Springfield Cove NRZ Hearing

[webmaster]

I happened to notice through the Dept. of Safety site that there is a public hearing in June about a No Rafting Zone petition submitted to the NH State Legislature. Any thoughts?

Notice of Hearing

Petition to Ban Rafting in Springfield Cove

[Pineedles]

Using Google maps it appears the main property owner abutting the NRZ has not signed the petition. I can find one or two property owners on the petition in the northern part of the NRZ, but most of the signees do not live in the area requested for the NRZ?

[Winnisquamer]

Actually looks like a nice spot to raft...

[Lakeboater]

Is this the cove with the huge house that sold about a year ago? The house that the President of France stayed once?

[HellRaZoR004]

It's pretty clear the new owner of this massive estate doesn't want people in the area.



The basis for this request is mostly on pollution and spread of invasive plants, which IMO should fall under laws we currently have, and therefore should be enforced over additional regulation. What they have requested as a NRZ is a large area.

[AC2717]

another story of someone moving in where a perceived nuisance is to them and them trying to change the way things are.
This should not even be an issue. What was there first. the new owner or the people rafting.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

It's pretty clear the new owner of this massive estate doesn't want people in the area.



The basis for this request is mostly on pollution and spread of invasive plants, which IMO should fall under laws we currently have, and therefore should be enforced over additional regulation. What they have requested as a NRZ is a large area.

It starts with an environmental basis but then quickly becomes a list of complaints about boaters.

Not that I ever go there, but what's the procedure if people wanted to speak against this?

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[LIforrelaxin]

This story will never change. The problem is lake front property owners want serenity the way they want it... And we are becoming society that has no tolerance for what doesn't suit us....

Wait hold on I am a shore front owner.... So why am I not all for this...

This is a big lake for everyone to enjoy... I don't like that my neighbors, and people that put in at the public launch near by play loud music while waterskiing... but its only on the weekends and I can have my paradise all week long.. when they aren't there... So guess what... I live with it...

Soon rafting will not be possible anywhere on the lake... As homeowners in these coves learn that if they use the environment, and pollution as the basis these Petitions while become more common, and likely continue to pass.

Sure you prevent the "Rafts" but people can still come and anchor......

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

It starts with an environmental basis but then quickly becomes a list of complaints about boaters.

Not that I ever go there, but what's the procedure if people wanted to speak against this?

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

A couple years ago we had a similar petition in the town I live to restrict motorized access to one of the ponds. I disagreed with the rationale and wrote a petition to argue against implementing the ban. I gathered the necessary signatures and sent it to the state, as outlines in the notice (similar to what Don provided). Ultimately the request for ban was denied and motorize activities is still allowed.

Not being a resident of Wolfeboro, where this NRZ is being proposed, may affect how much leverage we have...Ultimately I still believe we should petition against it, as it erodes our privilege to use a public entity.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

A couple years ago we had a similar petition in the town I live to restrict motorized access to one of the ponds. I disagreed with the rationale and wrote a petition to argue against implementing the ban. I gathered the necessary signatures and sent it to the state, as outlines in the notice (similar to what Don provided). Ultimately the request for ban was denied and motorize activities is still allowed.

Not being a resident of Wolfeboro, where this NRZ is being proposed, may affect how much leverage we have...Ultimately I still believe we should petition against it, as it erodes our privilege to use a public entity.

As the water is public property owned by the state I would think any NH resident or non resident in that case should and would have a right to speak out

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by AC2717

As the water is public property owned by the state I would think any NH resident or non resident in that case should and would have a right to speak out

That is correct they do..... and can and have for other issues.... that is why there is a public notice..... But the people with the most sway in the mater are those directly effected that directly abut the property in question.....

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

That is correct they do..... and can and have for other issues.... that is why there is a public notice..... But the people with the most sway in the mater are those directly effected that directly abut the property in question.....

I agree and if half of what they say can be proven to be true, especially the part about having substantiated police reports of nudity / sex in public view while rafting, its a slam dunk for the land owners.

