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





           Hampton Master Plan                                             Printed: August 15, 1994
                                                   CSOILS

           INTRODUCTION

           Soil is one of the most important, yet oftentimes overlooked, natural resources. It is
           the ingredient of the land itself -- the ground on which land use happens. Because it
           is the foundation for all uses, the condition of the soil is an important factor in all land
           use decisions. Current and accurate soil information provides the Planning Board with
           another tool with which to make an informed decision on land use.


           CURRENT SOIL INFORMATION

           Hampton's soil survey map was completed in April of 1982, which is in the same time
           period as the rest of the communities in Rockingham County. The map was
           developed according to National Cooperative Soil Survey standards by soil scientists
           working for the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of
           Agriculture. A soil survey map indicates the soil type and slope conditions that are
           predominant in a given area. Over the years, soil scientists have analyzed and
           observed the characteristics and behavior of many different soil types. Knowing the
           distinctive properties of the different soils allows soil scientists to make predictions
           about the suitability of a soil for different uses.

           One' of the more important characteristics of a soil is its drainage class.      Each soil is
           ranked as to how well it drains, which is an important consideration when determining
11@)       the presence or absence of wetlands, as well as identifying potential storm water
1'@        drainage problems for a proposed development. The depth to the seasonal high water
.71,       table is also relevant when judging the wetness of a lot and its suitability for
           development. Soil types provide an indication as to the capacity of land to absorb
           water, which is an important consideration when planning for stormwater drainage.

           Consideration of these soil factors is critical in preventing future development from
           experiencing structural groundwater and stormwater problems. The Planning Board
           can use the accumulated knowledge of characteristics and behavior of soils to identify
           potential problems or to locate favorable soil conditions for development.

           GENERAL SOIL CONDITION$

           Traditionally, soil scientists have utilized a soils rating system that ranked the soils
           based on their limitations. In a turnabout from this more negative approach, SCS and
           the Rockingham County Conservation District developed a new system for rating soil
           based on their development potential. This approach classifies soils on the basis of
           the relative ease or difficulty of placing dwelling units, septic systems, and local roads


                                                                                               'oe --->
                                                                                              7 5 , 31








           on any given soil type. The key difference between the two approaches is that soil
           potential ratings take into consideration the fact that limiting soil characteristics can
           oftentimes be overcome through common engineering design and construction
           techniques. Soils potentials offer a more realistic perspective on land capability.

           While soil potential ratings are important to many towns, their importance in Hampton
           is diminished because of the extensive water and sewer systems in town. In the
           developed areas of town, the value of the soil potential rating system is limited
           because the lot size is not dependent on the need for aseptic system leach field. Soil
           conditions are most important in the undeveloped areas that are not served by water
           and sewer lines. If development in these areas, especially west of Interstate 95,
           occurs before sewer and water lines are extended that far, the potential of the soils
           to handle septic systems will be vital information and should become the basis for
           determining the location and density of such development.


           SOIL POTENTIAL RATINGS


           Using the current soil map, each soil type was measured to determine its total area
           in acres. Each soil type, along with its potential rating, drainage class, acres and
           percent of the total soils, is listed in Table S-1. In addition, there is an indication if
           the soil is an important farmland soil. Each soil is given a soil potential rating in four
           categories - septic systems, dwellings with basements, local roads and streets, and
           development, which is a composite of the three categories. The soils are rated from
           very high to very low, based on the performance expected of a soil for that use.

           Based on the soil potential rating system, 468 acres (6%) of Hampton's land area are
           considered to have a very high potential for development. A very high rating means
           that the soils' performance is at or above local standards because of favorable soil
           conditions. The costs associated with the installation of septic systems are very low
           relative to other soil categories.

           About 1,121 acres (14%) are classified as having high potential for development,
           meaning soil performance is at or above local standards. The cost associated with
           overcoming limitations are low due to favorable soil conditions and few limitations.

           Approximately 2,071 acres (25%) have a medium potential, meaning that soil limita-
           tions add significantly to the cost of development.

           Only 236 acres (3%) of land are ranked as having a low potential. In those areas
           overcoming soil limitations is very costly.

           In almost 3,160 acres (38%) of the local land area, the soil potential for development
           is considered to be very low. In these areas, wet soils or severe slopes cause
           development to be economically unfeasible. A large portion of this area is the
           Hampton salt marshes.



                                                       2



              AlVir I UIN MA5 I th FLAN                              TABLE S-1 HAMPTON SOIL TYPES AND CONDITION5                                                                                                         J/ 1014'4

                                                                                                                                              KEY


                                                                                                                                                                                                                . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                    1'. 04:0
                                                                                                                                             3i@j:':R
                                                                                                                                        L
                                                                                               S
                                                                                                                                                                                    19    N-0.9 ............U
                                                                                                                                                                                    .... WIS.
                                                                                                                                                                                                         01 1
                                                                                     ...........          H                ....... ...........
                                                                                                                                                      WN
                                                                                       .. . .. . ........                                                                           Mg.*Xce
                                                                                                              .......                                              ory
                                                                                                                                                                                                         % 0'
                                                                                                                                                             1     @V!                                   i@ Q. 073q. th** 0"

                                                                                                                                           X,
                                                                                                                                                                              M W*.. 0, k'
                                                                                                                                                             V
                                                                                                                                                                   ---- --- -------


                                                                                                                  .. .....................

                                                                                                                                       ...                         . .......



                                                                                                                           - ----- ------

                                                                                               Soil Potential R tinqs                                                         Important           Percent
                                                                                Septic         Dwellings With Local Roads                                    Drainage         Farmland            of Total
        Symbol     Soil Name                                                   systems         Basements            and Streets- Development                 Class            Soils                Soils        Acres
        26A        Windsor Loamy Sand                                                  2                  1                   1                   1          EWD                                         0.3%            21
        26B        Windsor Loamy Sand                                                  2                  1                   1                   1          EWD                                         0.1%            11
        29A        Woodbddge Fine Sandy Loam                                           3                  2                   1                   3          MWD              YES                        0.0%            2
        29B        Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam                                          3                  2                   1                   3          MWD              YES                        0.2%            18
        32A        Boxford Silt Loam                                                   4                  2                   2                   3          MWD              YES                        1.1%            89
        32B        Boxford Silt Loam                                                   4                  2                   2                   3          MWD              YES                        0.6%            so
        33A        Scitico Silt Loam                                                   5                  5                   3                   5          PD                                          5.6%            459
        38A        Eldridge Fine Sandy Loam                                            3                  2                   1                   3          MWD              YES                        2.0%            162
        38B        Eldridge Fine Sandy Loam                                            3                  2                   1                   3          MWD              YES                        1.2%            103
        42B        Canton Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam                                     1                  1                   1                   1          WD               YES                        2.5%            208
        43B        Canton Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                         1                  2                   1                   1          WD                                          2.0%            167
        43C        Canton Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                         2                  3                   2                   2          WD                                          0.1%            7
        44B        Montauk Fine Sandy Loam                                             3                  2                   1                   2          WD               YES                        0.6%            49
        45B        Montauk Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                                 3                  2                   1                   2          WD                                          0.2%            16
        45C        Montauk Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                                 3                  3                   2                   3          WD                                          0.1%            7
        45D        Montauk Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                                 3                  2                   2                   3          WD                                          0.1%            7
        62B        Charlton Fine Sandy Loam                                            1                  1                   1                   1          WD               YES                        0.7%            55
        62C        Chariton Fine Sandy Loam                                            2                  2                   2                   2          WD               YES                        0.0%            4
        63B        Charlton Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                                1                  2                   1                   1          WD                                          0.1%            5
        63C        Charlton Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                                2                  3                   2                   2          WD                                          01%             9
        66B        Paxton Fine Sandy Loam                                              3                  2                   1                   3          WD               YES                        0.4%            37
        67B        Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                                  3                  2                   1                   3          WD                                          0.6%            49
        67C        Paxton Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                                  3                  3                   2                   3          WD                                          0.1%            9
        97         Greenwood and Ossipee Soils, Ponded                                 5                  5                   5                   5          VPD                                         0.0%            2
        115        Scarboro Muck                                                       5                  5                   5                   5          VPD                                         0.5%            38
        125        Scarboro, Muck, Very Stony                                          5                  5                   5                   5          VPD                                         0.1%            11
        129B       Woodbridge Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                              3                  2                   2                   3          MWD                                         1.0%            81
        134        Maybid Silt Loam                                                    5                  5                   5                   5          VPD                                         0.8%            66
        140B       Chatfield-Hollis-Canton Complex, Very Stony                         3                  4                   3                   3          WD                                          11.8%           972
        140C       Chatfield-Hollis-Canton Complex, Very Stony                         4                  4                   3                   4          WD                                          2.5%            202
        295        Greenwood Mucky Peat                                       1        5       1          5        1          5                   5          lVPD             1                          2.9%1           2371

                                                                                                             SOILSTABALS                                                                                                 Page 3



                                                            TABLE S-1 HAMPTON SOIL TYPES AND CONDITIONS                                                                                  8/15/94


                                                                                                                          KEY





                                                                         ..........
                                                                                                                                                                              ----------  ...... ...
                                                                                         ........ ...

