes across any inducement to projects involving wet- navigable waters of the United States land destruction. Under the Agricultural unless approval is granted by the Army Conservation Program--a cost sharing Corps of Engineers. Under Section 10, a and technical assistance program for wet- permit from the Corps is also required for land drainage--approximately 57 million any construction involving dredging, fill- acres of wet farmlands and some wet- lands were drained .45 Today, the federal ing, or obstruction of navigable waters. government plays a leading role in wet- Clean Water Act - Section 404 land protection through various policies The 404 permit program, enacted as and programs. part of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Federal Policy Control Act and amended during reauthorization of the Clean Water Act of Executive Orders 11988 1977, regulates the discharge of dredge and 11990 or fill material into the "waters of the United States," including wetlands. Both orders were issued in May 1977 The Environmental Protection Agen- by President Carter. Executive Order cy (EPA) and the Army Corps of En- 11988 requires each federal agency to gineers share program responsibilities avoid direct or indirect support of under Section 404. The Corps ad- floodplain development wherever there ministers the program on a day-to-day is a practical alternative. Executive basis and issues, denies, or modifies per- Order 11990 requires all federal agencies mits. EPA writes and interprets the to minimize the destruction, degradation 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the regulations or loss of wetlands. More specifically, 34 which the Corps must apply in their submitted to the appropriate Corps evaluation of permit applications. Office. After a completed application Moreover, EPA has authority under Sec- is received, a public notice is issued tion 404(c) to "veto" Corps issued permits which grants 30 days for comments based on a determination or "unaccep- from the public and review agencies table adverse impact." Congress also as- (both state and federal). After com- signed EPA the responsibility for ments are received, a decision is delegating the program to qualified made. states in accordance with the Agency's The activities over which the Corps State Program Regulations. EPA and the has jurisdiction are the same as those Corps have parallel authority to enforce over which the New Hampshire Wetlands against unauthorized discharges and Board has jurisdiction under RSA 483-A violators of permit conditions. As a mat- (refer to "State Wetlands Program" sec- ter of practice, the Corps takes the lead tion for detailed discussion of Wetlands in taking action against permit violators Board responsibilities). RSA 483-A al- while EPA focuses its limited resources lows no exceptions; any activity/project on significant unpermitted discharges. in or on coastal or inland wetlands of the The three categories of permits that state must receive an individual permit the Corps may issue for the placement of from the NH Wetlands Board. On the dredged or fill material in waters of the other hand, federal law exempts certain United States are as folloWS:46 activities and regulates only the placing Nationwide Permits - Issued by Corps of fill in waters of the US under Section 404. in addition the Corps, through its for discharges into minor waterways Nationwide and General Permits, allows and for certain types of activities in certain negligible impact projects to all waters of the United States. In proceed without a federal Individual Per- New England, projects in headwater mit. areas and isolated wetlands are per- mitted by nationwide authorization. One of the problems that developers No written notification or authoriza- and conservation commissions have with tion is required for activities under this federal permit system is the uncer- nationwide permit. tainty concerning which projects need a General Permits - Issued by Corps for federal Individual Permit. Some New certain types of activities in specific, Hampshire projects that have proceeded relatively small geographic areas without an Individual Permit have been stopped, with fines and restoration or- within their jurisdiction. The ac- 47 tivities must cause only minimal en- dered. vironmental harm, both individually To address the inconsistency between and cumulatively. Authorization for the federal and state permitting proces- activities under general permit con- ses, and the confusion over when a sists of a "letter of authorization" federal Individual Permit is needed, the from the appropriate Corps Office. Corps has proposed issuing two new per- Individual Permit - Issued by Corps for mits: a NH General Permit and a General projects that do not qualify for a Permit/General Denial for Federal Aid general or nationwide permit. Ap- Highway Projects. The proposed NH plication for a 404 permit must be General Permit would be for projects in 35 New Hampshire that are classified as comprehensive inventory or ranking sys- "minor" and "minimum impact" by the NH tem, but serves as a basis for choosing Wetlands Board. Provided they complied areas that merit additional protection via with the Conditions of the NH General the EPA's "Advanced Identification of Permit, these projects would be exempt Sites" process or its use of veto authority from the need to obtain federal In- over the Corps. dividual Permits unless an applicant was notified of such a need within 21 days of Federal Assistance Programs - approval of their NH Wetlands Board Technical permit. For projects classified as "major" by the NH Wetlands Board, "discretion- US Fish and Wildlife Service ary authority to require an Individual (USFWS) Permit may be invoked by the NH Corps Under authority of the Fish and of Engineers at any time." Therefore, if Wildlife Coordination Act, the USFWS a NH General Permit were to be issued, a federal Individual Permit could still be assesses the impacts on fish and wildlife required for projects classified as "minor" of all water and related land resource or "minimum impact" by the NH Wet- development projects which are federally lands Board. However, notification of funded or are constructed under a federal this requirement would occur sooner permit or license, and provides reports to than at present .48 federal construction or regulatory agen- The proposed General Per- cies and to permit applicants. The mit/General Denial for Federal Aid High- USFWS reviews permit applications to way Projects would require that the state encourage avoidance of adverse impacts Federal Highway Administration submit on fish and wildlife and their habitat, the data required to obtain a Corps per- particularly in wetland areas. mit as part of the National Environmental The USFWS also spearheads the Na- Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. The tional Wetlands inventory Project. The environmental information and any aim of this project is to generate and proposed mitigation would be developed disseminate scientific information on the during the preliminary engineering characteristics and extent of the nation's design stage, rather than in the final wetlands. In addition, the USFWS design stage. At this point, the Corps Region Office in Concord is currrently would issue a General Permit or General developing State Concept Plans as part of Denial for the proposed project." the National Wetland Priority Conserva- It should also be noted that the EPA tion Plan. This listing of wetlands will has begun a national effort to identify be used to determine USFWS acquisition priority wetlands and waterbodies across priorities. the country. In 1985, Region I of EPA US Department of Agriculture developed a listing of Priority Wetlands (USDA) in New England. This listing, updated in Between 1942 and 1980, almost 57 1986, identifies wetlands and other million acres of wet farmland, including aquatic resources in New England which some wetlands, were drained under the EPA considers to be of high quality or USDA!s Agricultural Conservation Pro- which are vulnerable to environmental gram. A major policy shift concerning degradation. This list (Table 7) is not a 36 Table 7 EPA REGION I LISTING OF PRIORITY WETLANDS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE (INCLUDES WATERBODIES) GENERAL LISTING 1. Tidal Wetlands in Hampton, Rye and North Hampton Highly productive areas; provide important fish and wildlife habitat. 2. Wetlands and Waterbodies of Southeast New Hampshire Important to fish and wildlife, flood control, water quality maintenance, and recreation. 3. Wetlands Identified as Important on State Breeding Bird tensuses This site-specific information is not yet available. SPECIFIC LISTING 1. Copps Pond and Copps Pond Marsh - Tuftonboro 2. North MiII Pond - Portsmouth 3. Great Bay, Little Bay Estuaries 4. Lake Umbagog - Errol 5. Lake Winnipesaukee Area Wetlands 6. Sugar River (Including Adjacent Wetlands and Their Direct Tributaries) 7. Exeter River 8. Merrimack River (From Lowell, MA to Franklin, NH Including Adjacent Wetlands and Direct Tributaries) 9. Connecticut River (Including the River Proper and Special Aquatic Sites within the Floodplain) 10. Lamprey River 11. Piscataqua River Source: EPA, Region 1, September 1987. 37 the use of wetlands for agriculture began purposes. The Town of Derry utilized with a wetland memorandum from the SCS soil and wildlife specialists to train USDA!s Soil Conservation Service (SCS) its prime wetlands study volunteers. in 1975. The "Conservation Planning Memorandum" stated that in regard to 18 Army Corps of Engineers of the 20 types of wetlands described in In addition to its regulatory functions the 1954 Fish and Wildlife Service Sur- under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 vey, the SCS would no longer provide and the Clean Water Act--Section 404, technical and financial assistance for the Corps provides floodplain manage- draining and otherwise altering these ment technical services to states and wetlands.50 More recently, the passage localities. The program includes non- of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm structural approaches to controlling Bill) has provided new avenues to deal flood loss and, therefore, may be impor- with wetland loss problems. Under the tant to wetlands protection and manage- S3 "Swampbuster" provision of this bill, any ment. person who produces an agricultural commodity on wetlands converted to Federal Assistance Programs - such agricultural production after Financial December 23, 1985, becomes ineligible for most agricultural subsidies. A second Subsidized Flood Insurance major provision of the Farm Bill that indirectly benefits wetlands is the Con- Established by the National Flood In- servation Reserve Program. Under this surance Act of 1968, the National Flood program, approximately 45 million acres Insurance Program (NFIP) is part of a of predominantly highly erodible comprehensive approach to reduce flood croplands (many of which contain inter- damage and to cope with the disastrous spersed wetlands) are to be placed in a effects of floods. The program em- not-less-than-10-year set-aside status. phasizes the importance of managing Once in the program, an annual payment floodplains in order to reduce flood is made to the landowner and 50% hazards and the ever rising cost of flood Federal cost-sharing of vegetative cover damage. establishment is provided.51 In the All flood-prone communities within Northeast United States, an estimated United States'jurisdiction can participate 200,000 acres of farmed wetlands are in the NFIP. As of July 1989, 224 of New now eligible for protection under the Program. S2 Hampshire's 234 communities had been identified by the federal government as The USDA and SCS provide technical having flood-prone areas within their assistance in several aspects of resource boundaries. of the 224, 59 had flood conservation. In New Hampshire, the hazards identified, 25 were in the emer- SCS provides technical assistance to in- gency program, and 140 were in the 54 dividual land owners and municipal regular program. To come under the governments through ten County Conser- program, state and local governments vation Districts. The SCS staff have been must establish land use controls over very helpful in training people in wetland floodplain development by zoning, sub- identification and inventorying tech- division regulations, building codes, or niques for prime wetland designation other means. 38 Federal Income Tax Incentives toration and management projects. The The federal tax law contains certain amount of Dingell-Johnson funds provisions which make charitable gifts of budgeted by the Department over the land financially attractive. A landowner past five years has varied from $313,800 owning a unique natural area of wetland to $1,401,007 per year. Most of these may give all or certain partial interests in funds are used for existing fisheries re- the land to a qualified charitable or- search and management projects. As ganization or government entity. S, ub- with Pittman-Robertson, a very small ject to certain limits, such a land gift can portion of these funds are available for be deducted from federal income taxes. land acquisition. When available they are used as follows: 25% state match, In most cases, the amount of the deduc- and 75% Dingell-Johnson match. S7 tion is determined by the current ap- praised value of the gift. For a qualified Land and Water Conservation easement, the value of the gift is the FundaWCF) Act of 1965 difference in the property's value before The LWCF program provides match- and after the easement is conveyed.-s ing grants to states, and through the Grants-in-Aid states to local governments, for the ac- quisition and development of public out- Pittman-Robertson Funds door recreation areas and facilities. Administered by the National Park Ser- The Federal Aid to Wildlife Restora- vice, LWCF assistance may be used to tion Act, often referred to as the Pittman- acquire lands and waters or interests in Robertson Act, provides funds for lands and waters for public outdoor wildlife habitat acquisition. Grants are recreation, and development of basic out- administered by the Fish and Wildlife door recreation facilities for the general Service and the grant's funding source public. More recently, the Emergency comes from the excise tax on ammunition Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 amends and firearms sales. the LWCF Act by specifically authorizing state and federal wetlands acquisition Over the past five years, the amount with LWCF monies. of Pittman-Robertson funds allotted to New Hampshire's Fish and Game Depart- In order to qualify for continued par- ment has varied from $466,450 to ticipation in the LWCF program, the $637,343 per year. Most of this money State's Comprehensive Outdoor Recrea- is used for existing wildlife management tion Plan (SCORP) must first receive Na- projects. A very small portion of these tional Park Service approval. New funds are in fact available for use in land Hampshire Outdoors 1988 - 1993 is the acquisition. When available they are state's most current SCORP. Of utmost used as follows: 25% state match and importance in administering the LWCF 75% Pittman- Robertson match .56 grants program is the Open Project Selec- Dingell-Johnson Funds tion Process (OPSP)--a procedure which ensures public involvement and an equi- The Federal Aid in Fish Restoration table, competitive selection process. Act, commonly referred to as the Dingell- Under the OPSP, LWCF grant applica- Johnson Act, provides funding for the tions are reviewed and rated according to acquisition of fish habitat, and fish res- specific selection criteria. A separate 39 question in the state OPSP selection states for developing and managing a criteria is asked specifically to rate national system of estuarine reserves projects which help protect critical which are representative of the various natural resources such as wetlands. regions and estuarine types in the United Most wetland related projects have States. The State of New Hampshire has scored very well in the OPSP evaluation. designated Great Bay and selected sites Of the approximately 525 LWCF projects in the Towns of Durham, Newmarket, funded to date, 20 involved significant Newfields, Stratham, and Newington as wetland acreages and more than 100 a National Estuarine Research Reserve. projects involved wetland areas or were The Great Bay National Estuarine Re- physically located on open bodies of search Reserve (Figure 4) will include water. approximately 4,471 acres of tidal water, Coastal Zone Management Act 800 acres of key upland areas, 502 acres of tidal wetlands, and 456 acres of fresh- (CZMA) water wetlands .60 Federal funds, accom- Administered by the National panied by the required 50% match by the Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin- state, will be used for the following: ac- istration's Office of Coastal Zone quisition of privately owned lands via Management, this federal grant-in-aid conservation easements of identified key program provides assistance and en- land and water area sites within the couragement to coastal states (and US proposed boundary for Great Bay; con- territories) to voluntarily develop and struction and development of a visitor's implement management programs for center at Hilton Park and related inter- their coastal areas. Financial assistance pretive/educational programs and ac- grants are available for program develop- tivities within the proposed boundary; ment and program implementation .51 and the final preparation of a manage- ment plan for the Great Bay National The New Hampshire Coastal Program Estuarine Research Reserve. 