Concord — February 3, 2005 — The popular summer pastime of “rafting” – boating’s equivalent of a tailgate party – on the state’s lakes would be banned by a bill before the state Senate. Rafting is when boats congregate on the water, sometimes involving as many as 150 boats.

Rep. Mike Whalley, R-Alton, told the Senate Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee on Wednesday he co-sponsored the bill after a constituent complained that about a dozen rafters were blocking access to his dock on Lake Winnipesaukee.

“I strongly believe lakes are held in trust for all citizens,” he said. “This is not an attempt to privatize water in front of anybody’s home.”

Whalley said rafters already are prohibited from congregating at 10 or 11 areas on the lake. He said banning rafting on other lakes would keep problems from developing elsewhere.

“I did not want to eliminate it only on Lake Winnipesaukee because it might drive them to other lakes and ponds,” he said.

Whalley said he isn’t against people enjoying the lake if they don’t infringe on others’ rights to navigate the same waters. But he said rafters typically congregate in coves out of the wind and away from boat traffic, which increases congestion.

The navigation problem could be resolved if boats could not congregate in numbers and were separated by 50 feet.

Current law bans rafting in three areas of Lake Winnipesaukee. The Department of Safety banned rafting in other areas after residents petitioned them to do so.

State law defines a raft as two or more boats congregated together. However, the law also defines rafting in prohibited areas as three or more boats congregating less than 50 feet apart.

Whalley said he did not intend to prohibit two boats from tying up together.

James Howard of Gilford objected that current rules are adequate because they allow people to petition the state to ban rafting in specific areas. Howard said state Marine Patrol officers also can tell rafters to move away from a dock if they are blocking access.

The Nature Conservancy is preparing to begin the first phase of management to restore and maintain a globally rare habitat in the Ossipee Pine Barrens. The work will likely begin this fall with mechanical treatments of pitch pine and scrub oak near East Shore Drive to reduce fuel loads and help ecological management.

Ultimately the Conservancy will use carefully prescribed burns in this pine barrens ecosystem that has depended upon fire for its maintenance and regeneration for thousands of years. In the coming years prescribed burns will be conducted by trained Conservancy staff, local and state firefighters, the White Mountain National Forest and other organizations.

The Conservancy will hold an informational meeting on the restoration and management efforts on Thursday, November 4th, at 7 PM at the Madison Library. The meeting will cover an overview of restoration efforts — including mechanical treatments and prescribed burns — and scientific projects to understand fuel loads and biodiversity.

The Conservancy has undertaken a thorough review of fuels present in the Ossipee Pine Barrens (such as twigs and limbs, anything that can burn) to better understand how fire might react and how to manage different parts of the property.

Due to improved fire suppression capabilities and changing land use patterns, fire has been virtually eliminated from the Ossipee Pine Barrens. The last fire in the area was in 1957 when several hundred acres burned north of Ossipee Lake Road. The lack of fire since then has enabled fire-intolerant species (like white pine and some hardwoods) to gain a foothold, while pitch pine and scrub oak have declined. At the same time, the lack of fire has led to an accumulation of leaf litter, branches and limbs, which has drastically increased the possibility of a difficult to control fire.

Mechanical treatment will improve the Ossipee Pine Barrens habitat and reduce fuel loads before prescribed burns are implemented. To learn more, the Nature Conservancy invites you to the November 4th meeting in Madison, or click here to view a brochure of the program.10.18.04

Under state law, that means the planning boards of all potentially affected towns must be treated as abutters and invited to comment on the application. After its vote, the Board set a new date of August 25th to review the merits of CMI’s application for a Special Use Permit under Tamworth’s Wetlands Ordinance.

CMI wants to build a private track to race cars and motorcycles on the north face of Mt. Whittier in Tamworth and must have its Special Use Permit in hand, along with more than a dozen other permits, before it can begin construction.

When the Board took up the question of regional impact, CMI attorney Susan Duprey suggested that there was none and urged the Board to continue with its hearing on the application. Board chairman David Goodson agreed, saying that it would be too bad to bring everybody out again on another warm summer night.

Speaking for the group Focus: Tamworth, attorney Sherry Young objected to the idea of moving forward with the hearing. She read a letter to the Planning Board dated July 9th which said that the Board had not allowed the requisite 15 days between when the application was filed, which was June 22nd, and the June 23rd meeting at which the application was declared complete and the hearing was announced. She also said that insufficient notice of the hearing was given to abutters and other towns.

Blair Folts of the Green Mountain Conservation Group, which monitors water quality in the Ossipee Watershed, pointed to the importance and widespread impact of the Ossipee Aquifer as an indication of the project’s regional impact. A significant recharge area for the aquifer would be affected by the proposed CMI development.