                                                                                                                    . ...........
                                                                    XAM     0%              Mah                                                                        M.  Mm
                                                                                                                     .......... ...
                                                                                      HM...                                                              -M
                                                                                                                                                                                   ........ ...
                                                                                                                                                           , Lwm   W
                                                                                  &N                                       MR,
                                                                    M.M."x-0        xw                        tn:
                                                                                                                                    M.,
                                                                                   N

                                                                                                                                                                                    i%



                                                                                  Soil Potential R tings                                              Important        Percent
                                                                    Septic        Dwellings With Local Roads                          Drainage        Farmland         of Total
       Symbol   Soil Name                                           Systems       Basements         and Streets       Develop   ant   Class           Soils            Soils       Acres
       298      Pits, Sand and Gravel                                       nr            nr                 nr               nr      NR                                    1.1%         93
       299      Udorthents, Smoothed                                        nr            nr                 nr               nr      NR                                    4.5%         373
       305      Lim-Pootatuck Complex                                       5             5                  4                5       PD                                    0.4%         30
       313A     Deerfield Fine Sandy Loam                                   3             2                  1                3       MWD                                   1.8%         147
       313B     Deerfield Fine Sandy Loam                                   3             2                  1                3       MWD                                   1.0%         81
       314A     Pipestone Sand                                              5             6                  3                5       PD                                    2.2%         180
       395      Chocorua Mucky Peat                                         5             5                  5                5       VPD                                   0.3%         26
       397      Ipswich Mucky Peat                                          5             5                  5                5       TVPD                                  16.0%     1318
       446A     Scituate-Newfields Complex                                  3             2                  1                2       MWD             YES                   0.2%         15
       447A     Scituate-Newfields Complex, Very Stony                      3             2                  1                3       MWD                                   1.7%         137
       447B     Scituate-Newfields Complex, Very Stony                      3             2                  2                3       MWD                                   0.9%         72
       495      Ossipee Mucky Peat                                          5             5                  5                5       VPD                                   2.3%         192
       497      Pawcatuck Mucky Peat                                        5             5                  5                5       TVPD                                  1.3%         104
       51 OA    Hoosic Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam                             3             1                  1                2       EWD             YES                   6.5%         534
       51 OB    Hoosic Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam                             3             1                  1                2       EWD             YES                   5.9%         489
       51 OC    Hoosic Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam                             3             2                  2                3       EWD             YES                   0.6%         49
       51 OD    Hoosic Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam                             4             4                  4                4       EWD                                   0.4%         33
       538A     Squamscoft Fine Sandy Loam                                  5             5                  3                5       PD                                    2.5%         208
       547A     Walpole Very Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                    5             5                  3                5       PD                                    0.9%         73
       547B     Walpole Very Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                    5             5                  3                5       PD                                    0.7%         57
       597      Westbrook Mucky Peat                                        5             5                  5                5       TVPD                                  0.1%         12
       599      Urban Land-Hoosic Complex                                   nr            nr                 nr               nr      NR                                    4.9%         403
       657B     Ridgebury Very Fine Sandy Loam, Very Stony                  5             5                  3                5       PD                                    0.4%         30
       699      Urban Land                                                  nr            nr                 nr               nr      NR                                    1.4          112
       799      Urban Land-Canton Complex                                   nr            nr                 nr               nr      NR                                    2.6%         214
       997      Ipswich Mucky Peat, Low Salt                                5             5                  5                5       TVPD                                  1.5%         120
       1        ITOTAL ACRES                                        I             I                I                I                 1                                  100.0% 8251
       Source: "Soils Potentials for Development - Roc;dngham County" Rocldngham County Conservation District, May 1987.





                                                                                              SULSTABXLS                                                                                 Page 4







           The remaining 1,195 acres (14%) of Hampton's land area is considered to be non-
           classifiable due to alterations of natural soil conditions. This land includes gravel pits,
           areas of urban land, road construction and the landfill. On-site inspections would be
           necessary to determine actual soil potential.

           FUTURE SOIL USE


           The most desirable land and soil is most always developed first, so that as the years
           go by, the best land is used up, leaving only the moderate and lesser quality land
           available. Hampton is approaching that stage in its development; therefore, pressure
           to develop on the poorer soils is likely to increase.

           As more of the poorer quality land is used as part of building lots, the problems of wet
           soils and flooding could increase. Hampton's land use regulations may need to be
           updated to address this concern.

           In the areas of Hampton that are not served by the municipal sewer system, the ability
           of the soil to handle septic systems is an important consideration. In order to analyze
           the nonsewered areas, a map entitled "Town of Hampton - Soil-based Development
           Suitability" was prepared using the RPC's geographic information system and the
           county soils data. The map shows that the areas west of Interstate 95 and along
           Drakeside Road are a mixture of all soil ratings for septic systems, but the two most
           prevalent types are medium and very low. There are large wetland areas associated
           with Old River and Line Swamp, Ash Brook, Drakes River, and Taylor River that make
           portions of the area unsuitable for development. As the remaining land in the sewered
           areas is developed, the land in the nonsewered areas will come under development
           pressure.































                                                        5





                                                                                       NW                                                                                                   Town of
                                                                                                                                                    Soil-based Devel
                                                                                                27-




                                                                       ------- - --------






                                                                                                                                                                            Sg







                                                                                                                                      Rhh

                                                                                                                                             RE




                                   Map Location












                                                                                                                                                                                                                           AW_


                                                                                                                                                                                                                           'A



                                                                                                                                           Scale 1:33000

                                                                Prepared by the
                                                    Rockingham Planning Commission                                         0 f"t              27SO              ssee               e2SO
                                                      November 11, 1993                DRA









       HAMPTON MASTER PLAN                                               PRINTED: September 28, 1994

                                    WATER RESOURCES



       INTRODUCTION

       The protection and wise use of water resources are of critical concern to Hampton. With
       the entire population dependent on groundwater, from both private wells and the Hampton
       Water Works wells, the quantity and quality of this resource must be protected from
       excessive depletion and/or contamination. Other water resources such as swamps, ponds,
       rivers, streams, and wetlands are important not only because of their hydrological
       connection to groundwater resources, but also because they provide ecological, scenic, and
       recreational value to the community as a whole.

       In general, there is a direct relationship between land use and water quality. The right use
       in the wrong area, or the right use carried out in the wrong way, can degrade and
       contaminate both surface and groundwater, increase flood hazards, destroy water-based
       wildlife habitat and interfere with scenic and recreational value. It is, therefore, the
       responsibility of the Town to take reasonable precautions to protect common water
       resources from incompatible uses and, in so doing, protect the health and general welfare
       of the community.


       SURFACE WATER BODIES


       Surface water systems are any type of water resource located above the ground on the
       earth's surface. Examples of surface water systems include: streams, rivers, marshes,
       ponds, bogs, lakes, wetlands, etc.       Surface water systems are more dynamic than
       groundwater systems, in that they are influenced by the effects of wind, rain, and
       temperature. They are also subject to varying rates of flow, such as the difference
       between the flow rate of a river as opposed to that of a pond.

       Since surface water systems flow over the land's surface, they are more susceptible to
       pollution caused either by hazardous materials located in close proximity to the system, or
       by pollutants discharged directly into the water. There are two types of pollution source
       categories: nonpoint sources and point sources. A nonpoint pollution source travels over
       or under the land to the water resource, whereas a point pollution source discharges
       directly into the water resource, for example, a malfunctioning sewage treatment plant.

       Surface water resources function as holding areas for flood waters and seasonal high
       waters. In addition they serve as recharge areas and discharge points for groundwater
       resources. The point of discharge is where the surface water resource and the groundwa-
       ter resource are hydrologically connected. Most commonly, a surface water resource will
       act as a discharge point for groundwater. Such a discharge can replenish surface water
       resources as well as individual water wells during the dryer summer months. However, if
       dry periods are prolonged, the result can be an overall lowering of the water table.










          A.    WATERSHEDS


                The watershed is the principal focus in describing a surface water system. A
                watershed is the land area within a series of connecting higher ridges that drain
                surface water to the lowest point, which is where a stream or river flows out of the
                watershed. The network formed by rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds is known as
                the drainage system of the watershed.
                The Town of Hampton is located within tv;o regional watersheds - the Coastal
                watershed and the Great Bay watershed. The watershed boundaries shown on Map
                A - "Regional Watersheds" - were delineated by the Rockingham Planning Commis-
                sion using 7.5 minute topographic maps from the U.S. Geological Survey. As the
                map shows, only a small portion of the northwest part of Hampton is located within
                the Great Bay watershed. Most of the town is in the Coastal watershed.

                The Hampton portion of the Great Bay watershed is so small that it has no sub-
                watersheds. The Coastal watershed has many sub-watersheds, including-three that
                contain portions of Hampton (see the Surficial Hydrology and Watersheds Map). The
                characteristics of these sub-watersheds are described below.


                1 .    Taylor River/Hampton River Sub-watershed: The largest sub-watershed in
                       Hampton is the Taylor River/Hampton River sub-watershed, which is part of
                       the Coastal watershed. It extends into portions of Exeter, Kensington, and
                       Hampton Falls. Within this sub-watershed there are seven named perennial
                       watercourses, including Drakes River, Landing Brook, Nudd's Canal, Blind
                       Creek, Tide Mill Creek, Eel Ditch, and Nilus Brook. There are many other
                       unnamed watercourses with the area also. The sub-watershed also contains
                       four surface water bodies - Batchelders or Coffin Pond, Lamprey Pond, Mill
                       Pond, and Meadow Pond.