61 relies exclusively on existing state laws and policies. The purpose of the pro- To date, there are 17 established gram is to improve the administration of Reserves representing 14 different states existing state laws in order to provide for and Puerto Rico. The Great Bay Reserve the optimal use of New Hampshire's coas- is the 18th reserve under the Reserve tal resources. While many state agencies Program. have been operating within the coast, this program is the first to coordinate activities among agencies. The Office of State Wetland Programs State Planning receives and distributes The first attempt by the state to regu- coastal program funds and coordinates late wetlands dates back to 1955 when all local, state, and federal involvement the legislature made it illegal to create in the program. Among other things, these funds are used to pay for the staff- land by filling in great ponds (natural ing of 2 Wetlands Board inspectors for 17 fresh water bodies of 10 acres or more) 59 without permission of the Governor and Coastal Program communities. Council (RSA 482:41-a to d). This legis- The CZMA, under the National Es- lation dealt with public inland waters, tuarine Research Reserve Program, also not wetlands as such. provides federal matching grants to 40 Figure 4 GREAT BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE KEY LAND AND WATER AREAS PUBLIC LAND PRIVATE LAND WETLAND AREA RESEARCH RESERVE DURHAM BOUNDARY ADAMS POINT/CROMMET LITTLE CREEK BAY 2. PEASE AIR BASE NEWINGTON 3. LUBBERLAND CREEK 4. SQUAMSCOTT RIVER WETLANDS Pease Air Force Base GREAT BAY 4m%-4 GREENLAND @ STRATHAM *;TRATHA Source: Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan, 1989. 41 In 1965, an act regulating sewage Direct State Regulatory Measures disposal systems on islands provided that no marshes bordering on or adjacent to Fill and Dredge in Wetlands a great pond could be filled in without (RSA 483-A) prior approval of the sewage disposal Gives the state direct authority over system in accordance with municipal both coastal and inland wetlands. The zoning ordinances or, in the absence of state's lead agency, the New Hampshire such ordinances, the Water Supply and Wetlands Board, is authorized to promul- Pollution Control Commission (RSA 149- gate rules and to issue permits for ac- C:4). Under this act, pollution preven- tivities that excavate, remove, fill, tion was the main goal--not wetland dredge, or construct any structure in or preservation. on any bank, upland area, flat, marsh, New Hampshire's first full-fledged bog or swamp as well as in any surface wetland regulations came into existence fresh or tidal waters within or bordering in 1967 in the form of three dredge and the state. The statute also defines the fill laws. limits of the Wetlands Board's jurisdic- (RSA 488-A) prohibited any person, tion over tidal wetlands and gives the Board jurisdiction over all sand dunes in firm, or corporation from excavating or 62 dredging any bank, flat, marsh, swamp, the Town of Seabrook. Violations of or lake bed that lies below the natural the law can result in both Wetlands mean high water mark of any fresh public Board imposed administrative fines and waters of the state without petitioning Court levied civil penalties. The Board the Water Resources Board. consists of the Commissioners of a num- ber of state agencies, as well as persons (RSA 482:41-e to i) replaced the representing municipalities, soil and original 1955 law regarding placing fill water conservation districts, and local in great ponds without permission of the conservation commissions. Governor and Council. During the 1989 Legislative Session, (RSA 483-A) prohibited persons from RSA 483-A was amended in several ways. excavating, removing, filling, or dredg- Chapter 99 gave the Wetlands Board ing any bank, flat, marsh, or swamp in authority to issue emergency cessation and adjacent to tidal waters without ap- orders and administrative restora- proval of the New Hampshire Port tion/removal orders. Chapter 225 ex- Authority. tended Wetlands Board jurisdiction These laws have been reviewed and adjacent to tidal areas to include every- revised during subsequent sessions of the thing within 100 feet of the highest ob- legislature. Over time, RSA 483-A has servable tide line. It also amended RSA become the most important law protect- 483-A in various other ways including ing New Hampshire wetlands. increasing civil penalties for wetlands violations from a $5,000 maximum to $10,000 per day of continued violation, and making violators liable for the "removal of any fill, spoil or structure placed pursuant to such a violation and the restoration of any wetlands disturbed in connection with the violation." 42 Table 8 WETLANDS BOARD ACTIONS 1988 CATEGORY APPROVE DENY PENDING TOTAL Applications Major Projects Waive Public Hearing 107 107 Public Hearing Held 55 43 8 106 Denied Without Hearing 40 40 Minor Projects Public Hearing Held 15 6 21 Without Hearing 970 344 65 1,379 Minimum Impact Projects 711 711 Reaction Public Hearing 24 14 4 42 Other 222 ill 333 Time Extension 129 6 135 Name Change 34 34 Fine Actions Fines Considered 226 Fine Hearings Held 80 Removal Actions Initiated 155 Approvals Sent to Governor & Council 18 TOTAL 2,267 564 77 3,387 Source; 'Report of the Wetlands Review Committee." February, 1989. 43 The Wetlands Bureau, within the (264 for FY 1988), and the frequency of Department of Environmental Services' Board meetings increased from biweekly Water Resources Division, is principally to weekly. Many of the additional hear- responsible for providing administrative ings held during the last two years con- support to the New Hampshire Wetlands cerned administrative fines being Board. This support includes but is not considered by the Board. Table 8 shows limited to: application review; permit the actual Board actions taken during tracking; field investigation of proposed calendar year 1988. Of the 3,387 actions projects and reported violations; taken, 2,364 were first-time applications. preparation of weekly agenda and staff Eleven percent (253) of those first-time recommendations; development of per- applications were for major projects, mits, fine consideration and removal ac- 59% (1,149) minor projects, and 30% tion notices/orders; and development of (711) were minimum impact projects." enforcement actions through the Attor- Prime Wetlands (RSA 483-A:7) ney General's Office. The Bureau also represents the Wetlands Board before The designation of prime wetlands Governor and Council, during the rule involves the local adoption of something making process, on proposed legislation, resembling a zoning overlay district but and in CoUrt.63 places the authority to regulate certain The review of applications, response activities within that district in the hands to reports of violations, and field inves- of a state body, the New Hampshire Wet- tigations are handled by technical staff lands Board. By statute, a municipality located at the Bureau's Concord and (through its Conservation Commission) Portsmouth offices. Two Coastal Wet- choosing to designate prime wetlands is lands Inspectors are federally funded required to base its designation and map- through the New Hampshire Coastal ping upon the criteria established by the 66 Zone Program, resulting in their opera- Wetlands Board. tions being limited to the towns within The process used to select prime wet- the Coastal Zone Management area. lands involves inventorying and evaluat- These coastal communities produced 7% ing wetlands (using criteria provided (202) of the new files (applications and under Chapter 700, Rules of the Wet- violations) created during 1988. The lands Board), and selecting those wet- rest of the state, with 93% (2,666 files) lands worthy of prime wetland of the permitting and enforcement ac- designation. The designation proposal tivity, is the responsibility of five inland submitted to the Wetlands Board must wetland inspectors (two permanent and carefully follow the criteria, report, and 64 three temporary). map format established by the Board. During the last five years, the number The effects of local designation of of new files (applications and violations) prime wetlands include: opened and processed has climbed at an average rate of 26% per year for an over- The identification of those wet- all increase of 146%, while staffing has lands of greatest importance to remained at the 1984 level. During just the municipality which are the last two calendar years, the annual deemed worthy of extra protec- number of public hearings held by the tion due to their size, unspoiled Wetlands Board increased from 88 to 249 character, uniqueness, fragility 44 Table 9 MUNICIPALITIES WITH OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED PRIME WETLANDS AS OF JULY 1989 Town No. of Wetlands Approximate Total Acreage Weare 2 350 Exeter 5 975 Gilford 18 379 Meredith 7 859 Sandwich 8 861 New London 3 130 Wolfeboro 6 462 Tamworth 8 487 Derry 29 1,015 Holderness 18 272 Pelham 7 344 Sanbornton 12 249 Salem 25 1,250 State Total 148 7,633 Source: New Hampshire Wetlands Board and/or other special charac- For towns which have officially desig- teristics. nated prime wetlands (Table 9) the ap- The notification to owners, poten- proaches taken and costs involved in tial developers, and the New adopting prime wetland designation Hampshire Wetlands Board that have varied. The prime motivation for the municipality feels strongly initiating the designation process has that those wetlands designated as been protecting wetlands from encroach- it prime wetlands" should remain in ing development. The needed wetland their natural state. studies under the provisions of RSA 483- The assurance that applications A:7 are extensive. However, conducting for dredge and fill permits in the studies and obtaining the data need prime wetlands will receive spe- not be a difficult or costly task. A creative cial consideration from the Wet- approach to conducting a prime wetland lands Board (provided that the study can yield solid information at a Conservation Commission notifies minimal cost. The towns of Sandwich and the Board that the permit applica- Derry exemplify two different but effec- tion is for a proposed project in a tive approaches. prime wetland). 45 The Sandwich Conservation Commis- on 70 of the 87 wetlands. Eventually, the sion began its prime wetlands study in Derry study concluded that 29 wetlands March 1983. Over 40 Sandwich town (out of the original 87) merited prime 69 citizens, summer residents, and organiza- wetland designation. tions raised over $4,500 to finance the By relying on volunteers, by using study. The study utilized one consultant existing soil and wetland maps, and by and a Wetlands Evaluation Team (WET using available services of the Soil Con- Team) composed of 25 volunteers. WET servation Service and Rockingham Team members did extensive public Regional Planning Commission the cost education work, attending meetings and publishing numerous writings to inform of Derry's prime wetland study totaled the public about the project. WET Team $500, $200 of which was spent on mylar members--under consultant training and for maps. The 29 wetlands in Derry sup ervision- -develop e d field survey receiving prime wetland status have forms, journal entry plans, and methods added protection, since it is now up to for mapping, photographing, and observ- the dredge and fill permit applicant to prove that the intended project will have ing the wetlands. The final report and no negative effects on a prime wetland. final drafts of the prime wetlands maps Two applications for dredge and fill in were produced by the consultant, micor- Derry have already been denied by the porating WET Team collected data and 67 Wetlands Board due to prime wetland suggestions . 70 considerations. Most recently (January As a result of the prime wetlands 5, 1988), Derry successfully passed a wet- study, maps which accuratetly delineate lands ordinance establishing a 150 foot the location or edge of wetlands are now buffer zone around each of its 29 official- available. This information makes it ly designated prime wetlands. In the easier for the Town of Sandwich to re- outer-most 75% of the buffer, some ac- quire specified setbacks, to enforce its tivities may be allowed by special excep- wetlands ordinance, and to advise the tion. Wetlands Board on any applications for 611 dredge and fill permits. Indirect State Regulatory Measures The Derry Conservation Commission, regularly finding itself in a crisis manage- Dredging (RSA 149:8-a) ment situation regarding wetlands, in- Requires a permit from the Water itiated a prime wetlands study of the Supply and Pollution Control Division town. Their successful public awareness (WSPCD) "to dredge, excavate, place, fill, campaign attracted 30+ talented volun- mine, transport forest products or under- teers, including some with backgrounds take construction in or on the border of in botany, hydrology, and photography. the surface waters of the state." A permit Utilizing Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is also required from the WSPCD for maps and US Fish and Wildlife National projects which significantly alter the Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, 87 wet- characteristic of the terrain in such a lands were located and classified by type. manner as to impede the natural runoff Volunteer team members, trained by SCS or create an unnatural runoff. The soil and wildlife specialists, performed WSPCD has authority to establish the the needed fieldwork and data collection. terms and conditions under which a In one summer, fieldwork was completed 46 project must be carried out but cannot all money derived from the art be added prohibit a project. to the Account. Wildlife Emblems; Funds from the Waterfowl Conserva- Wildlife Protection Fund tion Account are used for the following (RSA 206:41) purposes: States that the Fish and Game Com- 1. The development, management, mission may authorize the executive preservation, conservation, res- director of said department to print and toration, acquisition, and main- to sell wildlife emblems (e.g. wildlife tenance of migratory waterfowl stamps, decals, buttons, medallions, etc). habitat- -including the develop- This law also authorizes the estab- ment of state wetlands, shores, lishment of an account within the Fish and designated waterfowl and Game D ep artment-- known as the management marshes for maxi- Wildlife Protection Account--where all mum migratory waterfowl revenues received from the sale of production, access to such areas, wildlife emblems are deposited. Disbur- and acquisition of necessary bar- sements from the Wildlife Protection Ac- riers. count are used to defray the expenses of 2. The protection, conservation, and producing and selling wildlife emblems and to fund wildlife habitat protection, propagation of migratory water- restoration, and enhancement programs. fowl. Waterfowl Conservation 3. Up to 25% of the prior year's gross Program (RSA 214:1-d) waterfowl receipts can be ex- pended for the promotion of the The State Migratory Waterfowl state migratory waterfowl stamp Stamp and Print Law requires persons and print. who intend to hunt, shoot, pursue, kill, Since the Waterfowl Conservation or take migratory waterfowl (ducks, mer- Program began in 1983 (within the New gansers, coots, geese, and brant) to first Hampshire Fish and Game Department), procure a state migratory waterfowl some 65,000 stamps and 7,100 prints stamp--in addition to obtaining the ap- have been sold generating more than plicable hunting license and the federal $565,000 for waterfowl projeCtS.71 duck stamp. This statute also authorizes These funds are placed in the nonlapsing the state treasurer to establish a Water- fowl Conservation Account, within the Waterfowl Conservation Account and Fish and Game Fund, where proceeds yearly unspent revenues are allowed to from the sale of state migratory water- build from year to year, with interest. fowl stamps are credited. The law allows Program funds can cover 100% of ac- the acceptance of donations into the quisition costs or be used as a 25% match Waterfowl Conservation Account from to Pittman- Roberts on/D inge 11-Jo hns on sources other than stamp sale proceeds, funds. and provides for the reproduction, sale, The primary objectives of the Water- licensing, and other disposal of art fowl Conservation Program are to ac- created for the stamp on condition that quire wetlands at established Fish and Game Waterfowl Management Areas and 47 to investigate additional marshlands 50/50 matching basis, with state water- throughout the state for their acquisition fowl conservation revenues being used potential. Up till now, program em- for matching purposes to finance two phasis has been on acquiring wetlands marsh projects (Hirst Marsh Project - 25 and protective upland buffer zones at acres; Gallop Marsh Project - 50 acres). established Management Areas. To date, The Piscassic River project was a waterfowl conservation funds have cooperative effort with the New helped purchase 13 wetlands totaling Hampshire Waterfowl Association. 