Dan

[Rich]

why.. lewd acts have nothing to do with rafting, that's about laws that are already on the books, and rafting has nothing to do with nudity, etc.

Why make more laws, because current laws are not enforced?

Boaters against this should send in comments and try to attend the meeting.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Rich

why.. lewd acts have nothing to do with rafting, that's about laws that are already on the books, and rafting has nothing to do with nudity, etc.

Why make more laws, because current laws are not enforced?

Boaters against this should send in comments and try to attend the meeting.

My point was / is... this is one of the items the landowners will be using for ammunition and it is VERY effective. Substantiated Police reports of lewd conduct occurring while rafting in public view of children will be a show stopper at the hearing, that's a fact!

What do you think is going to happen when one of the landowners shows up with a video of the supposed loud music, public intoxication, nudity and littering...do you really think the panel is just going to brush it aside and say "hey, we already have laws on the books for these infractions" and do nothing??... History of these cases has proven differently... I have personally seen videos exactly like this at hearings and its quite embarrassing to watch and trust me when I tell you that it is very effective!

I'm not for more laws or taking away rafting rights whatsoever, quite the contrary actually, I'm simply stating what ammunition will be used at the hearing that has proven to be very effective at getting rafting rights taken away.

If the boating public wants to beat this, they better get their ducks in a row with a good game plan and come out in numbers because as LIR stated previously, the landowners have the most "sway" at these hearings...

Dan

[Rich]

Dan,

Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you. It's a bit sad.

If boaters want to fight this, the details are in the links presented:

TESTIMONY WILL BE ALLOWED THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

(1) THE SIZE OF THE BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH RULEMAKING ACTION IS BEING CONSIDERED.

(2) THE EFFECT WHICH ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE (S) WOULD HAVE UPON:

(A) PUBLIC SAFETY;
(B) THE MAINTENANCE OF RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND SCENIC VALUES;
(C) THE VARIETY OF USES OF SUCH BODY OF WATER OR PORTION THEREOF;
(D) THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER QUALITY; (E) THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.

(3) THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AFFECTED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ADOPTING OR NOT ADOPTING THE RULE(S); AND

(4) THE AVAILABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE(S).

PERSONS WISHING TO TESTIFY ARE URGED TO COORDINATE THEIR TESTIMONY TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR REPETITION OF TESTIMONY. THE DEPARTMENT, WITHIN A PERIOD OF SEVEN (7) DAYS SUBSEQUENT TO THE SCHEDULED HEARING MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL MAILED OR EMAILED AND RECEIVED BEFORE 4:15 PM ON JUNE 21, 2016.

I think you send here:

CHRISTOPHER CASKO, BUREAU ADMINISTRATOR
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, BUREAU OF HEARINGS,
33 HAZEN DRIVE, CONCORD, NH 03305
TEL # 603-271-3486
EMAIL: SAFETY-HEARINGS@DOS.NH.GOV

As you can see, they want to hear about specific issues.

[upthesaukee]

I'm not sure what the big stink is. The hearing is for a No Rafting Zone, not a No Anchoring Whatsoever Zone. Individual boats keep 25 feet from each other, and a two boat raft has to keep 50 feet from another two boat raft or another individual boat. As for the lewd acts or loud music, I can relate. We don't go to the sandbars because we don't want to listen to the music blaring from boats several spots away.

I live here... I am always Upthesaukee.

[AC2717]

the deal I would perceive is that with the no rafting 25 foot rule there is less room for boats and I would guess that is what they want, but it wouldn't stop anything IMHO

[Rinkerguy]

I am an occasional rafter in "Springfield Cove" over the past few years, and have never witnessed lewd behavior, trespassing, or loud music. In fact I have rarely seen anyone in the large estate house shown earlier in the thread.

The only issue I have there is the occasional BONEHEAD circling thru the cove at above NWZ in a boat or seadoo.