                2.     Old River Sub-watershed: The next largest sub-watershed is the Old River
                       sub-watershed, which is part of the Coastal watershed. It extends into
                       portions of Exeter and North Hampton. Within this sub-watershed there are
                       two perennial watercourses, the Ash Brook and Old River, which has several
                       unnamed tributaries. The only surface water body in the sub-watershed is Car
                       Barn Pond.


                3.     Little River Sub-watershed: Only a small portion of the Little River sub-
                       watershed is in Hampton. Located in the northeast corner of Hampton, the
                       majority of the sub-watershed extends into North Hampton and Rye and is
                       part of the Coastal watershed. Within this sub-watershed there are two
                       unnamed perennial watercourses, one a branch of the Little River and one a
                       tributary of Garland Brook in North Hampton. The sub-watershed contains six
                       very small surface water bodies that are part of the Little River Swamp.



                                                      2





     Re i'.onal Watersheds
                        Map A


           B


                                        Great Bay


                                         0 N





                   NEW MARKkE I
                                                   TLE
                   NEWFIELDS
                                   MR.,
                           STRA           nl
                   1EXETER   H A

                                                 ISLES
                                                   )f  0
                                                SHOALS

                                          C 0 a S t a




          SCALE   IN MI LES



        0      4       8      12
           9






















    Source:  U, S, D.A. S, C. S. Hydrologic Unit Map.

                              3





                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Town of
                                                                                                                      Ono                                                                                                 S u r f 1 c I a                        H         d r
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Y


                                                                                                                                                                                                                               LM

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               to.                                River
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          110






                                                                                                                                                L

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          I.4





                                       Legend                                                                                                                                                                                             17
                        Town boundary                                                                                                                                                                                      LK
                        Primary Route

                        Secondary Route

                        Roads or Streets

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  <t
                        Unimproved Roads

                        Romps

                        Railroad

                Vq      Shorelines, Streams
                        and Brooks
                EM      Rivers, Streams,
                        Lakes or Ponds

                        WoLershed Boundaries





                                                         Sources:  "Bast data (town boundaries, hydrography. roads) from USCS
                                                                     Digital line Graphs. 44,000. as orcblved in the CRAN17
                                                                     database. Complex Systems Research Center. University of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 MAL
                                                                     NOW Hampshire."

                                                                     These digital layers are registered to NAD 83 and M.N.
                                                                     State plane Coordinates.




                                                                                                                                                         Scale 1:33000
                           IMW



                                                                                                                                       0 f.6t                 27SO                    SSW                    v2se


                  C








            4.     Winnicut River Sub-watershed: The northwest corner of Hampton is in the
                   Winnicut River sub-watershed, which is part of the Great Bay watershed. It
                   extends into portions of Stratham, Exeter, North Hampton, and Greenland.
                   This sub-watershed contains the Line Swamp, which is the origin of the
                   Winnicut River and some its tributaries. There are no surface water bodies in
                   this sub-watershed.


            Hampton contains approximately 830 acres of water area; this represent 9.1 % of
            the entire town. Most of this is salt water. Nill Pond, Car Barn Pond, Batchelder
            (Coffin) Pond and Lamprey Pond comprise most of the freshwater area. None of
            these ponds are used to any great extent for recreational purposes, except for ice
            skating in the winter. One reason is that most of the ponds are very shallow. Nearly
            all of the water recreation takes place along the six miles of Hampton's ocean
            shoreline.


      B.    WETLANDS


            Hampton has a large number of significant wetland areas. Wetlands, defined by the
            Soil Conservation Service as those areas having poorly or very poorly drained soils,
            occupy approximately 38% of the total land area. Of that total, 12.2% are classified
            as poorly drained, while 7.3% are very poorly drained, and 18.8% are very poorly
            drained tidal wetlands. Most of the wetlands are found around the complex river
            system in the southern third of the Town and to the rear of the beaches.

            The tidal marsh covers 1,554 acres of land along the Hampton and Taylor Rivers.
            This area is subject to daily tidal flooding and is unable to support heavy loads.
            These qualities present limitations to the building of roads and other structures on
            marsh soils. The prolonged exposure of marsh soils to air produces sulfur in acid
            form which has the potential to corrode metal and concrete materials.

            The remaining 1,613 acres of wetlands are freshwater wetlands which are not
            subject to tidal flooding. These areas are located in the more interior sections of
            Hampton. Wetlands of this type are the ones expected to come under increasing
            development pressure as the land best suited for development is used up.

            Wetlands are important, valuable natural resources and worthy of protection from
            inappropriate use. They have been found, in general, to provide critical ecological
            and socially valuable functions, including:

                   a.     providing habitat and reproduction areas for plants, fish and wildlife;

                   b.     absorbing and utilizing nutrients from associated takes or streams;
                   C.     helping maintain groundwater levels;

                   d.     acting as flood water storage areas;



                                                   5








                        e.     absorbing (settling out) silt and other sediments caused by upstream
                               erosion.


                 Additionally, wetlands can provide for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. Thefilling
                 of and use of wetlands for building construction not only destroys wetlands, but may
                 lead to groundwater contamination as well. Leaching fields constructed in filled
                 areas are likely to have an inadequate receiving layer for proper treatment of the
                 septic system's effluent and be placed too near the seasonal high water table below.

                 There is an ongoing need to protect wetland@ in Hampton. Although the State of
                 New Hampshire has laws and regulations in place, (RSA 482-A, administered by the
                 Wetlands Board, and RSA 485-A, administered by the New Hampshire Water Supply
                 and Pollution Control Division) they do not always provide the degree of protection
                 needed. For these reasons, local control over the use of wetlands is recommended.
                 Awetland conservation district ordinance, prepared bythe Conservation Commission
                 and endorsed by the Planning Board, was adopted at the 1985 Town Meeting. This
                 ordinance, which has had minor amendments over the years, should provide the
                 extra degree of protection for wetlands in Hampton.

                 Hampton is fortunate to have available to it a series of aerial photographs depicting
                 wetlands at a scale of 1 " = 200', prepared through the N.H. Office of State
                 Planning Coastal Program. The maps and an accompanying report are entitled,
                 "Phase 2 Report, Town of Hampton, the Coastal Wetlands Mapping Program, New
                 Hampshire," prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc., June 30, 1986.

                 The information from the Normandeau report was used to prepare the Wetlands
                ..@Map, which shows the location of wetlands in Hampton. The original Normandeau
                 maps and the wetlands map contained in this plan are useful for townwide planning
                 purposes, but should not be utilized for on-site planning for specific development
                 proposals. Field mapping of wetlands should be done to accurately identify the
                 wotland boundaries.


           C.    FLOOD HAZARD AREAS


                 A Flood Insurance Rate Map was prepared for the Town by the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency (FEMA) in 1986. The National Flood Insurance Program,
                 administered by FEMA, allows residents living in flood hazard areas to purchase flood
                 hazard insurance at subsidized rates, however, the insurance is only made available
                 to communities which participate in the program. In order to maintain the town's
                 participation in the program, the Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1987 to adopt
                 the required model floodplain development ordinance.

                 The Flood Insurance Rate Map, dated July 3, 1986, shows the estimated extent of
                 inundation during a 100-year frequency flood, including areas affected by wave
                 action near the coast. Many homes and businesses are located in flood prone areas.
                 Development in flood prone areas is problematic in three ways:


                                                        6









                                                                                                                   -47-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Town of


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   P e r




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       JRk


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     14

                                       Legend

                          Town boundary

                          Primary Route
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      17
                          Secondary Route
                          Roads or Streets                                                                                                                                                               eiw-@                        LK

                          Unimproved Roads

                          Ramps

                          Railroad


                          Shorelines, Streams
                          and Brooks


                          Rivers, Streams,
                          Lakes or Ponds

                          Classified Wetlands


                          Surface Water

                          Upland Areas                                                       Sources. 'Does data (town boundaries, hydrography, roads) from USGS
                                                                                                          Digital Line Graphs. 1:24.000, as archived in the GRANIT
                          Unclassified Wetlands                                                           database. Complex Systems Research Center, University of
                                                                                                          Now Harripshire.1

                                                                                                          These digital layers are registered to HAD 83 and N.H.
                                                                                                          State Plane Coordinates.


                                                                                              Source- Coastal wetlands delineations by Mormandeau Associates and
                                                                                                         remapped to GRANIT standards at Complex Systems Research
                                                                                                         Center; June 1988.                                                                                                                                                                     Aw-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Ar-






                                                                                                                                                               Scale 1:33000
                                                                                                                                                  I


                                                                                                                                                  0 f..L                  2760                     6SOO                    8250








                     1      it risks damage to life and property;

                     2.     it reduces flood storage capacity of the floodplain, thus worsening flood
                            conditions elsewhere; and,

                     3.     the inundation of developed areas can contribute to water quality
                            problems.

              These problems can be controlled through the adoption of floodplain regulations as
              part of the National Flood Insurance Program. These regulations require any
              development to meet strict federal building codes specific to construction in flood
              hazard. areas. This discourages unsound development in the flood hazard areas.