309 acres. In the beginning, work con- In addition, the Fish and Game centrated on the Department's Waterfowl Department and the Forest Service are Management Area at Cascade Marsh in presently evaluating several small mar- Sutton which has grown to 326 acres. Of shes within the White Mountain National that total, 190 acres of marsh and upland Forest for ways to more intensively habitat were bought with waterfowl manage these sites for waterfowl. Inves- funds. The history of wetland acquisi- tigations have been made on five poten- tions has continued to grow and in- tial project sites--all of which will include cludes: Hoit Road Marsh in Loudon, water control structures to reflood inac- Hirst Marsh in Boscawen, Little Cohas tive beaver impoundments. Marsh in Londonderry, Gallop Marsh in Unity and Lempster, Woodman Marsh in Finally, the Waterfowl Conservation Northwood, Danbury Bog in Danbury, Program, in addition to land acquisition, Chapman's Landing in Stratham, and a is providing an opportunity to increase section of the Piscassic River wetlands in management efforts on some 4,000 acres Epping. In 1987, five parcels consisting of wetland habitat at the Department's of 107 acres were obtained at Hirst Waterfowl Management Areas. These Marsh, Cascade Marsh, Danbury Bog, management activities primarily focus on Gallop Marsh and the section of the Pis- providing conditions for optimum cassic River wetlands. growth of wetland vegetation. Moist The Waterfowl Conservation Pro- Soil Management is one such technique gram also affords the Fish and Game which stimulates the growth of impor- Department the opportunity to par- tant aquatic vegetation by simulating ticipate in several cooperative waterfowl those optimum conditions found in projects. A much welcomed and long- beaver impoundments during their first termed effort between Ducks Unlimited five to seven years after flooding. Water and the Department is the Ducks Un- control structures which manipulate limited MARSH Program which was in- water levels are prescribed for impound- itiated in 1985. MARSH is an acronym ments which exhibit substantial declines for Matching Aid to Restore States in waterfowl usage. Since 1985, the Habitat. Ducks Unlimited (DU) is Moist Soil Management technique has providing to state fish and wildlife agen- been utilized at seven Fish and Game cies 7.5% of revenues generated in each waterfowl impoundments. In addition to state by DU volunteers. The MARSH Pro- applying techniques which mimic beaver gram has provided New Hampshire with activity, the maintenance of healthy over $26,000 for waterfowl habitat ac- beaver populations is also paramount to quisition and management projects thus breeding waterfowl within the state. far. These monies are available on a Through the Waterfowl Conservation Program, the acquisition and manage- 48 ment of quality wetlands has benefited and roseate tern. An endangered species both waterfowl and native wetland is one that is in danger of extinction wildlife species. throughout all or a significant part of its Endangered Species range within the state, or any species Conservation Act of 1979 determined to be endangered under the (RSA 212-A) federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. A species is threatened if it is likely to Establishes the Endangered Species become endangered in the foreseeable Program (ESP) which is administered by future throughout all or a significant part the NH Fish and Game Department with of its range within the state, or any key contractual services provided by the species determined to be threatened Audubon Society of New Hampshire. under the federal Endangered Species Act The Program was established to protect of 1973. threatened and endangered species of wildlife, and addresses the problems of Nongame Species declining wildlife species in the state Management Act of 1988 through research, status surveys, public (RSA 212-B): information, and management. The Ex- Establishes a nonlapsing, Nongame ecutive Director of the Fish and Game Species Account within the Fish and Department is charged with determining Game Fund, which is used solely for non- which species of animals are in need of game species management. Monies conservation and adopting rules setting received from the federal Nongame Act, up conservation programs. The estab- private donations and matched General lishment of such programs can include ". Fund money fund the account. The state . . acquisition of land or aquatic habitat may match donations up to and including or interests therein ... deemed necessary a total of $50,000 annually. for the conservation of species More than 300 vertebrates (fish, threatened with extinction." birds, mammals, reptiles, and am- The NH Endangered Species Conser- phibians) live in New Hampshire year vation Act also authorizes the publishing round; another 120 species pass through of the NH Threatened and Endangered the state as migrants. Of these 420 Species List. Official listing of the state's species, approximately 60 are listed as threatened and endangered wildlife af- sport fish, game birds, or game animals. fords each species listed protection under The rest (85%) are nongame. To better the Act, and makes them eligible for understand these species, the. NH Fish monitoring and management activities and Game Department is developing and through the ESP. The newly revised list implementing a comprehensive nongame (see Appendix D) designates 21 animals wildlife program which includes re- as endangered and 13 as threatened. search, management, and information/ Among those species listed as en- education. The Nongame Program will dangered are: the dwarf wedge and also work closely with the Endangered swollen wedge mussel; common tern; Species Program and the Loon Preserva- piping plover; Sunapee trout; shortnose tion Committee. sturgeon; and bald eagle. Among those species listed as threatened are: the com- mon loon; osprey; least tern; arctic tern; 49 New Hampshire (Crow and Storks, 1980) concluded that Native Plant Protection Act of 1987 9% of the state's rare flora were chiefly (RSA 217-A) restricted to the coastal area, including Directs the Department of Resources the Great Bay estuarine system. and Economic Development (DRED) to New Hampshire Rivers establish a list of endangered and Management and Protection threatened plant species found in New Program (RSA 227-F) Hampshire. This list is to be developed through a program of biological research Passed in 1988, this law establishes and investigation with the assistance of within the Department of Environmental other state and federal agencies and in- Services (DES) a New Hampshire Rivers terested persons. With input from the Management Program. The Program, ad- Natural Areas Council ' a Native Plant ministered by a State Rivers Coordinator, Technical Advisory Committee was estab- establishes a process whereby state resi- lished and, using New Hampshire dents and organizations may nominate Natural Heritage Inventory (NHNHI) any river or river segment for special data, draft lists of eligible species were designation and protection by the state prepared. On April 16, 1988 a rare plant legislature. RSA 227-F is designed to conference/public hearing was cospon- complement and reinforce existing state sored by the NHNHI and The Nature Con- and federal water quality laws and to servancy to allow the public to comment maintain instream flows along protected on the draft lists of protected plants. The rivers "in a manner that will enhance and lists were finalized and have been in ef- not diminish the enjoyment of outstand- fect since December, 1988. Administra- ing river characteristics." The Program is tive Rules for the Native Plant Protection also charged with restoring and main- Act were passed on December 16, 1988. taining "the scenic beauty and recrea- The NHNHI will have an active role in tional potential" of protected rivers. Any implementing the Act by reviewing state river/river segment nomination must in- projects, applications for permits, and clude an assessment of fisheries; geologic additions and/or deletions to the lists. and hydrologic features; vegetation; DRED is also directed to develop conser- wildlife; historical and archaeological vation programs for the protection of features; open space and recreation fea- endangered and threatened plants. tures and potential; water quality and These programs can include acquiring uantity; man-made structures; and land, by purchase or gift, to protect such riparian interests. Any river nomination plants. This law also requires all state approved by the Commissioner of DES agencies and departments to cooperate in must be reviewed and approved by the preserving and protecting endangered general court prior to its inclusion into and threatened plants, and requires that the Program. none of their programs threaten the ex- Designating Rivers and Lakes istence of such plants. Deserving Protection Wetlands may indirectly benefit from (Chapter 190, Laws of 1986) the Native Plant Protection Act since the Authorizes the Council on Resources state's bogs and coastal wetlands harbor and Development (CORD) to establish unique native plants. The findings of criteria and procedures for designating one University of New Hampshire study lakes, sub-areas of lakes, or river 50 stretches as water areas deserving protec- ship and control. The terms of an ease- tion. The designation process set up by ment can be obtained to suit a particular CORD allows for any New Hampshire property and/or situation. Once they are organization or resident to nominate a in place, restrictions in the easement are water area (river or lake) for designation. permanent, binding all future owners of In June 1987, Governor John H. Sununu the property. Conservation easements asked CORD to undertake the task of are most commonly given, but they can nominating the Franklin to Concord seg- also be sold. The organization or agency ment of the Merrimack River for designa- to whom an easement is given provides tion as a protected river under Chapter long-term enforcement of the restric- 190. tions. The Office of State Planning initiated Current Use Taxation work in response to this request on be- (RSA 79-A) half of CORD, developed a work outline, The legislature, recognizing the im- and hired a staff person. The first year of the planning effort has focused on portance of the state's recreational, collecting and mapping information scenic, and ecologically important open about the River. This information will be spaces, enacted this law to prevent the bound as Volume I - Background Infor- development of such lands due to the mation and Findings: Upper Merrimack pressure of high tax assessments. The Corridor Plan. This initial report will means for encouraging preservation of demonstrate the outstanding sig- open space under this statute are the nificance of Upper Merrimack River assessment of land value for property resources and provides the foundation taxation on the basis of current use and for planning recommendations. the acquisition of discretionary ease- The advisory River Area Planning ments of development rights by town or Committee built on this foundation by city governments. The law authorizes a analyzing issues and developing draft property tax abatement program which provides for reduced property assess- goals and objectives which will represent ments on certain parcels of land. Tracts the start of Volume II - Goals, Recommen- of land qualifying for current use assess- dations, ar@d Action Plan: Upper Mer- ment (Table 10) must meet the criteria in rimack Corridor Plan anticipated for one of a combination of the following completion this fall. categories of open space: Farm Land, Conservation Restrictions Forest Land, Wild Land, Recreation Land, (RSA 477:45-48) Wet Land, and Flood Plains. Current use acreage criteria requirements (set forth Gives landowners the right to re- in Department of Revenue Administra- quire, prohibit, or limit activities on or tion Administrative Rules) for land uses of a land or water area through categories are as folloWS:72 conservation restrictions held by another Farm Land -At least ten acres in size party. Conservation easements are ap- or any farmland acreage which propriate for outstanding conservation generates more than $2,500 annual- land whose protection will significantly ly. benefit the general public. They provide long term protection for the land while Forest Land -At least ten contiguous allowing the landowner to retain owner- acres. 51 Wild Land -At least ten contiguous Flood Plains -Any land lower in eleva- acres. Includes "Unproductive" and tion than the land-water boundary "Productive" Wild Land. inactive along a water course flowing at its farm land of less than 10 acres can 100-year flood level which meets the qualify under current use if criteria for any of the above land authorization to maintain it as open categories. land comes from a Conservation Land which has been classified as Commission or other appropriate open space land on or after April 1, 1974 authorized town body designated by is subject to a land use change tax when the Board of Selectmen. No mim*- it is changed to a use which does not mum acreage requirements exist for qualify for open space assessment. In "Natural Preserve Land." 1988, Chapter 120 was passed which al- Recreation Land -At least ten con- lows a municipality to vote to allocate all tiguous acres or undeveloped land of or a portion of the receipts from the use any size open to public access which change tax to the conservation fund. possesses unusual public recreational value. Wet Land -Any size. Table 10 ACREAGE OF WET LAND AND FLOOD PLAIN UNDER CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT AS OF DECEMBER 1988 County Wet Land Flood Plain Belknap 2,759.87 415.12 Carroll 3,416.05 536.00 Cheshire 5,327.84 462.09 Coos 8,031.30 4,319-73 Grafton 4,730.85 2,370.77 Hillsborough 11,475.28 330-30 Merrimack 10,431.12 551.60 Rockingham 11,917.83 155.10 Strafford 4,470.24 27-00 Sullivan 2,129-04 584-90 Totals 64,689.42 9,752.61 Source: Department of Revenue Administration 52 Local and Regional Programs lands--allows conservation commissions to request time to investigate an applica- Local governments can only exercise tion for a dredge and fill permit filed with those powers delegated to them by the the New Hampshire Wetlands Board. state. The basic source of authority for The conservation commission is the only elected officials to govern and regulate municipal body with authority to request land use is the police power--the such a delay. Under RSA 483-A:7, a con- authority to regulate for the health, servation commission may also prepare safety, and general welfare of the com- the report and maps for the local desig- munity. Local exercise of police power nation of prime wetlands. can assert itself in several ways. Some Since the passage of Chapter 36-A in approaches municipalities can take to aid 1963, the number of towns and cities them in regulating activities that can ad- creating commissions has steadily in- versely affect wetlands are discussed creased. As of July 1989, 198 com- below. munities (84%) had established 73 Conservation Commissions conservation commissions. RSA 36-A authorizes towns to estab- Planning Boards lish conservation commissions and lists RSA 673:1 authorizes towns to estab- the commission's specific respon- lish local land use boards, while local sibilities. The statute directs every con- land use planning and regulatory powers servation commission to conduct are specified under RSA 674. Planning research into the land and water resour- boards are permitted to undertake a ces within its boundaries; coordinate the activities of unofficial bodies organized variety of duties. One responsibility that for similar purposes; and index all open every planning board must carry out is space and natural, aesthetic, or ecologi- the preparation and periodic revision of cal areas within its boundaries. The the municipality's master plan. In statute also states that conservation com- general, a master plan is comprised of a missions may recommend programs for -report or set of statements and land the protection, development, or better use/development proposals which are use of such areas; may recommend the designed to show the planning board's purchase of, or receive gifts of, unique reco .mmendations for desirable lands; and may provide environmental municipal development. These recom- education through a variety of com- mendations may address up to nine munications media. specific areas, depending on the town's special requirements. Three of the areas Although conservation commissions where wetland protection recommenda- are advisory bodies, they can be very tions might be incorporated include land effective in motivating and strengthening use, recreation, and conservation and environmental activity at the local level. preservation. The master plan acts only A commission's scope and influence may as a guide for the future development of be increased further by other statutes the municipality. In order to be effective, which give conservation commissions ad- it should be implemented by the adoption ditional powers. In particular, Fill and or modification of zoning ordinances and Dredge in Wetlands (RSA 483-A)--the other municipal regulations. A total of principal NH statute protecting wet- 234 communities (100%) have estab- 53 lished planning boards; 211 communities conventional zoning districts poses spe- (90%) have completed master plans; and cial problems. Because these resources 13 communities (5%) have master plans often occur in several locations within a pending. 