Tamworth resident Peggy Johnson pointed to several ways in which the application did not conform to the intent of the Tamworth Wetlands Ordinance. The ordinance, she pointed out, specifically states its intent to “protect potential water supplies and existing aquifers and aquifer recharge areas.” Carl McNall of Sandwich spoke on behalf of the nearby towns, asking that the board allow other affected towns to give their official input.

Board member Herb Cooper moved that the Board determine that the project has the potential for regional impact. The motion passed with no dissenting votes and chairman Goodson announced that the hearing would be continued to August 25th, the date of the next scheduled Planning Board meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, Laurel Spector, an attorney acting for Town Council Tim Bates, read a letter from CMI lawyer Duprey requesting that two Planning Board members, Tom Cleveland and Herb Cooper, recuse themselves from voting on the application. Both had signed letters more than a year ago supporting Tamworth’s proposed Emergency Temporary Zoning ordinance. Duprey claimed that meant both were biased against CMI.

Attorney Young, representing Focus: Tamworth, presented a letter asking that Alexandra Cook, who was recently appointed to represent the Tamworth Selectboard as a voting member of the Planning Board, also recuse herself. Young pointed out that a trust of which Cook is the beneficiary sold land to CMI, and that an additional land sale was under discussion, giving Cook a financial interest in the success of the project. She also argued that Cook could not legally represent the Selectboard because she was not an “administrative” town official, as required by New Hampshire statues. Cook was defeated when she ran for a seat on the Planning Board in the March town elections.

All three members refused to recuse themselves voluntarily, and the Board declined to vote on whether or not to request the recusals. Several members of the public spoke against the recusals. “I want people on the town boards who represent me. I voted for these people for a reason,” said Tamworth resident Joe Binsack. Chairman Goodson ruled that the meeting would go forward with all members voting.

Speaking about the Board’s ultimate decision to re-schedule the hearing, Focus: Tamworth spokesperson Charles Greenhalgh said “We’re glad that the Planning Board recognizes the regional impact of this development. We look forward to presenting our views on the Special Use Permit application on August 25th.”

7.23.04

In addition to considering the impact on the town, the Board expects to hear concerns about the potential impact on neighboring towns, including Ossipee and Freedom. New Hampshire state law RSA 36:56 guides the Board’s consideration of such impact based on criteria that include light, noise, aquifers, and surface waters.

According to Charles Greenhalgh, a spokesman of Focus: Tamworth, “It’s obvious that this project has the potential for regional impact. This hearing is an opportunity for all affected communities to bring their concerns to the Planning Board.”

The July 21st hearing is the last scheduled public meeting at which input on the project will be considered. In a separate assessment of the track, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is performing a “public interest review” in which written comments from the public will be accepted through August 13th on conservation, economics, aesthetics, fish and wildlife and water quality, among other criteria. The Corps will also conduct an analysis of whether the project conforms to Federal guidelines designed to avoid unnecessary filling of waters and wetlands.

A petition asking the Corps to conduct a public hearing on the matter has been signed by 559 residents of Tamworth and towns from Conway to Wolfeboro, according to Greenhalgh. Among the signatories are the presidents of the Silver Lake Association and Chocorua Lake Association. The Corps says it will not make a final decision about a hearing until after the public comment period ends on August 13th.

7.19.04

Concord — May 11, 2004 — A law exempting “private driving instruction and exhibition facilities” from town regulatory authority over race tracks pursuant to RSA 31:41-a became effective Tuesday May 4th. SB 458 first came to our attention Wednesday, the day after it became effective. While the bill went through the full schedule of notice and public hearings, it certainly remained under the radar screen for many with concerns and moved through the system with unusual speed, signed by the Governor on March 5th and becoming Chapter 4 of the 2004 session laws.

Although the bill was advocated by representatives of the proposed Tamworth race track and has the most immediate impact there, it removes the ability of any municipality to apply RSA 31:41-a or RSA 31:42 to “exhibition facilities,” which are defined in the bill as containing a paved roadway two or miles in length and used for, among other things, the exhibition, maintenance, and operation of vintage or specialty motor vehicles and the conducting of supervised amateur competitions.

The bill was apparently touted as not taking away local control, but it exempts certain activities from existing local regulatory authority—the specific authority the Tamworth residents just happened to exercise in their March 2004 town meeting. We believe it sets a dangerous precedent for seeking legislative relief from local regulation in pending cases where existing municipal and state appeal processes should be used to resolve disagreements.