        GROUNDWATER RESOURCES


        Groundwater is a concentration of subsurface water, occurring in saturated soils and
        geological formations. It is resupplied through precipitation and surface water discharge.
        The water infiltrates the ground through an aerated zone where impurities are filtered out.
        The water then moves to a saturated zone where the pore spaces between soil particles
        are filled by the water. These saturated zones are called aquifers. It is very important that
        the earth's surface be able to transmit water so that a certain percentage can be stored
        underground as "groundwater". If excessive compaction or extensive covering of the
        earth's surface occurs, the amount of water that can reach the saturated zone and become
        groundwater is reduced.

        Aquifers (concentrations of groundwater) are found where saturated layers are permeable
        and the storage and transmission of water can take place. Aquifers having medium to high
        potential to yield groundwater occur in the New Hampshire seacoast area as alluvial
        deposits of sand and gravel (unconsolidated deposits) or in bedrock fractures (consolidated
        deposits). The major source of recharge to the aquifers of the seacoast area is through
        precipitation directly onto the aquifer's surface.      In terms of the hydrologic cycle,
        approximately one-half of the average annual precipitation in the seacoast area is returned
        to the atmosphere as eva potra nspo ration. The other half is split between surface water
        discharge and groundwater storage.

        The unconsolidated deposits, also called stratified drift deposits, contain sorted layers of
        gravel, sand, silt and clay. They are found primarily along valley bottoms. These materials
        have abundant pore space to store water, in fact, these pore spaces can account for more
        than 30% of the deposit's total volume. Consequently, these stratified drift deposits of
        sand and gravel have become good sources of medium to high volume aquifers.

        Bedrock fractures normally do not yield th  e same quantity of ground-water that stratified
        drift deposits do, however, they cannot be overlooked in terms of contributing to a
        community's water supply needs. Bedrock fractures are more productive when the bedrock
        has a layer of sand and gravel over it. This allows recharge to occur directly from above.
        Bedrock fractures are usually adequate for domestic wells serving a small population. In


                                                      8








         contrast, a till aquifer is usually lower yielding and can have a short well life. This is due
         to a mixture of clay, silt, gravel and boulders which tends to compact due to the different
         soil particle sizes. The transmission and storage of water is greatly reduced in this type of
         aquifer.

         Stratified Drift Aouifers

         In 1993 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed the most through and
         accurate study of the region's groundwater resources to date. The report is entitled,
         Geohydrology and Water Quality of Stratified Drift Aquifers in the Lower Merrimack and
         Coastal River Basins, Southeastern NH. The report: identified one large stratified drift
         aquifer in Hampton. A brief description of the identified aquifer follows and its general
         locations can be seen on the Groundwater Resources Map.__

         The stratified drift aquifer was identified by the USGS study as being located in the center
         of the town. The aquifer extends into North Hampton and is 110 acres in size. The
         saturated thickness, which is defined as the thickness of an aquifer below the water table,
         ranges from less than 20 feet to more than 40 feet. The transmissivity of the aquifer
         varies depending on the location. Transmissivity is the rate at which water is transmitted
         through the aquifer. Most of the aquifer is estimated to have a transmissivity of less than
         1,000 feet squared per day or between 1,000 and 2,000 feet squared per day. As the
         Groundwater Resources Map shows, there are three small areas with a transmissivity
         between 2,001 and 4,000 feet squared per day, and two small areas with a transmissivity
         of greater than 4,000 feet squared per day. It is not surprising to note that all four of the
         Hampton Water Works Company wells in Hampton are located in areas with a transmis-
         sivity of greater than 2,000. The aquifer is a coarse-grained stratified drift, with materials
         ranging principally from medium to sand to cobble gravel.

         A large part of this aquifer area is already urbanized, but the threat of groundwater
         contamination is somewhat lessened because these areas are almost entirely served by
         municipal sewer lines. However, because of the high water table and lateral groundwater
         flow, an isolated pollution source could be spread underground. Soils don't have as long
         to filter out the contamination because the water table is so high.

         In an effort to more accurately define the recharge areas of their water supply wells, the
         Hampton Water Works Company hired Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., consulting
         groundwater geologists. A report entitled, Evaluation of Recharge Areas for Water Supply
         Wells of the Hampton Water Works Company July 1987 was prepared by the firm. Figure
         3 on page 9 of the report delineates the primary recharge area for the wells in Hampton.
         This information was transferred onto the Groundwater Resources Map. Hampton Water
         Works Company has five wells within the identified recharge area, four in Hampton and one
         in North Hampton. The proximity of these wells to commercial development along Route
         One and the airfield make the potential for contamination a great concern. Based upon the
         information in this and previous studies, the need for protecting Hampton's aquifers is as
         great as ever.



                                                       9





                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        o w n                           o f
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   r o u n d w
                                                                                                                               27


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             h1les Well
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  C      Ing I -



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    D    Well
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Pr



                                                Legend

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          3 W
        VZ Town boundary                                          Less than 1,000 feet
                                                                  squared per day
        Z6 Primary Route
                                                                  1,001- 2,000            feet
                 Secondary Route                                  squared per day
                 Roads or Streets                                 2,001- 4,000            feet                                                                                                                                                                                                      10
                                                                  squared per              day
                 Unimproved Roads
                                                                  Greater than              4,000 feet                                                                                                                                                                                              6
        F/Vj     Ramps                                            squared per              day
                 Railroad                                 F*j     Hampton Water Works
        FNJ      Shorelines, Streams                              Company Well                                                                                                                                                                 <t                              0
                 and Brooks                               Fv-]    Existing Salt Pile
                 Rivers, Streams,                         Fo-1    Abandoned Dump
                 Lakes or Ponds
                 Landfill                                 FKJ     Abandoned Landfill







                                              Sources:    "Bass data (town boundaries. hydrography, roads) from USGS
                                                           Digital Line Graphs. 1:24,000, as archived in the GRANIT
                                                           d taboss, Complex Systems Research Center. University of
                                                           N% Hampshire."

                                                           These digital layers are registered to HAD 83 and N.M.
                                                           State Plans Coordinates.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  JW_

                                                           'Geohydrology and later   Quality of Stratified-Drift
                                                           Aquifers in the Lower Merrimack and Coastal River                                                                                                                                                      I
                                                           Basins. Southeastern New Hampshire*; U.S.G.S, 1992.
                                                           Aquifers are displayed by their transmissivity.


                                                                                                                                                  Scole 1:33000
                             WIF








        Existing and potential sources of groundwater pollution in the aquifer areas should be
        identified. One obvious area of concern should be the landfill, which is partially within the
        aquifer. These issues will be addressed in the closure plan for the landfill, which is
        currently being finalized. Other areas of potential pollution could include abandoned dump
        sites, salt piles, or even salt runoff from the major state highways. High density develop-
        ments in unsewered areas of town could also cause groundwater pollution.

        The Coakley Landfill in North Hampton, a superfund site, is a potentially serious source of
        groundwater contamination. Since Hampton relies on wells in North Hampton for a portion
        of its water supply, developments at the site could affect Hampton. Groundwater is a
        regional concern.


        WATER SUPPLY


        Public water supply is provided to the Town by the Hampton Water Works Company, an
        investor-owned and operated public utility that is a division of the American Water Works
        Company. In addition to Hampton, it also provides water service to North Hampton and
        to the Rye Beach and Jenness Beach sections of Rye. The company serves 7,500
        customers in all three towns.


        The water supply system serves all major developments in Hampton. Areas not served
        include: west of Interstate 95, North Shore Road, and south of Route 51. Water supply
        lines are usually extended wherever necessary to serve newly developed areas. According
        to the 1990 US Census data, the company serves 8,024 of the 8,602 housing units in
        Hampton. About 93% of the households receive their water from the company. The
        remaining population obtains water from private wells.

        Hampton Water Works depends upon ten wells, located in Hampton (4), North Hampton
        (5), and Rye (1) for its water supply. All the wells are gravel packed except one in North
        Hampton that is a rock well. The total estimated safe yield of the wells is 4.35 million
        gallons a day (mgd). On the average day, the company supplies Hampton with 2.15 million
        gallons of water. However, user demand increases about 200% during the summer months
        because of the large influx of people who take advantage of the recreational opportunities
        in the area. The estimated 66,000 summer residents cause the maximum day demand to
        exceed 5 mgd. In 1983, the maximum demand was 3.95 mgd, and by July of 1993 it
        reached 4.76 mgd.

        The following is a list of Hampton Water Works Company wells:

          Well                        Location                  Pumping Cal2acity

          Ryders                      Hampton                   936,000 gpd
          Scammon                     Hampton                   864,000 gpd

          Sicard Street               Hampton               1,008,000 gpd
          Whites Field                Hampton                   518,000 gpd


                                                     11







           Crenshaw                   North Hampton              792',000 gpd
           Rock Well- 1 3A            North Hampton              432,000 gpd

           Coakley                    North Hampton              432,000 gpd
           Marston Spring             North Hampton              180,000 gpd

           Dalton Well 14             North Hampton              144,000 gpd
           Jenness Beach              Rye                        120,000 gpd

        In addition to the wells, the company has three water towers located in Hampton. These
        are important because not only do they store large quantities of water to back up the wells,
        but they also help maintain water pressure throughout town. They are also valuable water
        sources for fire protection. One water tower is located on Mill Road and has a storage
        capacity of 300,000 gallons. The beach area is served by a- 500,000 gallon water tower
        on Church Street. The third tower is located on Exeter Road near Interstate 95. It was
        built in 1983 and has a capacity of 750,000 gallons. The location is logical considering the
        potential for development in the western section of town.