74 municipality, using conventional use dis- In a municipality where the planning tricts to protect them can result in a board has adopted a master plan, the complicated ordinance and a less ac- local legislative body may authorize the curate zoning map. For this reason, over- planning board to prepare and amend a lay districts are often used to protect recommended capital improvement pro- natural features that occur in several gram covering a minimum of six years to locations throughout a municipality. assist with the preparation of the annual An overlay district is one that is su- municipal budget. If the master plan in- perimposed on existing use zoning dis- cludes recommendations for municipal tricts. Development must comply with acquisition of specific conservation areas the requirements of both the underlying such as wetlands, the capital improve- and overlay districts. In this way, uses ments plan could include the cost of ac- normally allowed by the underlying dis- quiring such land. Statewide, 78 trict can be prohibited, thus providing communities (33%) have implemented a some added protection to natural capital improvements program. 75 resource features. Approximately 118 Another responsibility of the plan- communities (50%) have wetland regula- ning board is recommending additions tions which use the overlay district ap- 77 and amendments to zoning ordinan- proach. A good example of such an ces/maps to the local legislative body. approach to resource protection is the However, the local legislative body can "Pemi River Overlay Plan" developed by only adopt a zoning ordinance after the the Pemigewasset River Council. Six planning board has adopted the general towns bordering the river voted in 1987 statement of objectives and the land use to include the Plan in their town zoning section of the master plan. Thus the ordinances. The Plan encourages and the zoning will protect the naturalness master plan acts as the foundation for and integrity of river frontage in a cor- zoning. Zoning is the principal tool for ridor 500 feet wide on each shore. local regulation of land use. it estab- lishes land use districts within a Finally, a planning board may be municipality in order to separate incom- authorized by town meeting or city coun- patible uses and provide for orderly cil to regulate the subdivision of land development. In each district, some uses (RSA 674:35). Subdivision regulations are permitted, some are prohibited, and may contain provisions that can effec- some are allowed only under certain con- tively manage local wetland develop- ditions. A zoning ordinance may also ment. The areas that subdivision impose requirements on a specific use-- regulations may cover which have poten- such as the size and position of signs. tial for wetland protection include: the Eighty-eight percent of New Hampshire's provision for open spaces of adequate communities have zoning ordinances in proportions; the provision for parks of 76 place. reasonable size for neighborhood Protecting natural resources like wet- playgrounds or other recreational uses; lands, flood plains, rivers, and lakes via and the provision that land be of such character that it can be used for building 54 purposes without endangering health. planning boards or conservation commis- Since septic systems built in poorly sions in writing a wetland protection or- drained soils may result in groundwater dinance or writing amendments to an or surface water pollution, subdivision existing ordinance; assist a community regulations may exclude wetlands from with selecting a consultant to perform a minimum lot size calculations due to wetland inventory and make recommen- their unsuitability for buildings and sep- dations for wetland protection; and be- tic systems. Subdivision regulations may come directly involved in mapping also provide for clustering buildings in wetlands based on soils. RPC's are also upland areas while maintaining overall active in terms of helping communities density by leaving low-lying wetland or protect wetlands through water resource flood plain areas free from structural plans, local conservation plans, sub- development. In New Hampshire, 230 division regulations, and setbacks from communities (98%) have established wetlands. Some specific examples of subdivision regulations. In addition, 192 recent RPC involvement include: communities (82 %) have building codes 1. Six out of nine RPC's prepared in place.78 Building codes can also be guidebooks for assisting towns in used to guide development to ensure it is developing water resource protec- consistent with maintaining wetland tion plans. area values. Such codes can require that structures be elevated above flood 2. Rockingham Planning Commis- hazard levels and that suitable founda- sion prepared an update to a 1978 tion materials be used to locate them. study of shoreline change along Regional Planning Commissions New Hampshire's 18-mile coast, including recommendations and The purpose of a regional planning cost estimates associated with commission (RPC) is ". . . to prepare a mitigating the changes described. coordinated plan for the development of 3. Rockingham Planning Commis- a region, taking into account present and sion assisted the Town of Derry future needs with a view toward en- with its prime wetland study by couraging the most appropriate use of helping the town prepare the land. . . " (RSA 36:45). Planning region needed wetland maps. delineation is such that each municipality falls within a specific As of July 1989, 216 communities region. A city or town may eitherjoin the (92%) were members of a regional plan- existing commission for its particular ning commission. planning region, or, if no commission Conservation Districts exists, join with one or more municipalities to form a new RPC. Mem- RSA 430-B provides for the "estab- bership in an RPC is optional and the lishment of conservation districts . . . commission's role is strictly advisory. composed of landowners and land oc- RPC's provide assistance on local cupiers within the districts . . ." The planning problems and make recommen- boundaries of the state's 10 conservation dations to local governments as a means districts are delineated by the 10 counties of implementing regional plans. With within the state. The purpose of conser- respect to wetlands, RPC's can: assist vation districts is to facilitate the joint 55 effort of landowners, land occupiers, and in preserving important watersheds government in carrying out measures for groundwater, flood control lands, and the conservation and development of wildlife habitat. In addition, the soil, water, and related natural resources District's on-site soil testing revealed and preventing soil erosion, floodwater, areas where high intensity soil mapping and sediment damages. would be necessary to demonstrate that The Strafford County Conservation a proposed land use would not harm District (SCCD) in the southeastern part public health. of the state near the Maine border, is just Other examples of SCCD involvement one example of a rapidly growing region. include: retaining the services of a con- Currently, the SCCD is involved in sulting soil scientist to further the tech- several projects which are adapted to nical expertise required by projects such meet the needs of this growing region. as the one described above; evaluating The District has provided Dover city plan- dredge and fill applications at the request ners with an extensive preliminary of the Wetlands Board by providing on- evaluation of some 1,750 acres--primari- site evaluation of existing wetland condi- ly wetland. This acreage is being con- tions; and encouraging the reclamation sidered for possible rezoning to of gravel pits through reclamation commercial use. The land evaluation project demonstrations. done by the SCCD will aid city planners 56 Current Plans for Wettand Protection rotection of New State Comprehensive Outdoor Hampshire's wet- Recreation Plan (SCORP) lands is a high priority issue New Hampshire Outdoors 1988 - among many agen- 1993 is New Hampshire's State Com- cies, organizations, prehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and individuals. (SCORP), and serves as the state's official The general public, policy plan for outdoor recreation and for example, is be- natural resource conservation. The 1988 coming increasing- - 1993 SCORP is the ninth such plan ly aware of the issued by the state since the passage of value of wetlands the Federal Land and Water Conservation and is becoming in- Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965, which dictates creasingly con- that each state must have an approved cerned about negative impacts of such SCORP on file with the National Park actions as filling a swamp for develop- Service in order to participate in the ment purposes. Natural resource scien- LWCF program. New Hampshire Out- tists and experts are knowledgeable of doors 1988 - 1993 assesses the quantity the abundance of life in wetlands and of and quality of resources and determines the key role played by wetlands as habitat their adequacy in meeting current and for unusual plant and animal species as future demands. The plan tries to deter- well as entire plant communities. mine what will happen to these resources Sportspersons are keenly aware of the given certain conditions and use pat- role dry land, water, and wetlands play terns. Finally, it identifies major issues in supporting fish and wildlife resources. and options which address these con- Several New Hampshire programs cerns. Wetlands are one such major issue that, in part, have developed priorities discussed in the 1988 - 1993 SCORP. The for wetlands protection are discussed in source of SCORP recommendations for the following paragraphs. Some wetland protection was the 1988 DRAFT programs are long-established while New Hampshire Wetlands Priority Con- others are new and just getting under- servation Plan. Three other issues in the way. Aspects of protection include plan- 1988 - 1993 SCORP (Natural Resource ning, acquisition, and regulation. Protection, Rivers and Lakes, and State Park Resources) contain recommenda- tions that indirectly address wetlands. included among these recommendations 57 are the following: The Legislature should consider The state legislature should make redefining the goals of the state additional funding available to park system to assure the recrea- the Land Conservation Investment tional opportunities and natural Program (LCIP) in order that the area protection values receive the LCIP may successfully carry out its highest priority within the system. mission of protecting land with As RSA 216-A stands now, equal exceptional conservation and priority is given to "unusual recreational value. scenic, scientific, historical, recreational and natural areas." � State agencies should develop The state should continue to their priority lists for use with the maintain the Current Use Law Land Conservation Investment (RSA 79-A), which, in part, Program in acquiring the best and rewards private landowners for most needed protection lands and keeping lands in an undeveloped development rights. These lists state through local property tax should reflect individual agency's reductions. past efforts to name priorities in- cluding, for example, the Division The Fish and Game Department of Parks and RecreatioWs 6-year should develop long-range goals development plan and the State and objectives to meet the needs Parks Policy Plan. of New Hampshire's residents and � The State Land Forest Manage- should increase its emphasis on ment Program should adopt rules nongame and endangered species. for designation of Natural Reserve The Lakes and Great Ponds Repoit Areas on state properties and should serve as an interagency work with the NH Natural guide for lake management, and Heritage Inventory and the NH agencies should continue to take Natural Areas Council to imple- steps to implement its recommen- ment these policies. dations. � New Hampshire state agencies, in The New Hampshire Rivers cooperation with the NH Natural Management and Protection Pro- Areas Council, should examine gram should be fully staffed and their land holdings to determine should aggressively pursue the ob- the presence of unique natural jectives of the program as areas and take adequate measures specified by law. for their long-term protection. When setting priorities for acquir- � The Department of Resources and ing open space, municipalities Economic Development should should consider parcels that in- continue to place priority on the clude streams and ponds, or that acquisition of additional resour- protect lake shore and river cor- ces of either statewide or national ridors. significance, while providing in- Communities should continue to creased opportunities which are encourage private land conserva- compatible with local agency tion practices through existing responsibilities. enabling legislation, such as the current use assessment, sub- 58 division requirements for dedi- at the state and regional levels during cated open space, and through 1986 - 1987 include the following: conservation easements. The Trust for New Hampshire � The state's major private conser- Lands aided in developing vation organizations, including priorities, inventory information, the Audubon Society of New and a formal program for the Hampshire, The Nature Conser- major land protection/acquisition vancy, the Society for the Protec- effort. tion of New Hampshire Forests, The Office of State Planning, and the Appalachian Mountain using digitized mapped layers, Club should continue their efforts prepared maps and analyses for to protect valuable natural resour- the Squam Lake watershed as a ces and to promote the same basis for developing a manage- through such means as volunteer ment plan for this watershed its naturalist programs. wetlands, water bodies, and' re- � Private landowners should volun- lated boundaries. tarily protect unique natural The Office of State Planning es- resources which occur on their tablished draft criteria and a pro- properties, seeking the advice of cedure for designating lakes, knowledgeable people such as the sub-areas of lakes and river New Hampshire Natural Heritage stretches as water areas deserving Inventory staff. protection (this study responds � The National Park Service should directly to the requirements of increase its efforts to implement Chapter 190, Laws of the 1986 the National Natural Landmarks Session of the General Court). Program by providing, for ex- Actions on the state level taken ample, state grants for inventory during the biennium (July 1987 - June work and adequate federal staff- 1989) include the following: ing levels to review recommenda- tions for landmark designation. With the $20 million budget ap- propriated to the Land Conserva- tion Investment Program, New Hampshire Outdoor acquired lands and interest in Recreation Action Program lands of statewide, and local con- (NHORAP) servation and recreation impor- tance. Recreation in Action 1987 - 1989 also Pursued opportunities for the ac- encompasses issues of importance con- quisition of critical and prime cerning outdoor recreation, environmen- wildlife habitat, in order to tal protection, and natural resource preserve the quality and quantity conservation. The NHORAP focuses on of such vital resources. activities that were actually implemented in response to those issues identified in Provided assistance to local com- the SCORP, and on actual activities to be munities in the acquisition of par- undertaken during the upcoming bien- cels identified by the New nium. Accomplishments related to Hampshire Natural Heritage In- natural resource and wetlands protection ventory. 