For an area with landowners concerned enough to petition for a No Rafting Zone you would think first Marine Patrol may patrol the area first. I have never seen a MP presence there like I do in the other "problem" areas, maybe because there is no problem here.

[Rich]

I don't think homeowners should try to restrict the use of the lake in front of their home, or anywhere else.

They purchased a home on a shared resource (the lake) and now want to restrict what can be done there.

I like to raft with friends, it's comfortable and fun, however I'm in the older crowd (most of us are in our 40's or 50's), so we don't get loud nor obnoxious. There is no need for no-rafting zones unless it's safety issue. Perhaps, if an area was too tight for boat traffic, like something that would block the Weir's channel.

As to the noise and other complaints... having a NRZ in this area won't stop any of the complaints. Even if there is a NRZ there, boats can still go there, noise can still happen, anchors can still be used, trash could still be dropped, and lewd acts could still occur. Perhaps if it's a small area, there would/could be less boats because of the NRZ rules, but it doesn't solve any issue, and only would allow the homeowner to get tickets issued to people that anchor too close to his home.

He spent a lot of money to have a nice water front home and doesn't want too many people in front of his home, and boaters spend a lot of money to be able to use the nice water everywhere on the lake.

In short, debating this here does nothing.

Unless everyone writes in, and shows up to the hearing, there will be yet another NRZ on the lake.

[secondcurve]

If the state enforced no drinking on boats like it does in cars many of the issues surrounding rafting would go away on their own.

[Joebon]

The whole lake should be a no rafting zone. How boring to be on a boat and just tie up to a bunch of other boats. Why not just stay at the dock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skip]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

If the state enforced no drinking on boats like it does in cars many of the issues surrounding rafting would go away on their own.

Of course they can't enforce what isn't illegal. Unlike the regulations pertaining to open alcohol containers while a motor vehicle is on a public way, there is no such regulation preventing same while on a boat afloat......

[Winnisquamer]

Not allowing drinking on boats is one of the most outlandish things I have heard this summer. No drinking and driving is one thing. Absolutely no alcohol on board and you're going to find a lot of unhappy people.

[Bebe1954]

People forget they don't own the water when they buy/build a big New house. We've been going to this cove since before houses were there. If they don't like the sound of kids laughing, people talking and having CLEAN fun, they should not buy/build directly on the water. We will continue to go there even if there is no rafting. We can still just anchor and enjoy OUR water!

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Bebe1954

People forget they don't own the water when they buy/build a big New house. We've been going to this cove since before houses were there. If they don't like the sound of kids laughing, people talking and having CLEAN fun, they should not buy/build directly on the water. We will continue to go there even if there is no rafting. We can still just anchor and enjoy OUR water!

Just one correction here, for a boater to claim it as "OUR water" is just as outlandish as a lake front home owner making the same claim.....

The Lake and its water belong to the State of New Hamphsire and is a public resource.....

Its amazing to me how these conversations always go....

At the end of the day, people need to get involved in governmental proceedings.... If people don't show up to talk about why the NRZ isn't needed the land owners will win again, like they always do, because they show up, because the feel like they have a right at stake....

If a few people show up that anchor and Raft in that area, and can prove that they do... and then ask the landowner to produce their evidence this issue might not be set in stone.

[Bear Islander]

Sorry, but I must disagree with a common misconception about the rights of waterfront property owners.

Actually waterfront property owners due have riparian rights to the waters adjacent to their property. A lot of people get this wrong.

That is why waterfront owners get to put out rafts, docks, moorings etc. This is also why they may petition for a NWZ. These are Common Law rights that go back centuries.

Yes, the state owns the lake. And property owners have absolutely no right to tell anyone to move their boat or prevent them from anchoring. However it is not correct to say they have no rights to the water next to their property.

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander is right... people who own waterfront property do have certain rights..... The actual property they own ends at the high water mark. However they can put in docks, moorings and swim zones. These are regulated and need to be approved (taxed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

That being said... I have problem with NRZ's as they limit the publics ability to enjoy what is a public asset because of some property owner objection.