        The company also installs and maintains fire hydrants, of which there are over 236 in
        Hampton and a total of 428 in the company's franchise area. Although expansion of the
        hydrant system is costly, it should keep pace with the expansion of the water supply
        system.

        Water rates, are computed by metered volume charges after an initial minimum charge. In
        an effort to conserve water resources, the company undertakes a leak detection
        investigation twice a year. In recent years, the water company has had to institute
        voluntary water bans during the high demand summer months.

        Hampton Water Works Company should continue to grow and expand, parallel to the
        growth of Hampton. Currently, the company is continuing to explore for additional water
        supplies in their franchise area.



















                                                      12









        Hampton Master Plan                                    Printed: September 29, 1994


                                       TRANSPORTATION

        The condition of the transportation system in Hampton and the region is an important
        factor in determining the Town's future development and has an impact on the quality of
        life for the citizens. The challenge will be for the Town and the state and federal
        government to respond to an increase in travel demands. Due to the seasonal fluctuation
        in the traffic, consideration must also be given to handling the summer traffic as well.
        Maintenance and expansion of the regional highway system, the local street system,
        parking and pedestrian facilities, and public transportation will all play a role in the future
        growth of Hampton.

        As with most other communities in the area, the primary mode of transportation in
        Hampton is by automobile on the road network. According to figures from the N.H.
        Department of Transportation (NHDOT), there are 90 miles of roadway in Hampton. About
        25% of the roads are maintained by the State of New Hampshire. Major highways within
        the state primary system are Route 1 (Lafayette Road), Route 51 (Exeter-Hampton
        Expressway), Route 27 (Exeter Road and High Street), Route 101E (Winnicunnet Road),
        Route 1A (Ocean Boulevard), Interstate 95, and a very small portion of Route 151 (Post
        Road). Route 1, Route 1A, and Interstate 95 are north-south highways; while Route 51,
        Route 27, and Route 101E are east-west highways. Interstate 95 has exit 2 and the
        tollbooths in Hampton. Due to the location of the tollbooths, some northbound motorists
        use exit 1 in Seabrook to get off of Interstate 95 and use Route 1 in Hampton to avoid the
        tolls.


        Hampton has 12 Town roads that could be considered residential collector streets, meaning
        they collect residential traffic off smaller, low traffic streets that are used primarily by the
        residents of the street. Collector streets may also provide for travel from one neighborhood
        to another and into other communities. Hampton's collector streets are Timber Swamp
        Road, Towle Farm Road, Drakeside Road, Mill Road, Ann's Lane, Mace Road, Woodland
        Road, Little River Road, North Shore Road, Barbour Road, King's Highway, and Ashworth
        Avenue. The balance of Hampton's roads are minor collector or access roads which
        provide access to state highways or service roads which serve only adjacent property
        owners and accommodate little or no through traffic.

        Classification of Streets and Highways

        New Hampshire has a road classification system for the purpose of assigning construction
        and maintenance responsibilities. The system is divided into the following seven
        categories:

               Class 1, Trunk Line Highways, consist of all existing or proposed highways on the
               primary state highway system, excepting all portions of such highways within the
               compact sections of towns and cities of 7,500 inhabitants and over. The state
               assumes full control and pays cost of construction, reconstruction and maintenance
               of its sections; the portions in compact areas controlled by the towns and cities








                under Class IV highways. Interstate 95, the portions of Route 1 not in the compact
                section, Route 51, Route 101 E, and the northern section of Route 1 A fall within this
                class and total 18.35 miles in Hampton.

                Class 11, State Aid Highways, consist of all existing or proposed highways on the
                secondary state highway system, excepting portions of such highways within the
                compact sections of towns and cities of 7,500 inhabitants and over, which are
                classified as Class IV highways.

                All sections improved to the satisfaction of the commissioner are maintained and
                reconstructed by the State. All unimproved sections, where no state and local funds
                have been expended, must be maintained by the town or city in which they are
                located until improved to the satisfaction of the highway commissioner.

                All bridges improved to state standards with state aid bridge funds are maintained
                by the city or town until such improvement is made. All Class 11 roads are
                maintained by the state. There are 4.25 miles of Class 11 highways in Hampton,
                which include Route 27 and the southern section of Route 1A.


                Class 111, Recreational Roads, consist of all such roads leading to, and within, State
                Reservations designated by the Legislature. The State Highway Department
                assumes full control of reconstruction and maintenance of such roads. There are no
                Class III roads in Hampton.

                Class IV, Town and City Streets, consist of all highways within the compact sections
                of towns and cities of 7,500 inhabitants and over. Extensions of Class I and Class
              --'II highways through these areas are included in this classification. At present there
                are 13 cities and 9 towns in this category. Presently there are 31.43 miles of Class
                IV roads in Hampton.

                Class V, Rural Highways, consist of all other traveled highways which the town or
                city has the duty to maintain regularly. There are 33.95 miles of Class V roads in
                Hampton.

                Class VI, Unmaintained Highways, consist of all other existing public ways, including
                highways discontinued as open highways, highways closed subject to gates and
                bars, and highways not maintained in suitable condition for travel for five years or
                more. There are 2.02 miles of Class VI roads in Hampton.

                Other, consists of U.S. Forest Service roads and state secondary roads maintained
                by the U.S. Forest Service, also other toll highways not on the state turnpike
                system, (i.e. private toll road, Mt. Washington toll road, Monadnock toll road). There
                are none of these roads in Hampton.





                                                       2








        Street and Highway Conditions

        Overall the road conditions in Hampton are good. Approximately 25 percent of the roads
        are state highways and are in good condition, thereby relieving the Town of considerable
        maintenance responsibilities. The Department of Public Works budget is supplemented with
        money from the state's Highway Block Grant Program, which totaled $164,974 in 1993.
        Each year the Director of Public Works determines which roads are most in need of repair
        and improves as many as possible with the available funding.

        The traffic conditions along Route 1 have been a major concern of many people for a
        number of years. The state's permanent traffic counter at the Hampton/North Hampton
        line indicates that the average daily traffic has increased from 11,382 in 1979 to 16,350
        in 1992. In 1990 the traffic reached its highest level at 17,576. It is clear that something
        has to be done to accommodate the traffic on Route 1.

        In 1988 the State of New Hampshire contracted with Kimball Chase Co. to study Route 1
        and develop recommendations. The study, entitled U.S. Route 1 Feasibility Study, was
        released in September of 1989. The reader is referred to the study for a complete analysis
        of Route 1. Regarding Hampton, the study identified the Route 27 and Route 1 intersection
        as a problem area. A capacity analysis of the intersection indicated average delays of 46
        seconds during the PM peak hour. In 1988 the intersection operated at a level of service
        of "E", meaning that there was unstable traffic flow, the traffic volumes were approaching
        the capacity of the intersection and that delays of 40 to 60 seconds would be encountered.
        The study made the recommendation that additional through/right turn lanes for both
        northbound and southbound Route 1 approaches be added to improve the capacity level
        to "B", which would reduce delays to less than 15 seconds.

        The study also identified the Winnicunnet Road and Route 1 intersection as a problem area.
        The unsignalized, unconventional intersection exhibited a level of service of "F" during PM
        peak hour due to the excessive side street demand and had a high accident rate due to
        geometry-related conflicts.   Signalization and reconfiguration of the intersection to a
        standard "T" was recommended by the study.

        In 1994, the town appropriated funds to repave the urban compact portion of Route
        1/Lafayette Road in an effort to upgrade the condition of the road. Since 1985, traffic
        signals have been installed by developers on Route 1 at the intersections with Stickney
        Terrace and Kershaw Avenue. Hampton officials should work closely with the State so
        that proposed improvements outside the urban compact area will be compatible with
        Hampton's plans for its section of Route 1.


        Traffic Volumes


        Traffic flow data is traditionally collected by placing automatic traffic counters along the
        desired roadway. The state's only permanent traffic counter in Hampton is located at the
        tollbooth on Interstate 95. Since this counter does not include the vehicles entering and
        exiting 1-95 at exit 2, the counts are lower than the total number of vehicles passing


                                                     3








         through Hampton on 1-95. The state has done some non-permanent traffic counts on 1-95
         in Hampton Falls at the Hampton town line. The closest traffic counter on Route 1 is
         installed in North Hampton, just north of the Hampton town line. Traffic counts adjusted
         for the average day are presented in Table 1 for all locations that NHDOT has placed non-
         permanent counters from 1987 to 1992.

         The growth in traffic on the state highways has been increasing slowly or in some cases,
         remaining level. Traffic on 1-95 in Hampton increased by 7% between 1987 and 1992.
         Traffic on Route 1 has remained steady at three counter locations, ranging between 20,000
         and 21,000 vehicles per day. Table 2 contains traffic data for the permanent counter
         locations at the 1-95 tollbooth and Route 1 at the North Hampton town line. These counts
         are from 1979 to 1992 and include the yearly percent change in traffic volumes. 1985 and
         1986 showed the largest increases in traffic counts.

         Additional traffic count data from the NHDOT and the Rockingham Planning Commission
         from 1994 is presented in Table 3. These counts are not yearly averages, but are for
         monthly or weekly time periods. There are weekday and weekend counts for each location
         and some counts include data for each direction of travel. As expected, the summer
         weekend counts for Interstate 95 and Route 1 are the highest. For 1-95, the July traffic
         is more than double the January traffic. The July traffic on Route 1 is more than four times
         the traffic in January. During the summer months, Winnicunnet Road and High Street carry
         close to 10,000 vehicles per day.