59 It should be noted that wetlands are Cheshire County Conservation Dis- also a priority on the local level. With trict - Identified, mapped, and development pressures on the rise, a evaluated the City of Keene's wet- number of towns, working through their lands to determine which wet- Conservation Commissions, are involved lands should be included in the in acquiring wetland acreage, obtaining open space portion of this City's conservation easements on parcels abut- master plan. ting wetlands, and developing wetland Pemigewasset River Council - An overlay maps for wetland zoning district organization established by repre- purposes. Some wetland related actions sentatives from 9 communities to implemented on the local level during promote the coordination of river 1986-1987 include: corridor management along the � Concord City Council - Adopted a Pemigewasset River. With assis- modified version of a wetlands tance from the Belknap County zoning overlay district developed Conservation District and the by the Concord Conservation Lakes Region Planning Commis- Commission in conjunction with sion, the Council developed and the city's Economic Development subsequently proposed to each Advisory Council. community an overlay zoning dis- trict to help protect and preserve � Dublin Conservation Commission - water quality and the river's Developed a shallow "shoreline shoreline. To date, 6 of the 9 conservation district," based on a towns have adopted this overlay model created by the Lakes Region plan. Planning Commission, to preserve in addition numerous towns were water quality and prevent indis- criminate development around 6 successful in designating certain wet- major lakes in the community. lands in their communities as "prime" Town of Hampton Falls - Utilizing under RSA 483-A:7. a dike and a water control struc- ture, restored a wetlands area in New Hampshire Fish and Hampton Falls to its original state Game Department Waterfowl as a prime wetland habitat. Management Plan City of Nashua - Conducted a pro- gram which identified and as- This Management Plan provides sessed the city's prime wetlands general recommendations and objectives and which resulted in recommen- for the management of waterfowl and dations for improving local land their habitat in New Hampshire. The use regulations for wetland areas. plan outlines general recommendations Strafford Conservation Commis- and utilizes these recommendations to sion - With assistance from the develop management plans specific to Strafford Regional Planning Com- each Waterfowl Management Area regu- mission, prepared a wetlands in- lated by the Fish and Game Department. ventory and maps for use in the Components of the plan associated with master plan. waterfowl habitat management in- clude:'9 60 � Waterfowl Habitat Conservation - tion, management, and restoration is the The acquisition of quality wetland New Hampshire Migratory Waterfowl habitat (marshlands, beaver Stamp and Print Program (RSA 214: 1 -d). ponds, beaver flowages, wooded These funds are placed in the nonlapsing or shrub swamps) is a high Waterfowl Conservation Account. With priority. All wetland acquisitions the tightening of matching federal Pitt- should include, where possible, a man-Robertson Funds, the Waterfowl 300-foot wide upland buffer zone Conservation Account will continue to be around the wetland. A listing of the primary funding source for acquiring Fish and Game Waterfowl wetlands and protective upland buffer Management Areas Requiring zones at established Fish and Game Habitat Acquisitions is found in Waterfowl Management Areas. Table 11. � Waterfowl Habitat Management and Restoration - Focus is put on Water Resources those factors considered to be Management Plan limiting waterfowl utilization of Recognizing the interdependence be- an area. Habitat management and tween different water uses and users restoration practices addressed in the plan include water depth con- within the state, the 1983 Legislative Ses- tour map and vegetation cover sion passed Chapter 402. This legisla- type map development, water tion directed the Water Resources Board level manipulation, food and to work with a special legislative subcom- cover enhancement, and protec- mittee and other agencies to develop tion of upland areas within 300 preliminary priority water use policies feet of wetland edge. and an allocation plan. The resulting � Beaver Pipe Program - Ap- Water Resources Management Plan is an proximately 300-400 acres of wet- evaluation of specific issues, objectives, lands are maintained through this authority,.programs, and actions related program annually. The program to conserving, protecting, allocating, and maintains beaver impoundments otherwise managing water resources. on public/publicly managed land Under this plan, water use is divided while preventing undesirable into seven specific sections: wetlands; flooding and retains wetlands that fish and wildlife; agriculture and otherwise would be drained. forestry; land use; energy production; � Technical Assistance - When re- recreation; and domestic, industrial and quested, technical assistance is commercial use. With respect to wet- provided to federal, state, and lands, the plan stresses the desirability town conservation agencies as for wetland protection to start with well as to sportsperson's groups educating property owners on the func- for wetland acquisition and any tional roles of wetlands and the public management/restoration projects benefits associated with these functions. involving waterfowl habitat. The plan also recommends that land- Within the New Hampshire Fish and owners and local government bodies be Game Department, the major source of encouraged to develop and to implement funds for waterfowl habitat conserva- their own guidelines and measures to protect significant wetlands. In addition, 61 Table 11 FISH AND GAME WATERFOWL MANAGEMENT AREAS REQUIRING HABITAT ACQUISITION Airport Marsh Whitefield Cascade Marsh Sutton Danbury Bog Danbury Farrar Marsh Hillsborough Hoit Road Marsh Concord/Loudon Knights Meadow Marsh Webster Little Cohas Marsh Londonderry McDaniels Marsh Springfield/Grafton Merrymeeting Marsh Alton/New Durham Perkins Marsh Weare Rowbartwood Marsh Campton Gallop Marsh Unity/Lempster Goodrich Marsh Epping Source: "Waterfowl Management Plan." Concord, NH: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, March 1987. it is recommended that the state, through regional measures for protection of both the Wetlands Board, develop stronger, groundwater and surface water. clearer, and timelier enforcement During the prograrn@s first year, The methods to ensure adequate wetland Office of State Planning (OSP) developed protection.80 draft criteria for local water resource management and protection plans with Water Protection the input of regional planning agencies, Assistance Program the legislators who sponsored the original bill, and other state agencies The Water Protection Assistance Pro- with water related interests. Through gram was established by Chapter 167 of Chapter 283 of the Laws of 1987, the the Laws of 1986. The purpose of this legislature consolidated the statutes program is to encourage and assist relating to OSP into a single statute, RSA municipalities individually and, where 4-C. Amendments were made to RSA appropriate, collectively to evaluate their 4-C:19-22 at that time which resulted in water resources and to develop local and a number of changes within the Water 62 Protection Assistance Program. Among Chapter 346 of the Laws of 1989 these changes was the requirement that made further amendments to the Water OSP adopt rules relative to criteria for Protection Assistance Program. The most water protection to guide municipalities significant was to change the require- in the development of local water ment that OSP adopt administrative rules resource management and protection 11relative to criteria for water protection plans. OSP was also required to review and suggested model language" to rules all such plans and zoning ordinances "to serve as a guide to municipalities." proposed to implement the plans for con- Another change was to remove the re- sistency with these rules. quirement for an OSP consistency review The rules for local water plans be- of water related zoning ordinances prior came effective January 20, 1988. During to their local adoption. OSP will revise 1988 and 1989, with funding through the rules for local water plans to reflect OSP, the nine established regional plan- these changes. The Water Protection As- ning agencies assisted member sistance Program will continue to offer municipalities in the preparation of technical planning assistance to twenty local water resource management municipalities throughout the fiscal year and protection plans. OSP reviewed a 1990 and 1991 biennium. This will be total of twenty-one local water plans for done primarily through the regional consistency with the rules, prior to their planning agencies, with funds ap- adoption. Forty-seven zoning ordinan- propriated for that purpose, under the ces intended to protect water resources administration of OSP. were also reviewed by OSP during that time period. This review was to deter- New Hampshire Natural mine if the proposed ordinance was con- Heritage Inventory sistent with the municipality's local water plan. Where a community did not Under Chapter 195 of the 1986 Ses- have a distinct local water plan, OSP sion of the General Court, a New reviewed the ordinance for consistency Hampshire Natural Heritage inventory with the municipality's current master (NHNHI) was established within the plan. When a proposed ordinance was Department of Resources and Economic found to not be consistent with the plan, Development (DRED). The NHNHI's OSP was able to provide guidance to the main purpose is to "identify, designate, municipality relative to amendments that and preserve unique and rare plant and could be made to the master plan to animal species and geologic formations include the basis for the ordinance prior which constitute the natural heritage of to its adoption. A total of 47 water re- the state." The program focuses on lated zoning ordinances were reviewed protecting the best examples of the prior to March 1989 town meeting. This state's natural diversity, using the natural included 20 wetlands protection ordinan- heritage inventory system developed by ces as well as 15 aquifer protection or- The Nature Conservancy. dinances, 3 shoreland protection Under the program, information col- ordinances, and 9 other ordinances in- lected through intensive studies of New tended to somehow manage or protect Hampshire's rare plant and animal water resources. species, and exemplary natural com- munities are transferred to a computer 63 data base. This data base stores informa- mation from this inventory could also be tion on the state's 400 threatened, en- made available to communities as an aid dangered, or special interest plant and to potential prime wetlands designation. animal species and 70 types of significant Using existing Heritage Inventory habitats. This information may be data, the NHNHI has identified several retrieved by geographic area (town, wetlands which meet acquisition criteria park), ecological community (bogs, set forth in the US Fish and Wildlife watersheds), species name, legal status Service's National Wetlands Priority Con- (state or federal endangered status) ' or servation Plan (developed in accordance date of information. The inventory data with Section 301 of the Emergency Wet- is important in helping to determine lands Resources Act of 1986). These whether proposed projects may affect priority wetlands are: rare species or exceptional communities. Data is also available for conservationists Manchester Cedar Manchester to use to help focus preservation efforts Swamp (30 acres) on those species or habitats most critical- Deerfield Black Gum Deerfield ly threatened. Researchers may also take Swamp (25 acres) advantage of the existing knowledge on inventoried elements. The process of Route 145 Fen Stewartstown data compilation and verification is an (10 acres) ongoing one, with the data bank being Lancaster Bog Lancaster continuously updated and improved. (20 acres) The NHNHl along with The Nature Hampton Marsh Hampton/ Conservancy, a national nonprofit con- (1,770 acres) Hampton Falls servation organization, have the neces- Fremont Spruce Fremont sary expertise to identify wetlands with Swamp (500 acres) ecologically significant attributes but Avery's Northern White Clarksville lack the staff resources to carry out this Cedar Swamp type of research at the present time. Con- (20 acres) tingent upon procuring new funding Hurlbert Swamp Stewartstown sources that would support additional (400 acres) /Clarksville staff, NHNHI and The Nature Conservan- Pine River Area Effingham/ cy propose to undertake a three-phase (1,670 acres) Ossipee statewide wetlands inventory for the Rochester Heath Bog Rochester presence of rare species and exemplary (200 acres) natural communities. Although work on Durham Point Sedge Newmarket identifying wetlands in New Hampshire continues under the National Wetlands Meadow (15 acres) Inventory Project, there is little informa- tion presently available on measuring their comparative ecological value. Governor's Conference on Under the proposal, the Natural Heritage Outdoor Recreation Inventory staff would supply data and expertise and The Nature Conservancy In April 1986, Governor Sununu chal- staff and interns would carry out the field lenged the Conference on New surveys and report preparation. Infor- Hampshire's Outdoor Recreation Future 64 "to find creative ways to build on New The findings and recommendations Hampshire's legacy of outdoor successes contained in No Accidental Successes and to ensure for future generations were also utilized in the updating of the quality of life for its residents, quality of state's outdoor recreation plan, New service to its visitors, and quality of en- Hampshire Outdoors 1988 - 1993. The vironment for all." The report No Ac- plan should advance some of the ideas cidental Successes summarizes the which as Governor Sununu observed at one-day conference and is analyzed rela- the Conference, "may not guarantee suc- tive to wetlands priorities in this section. cess, but will certainly improve the odds" The Conference assembled 124 par- of attaining an overall quality of life. ticipants from around the state to discuss issues and come up with solutions to New Hampshire State problems relating to the general subject Development Plan of outdoor recreation. Participants in- cluded recreationists, historic preser- The Office of State Planning is vationists, educators, legislators, private charged with writing New Hampshire's industry persons, and public agency rep- State Development Plan This document resentatives. The resource conservation is an extension of the policy development community was well represented. work undertaken by the Council on Although the Conference focused Resources and Development in 1985 at primarily on the active use of resources the Governor's request. An analysis of for recreational purposes, four of the fif- the "Issues, Goals, Policies, and Im- teen issues addressed areas concerning plementing Actions" section of the Plan the general well being of the state's show the priority of wetland protection natural resources, including wetlands. relative to other statewide planning The issue of resource protection needs. The Plan drew upon several pre- generated recommendations to counter vious planning efforts, including the resource deterioration, mismanagement, State's Comprehensive Outdoor Recrea- vandalism, pollution, and encroachment. tion Plan, New Hampshire Outdoors The quality of New Hampshire's UUL- 1983. doors was an issue which drew recom- The lead-off issue in the Plan addres- mendations for an increased promotion, ses the need for a clean environment and presumably at all levels of government for open space. It talks of, among other and in private industry, of a land protec- things, the many acres of wetlands and tion ethic. People should become more flood plain lost annually. Traditional aware of the inherent value of our prized land use practices are identified as natural resources, including wetlands. having potential for degrading environ- Water for recreation and for fish and mental quality. The Plan identifies the wildlife habitat were two interdependent potential culprits of this degradation in- issues which linked the resource base and cluding pesticides, fertilizer, road salt, people use. Wetlands support the fuel storage tanks, and solvents from nor- growth and health of both game and mal household use. nongame species of wildlife and should Wetlands are addressed by two policy be recognized for that quality. statements in the Plan under the goal to preserve, protect and improve New 65 Hampshire's natural, recreational and resource value is presence of wetlands. scenic resources. The first policy is to Almost any river or lake possesses wet- wisely manage agricultural, forest, land edges or more extensive wetland water, and other natural resources areas away from the water's edge. within the state to ensure their long-term Depending on its extent, diversity, or availability. Here, the Plan stresses the habitat type, wetlands can be the most need to expand information and educa- important reason for a river or lake being tion programs (which address the quality designated by this program. River flood of New Hampshire's wetlands, streams, plains and bog-pond systems are ex- and lakes) to resource users such as log- amples of this value. gers, woodlot owners, industry, and Currently, the workability of the others. Rivers and Lakes Protection Program is The second policy under this section being tested by the nomination for of the Plan is to protect and preserve protected status of a stretch of the Mer- unique natural resources such as valu- rimack River from Franklin to Concord. able wetlands and features of botanical, This nomination, which the Office of zoological, and geological significance. State Planning is studying at the request To help in this effort, the Plan recom- of the Governor, will address wetland mends compiling data pertaining to wet- resources and make recommendations lands and incorporating it into a for their protection. geographic based information system (GRANIT) for future use. The plan specifies the need to develop funding New Hampshire Rivers strategies and other innovative techni- Management and Protection ques to acquire or protect environmental- Program ly sensitive lands such as wetlands. The 1988 legislature passed a law (RSA 227-F) which established a New New Hampshire Rivers and Hampshire Rivers Management and Lakes Protection Program Protection Program within the Depart- ment of Environmental Services. This The 1986 session of the New legislation establishes a process whereby Hampshire legislature passed a law New Hampshire organizations and resi- authorizing the Council on Resources dents may nominate any river or river and Development to set up a process by segment for special designation and which certain rivers and lakes could be protection by the state legislature. designated as water areas deserving Under this law, the Rivers Coor- protection. The Office of State Planning dinator, with assistance from the Office provided the staff to develop the June, of State Planning, must develop detailed 1988 Rivers and Lakes Protection Pro- guidelines for river corridor management gram. This proposed designation process plans. Protection of wetlands and flood outline serves as the basis for this report. plains must be included in these manage- The Rivers and Lakes Protection ment plans. Groups that nominate rivers Progra s planning process measures the will be encouraged, as part of the desig- value of these water areas using a wide nation