Woodsy

[Jt Travers]

This is just a first draft, but feel free to add or make corrections....


Attorney Christopher Casko
Department of Safety
Bureau of Hearings
33 Hazen Drive
Concord NH, 03305



We, the undersigned, are writing in opposition to a petition to prohibit and / or restrict rafting of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee in Springfield Cove.

The petitioners state that they are requesting the creation of a “no rafting zone” based on a “claim that rafting poses a pollution risk and safety hazard,” yet the petitioners have dedicated a total of two sentences in their petition to these issues. In regards to the pollution risk, the petitioners have made claim that “warm water and fertile sediment provide ideal conditions for milfoil” and that “repeated dropping and hauling of anchors” enhances the spread of milfoil. The petitioners have failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. They have not provided any data to indicate that the water in “Springfield Cove” is any warmer, more fertile, or in any way more susceptible to milfoil contamination than any other part of the lake. The petitioners have also failed to provide any evidence that the use of anchors increases this contamination. In fact, their request for the creation of a “no rafting zone” would increase the use of anchors. The act of rafting involves multiple boats being tied to each other with one pair of anchor points. The creation of a “no rafting zone” would require each boat to drop its’ own pair of anchors. The petitioners have implied that the creation of a “no rafting zone” would stop the spread of milfoil on the lake, yet the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) investigated the issue of milfoil contamination on the lake and made no recommendations for the creation of a “no rafting zone”. The NHDES states that milfoil is spread to an area by wind and currents. The petitioners have provided no evidence of milfoil contamination in “Springfield Cove,” and have not shown enough concern to implement any of the recommendations of the NHDES, including hand removal and the appointing of a neighborhood weed watcher. It seems clear that the petitioners are less concerned about this pollution as they are about their personal complaints, which should be addressed with law enforcement and not by petitioning for the creation of this “no rafting zone”.

In support of their claim of “safety concerns,” the petitioners have stated, “children from the boats swim and dive.” They indicate that “markers” are needed to indicate “where the swimmers are located.” Perhaps the petitioners would like all swimmers on the lake to where strobe lights, but this has nothing to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone.” Whether or not there is a “no rafting zone,” swimmers will continue to be able to swim and dive in the lake. The only change would be allowing boats to tie off to each other, or to anchor separately.

In stark contrast to the two sentences provided as evidence in support of the petitioners’ claim of “a pollution risk and safety hazard,” they have dedicated considerable time to their personal opinions, which have no bearing on a “no rafting zone” petition. They refer to area boaters as “rafters,” but have not directly claimed or provided evidence that anyone is actually rafting in the area. The petitioners have dedicated four sentences to littering. They provide great specifics, counting the exact number of cans, bottles, and bags of chips they picked up on July 5th of an unspecified year. The petitioners have not provided evidence of, or even claimed that this is related to boating. Irrelevant of this, the creation of a “no rafting zone” has no impact on laws prohibiting littering. We stand firmly with the petitioners that littering on the lake is illegal, and should be dealt with by the Police, both on and off the water.

The petitioners have referenced a problem with “noise” of the lake, which again has no connection to whether or not boaters are tied to each other or anchored separately. We believe that if a boaters is creating such a noise as to disturb the peace that it should also be reported to the police. The petitioners have stopped short of this, instead complaining about “conversation.” The petitioners have also made claims about a swimmer in the area being on a neighbors raft, yet no report was made to the police department, nor did the owner engage the swimmer to let him or her know that they may be on private property. The petitioners also complain about “rafters repeatedly looking through house windows with binoculars and cameras,” yet they have again made no complaint to the Police Department. They also take this complaint one step further, saying that they are “subject to being filmed.” We would again argue that none of this has anything to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone.” Finally, the petitioners claim that “The Wolfeboro Police Department has documented nude sexual acts in the cove…” yet the petitioners have not attached a copy of such documentation. The claims of one person versus incidents being witnessed by a police officer are two very different things, but neither has anything to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone”. An incident such as this would have to be addressed by a court as to whether there was an expectation of privacy, and whether any such incident had actually occurred.


