I am posting the following for Tom Quarles, who would love to here from anyone who can support this effort, in spirit or in effort! It was originally posted on the NHAMC paddlers list. Please feel free to contact him directly at tquarles_at_dmb.com. All questions regarding this issue should be directed to Tom. Thanks! Ken From: Thomas Quarles [mailto:tquarles_at_dmb.com] Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 11:40 AM To: nhamcpaddlers_at_topica.com Subject: [nhamc] Flatwater Paddling - Lake Massabesic As many of you know, I am on the State's Public Water Access Advisory Board. We were approached within the last year by the Manchester Water Works, which owns most, if not all, of the land surrounding Lake Massabesic and which uses it as the public water supply for the City of Manchester. They wanted us to bless their plan to close the existing public access point at the Deerneck Bridge on Route 28 Bypass. This would mean that the only other public access points on the 10th biggest lake in New Hampshire would be at the other end of the lake, effectively cutting off the whole southern and western part of the lake from non-motorized boaters, unless you are willing to spend at least an hour paddling from the existing sites down into those far reaches of the lake. The Board opposed Manchester Water Work's plans, yet Water Works decided to go forward with the closure anyway. The only State entities that can tell them what to do on this subject is the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services ("DES"). Recently Manchester Water Works had to get their operating rules re-approved by New Hampshire DES. I decided it made strategic sense to try to make this access closure an issue under the rules as well as to try to get rid of Water Works closure of the western 15% of the lake from any boat traffic. So far I am not having much success with DES and it looks like I may have to go through the normal rule making process which could involve court action. I desperately need to build as big a coalition of paddlers in support of our position as possible. If you are a flatwater paddler, hopefully you have already paddled Massabesic or plan to. There is a nice description of it in the AMC's quiet water paddling book series. If you would be willing to help me on this effort, even if only lending your name as someone who is interested in the relief I am seeking I would appreciate your responding to this e-mail. I am also going to be sending a copy of this e-mail to the Merrimack Valley Paddlers for posting on their list serve and will contact the Merrimack River Watershed Association which has sponsored trips on the lake. The rest of this e-mail is the full text of my letter requesting these rule changes to DES if you are interested. Thanks for your attention. Have a great Holiday. (Tom) Paul Susca Drinking Water Source Protection Program New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services P.O. Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095 Re: Written Comments re: Proposed Env-Ws 386.47 Protection of the Purity of the Water and Ice of Lake Massabesic and its tributaries Dear Mr. Susca: The following are my comments as a member of the State Public Water Access Advisory Board, where I am a public member representing non-motorized boaters. I read the proposed rules with interest and have discussed them with a number of other canoeists, kayakers and other boaters who regularly use Lake Massabesic. The rules generally are welcome and in most cases seem to balance public recreation with the need to prevent water pollution. However, the rules make no mention of the three public access sites for boat launching at the lake. This is important because access to the western part of the lake is currently under attack by Manchester Water Works which has expressed its intention to close the Deerneck bridge access site off of Route 28 Bypass, despite the Public Water Access Advisory Board's opposition to that plan. Currently there are public access sites at Rt. 121 on the Auburn town line (north end of lake); Severeance Beach in Auburn Village (east end of the lake) and Deerneck Bridge (west and south sides of lake). The rules should recognize and require such access sites to be maintained by the Water Works. The State's Public Access Plan (1991), p. 24-30, recommends that lakes of 1,000 to 20,000 acre in size have 5 access points. Massabesic has 2,512 acres (10th largest in state) and 26.2 miles of shoreline (5th largest after Winnepisaukee, Squam, Winnesquam and Sunapee). Three access points on Massabesic is a bare minimum, and given the huge amount of shoreline, these sites need to be space out around the lake especially for non-motorized boaters. These rules should also provide that none of those sites can be closed unless a reasonable substitute site is provided in the same general area of the lake. For example, if the Water Works truly believes that the Deerneck Bridge access is unsafe (the boating community and the PWAAB do not), they could create a substitute access site one cove to the east, which is accessible on a pre-existing dirt road. There is an additional provision of the proposal that would unnecessarily restrict at least 20% if not more of the total lake from boat access. I am speaking of proposed rule provision 386.47 (h) 7. That provision closes the lake to "all human activity" west of the Hillsborough-Rockingham County line. While I understand this has been the Water Works practice for years, it was not until I reviewed this rule and the applicable statute that I realized that Manchester Water Works had no legal authority for this restriction. There is simply no valid basis for such a broad restriction. I know of no other restriction of that scope on any river or lake in New Hampshire, including other public water supplies. For example, almost every dam on a river of any size has a float line upstream of the dam to prevent swimmers and boaters from coming dangerously close to the edge of the dam. Those float lines are approximately 100 yards or less above the dam's spillway and/or intake. These rivers almost always have some current carrying boaters and swimmers towards the dam. In contrast, as a lake, there would simply be no current carrying a boater towards the Lake Massabesic water intake pipes until a boater was quite close. Rather than the proposed rule which would prevent approximately 20% of the lake area from being available for boating use, DES should only approve a scaled-back regulation that allows the Water Works to place a float line in a 100 yard radius from all of Water Works intake pipes on the west shore of the lake. Finally, proposed section 386.47(h) 8.j. is also vague and overbroad. Either the provision should be eliminated or the word "lawful" should be added so that the provision reads "a person shall obey in matters of safety and orderliness, all lawful requests made by representatives of the Board of Water Commissioners". Otherwise the rule is a license for Water Works personnel "on the ground" to order uneducated public users of the lake and its shores to do whatever seems expedient to the Water Works employee even if it is inconsistent with these rules. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these rules. Please put me on your mailing list for any further communications regarding them. Sincerely yours, Thomas Quarles, Jr. TQ/lah cc: William D. McAllister, Chair, PWAAB Manchester Water Works Sarah Pillsbury, DES Jacquie Colburn, DES *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:19 PDT