process, to adopt river corridor variety of parameters. One natural management plans. The New Hampshire 66 Rivers Management and Protection- mit. Rules changes in the area of mitiga- Program is also designed to complement tion continue to be considered which and reinforce existing state and federal would realistically help to further wet- water quality laws, including the Fill and lands protection. Dredge in Wetlands Law (RSA 483-A). The Coastal Program has already identified those areas which it considers most ecologically sensitive, and will con- New Hampshire Coastal tinue to encourage cooperative efforts to Program protect these areas. Such cooperative ef- As an integrated, multidisciplinary forts will involve the state's Natural approach to coastal management, the Heritage Inventory, the private Trust for New Hampshire Coastal Program reviews New Hampshire Lands and its public the issues which have emerged since its counterpart the Land Conservation In- inception in 1983. vestment Program, the Society for the Discussion of wetland priorities for Protection of New Hampshire Forests, the New Hampshire Coastal Program is and the Audubon Society of New drawn from the recently published "Final Hampshire. Emerging Coastal Issues Paper." This Wetlands mapping has been ex- paper describes the Coastal Program. In panded from the original seven practice, the Coastal Program staff offers municipalities to seventeen. The addi- expertise in wetlands ecology and works tional 10 municipalities are those as- closely with municipal planning boards, sociated with Great and Little Bays. conservation commissions, developers, These maps will continue to provide and others in helping to protect the baseline information for planning pur- public interest in wetlands. The staff poses. works with the Wetlands Board in promoting the wise use and regulation of Great Bay National Estuarine coastal wetlands. Research Reserve Four of the nine identified issues listed in the paper directly involve wet- The purpose of the Great Bay Es- lands: 1) wetlands mitigation and tuarine Research Reserve is to establish replication procedures related to dredge a coordinated program of research, and fill activities; 2) saltmarsh restora- education, and resource protection for tion; 3) identification of ecologically sen- the Great Bay estuarine system. The land sitive areas; and 4) wetlands mapping. and water boundary of the Research One instance of saltmarsh restoration in- Reserve encompasses a system of five volved illegal filling of about one-eighth identified key land and water areas acre of marshland with a subsequent around the estuary: Adams Point in Dur- court-ordered removal of the fill and res- ham; Crommet Creek in Durham; Lubber- toration of the marsh. land Creek in Newmarket; salt marshes Mitigation measures may be as- abutting the Squamscott River in sociated with the Wetlands Board permit- Stratham, Newfields, and Newmarket; ting process and may involve restoration and Pease Air Force Base lands abutting of wetlands and creation of new wetlands Great Bay, principally in Newington. areas as conditions attached to the per- The water portion consists of all of Great 67 Bay, the small channel from the Winnicut Land Conservation River and the larger channels from the Investment Program Squamscott and Lamprey Rivers. The Great Bay Research Reserve encompasses The LCIP was created by the New 4,471 acres of tidal water, 800 acres of Hampshire General Court in its 1987 ses- upland, 502 acres of tidal wetlands and sion. The law appropriated $20 million 456 acres of freshwater wetlands. The over a two-year period to be used for, Reserve has now acquired a total of four among other purposes, acquiring lands easements around Great Bay to date, set- and interests in lands of statewide, ting aside 266 acres for research I educa- regional and local importance. These tion, and interpretation. Acquisition of lands as defined by statute "may include an additional 6 easements is planned in ... plant and wildlife habitat, wetlands,... the next year and a half. and other important open space and Although the Reserve Program is not natural resource conservation areas." programmatically a part of the Coastal Legislation passed during the 1989 Legis- Program at the federal level, the Office of lative Session appropriated an additional State Planning has closely linked the pro- $18 million to fund the LCIP for an addi- gram administratively and coordinated tional two years. and integrated the Coastal and Estuarine The draft rules for the Land Conser- Research Reserve Program policies and vation Investment Program were adopted objectives. Federal funds are being util- by the LCIP Board of Directors in early ized by OSP to finalize the planning January, 1988. Final administrative phases of the Program and to acquire rules governing the operation of the pro- conservation easements on privately gram were adopted and made effective owned lands which were identified as key on April 20, 1988. The LCIP rules set up land and water sites within Great Bay. a detailed criteria point system to rank Approximately $1,000,000 in federal properties according to their land quality funds has been committed for acquisition attributes. The criteria ranking will be of key land and water area easements. In used with other decision making factors addition to acquisition funds, ap- to determine which projects are funded proximately $50,000 per year in federal through the LCIP. The criteria categories funds will be provided over the next 5 for both statewide and local lands in- years to support the establishment and clude: property size, water resource operation of the Great Bay Estuarine Re- frontage, recreation, wildlife habitat, search Reserve. scenic/historic/natural area v *alues, OSP has served as the lead agency for public water supply, prime agricultural planning and acquisition phases and will soils, productive forests, scientific site, maintain an active role in the implemen- threat of development, and wetlands. tation phases of the Program. However, because of the increasing emphasis on resource management as the Program develops, the Fish and Game Department will assume the role of lead agency to implement the research, education, and resource protection activities beginning July 1, 1989. 68 Recommendations s directed by the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, this report has investigated the status of wetlands and finds that, in addition to other valuable roles, wetlands serve as an important recreational resource for the State of New Hampshire. This report has defined wetlands, has quantified the state's wetlands resources and has looked at various programs which are involved in protect- ing those wetlands. Specific plans and programs which contain evidence of setting their own wetlands priorities have been reviewed. The following recommendations are made to address the wetlands protection issue: As recommended in the February 1989 "Report of the Wetlands Review Committee": a) Legislative action should be considered that will modify the definition of wetland from one based on vegetation, to one that requires meeting two out of three criteria based on vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Such a change would reduce the confusion for applicants who are familiar with the federal definition. b) Legislative action should be taken to increase staffing at the Wetlands Bureau. c) The Wetlands Bureau should provide increased support to both applicants and conservation commissions in the form of published review criteria, industry/project specific informational meetings, and workshops on wet- lands identification. The Wetlands Bureau should also increase its field presence throughout the State. d) Because review criteria are based on approved rules, the Wetlands Board and the Wetlands Bureau should continue to work together to expand and refine the rules so that they are current and complete. Possible areas requiring new rules are criteria for streams and rivers, criteria for forestry operations, and treatment of aesthetic considerations. e) The Wetlands Bureau's current efforts to computerize the application review process should be continued and expanded. tl 69 f) The Wetlands Bureau should continue its efforts to attain an ideal turn- around time for projects which have a complete application and in which the local conservation commission has not intervened. �Legislative action should be taken to increase the Wetlands Board's capabilities in analyzing existing data to determine trends in wetlands loss/degradation. �The Wetlands Bureau should expand its successful pre-application site review program (currently confined to seacoast communities) to include those projects in other parts of the state which are classified as major. �The Wetlands Bureau should develop and adopt wetland mitigation guidelines for cases where alternatives to wetlands encroachment are not practicable. These guidelines would establish mitigation standards for'the replacement of lost or degraded wetlands. �The Department of Resources and Economic Development, through its New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory, should work closely with the Wetlands- Bureau staff to identify and protect those wetlands containing rare or declining native plant and animal species,and exemplary natural communities. �The New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory should attempt to secure additional funding in order to hire sufficient personnel to conduct an inventory of wetlands in New Hampshire to determine which wetlands possess ecologically significant attributes. This inventory would include: a) compilation of data already available on rare species and exemplary natural communities as they occur in wetlands of the state. b) targeting wetlands that are potentially ecologically significant through the use of aerial photos and other available information. c) measuring inventoried wetlands against the criteria listed in the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan with respect to rare species and com- munities. d) preparation of a list of priority wetlands that meet the threshold criteria of the National Wetlands Priori!y Conservation Plan and possess ecologically significant attributes. �The New Hampshire Coastal Program should investigate the cumulative impacts of development projects on coastal wetlands and develop recommendations for assess- ment and review. �The New Hampshire Coastal Program should draft policy recommendations which respond to the projected rise in sea-level. �The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department should work closely with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the preparation of the USFWS's Wetlands Concept Plan for the Northeast Region. �The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department should continue to make acquisi- tion of wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat a high priority, and should continue to make use of available federal and state funding sources. 70 �The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department should conclude its two year effort to develop its wetland acquisition priority system as part of a priority system for all types of habitats. �The Department of Environmental Services, through its New Hampshire Rivers Management and Protection Program, should strongly encourage groups that nominate rivers under this Program to adopt river corridor management plans which include wetlands and flood plain protection measures. �The Department of Resources and Economic Development and the Office of State Planning should consider modifying the Land and Water Conservation Fund's Open Project Selection Process selection criteria to reflect the findings of this report. Consideration should be given to awarding selection criteria points to proposed acquisitions of prime wetlands designated by municipalities, and to proposed acquisitions of wetlands identified by state agencies as being of special importance to fish and wildlife or to the state's natural heritage. �The Department of Resources and Economic Development's Division of Parks and Recreation should review the State Parks Development Plan, and should consider amending the Plan to enable the acquisition of certain priority wetland types. Amending the Plan will assure that representative wetlands of sufficient size will be protected. �The Office of State Planning, when preparing the State Development Plan should incorporate, to the extent possible, the findings of this report in addressing the importance of wetlands to the state's natural resource base. �The Office of State Planning should continue its role as the lead agency coordinat- ing the development of the New Hampshire GRANIT geographic data base. This multi-state agency effort to develop a data base (which will include hydrography, wetlands, flood plain, Natural Heritage Inventory, and wildlife habitat data layers) is important to the development of a GIS-based wetland mapping system which would provide a basis for trend studies to determine accurately the rates of wetland loss or conversion, and to identify regions of critical concern. �Through the Natural Areas Council, state agencies and conservation organizations should continue to coordinate their natural resource protection strategies and programs, including wetlands protection. �Municipalities, through their Conservation Commissions, should continue to iden- tify and map prime wetlands. Results from prime wetland studies can then benefit both local resource protection planning efforts and state wetlands protection programs. �Municipalities that have not gone through the prime wetlands designation process should seek advice from those municipalities that have. Although the needed wetland studies under the provisions of RSA 483-A:7 are extensive, conducting the studies and obtaining the data need not be a difficult or costly task. Those communities that have successfully gone through the designation process are an invaluable source of information on how to conduct a prime wetland study at a minimal cost. 71 The US Fish and Wildlife Service Region Office should become more involved in providing technical and financial assistance to states with respect to wetlands protection, so both the state and federal wetland priority conservation plans can be more meaningful. The US Fish and Wildlife Service should develop a program of assistance (as scheduled in the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan that will assist states, both financially and technically, in maintaining and further refining a comprehensive state wetlands planning component. 72 APPENDIX A SECTION 303 OF THE EMERGENCY WETLANDS RESOURCES ACT OF 1986 SEC. 303 INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE OUTDOOR RECREATION PLANS. Section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 USC 4601-8) is amended - 1. in subsection (d), by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: "For fiscal year 1988 and thereafter each comprehensive state-wide outdoor recreation plan shall specifically address wetlands within that State as an important outdoor recreation resource as a prerequisite to approval, except that a revised comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan shall not be required by the Secretary, if a State submits, and the Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, approves, as a part of and as an addendum to the existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan, a wetlands priority plan developed in consultation with the State agency with responsibility for fish and wildlife resources and consistent with the national wetlands priority conservation plan developed under section 301 of the Emer- gency Wetlands Resources Act or, if such national plan has not been completed, consistent with the provisions of that section"; 2. in subsection (e) (i), by inserting, in the first sentence thereof, after "For the acquisition of land, waters, or interests in land or waters" the following: ", or wetland areas and interests therein as identified in the wetlands provisions of the comprehensive plan"; and 3. in subsection (f) (3), by adding at the end thereof the following: ":provided, that wetland areas and interests therein as identified in the wetlands provisions of the comprehensive plan and proposed to be acquired as suitable replacement property within that same State that is otherwise acceptable to the Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, shall be considered to be of reasonably equivalent usefulness with the property proposed for conversion." 