         The Route 1 Feasibility Study indicates that traffic on Route 1, south of the Route 51
         interchange, averaged more than 22,000 vehicles a day, while the traffic near the center
         of town averaged more than 23,000 vehicles per day and the traffic near the North
         Hampton town line dropped to less than 20,000 vehicles a day. By the year 2000, the
         study predicts the average daily traffic volumes on Route 1, south of the Route 51
         interchange will be almost 32,000 vehicles per day. In the center of town, the study
         predicted a traffic volume of more than 33,000 and near the North Hampton line the
         average daily traffic was predicted to be more than 28,000.

         In October of 1989 the State increased the tolls on Interstate 95 to $1.00 for through
         traffic. Local officials expected that this would result in a traffic increase on Route 1 due
         to people avoiding the tolls. The data collected at the permanent counter near the Hamp-
         ton/North Hampton line did indicate an increase from 1989 to 1990, but since then the
         volumes have actually deceased yearly. The economic downturn in the region has
         obviously had an impact on the traffic volumes.

         Compounding roadway capacity problems are the number of access and egress points and
         pedestrian crossings along the roadways. Of the major corridors identified, only Interstate
         95 and Route 51 are limited access highways and do not suffer from these problems. In
         particular, in the Hampton Beach area, an extremely high pedestrian volume reduces the
         available roadway capacity leading to major vehicular delays.




                                                      4








         HAMPTON MASTER PLAN                                    TABLE 1                                              9/29/94


                                     NHDOT NON-PERMANENT TRAFFIC RECORDER DATA


                                                                                                                   -p
                                                                           "' Jt@
                                                                   07,                 IMS
         i@ "M
                              .... ............. . .......... ...                                                  Z
                                                                                                 . ..........
  HAMPTON
         NH 1A             Seabrook TL                          10943      10320       10578       9819       11746        9139
         1-95 RAMP SB      TO NH 51                             4000        NA          NA         12000       NA           NA
         NH 51 RAMP        TO 1-95 SB                           4000        NA          NA         11000       NA           NA
         1-95 RAMP SB      TO NH 51 EB & WB                     3600        NA          NA         10000       NA           NA
         NH 51 RAMP        TO 1-95 NB                           4200        NA          NA         '12000      NA           NA
         Mace Rd           E of Mill Rd                          NA        3500        3600        4300       4000          NA
         NH 27             S of Carolina Ave                     NA        10700        NA          NA         NA           NA
         North Shore Rd    E of Ouinlan Lane                     NA        1900        2000        1400        NA           NA
         Mill Road         N of Ann's Lane                       NA        4000        4100        3700       3700          NA
         N Beach Rd        W of NH 1A                            NA        1000        1100        1100        600          NA
         NH 51             E of NH 101 D                         NA        19000       19700       18000       NA           NA
         us 1              N of NH 101E                          NA        20600       21300       21000       NA           NA
         NH 51             E of US 1                            13000      14300       14700       12000      11800         NA
         NH 51             Wof US 1                             11000      11900       12300       8800       9000         7100
         NH 51             W of Glade Path & Church St           NA         NA         14700       15000       NA           NA
         Barbour Rd        E of Milbern Ave                      NA         800         NA          NA         NA           NA
         NH 1A             S of NH 101 E                        10700      11100       11500       11000       NA           NA
         NH 1A             S of NH 101 E TOT TRAF                NA         NA          NA          NA         NA          8800
         us 1              N of Ann's Lane                       NA         NA          NA         20000       NA           NA
         NH 27             W of US 1 near bridge                 NA        11500       11900       11000       NA           NA
         us 1              S of Ramp to NH 51                    NA         NA          NA         20000      20200         NA
         NH 27             E of US 1                             NA        9000        9300        8100        NA           NA
         1-95 NH TPK       Hampton toll booth-thru traf         46236      48442       49201       48000      48187        49263


  HAMPTON FALLS
         1-95 NH TPK       Hampton TL                           49700      51500 ,     54200       56000       NA          61000


                                                                                     TABLE 2
                                                             NHDOT PERMANENT TRAFFIC RECORDER DATA



                                                              ....             .... .... ... ......                      ... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......


                                                                1970       11382        NA         1979       26192         NA
                                                                1980       11438       0.5%        1980       26238        0.2%
                                                                1981       12139       6.1%        1981       27859        6.2%
                                                                1982       13184       8.6%        1982       30359        9.0%
                                                                1983       13764       4.4%        1983       33202        9.4%
                                                                1984       12765       -7.3%       1984       35584        7.2%
                                                                1985       14720       15.3%       1985       39505        11.0%
                                                                1986       16350       11.1%       1986       43317        9.6%
                                                                1987       15810       -3.3%       1987       46236        6.7%
                                                                1988       16483       4.3%        1988       48442        4.8%
                                                                1989       16696       1.3%        1989       49201        1.6%
                                                                1990       17576       5.3%        1990       48000        -2.4%
                                                                1991       16482       -6.2%       1991       48187        0.4%
                                                                1992       16350 , -0.8% , 1992            ,  49263        2.2%
   AADT     Adjusted Average Daily Traffic


                             *All data is taken from 1991 and 1992 NHDOT Traffic Volume Reports                    DOTCOUNTALS






                HAMPTON MASTER PLAN                                                          TABLE 3                                                                          9/29/94
                                                                      1994 TRAFFIC COUNTS IN HAMPTON


                                                                                                                                    ............
            I 'N.
                                                                                                                 ....... ---

                                                                                                                                                    ..................
                                                                                                                                                                   ---------------   ------- ...
             HAMPTON
                    *  1-95                           NB at Tolls                                            Jan-94                 15898           16703             16812          16519
                    *  1-95                           NB at Tolls                                            Feb-94                 18165           18890             21771          19198
                    *  1-95                           NB at Tolls                                            Mar-94                 19995           19471             23527          20062
                    *  1-95                           NB at Tolls                                            Apr-94                 23439           22535             25527          23154
                    *  1-95                           NB at Tolls                                            May-94                 32755           22599             23658          24374
                    *  1-95                           NB at Tolls                                            Jun-94                 26904           27633             33541          28324
                    *  1-95                           NB at Tolls                                            Jul-94                 34555           35026             49144          37227
                    *  1-95                           SB at Tolls                                            Jan-94                 25234           16194             15490          17539
                    *  1-95                           SB at Tolls                                            Feb-94                 26195           18192.            18474          19376
                    *  1-95                           SB at Tolls                                            Mar-94                 29333           18302             20957          20068
                    *  1-95                           SB at Tolls                                            Apr-94                 29632           21325             22790          22677
                    *  1-95                           SB at Tolls                                            May-94                 23739           23612             30269          24492
                    *  1-95                           SB at Tolls                                            Jun-94                 42518           24531             26508          27193
                    *  1-95                           SB at Tolls                                            Jul-94                 51296           32755             36187          36299
                    *  us     1                       NB at Seabrook TL                                      Jan-94                 2609            1902              2564           2123
                    *  us     1                       NB at Seabrook TL                                      Feb-94                 3920            2153              3426           2587
                    *  us     1                       NB at Seabrook TL                                      Mar-94                 4266            2502              4418           2977
                    *  us     1                       NB at Seabrook TL                                      May-94                 6678            4346              8451           5252
                    *  us     1                       NB at Seabrook TL                                      Jun-94                 8138            6157              9831           6791
                    *  us     1                       NB at Seabrook TL                                      Jul-94                 9852            8456              10742          9049
                    *  us     1                       SB at Seabrook TL                                      Jan-94                 2873            2029              2801           2290
                    *  us     1                       SB at Seabrook TL                                      Feb-94                 4370            2313              3569           2787
                    *  us     1                       SB at Seabrook TL                                      Mar-94                 4714            2721              4704           3234
                    *  us     1                       SB at Seabrook TL                                      May-94                 8846            4947              9411           6152
                    *  us     1                       SB at Seabrook TL                                      Jun-94                 11396           7316              10818          8327
                    *  US.@ 1                         SB at Seabrook TL                                      Jul-94                 12899           10171             12327          10959
                    *  1-95                           NB on ramp from NH 51                             5/11 to5/1 7/94             3622            5186              4624           4861
                    *  1-95                           N13 off ramp to NH 51                             5/11 to5/1 7/94             4346            4263              5003           4372
                    *  1-95                           SB on ramp from NH 51                             5/11 to5/1 7/94             6626            4416              4811           4823
                    *  1-95                           SB off ramp to NH 51                              5/11 to5/1 7/94             3797            4826              3918           4543
                    *  NH 27 (High St.)               E. of US 1                                        6/22to6/27/94               9246            9843              8527           9588
                    *  NH 51                          E. of NH 111                                      6/22to6/27/94               18965           21069             16406          20167
                    *  Mill Rd                        NB N. of Ann's Lane                               6/22to6/27/94               1692            2130              2041           2060
                    *  Mill Rd                        SB N. of Ann's Lane                               6/22to6/27/94               1687            2163              1991           2077
                    #  Woodland Rd                    NB N. of Little River                             7/5/to7/11/94               1322            1490              1543           1471
                    #  Woodland Rd                    SB N. of Little River                             7/5/to7/11/94               1321            1443              1374           1411
                    # Towle Farm Rd                   WB Over 1-95                                      7/5/to7/11/94               1075            1386              1173           1298
                    # Towle Farm Rd                   EB over 1-95                                      7/5/to7/11/94               1026            1340              1188           1262
                    # Tidemill Rd                     Near Hampton Public Works                         8/5to8/15/94                 69             413               108            295
                    #  Tidemill Rd                    Near Landing Rd                                   8/3 to8/15/94               235             721               337            587
                    # Winnicunnet Rd                  EB W. of Locke Rd                                 8/1 Oto8/1 5/94             4887            5661              6147           5613
                    # Winnicunnet Rd                  WB W. of Locke Rd                                 8/1 Oto8/1 5/94             4792            5068              5364           5071
            NORTH HAMPTON
                    *  us     1                       N. of B&M RR Bridge                                    Jan. 94                10323           13813             12015          12960
                    *  us     1                       N. of B&M RR Bridge                                    Feb. 94                11275           14470             14618          14034
                    *  us     1                       N. of B&M RR Bridge                                    Mar-94                 12455           15316             16507          15101
                    *  us     1                       N. of B&M RR Bridge                                    Apr-94                 12751           17119             17332          16572
                    *  us     1                       N. of B&M RR Bridge                                    May-94                 14631           17654             18633          17271
                    *  us     1                       N. of B&M RR Bridge                                    Jun-94                 14787           18742             17893          18101
                    *  us     1                       N. of B&M RR Bridge                               7/1 to 7/6/94               16064           18325             18274          17952,