In conclusion, the petitioners state, “Some modicum of respect and distance to protect the property owners and minimize pollution is all we ask” yet it is in fact not all they ask. They are specifically asking for the creation of a “no rafting zone” for issues that have nothing to do with rafting.

[KDL]

Very good points.

We have been anchoring in "Springfield Cove" for the past 16 years. A few things we have noted over the years:

This cove is quiet. Very rarely do you hear much more than people enjoying the lake. On rare occasions someone will over do the music. I agree with the property owners that this can be disruptive. There should already be rules on the books to deal with this nuisance. As always, it's a few that spoil it for the rest.
We have never witnessed trash left behind from boats. Not saying it never happens but I doubt it's a common occurrence.
The area we anchor in has a rocky bottom. We are not disturbing the lake bottom or spreading milfoil with our anchors.
I do grill on our boat. As far as I know that is not prohibited.
I would question the claim that property owners are blocked in at their docks.
If that does happen I would think a call to MP would resolve that in a hurry.
I might suggest to some property owners that they review the no wake and headway speed rules for when they do leave their docks.

If any of the complaints from the property owners are true, I sympathize with them and hope every one of them is addressed. All of the complaints can be dealt with with laws already on the books. I do hope the petition for the NRZ fails. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to anchor in Springfield Cove.

[Lakeboater]

Isn't there only one occupied house in this cove? And a second under construction but not yet completed? To me this appears to be one extremely wealthy homeowner trying to push people out of a very nice cove.

[noreast]

My kids have caught a few Smallies there. When we've been there we were the only boat in the area each time. I'm not saying that proves there aren't issues, but I can't imagine it's a constant gathering spot based on my time there.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jt Travers

This is just a first draft, but feel free to add or make corrections....

Minor spelling correction to your nice letter:

"would like all swimmers on the lake to where strobe lights"

should be:

"would like all swimmers on the lake to wear strobe lights"

Best first post I've seen on this forum!

PM me if you want my name/address to add to your list of those that would undersign your letter.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Rich

Minor spelling correction to your nice letter:

"would like all swimmers on the lake to where strobe lights"

should be:

"would like all swimmers on the lake to wear strobe lights"

Best first post I've seen on this forum!

PM me if you want my name/address to add to your list of those that would undersign your letter.

the same with me, I would like to sign the petition as well

in fact everytime there is a NRZ hearing, we should send in a petition if it warrants

[thinkxingu]

Ditto.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[HellRaZoR004]

I PM'd JT Travers shortly after he posted the letter, asking for him to send me the petition via email to sign. Haven't heard back.

[BroadHopper]

I would copy and paste the letter into MS Word or Open Office and print it on a nice stationary and mail it to your local representative. Letters seem to get a much better response than email.

[Lakeboater]

Is anyone able to attend the hearing today?

[gnemiccolo]

Unfortunately I can't go today. It's to bad that it's come to this. We've been going to this cove for 30 plus years seen it change. As boating has changed. We feel it's our cove like everyone else does. I'm so sorry it's changing but everything does. "Resistance is futile, you will be osimolated".

We have plenty of family memories there. There is load music and fun Being had we love it during the mid week and early and late year.

Money comes in and out spends everything for their 2 or three weeks of entertainment.

[HellRaZoR004]

For those that cannot make the hearing, I strongly suggest you send letters in opposition, as they use them for making a determination!

I can't make it, but will be sending a letter with signatures.

[NH_boater]

Never anchored there. I will now. I look for NRZ as indicators of good places to anchor and hang out all day. I expect others do the same. I hope it does not get too crowded now.

[Jt Travers]

I will include in the following post a letter of dissent in regards to the petition. I would appreciate any proof reading. Otherwise, I recommend that everyone who agrees put your name and street address at the bottom and send it to the email address provided in the hearing notice. Alternatively, I will accept any signatures and submit a copy from any group to who this is preferred. I hope to attend the hearing on behalf of the "the group", but would welcome anyone else who could attend to join me or to take my place if needed.