73 APPENDIX B THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WETLANDS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM SIMPLIFIED 1. MARINE SYSTEM/Coastal Saltwater Wetlands The Marine system includes the open ocean, from the outer edge of the continental shelf to the landward limit of the extreme high water of spring tides and the splash zone of breaking waves. A. SUBTIDAL SUBSYSTEM/Open Saltwater Subtidal refers to areas continually covered by saltwater. The underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Rock Bottom: Associated species: American lobster, tunicate, and sea urchin, encrusting sponge. Unconsolidated Bottom: Associated species: brittle star, amphipods, and clam worm. Aquatic Bed: Associated species: kelp, turtlegrass. Reef. Associated species: oysters, tube-worms. B. INTERTIDAL SUBSYSTEM/Tidal Flat and Low Salt Marsh Intertidal refers to areas flooded and exposed twice daily with the tides, including the splash zone of breaking waves. The underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Aquatic Bed: Associated species: oysters, tube-worm and reef worm. Rocky Shore: Associated species: barnacle, blue mussel, peri-winkle, limpet. Unconsolidated Shore: Associated species: soft shell clam, quahog, sea anemone, clam worm, false angel wing and blood worm. 11. ESTUARINE SYSTEM/Tidal Saltwater Wetlands The estuarine system is the area where saltwater and freshwater meet, and is likely to be more sheltered from wave action than the marine system. It extends inland to the area of a stream, bay or sound where ocean salt measures less than 0.5 percent during annual low flow periods. The seaward limit of an estuary is determined by the mouth of the river, bay or sound, or by the seaward limit of emergent wetland plants, shrubs or trees. Off-shore areas where ocean waters are continually diluted by freshwater are also in the estuarine system. A. SUBTIDAL SUBSYSTEM/Tidal Flat and Low Salt Marsh These areas are continually covered by water. The underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Rock Bottom: Associated species: seawhip, tunicate. Unconsolidated Bottom: (Beaches and flats) Associated species: sand dollar, soft-shell clam, clam worm. 74 Aquatic Bed: Associated species: marine algae, rockweed and eelgrass. Reef. Associated species: oysters, tube-worm and reefworm. B. INTERTIDAL SUBSYSTEM/Tidal Flats, Low Salt Marsh and High Salt Marsh, Wooded Swamp These areas are flooded and exposed twice daily by the tides. The underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Aquatic Bed: Associated species: rockweed, eelgrass. Reef. Associated species: oyster, tube-worm and reef worm. Streambed: Associated species: mollusk, mussel, ghost shrimp, mud snail. Rocky Shore: Associated species: barnacle and limpet. Unconsolidated Shore: (Beaches, bars and flats) Associated species: soft-shell clam, quahog, blood worm, fiddler crab, clam worm, blue mussel, mud snail. Emergent Wetland: (Salt marshes or meadows) Associated species: saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens), needle rush, salicornia, narrow-leaved cattail, saltmarsh aster, bulrush. Vegeta- tion in some estuarine emergent wetlands is destroyed by ice in winter. Scrub-Shrub Wetland: Associated species: sea myrtle and marsh elder. Forested WetlandlWooded Swamp: Associated species: red maple, Atlantic Coast White cedar. 111. RIVERINE SYSTEM/R iver- Related Inland Freshwater Wetlands The riverine system includes all channels that usually contain flowing water, or that connect two bodies or standing water. The limits of the system are: channel banks or levees; areas dominated by tree, shrubs or persistent emergents (plant species that usually remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season); areas where the stream flows into a lake; or where ocean-derived salt in the water reaches 0.5 percent during low flow periods. A. TIDAL SUBSYSTEM/Tidal River Wetlands This encompasses channels that are generally flat. The rate of stream flow fluctuates with tidal action. Streambeds are usually mud with some sand. Salinity due to ocean-derived salts is less than O.S percent. Underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Rock Bottom: Associated species: freshwater sponge, brook leech. Unconsolidated Bottom: Associated species: freshwater mollusk, sewage worm. Aquatic Bed: Associated species: water lettuce, duckweed, watermeal, bladder- wort. Rocky Shore: Associated species: liverwort, lichen. Unconsolidated Shore: Associated species: freshwater mollusk, crayfish. Emergent Wetland: in the riverine system, only nonpersistent species occur (Species of which there is no evidence during some seasons of the year). Associated species: pickerel weed, arrow arum, arrowhead. 75 B. LOWER PERENNIAL SUBSYSTEM/Nontidal River Wetlands Channels are generally flat. Slow-moving water flows year-round. There is no tidal influence. Streambeds are mostly sand and mud. Low oxygen levels occur. Underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Rock Bottom: Associated species: brook leech. Unconsolidated Bottom: Associated species: freshwater mollusk, sewage worm. Aquatic Bed: Associated species: water lettuce, duckweed, watermeals, blad- der-wort. Rocky Shore: Associated species: liverwort, lichen. Unconsolidated Shore: Associated species: freshwater mollusk, crayfish. Emergent Wetland: In the riverine system, only nonpersistent emergent plants are found. Associated species: pickerel weed, arrow arum, arrowhead. C. UPPER PERENNIAL SUBSYSTEM/Fast Moving River Wetlands Channels are generally sloped. Fast-moving water flows year-round. There is no tidal influence. Streambeds are mostly rock, cobbles, or gravel with some sand. Oxygen levels are high. Underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Rock Bottom: Associated species: water penny, caddis fly, stonefly, mayfly, blackfly, crayfish. Unconsolidated Bottom: Associated species: stonefly, midge, caddis fly, pond snail, scud, freshwater mollusk, freshwater sponge. Aquatic Bed: Vegetation is less likely to occur in the upper perennial subsystem because of fastmoving water. Associated species: moss, stonewort. Rocky Shore: Associated species: liverwort, lichen. Unconsolidated Shore: Associated species: freshwater mollusk, fingernail clam, leech, snails. D. INTERMITTENT SUBSYSTEM/Seasonal or Irregularly Flooded Stream Inland Wetlands Channels contain nontidal water which does not flow year-round. When water is not flowing there may be isolated pools, or the channel may have no water present. Underlying strata will be: Streambed: Channels that are dry at times. Bottoms could be either bedrock, cobble-gravel, sand, mud or organic matter. Associated speices: snails, oligochaete worm, mayfly, midge, mosquito, fingernail clam. IV. LACUSTRINE SYSTEM/Lake- Related Inland Freshwater Wetlands The lacustrine system includes wetlands and deepwater habitats that occur either in a depression or a dammed river channel which contain only nonpersistent emergent plants. The system includes both freshwater lakes and tidal lakes with less than 0.5 percent ocean-derived salts. Generally, lacustrine systems are larger than 20 acres, including open water, and have considerable areas of deep water with wave action. The limits of the system are areas where the water body is bound by upland or persistently vegetated wetlands, the normal spillway level of a dammed river or the area where a river enters a lake. 76 A. LIMNETIC SUBSYSTEMS/Deepwater Lakes All deepwater lakes. Some lacustrine systems do not have a limnetic area (limnetic refers to open water, generally deeper than 6.6 feet). Underlying strat could be any of the following classes: Rock Bottom: Associated species: freshwater sponge, brook leech. Unconsolidated Bottom: Assocaited species: freshwater mollusk, fingernail clam. Aquatic Bed: Associated species: duckweed, stonewort, aquatic moss. B. LITTORAL SUBSYSTEWShallow Lakes This subsystem includes all lake-related wetlands in the lacustrine system from the upland limits of nonpersistent emergent plants to the deepest occurrence containing nonpersistent emergent plants, or water at a depth of 6.6 feet, whichever is shallower. Underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Rock Botton: Associated species: freshwater sponge, brook leech. Unconsolidated Bottom: Associated species: freshwater mollusk, fingernail clam, sewage worm. Aquatic Bed: Associated species: duckweed, aquatic moss, stonewort. Rocky Shore: Associated species: caddis fly, freshwater mollusk, fingernail clam, liverwort, lichen. Unconsolidated Shore: Associated species: leech, freshwater mollusk, midge, larvae, goosefoot. Emergent Wetland: In the lacustrine system, only nonpersistent emergent plants are found. Associated species: arrow arum, pickerel weed, arrowheads. V. PALUSTRINE SYSTEM/Marshes, Swamps, Bogs The palustrine system includes all vegetated wetlands whose salinity is less than 0.5 percent. Also included are nonvegetated wetlands that are less than 20 acres; fresh bodies of water shallower than 2 meters (6.6 feet) without wave-formed or bedrock shore features. Underlying strata could be any of the following classes: Rock Bottom: Associated species: freshwater sponge, pond snail, leech, midge. Unconsolidated Bottom: Associated species: freshwater sponge, freshwater mollusk, fingernail clam, oligochaete worm. Aquatic Bed: Associated species: stonewort, aquatic moss, water lilies, pickerel weed. Unconsolidated Shore: Associated species: freshwater mollusk, crayfish, fingernail clam, leech. Moss-Wetlands/Bogs: Associated species: Sphagnurn moss, pitcher plants, sundew. 77 0 z m m c D [n z CD m CD CD EMERGENT WETLAN 3 m 3 PERSISTENT 0 m 00 aq UNCONS =r =r UNCONSOLIDATED c :E SH BOTTOM C> cu (Be 2? (D cu I =3 @g (Tidal P.nd) in CL U) z + In EMERGENT WETLAND CIL rn PERSISTENT QQ QQ m IL CD CIL :E CD 5 c c CD c UNCONS c 1> v '> SO > m P > (Dune) rm m 1, m 1z, 7 m m @O -n , 0 w v 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 In 0 in In la UNCONS U) z UNCONSOLIDATED In m m ID X- x SHORE fD (Beach) > CD 3 U) CD c: m :3 z 0- AOUATIC :E > 0) UNCONS m m BED 2 m SO m REEF (A > c 'o cn DO UNCONSOLIDATED @t z sn BOTTOM m in CIL x CD fD Coffline rn > c 0 -- - ------ n UNCONSOLIDATED (A. SHORE n FORESTED EMERGENT WETLANDI WETLAND NONPERSISTENT 0 0 c :3 > rn UNCONSOLMA AQUATIC BED SHORE cl. M 10 0 @Z- UNCONSOLIDA *0 t UNCONSOLIDATED Oo (D z 22 F> cm @MB 00 @o :E BOTTOM :4 W A - m A Z> > > rn @ > m -I r , BOTTOM -4 , m ! m> >* -.> z \0 z z m mm M z @4 0 m z 0 0 -n 0, x 0 0 0 0 0, 0 X 0 0, ,, 0 0, m 0 0 AQUATIC 0 0 M ca 0 0 0 RED AQUATIC BED > E ERGENT WET NONPERSI 0 EMERGENT WETLAND" z NONPERSISTENT --4 FIG INT EME ER m PE Sl > FORESTED Ic r- WETLAND m cl) SCRUB-SHR m WETLAND z EMERG' NON M..G. I(E P. .C, U) n m SCRUS-S WETLA 0 0 =7 P. llll@ FOREST WETLA CL EMERGENT W CL r PERSIST r 0 CD 0. 0. CD r p V > - 00 Z. A Z 0 -0 0 0 0 SCRUS-S io 'i 0 0 WETL 0: 0 m UNCONSO BOTTO AQUATIC m c: :3 EMERGENT W CL NOMPERSI EMERGENT W m PERSI 0 lo U) to APPENDIX C RARE WETLAND PLANTS LIST This list categorizes New Hampshire's rare wetland plants by broad habitat type. It is meant as a general guide, to be used in conjunction with descriptive field guides and manuals. Note that the habitat types may intergrade, and some plants cited under one category may be found in other wetland habitats as well. Arctic species are excluded from consideration here. Flood plain, riverine, and pond plant species are listed even though the habitat types do not qualify as "prime wetlands", since some of these plants may grow in wetland areas. Species that require calcareous soils will be found primarily in the Connecticut Valley. Some of these species are difficult to identify without help from an experienced botanist. Local botanists, garden clubs, and the botany or environmental studies department of a local university may be able to help. Additional assistance may be available through the NH Natural Heritage Inventory. Coastal Wetlands Including Inter-Tidal Areas Quillworts: Canadian River-bank Quillwort Isoetes riparia Pondweeds: Leafy Pondweed Potamogeton foliosus Water-plantains: Spongy Hooded -arrowroot Lophotocarpus spongiosus Grasses: Salt-meadow Grass Diplachne maritima Alaksan Goose-grass Puccinellia paupercula var. alaskana Sedges: Stout Bulrush Scipus robustus Salt-loving Spike-rush Eleocharis halophila Iris: Slender Blue Flag Iris prismatica Smartweeds: Exserted Knotweed Polygonum emsertum Prolific Knotweed Polygonum prolificum White Dock Rumex pallidus Goosefoot: Dwarf Glasswort Salicornia bigelovii Perennial Glasswort Salicornia virginica Coast-blight Chenopodium rubrum Orpines: Pigmy Weed Tillaea aquatica Milkworts: Cross Polygala Polygala cruciata var. aquilonia Parsley: Eastern Lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis chinensis Primrose: Water-pimpernel Samo lus parviflorus 81 Mints: Hairy Germander Teucrium occidentale var. boreale Figworts: Salt-marsh GerardiA Agalinis maritima Mudwort Limosella subulata Composites: Large Salt Marsh Aster Aster tenuifolius Marsh Elder Ivafrutescens var. oraria Northern White Cedar Swamps Horsetails: Marsh Horsetails Equisetum palustre Sedges: Buxbaum's Sedge Carex buxbaumh Orchids: Calypso, Fairy Slipper Calypso bulbosa Ram's Head Lady's Slipper Cypripedium arietinum Small Yellow Lady's Slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Showy Lady's Slipper Cypripedium reginae Heart-leaved Twayblade Listera cordata Lily-leaved Twayblade Listera convallanioides White Adder's-mouth Malaxis monophylla var. brachypoda Wintergreen Bog Wintergreen Pyrola asarifolia Valerian: Marsh Valerian Valeriana uliginosa Composites: Sweet Coltsfoot Petasites frigidus var. pal matus Other Swamps Pines: Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides Bur-reeds: Bur-reed Sparganium androcladum Sedges: Bebb's Sedge Carex bebbii Orchids: Small Yellow Lady's Slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Showy Lady's Slipper Cypripedium reginae Heart-leaved Twayblade Listera cordata Lily-leaved Twayblade Listera convallanioides Crowfoot: Water-plantain Spearwort Ranunculus ambigens Heath: Huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa var. bigeloviana Pinxter-flower Rhododendron nudiflorum Swamp Azalea Rhododendron viscosum 82 Primrose: Tufted Loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora Gentians: Fringed Gentian Gentiana crinita Milkweeds: Purple Milkweed Asclepias purpurascens Mints: Gypsywort Lycopus rubellus Canadian Germander Teucrium canadense var. svirginicum Madders: Labrador Bedstraw Galium labradoricum Large Marsh-bedstraw Galium obtusum var. ob MUM Harebells: Greater Marsh-bellflower Campanula uliginosa Composites: Climbing Hempweed Mikania scandens Pursh's Goldenrod Solidago, purshii Freshwater Marsh Horsetails: Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre Variegated Horsetail Equisetum variegatum Curly Grass: Climbing Fern Lygodium palmatum Polypody: Netted Chain-fem Woodwardia areolata Grasses: Sharp Flowered Manna-grass Glyceria acutiflora Sedges: Golden-fruited Sedge Carex aurea Lesser Panicled Sedge Carex diandra Inflated Sedge Carex bullata Incurved Umbrella Sedge Cyperus aristatus Wright's Spike-rush Eleocharis diandra Bald Spike-rush Eleocharis erythropoda Neat Spike-rush Eleocharis nitida Ovate Spike-rush Eleocharis ovata var. heuseri Small Spike-rush Eleocharis parvula Few-flowered Spike-rush Eleocharis pauciflora var. fernaldii Tubercled Spike-rush Eleocharis tuberculosa Hair-like Beak-rush Rhynchospora capillacea Lined Bulrush Scirpus pendulus (S. lineatus) Many-leaved Bulrush Scirpus polyphyllus 83 Duckweeds: Star-duckweed Lemma trisulca Duckweed Lemma valdiviana Rushes: Short-fruited Rush Juncus brachycephalus Iris: Slender Blue Flag (calcareous) Iris prismatica Orchids: Small Yellow Lady's Slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Mustards: Spring Cress (calcareous) Cardamine bulbosa Primrose: Tufted Loosestrife Lysimachia thyrsiflora Valerian: March Valerian Valeriana uliginosa Harebells: Brook Lobelia (calcareous) Lobelia kalmii Composites: Small Bidens Bidens discoidea Smooth Bidens Bidens laevis Sweet Coltsfoot (calcareous) Petasites frigidus var. palmatus Bogs/Fens Polypody: Netted Chain-fern Woodwardia areolata Sedges: Meagre Sedge Carex exilis Inflated Sedge Carex bullata Wiegand's Sedge Carex wiegandii Hair-like Beak-rush (calcareous) Rhychospora capillacea Orchids: Arethusa Arethusa bulbosa Loesel's Twayblade Liparis Loeselii Huckleberry Gaylussacia dumosa var. bigeloviana Ponds, Including Edges, Standing Water Clubmoss: Slender Bog Club-moss Lycopodium inundatum var. bigelovii Quillworts: Eaton's Quillwort Isoetes eatoni Engelmann's Quillwort Isoetes engelmanni Large-spored Quillwort Isoetes macrospora Canadian River-bank Quillwort Isoetes riparia Bur-reeds: Bur-reed (calcareous) Sparganium androcladum Broad-fruited Bur-reed Sparganium eurycarpum (calcareous) 84 Pondweeds: Thin-leaved Apline Pondweed (calcareous) Pontamogeton alpinus Northern Slender Pondweed Potamogetonfiliformis var. alpinus Leafy Pondweed (calcareous) Potamogeton foliosus Budding Pondweed Potamogeton pusillus var. gemmiparus One-sided Pondweed Potamogeton lateralis Knotty Pondweed Potamogeton nodosus Sago Pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus Prolonged Pondweed (calcareous) Potamogeton praelongus Vasey's Pondweed - (calcareous) Potamogeton vaseyi Zostera-like Pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis Water Plantains: Wapato (calcareous) Sagittaria cuneata Grasses: Sharp Flowered Manna-grass Glyceria acutiflora Sedges: Buxbaum's Sedge (calcareous) Carex buxboumii Lesser Panicled Sedge Carex diandra Wright's Spike-rush Eleocharis diandra Bald Spike-rush Eleocharis erythropoda Salt-loving Spike-rush Eleocharis halophila Neat Spike-rush Eleocharis nitida Ovate Spike-rush Eleocharis ovata var. heuseri Small Spike-rush Eleocharis parvula Few-flowered Spike-rush Eleocharis pauciflora var. fernaldii Tubercled Spike-rush Eleocharis tuberculosa Small-flowered Hemicarpa Hemicarpa micrantha Pickeral-weeds: Water-stargrass Heteranthera dubia Rushes: Short-fruited Rush (calcareous) Juncus brachycephalus Birch: River Birch Betula nigra Smartweeds: Robust Knotweed Polygonum robustius Water-lilies: Spatter-dock Nuphar advena Tiny Cow-lily Nuphar microphyllum Crowfoot: Water-plantain Spearwort Ranunculus ambigens Stiff Water Crowfoot Ranunculus subrigidus Water Starwort: Alpine Water-Starwort Callitriche anceps 85 Water-Milfoils: Alternate -flowered Milfoil Myriophyllum alter niflorum Farwell's Milfoil Myriophyllum farwelli Mermaid-Weed Proserpinaca pectinata Mare's tails: Mare's-tail Hippuris vulgaris Figworts: Mudwort Limosella subulata False Pimpernel Lindernia anagallidea Harebells: Brook Lobelia Lobelia kalmd Composites: Small Bidens - Bidens discoidea Smooth Bidens Bidens laevis Water Marigold Megalodonta beckii Sclerolepis Sclerolepis uniflora Flood Plains/Riverside Seeps Horsetails: Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre Meadow Horsetail Equisetum pratense Variegated Horsetail Equisetum variegatum Grasses: Neglected Reed Bent-grass Calamagrostis neglecta Sedges: Garber's Sedge Carex garberi var. bifaria Slightly Hairy Sedge Carex hirsutella Hair-like Beak-rush Rhynchospora capillacea Lilies: Sticky False Asphodel Tolieldia glutinosa Orchids: Loesel's Twayblade Liparis Loeselff Shining Lady's-tresses Spiranthes lucida Willows: Heart Shaped Willow SaUx cordata var. abrasa Saxifrage: Grass-Of-Parnassus Parnassia glauca Harebells: Brook Lobelia Lobelia kalmii Composites: Dwarf Ragwort Senecio pauperculus Streams and Rivers, Including Edges Quillworts: Eaton's Quillwort Isoetes eatoni Engelmann's Quillwort I@oetes engelmanni Large-spored Quillwort Isoetes macrospora Canadian River-bank Quillwort Isoetes riparia 86 Pondweeds: Thin-leaved Alpine Potamogeton alpines Pondweed (calcareous) Knotty Pondweed Potamogeton nodosus Sago Pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus Prolonged Pondweed Potamogeton praelongus Vasey's Pondweed (calcareous) Potamogeton vaseyi Zoster-like Pondweed Potamogeton zosteriformis Duckweeds: Star-duckweed Lemna trisulca Duckweed Lemna valdiviana Lilies: Siberian Chives (calcareous) Allium schoenprasum Orchids: Tubercled Orchid Habenaria floara Auricled Twayblade Listera auriculata Willows: Sandbar Willow Salix interior Birch: River Birch Betula nigra Water Lilies: Spatter-dock Nuphar advena Tiny Cow-lily Nuphar microphyllum Crowfoot: Stiff Water Crowfoot Ranuculus subrigidus Oprines: Pigmy Weed Tillaea aquatica Bean: Robbins' Milk-vetch Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi Alpine Milk-vetch Astragalus alpinus var. brunetianus St. John's-wort: Great St. John's-wort Hypericum pyramidatum Milfbils: Alternate -flowered Milfoil Myriophyllym alterniflorum Farwell's Milfoil Myriophyllum farwellii Mare's-tails: Mare's tail Hippuris vulgaris Source: Prepared by the Office of State Planning with assistance from Frankie Brackley of The Nature Conservancy and Frederic L. Steele. 