                                                                      * Information from 1994 NHDOT Traffic Count Data
                                                          Information from Rockingham Planning Commission Traffic Count Date
                                                                                                                                                                          COUNTS94.XLS








        Beyond the problems associated with multiple access and egress points, capacity problems
        are also intensified on Routes 1 and 1 A by the presence of on-street parking. In these two
        corridors, motorists must not only be aware of turning vehicles and pedestrians in the
        street, but also moving vehicles entering or leaving parking spaces.

        In order to reduce the traffic congestion on Route 1, Hampton favors increased access to
        Interstate 95 to serve traffic to and from North Hampton and Rye.

        Financing Road Imr)rovements

        Hampton's road network is eligible to receive four forms of financing made available by the
        Federal and State governments:

        1 .    State Aid Construction Funds are provided for improvement of uncompleted sections
               of state secondary, Class If highways. The ratio of state to town matching funds
               is based on the assessed valuation of the municipality and varies from a 2 to 1 ratio
               in small towns to a 1 to 1 ratio in the large municipalities. Application must be made
               to the Administrator, Bureau of Municipal Highways by May 1 of each year, but
               preliminary discussions about such projects should begin well in advance of this date
               (RSA 235).


        2.     State Aid Reconstruction Funds are available for improvement of completed sections
               of state secondary, Class 11 highways when the town or city wishes to advance the
               priority of construction for special types of work such as improved drainage, riding
               surface or elimination of sharp curves. The matching ratio is the same as for State
             .,-Aid Construction Funds and application is made in the same manner (RSA 235).

        3.     Highway Block Grant Aid Funds are apportioned to all cities and towns on a yearly
               basis for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of Class IV and V
               highways on the following basis:

               Apportionment A. These funds are allocated from an annual apportionment of not
               less than 12% of the total highway revenues collected the preceding fiscal year.
               The amount distributed is based on one-half mileage and one-half population as the
               city/town factors bear to the state total.

               Apportionment B. These funds are allocated from an annual apportionment of
               $400,000; the amount available to towns is based on a formula using equalized
               valuation and Class V mileage designed to give the greatest benefit to the low
               valuation towns with high road mileage.

               Block Grant Aid payments are made as follows: 30 percent in July; 30 percent in
               October; 20 percent in January; and 20 percent in April. Unused balances may be
               carried over to the following municipal fiscal year (RSA 235.)



                                                     7








         4.     Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Funds are available for replacement or rehabilitation
                of town bridges over 20 feet in length. Bridge Aid funds may be used for matching
                these funds. Application is made to the Administrator, Bureau of Municipal
                Highways in the same manner as aid under the Bridge Aid Program.

         Another possible funding source which many communities across the country, including
         ones in New Hampshire, are utilizing are road impact fees. These are fees collected from
         the developer to pay for part of the cost of infrastructure, in particular roads. The recent
         trend of shifting the burden to the private sector can be attributed to not only reduced
         federal assistance but also to the realization by municipal officials that new development
         is not paying its way, resulting in the burden being placed upon the residents of a
         community instead.

         In 1991 the state Legislature passed enabling legislation allowing communities to assess
         impact fees under certain conditions, which are detailed in RSA 674:21 V. Due to the
         administrative burden associated with assessing impact fees, very few communities have
         adopted an impact fee ordinance. However, a number of communities in New Hampshire
         are negotiating with developers based on a rational nexus or proportionate benefit concept
         as was upheld in an important New Hampshire court case - Land/Vest Progerties, Inc. v.
         Town of Plainfield.


         Essentially, future deficiencies are identified by traffic and fiscal impact studies, and in turn
         are the basis for the community to negotiate with the developer about a financial
         contribution that would be used to pay for improving roads or other infrastructure which
         would ultimately be needed by those residing in the development.


         Scenic Roads


         Another transportation issue is scenic roads, which is addressed in RSA 231:157. Inorder
         to designate any road in town as scenic, other than a Class I or Class 11 highway, 10
         persons (voting or non-voting) owning land abutting the proposed road can petition the
         town to do so. In turn, the town votes on it at any regular or special Town Meeting. Vot-
         ers can also rescind the designation of a scenic road at a regular meeting upon petition.

         By designating a road scenic, there are two benefits the town can enjoy. First, it
         establishes a procedure for protecting the rural landscape within a public right-of-way.
         Secondly, it can demonstrate the public's interest to preserve the rural qualities of a road.

         The effects of designating a road scenic are detailed in RSA 231:158. Included are
         restrictions upon the repair, maintenance, reconstruction or paving work which is done to
         the road. Two important facets of the designation are that it does not affect the eligibility
         of the Town to receive construction, maintenance, or reconstruction funds, or affect the
         rights of any land owner with respect to work on his own property.

         The only road designated as a scenic road by Hampton is Timber Swamp Road in the
         western part of town.


                                                         8








        Commuting Patterns

        Being a largely residential community, many of Hampton's citizens commute out of town
        to go to work. According to the data from the 1990 U.S. Census, 4,975 of the 6,559
        workers residing in Hampton, worked outside of the Town. In addition, 2,430 residents
        worked outside of Rockingham County and 1,965 worked outside of New Hampshire. The
        major work destinations for Hampton workers are listed below in Table 4. Even though
        Hampton is considered by some to be a "bedroom community" for the Boston metropolitan
        area, Table 4 shows that only six of the thi leen work destinations (excluding Hampton)
        are to the south.


                                                 TABkE 4
                                        COMMUTING PATTERNS


              Work Place                 No.                 Work Place                 No.
              Hampton                    1584                Newburyport, MA            150
              Portsmouth                 994                 Newington                  148
              Seabrook                   424                 Manchester                 126
              Exeter                     259                 Kittery, ME                115
              North Hampton              247                 Rye                        113
              Boston, MA                 230                 Hampton Falls              ill
              Haverhill, MA              219                 Andover, MA                 88


              Source: 1990 U.S. Census


        According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the median travel time to work for Hampton Falls'
        workers was 20 to 24 minutes. The most common travel time to work was 5 to 9
        minutes. For 79 workers, their travel time was 90 or more minutes. Also, 154 residents
        worked at home.


        Par"n

        Two areas of town are generally understood to suffer significant parking problems --
        Hampton Beach (served by 3 municipal lots.and numerous private parking lots) and the
        downtown area (served by 1 municipal lot). For years, business interests within both areas
        have expressed the desire for increased parking.

        Accepting the need to address the parking problem, there are two choices -- increase
        ground-level parking, or construction of a parking garage. Additional space for ground-level
        parking in both the downtown and the beach area is difficult to find given the scarcity of
        open, buildable land in both locations. The municipal lot in the downtown could be
        expanded southward behind the businesses along Route 1 if that land could be obtained
        by the Town. This option would depend on the cooperation of the merchants in this area.
        In 1993, the town redesigned the parking space layout in the lot to increase the number
        of spaces.



                                                     9







         The option of building a parking garage has been discussed for many years. A study
         conducted in the mid- 1 980's found that the cost of building a parking garage in the beach
         area does not appear justifiable, as a municipal investment, to address only a seasonal
         demand. While a parking garage located downtown would be used year-round, this option
         appears to be impractical because of the lack of available land to locate such a structure
         and the fact that it would be out of character with the rest of the downtown. A parking
         garage in the downtown would not be suited for use by beachgoers since it would require
         them to enter the downtown, causing greater traffic congestion.

         A compromise solution could be to locate a parking lot in an off-beach area and provide a
         shuttle bus system to the beach and downtown. By charging a smaller fee than at a beach
         lot and providing inexpensive and frequent bus service to the beach, people would be
         encouraged to use an off-beach lot. This proposal would help alleviate the parking shortage
         at the beach.