6/83. 87 APPENDIX-D ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE Endangered Common Name Scientific Name Dwarf Wedge Mussel Alasmidonta heterodon Swollen Wedge Mussel Alasmidonta varicosa Frosted Elfin Butterfly Incisalia irus Kamer Blue Butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelis Persius Dusky Wing Skipper Erynnis persius Banded Bog Skimmer Williamsonia lintneri Sunapee Trout Salvelinus aureolus Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Timber Rattletsnake Crotalus horridus Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Common Tern Sterna hirundo Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Peregrine Falco peregrinus Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus. Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Small Footed Bat Myotis; leibii Threatened Common Name Scientific Name Pine Pinion Moth Lithophane lepida lepida Pine Barrens Zanclognatha Moth Zanclognatha martha Cobbelstone Tiger Beetle Cicindela marginipennis Common Loon Gavia immer Least Tern Sterna albifi-ons Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii Cooper's Hawk Accipter cooperii Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Osprey Pandion haliaetus Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Purple Martin Progne subis Pine Martin Martes americana Source: NH Endangered Species Program, NH Fish and Game Department and The Audubon Society of New Hampshire, June, 1987. 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY Breeding, C., Richardson, F. and Pilgrim, S. 1974. Soil Survey of NH Tidal Marshes. NH Agricultural Experiment Station. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire. Commerce, US Department of 1987 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan: Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Washington, DC. Commerce, US Department of. 1987. NH Coastal Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Office of Ocean and Coastal Zone Resource Management and New Hampshire Office of State Planning. Comprehensive Planning, Office of. 1977. 1977 New HamRshire Outdoor Recreation Plan. Concord, NH. Cowardin, L. et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Crow, G. and Dunlop D. 1983. Coastal Endangered Plant Inventory Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, Public Law 99-645. Fish and Game, NH Department of. f980-1982. Great Bay Estuary Monitoring Survey Volumes I and 11. Fish and Game, NH Department of. 1987. "Waterfowl Management Plan." Concord, NH. Fish and Game, NH Department of. 1975. Waterfowl and Their Management in New Hampshire. Concord, NH. Governor's Conference on New Hampshire's Outdoor Recreation Future. 1986. No Accidental Successes: Report of the 1986 Governor's Conference on NH's Outdoor Recreation Future. Guariglia, M. 1975. Wetlands - A Vital Natural Resource. Lakes Region Planning Commission. Meredith, NH. Horwitz, E. 1978. Our Nation's Wetlands. Council on Environmental Quality. Washington: US Government Printing Office. Interior, US Department of. 1958. Inventory of Permanent Water Areas of Significant Value to Waterfowl in the State of New Hampshire Fish and Wildlife Services, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Branch of River Basins. Boston: MA. Interior, US Department of. 1981. Nationwide Rivers Inventory: Final List of Rivers. Northeast Regional Office, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. Philadelphia, PA. Interior, US Department of. 1987. Opportunities to Protect Instream Flows and Wetland Uses of Water In New Hampshire and Connecticut. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 87(6). Washington, DC. Interior, US Department of. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Interior, US Department of. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Ivey, C. 1977. A Guide to the Protection of Wetlands in New Hampshire. 89 Johnson, D. 1925. The New England-Acadian Shoreline. New York, NY: Hafher Publishing Company. Keene, H. 1970. Salt Marsh Evolution and Post Glacial Submergency in New Hampshire. Master of Science Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Kimball Chase Company, Inc. 1986. New Hampshire Coastline Erosion and Deposition Study for Rockingham Planning Commission. Final Report. Portsmouth, NH. Kundell, J. and Woolf, S. 1986. Georgia Wetlands - Trends and Policy Options. Carl Vinson Institute of Government. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Lee J. 1956. Waterways of New Hampshire. NH Fish and Game Department. Concord, NH. McClure, J. 1987. Land Protection and the Tax Advantages for New Hampshire Landowners, 2nd Edition. Michener, M. et al. 1986. The Coastal Wetlands Mapping Program, New Hampshire Phase 2 Report. Bedford, NH: Normandeau Associates. New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions. 1983. Guide to the Designation of Prime Wetlands in New Hampshire. New Hampshire Coastal Program. 1986. "Final Emerging Coastal Issues Paper." New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Annotated. Orford, NH: Equity Publishing Corporation. New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated. Orford, NH: Equity Publishing Corporation. New Hampshire State Planning Board.. 1934. Water Bodies in New Hampshire. Concord, NH. New Hampshire State Planning Project. 1964. New Hampshire Water Bodies and Public Access Points. Report Number 4. Concord, NH. New Hampshire State Planning Project. 1964. New Hampshire Public Water Bodies and Public Access Points: Part 11. Report No. 12. Concord, NH. New Hampshire Water Resources Board. 1984. "New Hampshire Water Resources Management Plan." Concord, NH. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1986. The Coastal Wetlands Mapping Program, New Hampshire (Phase 2 Report). Richardson, F. 1982. Identification, Documentation and Mapping of Prime Tidal Wetlands in the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire Richardson, F. February 2, 1988. NH Wetlands Board. Interdepartmental Communication. Robinson, E. 1987. "Waterfowl Habitat Acquisition and Management Update." Concord, NH: NH Fish and Game Department. Sandwich Conservation Commission. Sandwich Prime Wetlands Study, 1983-1985. Sandwich, NH. Short, F. 1984. North Hampton Salt Marsh Study. Simpson, M. 1986. Restoration of Parson's Creek Marsh, Rye, New Hampshire. Master's Project. Antioch New England Graduate School. Smith, C. and Evans, D. 1983 Study of Bald Eagle Use of New Hampshire Estuaries. Final Report. State Planning, NH Office of 1985. Lakes and Great Ponds Report 1984-1985, Volume 2. 90 State Planning, NH Office of. 1987. Recreation in Action. State Planning, NH Office of. 1988. Rivers and Lakes Protection Program. State Planning, NH Office of. 1989. Status of Municipal Planning and Municipal Land Use Regulations in New Hampshire. State Planning, NH Office of. 1988. "Wetlands Mitigation/Restoration Issues." Swope, M. 1988. Handbook for Municipal Conservation Commissions in New Hampshire. NH Association of Conservation Commissions. Taffe, W. and Ross, J. 1977. A Guide to the Physical Environment of New Hampshire. Environmental Studies Center. Plymouth, NH: Plymouth State College. Tiner, R. and Wilen, B. 1982. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory Proiect. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, MA and National Wetlands Inventory Project, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC: Cooperative Publication. Tiner, R. Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, MA and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. Dover, DE: Cooperative Publication. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. Washington, DC. 91 FOOTNOTES 1. Kundell, James, E., and S. Wesley Woolf. Georgia Wetlands: Trends and Policy Options Georgia: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia, 1986. 2. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, P.L. 99-645. 3. Tiner, Ralph, W., and Bill 0. Wilen. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory Proiect US'Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, MA and National Wetlands Inventory Project, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Cooperative Publication, 1982. 4. National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. Washington, DC: US Fish and Wildlife Service, April 1989. S. Guide to the Designation of Prime Wetlands in New Hampshire. Concord, NH: The New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, 1983. 6. Taffe, William J., and John E. Ross. A Guide to the Physical Environment of New HamRshire. Plymouth State College Environmental Studies Center, 1977. 7. Richardson, Frank D., NH Wetlands Board. Interdepartmental Communication. Concord, NH: February 2, 1988. 8. Kettenring, Kenneth., Administrator of the Wetlands Board. Phone Interview. February 26,1988. 9. New Hampshire Coastal Program and Draft Environmental Imvact Statement. Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, Washington, DC and the Office of State Planning, Concord, NH. Cooperative Publication, 1987. 10. Smith, Glenn. National Wetlands Inventory, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton, MA: Phone Interview. June, 1989. 11. Ibid. 12. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory Project op. cit. 13. The Coastal Wetlands Mapping Program, New Hampshire. Phase 2 Report. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1986. 14. Ibid. 15. 1977 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development and New Hampshire Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1977. 16. New Hampshire Public Water Bodies and Public Access Points: Part 11. Report No. 12. Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Planning Project, 1964. 17. Inventory of Fresh Water Bodies in New Hampshire. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Division of Water Resources, 1988. 92 18. Water Bodies in New Hampshire. Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Planning Board, December 1934. 19. New Hampshire Water Bodies and Public Access Points. Report No. 12, op. cit. 20. New Hampshire Water Bodies and Public Access Points. Report No. 4, Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Planning Project, 1964. 21. Waterfowl and Their Management in New Hampshire. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 1975. 22. Ibid. 23. Lakes and Great Ponds Report, 1984-1985. Volume 2. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Office of State Planning. 24. Natural Areas Inventory Data Sheet No. 112. "Umbagog Lake Region." New Hampshire Natural Areas Inventory, 1971. 25. 1977 New Hampshire Outdoor Recreation Plan, op. cit. 26. Guide to the Physical Environment of New Hampshire op. cit. 27. Ibid. 28. A Guide to the Physical Environment of New Hampshire op. cit. 29. National Rivers Inventory: Final List of Rivers' Philadelphia, PA: US Department of the Interior, Northeast Regional Office, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1981. 30. New Hampshire Coastal Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit. 31. Ibid. 32. Natural Heritage Inventory, New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, 1985. 33. Great Bay Estuary Monitoring Survey 1980-1982. Volumes I and II. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game. 34. Smith, Carol F., and Diane Evans. Study of Bald Eagle Use of New Hampshire Estuaries. Final Report. Concord, NH: Coastal Energy Impact Program, Office of State Planning, 1983. 35. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan: Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC and Office of State Planning, Concord, NH. Cooperative Publication, 1987. 36. Johnson, D. W. The New England-Acadian Shoreline. New York: Haftier Publishing Company, 1925. 37. Keene, H. W. Salt Marsh Evolution and Post Glacial Submergence in New HamRshire. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, M. Sc. Thesis, 1970. 93 38. Breeding, Charles H. et al. Soil Survey of New Hampshire Tidal Marshes. Durham, NH: New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station; University of New Hampshire, 1974. 39. Michener, Martin C. et al. The Coastal Wetlands Mapping Program, New Hampshire Phase 2 Report. Bedford, NH: Normandeau Associates, Inc. 1986. 40. New Hampshire Coastline Erosion and Deposition Study for Rockingham Planning Commission. Final Report. Portsmouth, NH: Kimball Chase Company, Inc., 1986. 41. Great Bay Estuary Monitoring Survey 1980-1982, op. cit. 42. New Hampshire Coastal Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement op. cit. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. Georgia Wetlands: Trends and Policy Options op. cit. 46. New England Wetlands - Plant Identification and Protective Laws. Boston, MA: Environmental Protection Agency, May 1981. 47. "Conservation Commission News." Concord, NH: New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions, Fall 1988. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. Grant, Kenneth E. Conservation Memorandum - 15. Soil Conservation Service, May 5, 1987. 51. Increasinz Our Wetland Resources: Conference Proceedinzs. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation - Corporate Conservation Council, April 1988. 52. "New Hampshire Wildlife." Concord, NH. NH Wildlife Federation. March-April 1989. 53. Georgia Wetlands: Trends and Policy Options. op. cit. 54. Status of Municipal Planninjz and Land Use Regulations in New Hampshire. Concord, NH: Office of State Planning, July 1989. 55. McClure, Jan, W. Land Protection and Tax Advantages for New Hampshire Landowners. Concord, NH: Office of State Planning and Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, Cooperative Publication, 1984. Revised 1987. 56. Robinson, Edward., Wildlife Biologist, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Phone Interview, December 9, 1987. 57. Ibid. 58. New Hampshire Coastal Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. op. cit. 94 59. Ibid. 60. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan- Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve op. cit. 61. Ibid. 62. Guide to the Designation of Prime Wetlands in New Hampshire op. cit. 63. "Report of the Wetlands Review Committee." Concord, NH: Wetlands Review Committee. February 8, 1989. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid. 66. Guide to the Designation of Prime Wetlands in New Hampshire op. cit. 67. Sandwich Prime Wetlands Study 1983-1985. Sandwich, NH: Sandwich Conservation Commission. 68. Ibid 69. Cormier, Fran. "DeiTy Prime Wetland Study." Lecture presented to the Londonderry Conservation Commission. October 27, 1987. 70. Ibid. 71. Robinson, Edward. "Of Wetland and Waterfowl." Discover Wild New Hampshire. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, September 1988. 72. "Criteria for Current Use Assessment." Concord, NH: Current Use Advisory Board, February 1987. 73. "Status of Municipal Planning and Land Use Regulations in New Hampshire." Concord, NH: Office of State Planning, July 1989. 74. Ibid. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid. 78. Ibid. 79. "Waterfowl Management Plan." Concord, NH: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, March 1987. 80. New Hampshire Water Resources Management Plan. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Water Resources Board, 1984. 95 DATE DUE GAYLORD KI %TED U S A rll@l@l @ililllli