         Public Transportation


         Expanding public transportation is one way to alleviate a portion of Hampton's seasonal
         traffic congestion problem. Mass public transit, such as buses and taxies, are available on
         a limited basis in Hampton at this time. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, only 13
         residents use the bus to travel to work. Coach Company operates a bus service between
         Portsmouth and downtown Boston, with stops at the state park and ride lot on the corner
         of Exeter Road and Timber Swamp Road in Hampton and the Newburyport park and ride
         lot. This service makes two round trips per day. Hampton Shuttle runs a six passenger
         executive van to Logan Airport ten times a day, with stops in Portsmouth, Exeter, Hampton
         and Seabrook. Lamies Tavern on Lafayette Road is the location of the Hampton stop. The
         Seacoast Trolley services the seacoast communities of North Hampton, Hampton,
         Seabrook, Salisbury, and Newburyport. The service carries people on two fixed routes; one
         route travelling between Hampton Beach and Newburyport and the other route travelling
         between Hampton Beach and North Hampton shopping centers.

         Studies conducted to consider establishing passenger train service along the existing
         Hampton branch railroad tracks have concluded that such a proposal would not be feasible
         atthistime. The rail line is used only for occasional freight service to businesses along the
         line in Hampton. The rail line in Hampton Falls has been removed.

         As Hampton and the surrounding communities continue to grow, mass transit developed
         as a regional system should be an important consideration. In 1994, a proposal to establish
         passenger rail service from Boston to Portland, Maine was approved. Train stations are
         being planned for Haverhill, Ma., Exeter, and Dover, with a seasonal stop in Durham.
         Residents of Hampton could utilize the Exeter or Haverhill sites to travel to Portland or
         Boston. With only three runs a day initially, it is unlikely that the train will be used by
         commuters on a regular basis.

         Air transportation is an important part of the overall transportation picture. The present
         Hampton Airport located both in Hampton and North Hampton is not adequate to provide


                                                      10.








        air commuter service, except for those that are pilots themselves. Expansion of the airport
        is unlikely and undesirable due to the highly congested nature of the surrounding land.
        Commuter plane service out of the Pease International Tradeport was started in 1992. The
        distance from Hampton to Portsmouth decreases the likelihood of residents using the
        airport for commutes to Boston, but it may be an attractive alternative for longer trips along
        the eastern seaboard.

        According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 814 out of 6,110 (13%) Hampton's workers who
        drive to work participate in a carpool. A two-person carpool is used by 702 workers, a
        three-person carpool is used by 79 workers, and 33 workers use a four-person carpool.
        Interestingly enough, 157 workers walk to their job and 18 use a bicycle to get to work.

        As part of a regional effort to reduce our dependance on motor vehicles and to improve air
        quality, the Seacoast Metropolitan Planning Organization has developed a regional bike plan
        that proposes the location of bicycle routes in the region. In Hampton the plan proposes
        establishing bike routes along Route 1A and Route 27. Many details still need to be
        worked out regarding design and funding prior to the bike plan can be implemented.

        State and Federal Transgortation Projects

        The major transportation project in Hampton and the seacoast is the completion of Route
        101/51 from Epping to Hampton. Construction of the four lane highway will require the
        reconstruction of bridges and the acquisition of land along the highway in Hampton. The
        impact is minimized because the highway stays within the existing right-of-way. The four
        lane section of the highway will transition into a two lane highway near Towle Farm Road.
        Recon struction of the bridges has already begun for the project.

        There are two public transportation projects that were approved for funding during the
        1994 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) application round that will impact
        Hampton. CMAQ funds are available for transportation projects in ozone and carbon
        monoxide non-attainment areas, which Hampton is in. Projects must demonstrate that they
        will improve air quality through a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, fuel consumption, or
        other factors. CMAQ projects require a 20 percent match from the local applicant.

        The Hampton Shuttle will receive funds of $39,837 in 1995 to operate a passenger shuttle
        service every two hours between Manchester and the Seacoast area, including Hampton
        and Portsmouth. The project would provide passenger and package connection between
        the Manchester Airport and the Pease Trade Center Airport.

        The other CMAQ project is Timberlane Coach Company's proposal to expand the operation
        of the Seacoast Trolley to include destinations in Portsmouth and Pease Tradeport as well
        as park-n-rides in Portsmouth and Newburyport. Scheduled to be started in 1995, the total
        project cost will be $61,425, with CMAQ funds of $49,140.





                                                      11









         Other TranSDortation Issues


         As Hampton and the area grows, additional truck traffic can be expected on local roads.
         In order to ensure that trucks use the proper roads, the town should enforce RSA 47:17,
         Section Vill "Traffic Devices and Signals" (made applicable to Selectmen by RSA 41:11),
         which empowers the Board of Selectmen:

                "To make special regulations as to the use of vehicles upon particular
                highways, except as to speed, and to exclude such vehicles altogether from
                certain ways; to establish stop intersections, erect and provide for the control
                of traffic by, stop signs or other traffic devices or signals which shall conform
                to standards set by the highway commissioner and shall be approved by him
                as to type, size, installation and method of operation."

         This RSA allows Hampton to adopt an ordinance restricting vehicles above certain weights
         from designated town roads during seasonally wet periods.

         As part of the Capital Improvement Program, the Department of Public Works and Board
         of Selectmen should prepare a prioritized list of roads in need of repairs. In 1990, the
         Town prepared a road condition report that described the condition of each town-
         maintained road. This report should be keep up to date and be used to prioritize the future
         spending on road improvements. This will not only provide a long term improvement plan
         but it would assist the Planning Board in assessing developers their fair share of future road
         improvements.

         There are approximately many dead-end roads in Hampton, built before 1986, when the
         Planning Board adopted an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations which limits the
         length of dead-end roads to 1,200 feet. Not only are long dead-end roads an inefficient
         road design and require police and postal service vehicles to retrace their routes, but they
         can also present a safety concern. Too many houses served by only one access point
         increase the risk of emergency vehicles not being able to respond because the one road
         entrance is blocked for some reason. For these reasons, the Planning Board should
         maintain and enforce the limit on the length of dead-end streets.

         The traffic problems on Route 1 will likely continue to grow as development occurs. One
         problem is the number of driveways onto the highway. In reviewing site plans for
         development along Route 1, the Planning Board should carefully scrutinize the driveway
         design. Not only should the number of access points be reduced but the installation of cur-
         bing to properly direct the vehicles to follow the traffic flow pattern is crucial. Within the
         urban compact area, driveways are issued by the Hampton Public Works Department.
         Outside the urban compact area, driveway permit are issued by the NHDOT. Hampton
         should work closely with NHDOT to require proper driveway designs in these areas.
         Hampton has an active Highway Safety Committee composed of citizens. All developers
         proposals that have the potential to cause traffic problems should continue to be reviewed
         by the Highway Safety Committee. The Planning Board should review their recommenda-
         tions before making any final decisions.


                                                       112@











        RECOMMENDATIONS


        Highways

        1      U.S. Route 1 -- (Short Ran-ge): The Town has hired a consultant to study the
               intersection of Route 1 and High Street. Improved signalization at this intersection,
               including additional signal phasing (add left turn phases) is necessary. This would
               alleviate the safety hazards created by left turns crossing opposing traffic and help
               alleviate congestion. Limit driveway access points along Route 1 and require
               deceleration lanes at major driveways.

               (Long Range): Consider the addition of signals at Route 1 at the intersection with
               Winnacunnet Road and Ann's Lane to alleviate traffic congestion created by left
               turning traffic, and traffic exiting these streets. Construction of a full interchange
               with Route 51 to alleviate traffic from having to cross the traffic flow on Route 1 to
               reverse direction.


        2.     NH Route 51 -- (Short Range): Construction of an interchange along Route 51 to
               provide direct access to the Merrill Industrial Drive Industrial Park and the rest of the
               industrially-zoned land in the area.

               (Long Range): No expansion of Route 51 to a 4-lane limited access highway unless
               steps are taken to improve the distribution of traffic exiting into the beach area. If
               expansion is required, construction of interchanges at Route 1 (full interchange) and
               Landing Road (half diamond) should be undertaken.

        3.     Interstate 95 -- (Short Range): Hampton should request that the State construct a
               gravel crossover through the median of Interstate 95, south of the State Liquor
               Store, so that emergency vehicles can have access to the opposite lane without
               having to travel to Seabrook to turn around.

        4.     Long Range: Hampton should undertake a study to determine methods of increasing
               pedestrian and bicyclist safety. The study should assess the feasibility of
               constructing sidewalks and bikepaths.

        Parking


        1 .    Short RaDge: a.      Expand off-street parking in commercial districts.
                             b.     Work with the NHDOT to improve access to and expand the
                                    Exeter Road park-n-ride lot in Hampton.

               Long RaDge: a.       Construct an off-beach parking facility and provide shuttle bus
                                    service to the beach.
                             b.     Expand the High Street municipal parking lot.



                                                       13




                                                                                   SVRVICES CTFt LIBRAR*4
                                                                           AA COASTAL
         Public Transl2ortation                                               668 W11883 t5

         1     Participation in a regional transportation program to provide public transportation to
               Hampton. Support the implementation of the Seacoast Metropolitan Organization's
               regional bike plan.

         2.    Operation of a shuttle bus system connecting the beach, the downtown, and any
               off-beach parking facility to alleviate some traffic congestion. A shuttle bus would
               also provide the Town with an answer to its beach area parking problems.











































                                                     14