Thanks

Jt

[Jt Travers]

Attorney Christopher Casko
Department of Safety
Bureau of Hearings
33 Hazen Drive
Concord NH, 03305



We, the undersigned, are writing in opposition to a petition to prohibit and / or restrict rafting of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee in Springfield Cove. Please accept this document as our testimony at the hearing to be held on the matter. We anticipate having a representative present to represent our dissenting opinion, but in any event we request this document with the facts and opinions herein be included in the record.

The petitioners state that they are requesting the creation of a “no rafting zone” based on a “claim that rafting poses a pollution risk and safety hazard,” yet the petitioners have dedicated a total of two sentences in their petition to these issues. In regards to the pollution risk, the petitioners have made claim that “warm water and fertile sediment provide ideal conditions for milfoil” and that “repeated dropping and hauling of anchors” enhances the spread of milfoil. The petitioners have failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. They have not provided any data to indicate that the water in “Springfield Cove” is any warmer, more fertile, or in any way more susceptible to milfoil contamination than any other part of the lake. The petitioners have also failed to provide any evidence that the use of anchors increases this contamination. In fact, their request for the creation of a “no rafting zone” would increase the use of anchors. The act of rafting involves multiple boats being tied to each other with one pair of anchor points. The creation of a “no rafting zone” would require each boat to drop its’ own pair of anchors. The petitioners have implied that the creation of a “no rafting zone” would stop the spread of milfoil on the lake, yet the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) investigated the issue of milfoil contamination on the lake and made no recommendations for the creation of a “no rafting zone”. The NHDES states that milfoil is spread to an area by wind and currents. The petitioners have provided no evidence of milfoil contamination in “Springfield Cove,” and have not shown enough concern to implement any of the recommendations of the NHDES, including hand removal and the appointing of a neighborhood weed watcher. It seems clear that the petitioners are less concerned about this pollution as they are about their personal complaints, which should be addressed with law enforcement and not by petitioning for the creation of this “no rafting zone”.

In support of their claim of “safety concerns,” the petitioners have stated, “children from the boats swim and dive.” They indicate that “markers” are needed to indicate “where the swimmers are located.” Perhaps the petitioners would like all swimmers on the lake to where strobe lights, but this has nothing to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone.” Whether or not there is a “no rafting zone,” swimmers will continue to be able to swim and dive in the lake. The only change would be allowing boats to tie off to each other, or to anchor separately.

In stark contrast to the two sentences provided as evidence in support of the petitioners’ claim of “a pollution risk and safety hazard,” they have dedicated considerable time to their personal opinions, which have no bearing on a “no rafting zone” petition. They refer to area boaters as “rafters,” but have not directly claimed or provided evidence that anyone is actually rafting in the area. The petitioners have dedicated four sentences to littering. They provide great specifics, counting the exact number of cans, bottles, and bags of chips they picked up on July 5th of an unspecified year. The petitioners have not provided evidence of, or even claimed that this is related to boating. Irrelevant of this, the creation of a “no rafting zone” has no impact on laws prohibiting littering. We stand firmly with the petitioners that littering on the lake is illegal, and should be dealt with by the Police, both on and off the water.

The petitioners have referenced a problem with “noise” of the lake, which again has no connection to whether or not boaters are tied to each other or anchored separately. We believe that if a boaters is creating such a noise as to disturb the peace that it should also be reported to the police. The petitioners have stopped short of this, instead complaining about “conversation.” The petitioners have also made claims about a swimmer in the area being on a neighbors raft, yet no report was made to the police department, nor did the owner engage the swimmer to let him or her know that they may be on private property. The petitioners also complain about “rafters repeatedly looking through house windows with binoculars and cameras,” yet they have again made no complaint to the Police Department. They also take this complaint one step further, saying that they are “subject to being filmed.” We would again argue that none of this has anything to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone.” Finally, the petitioners claim that “The Wolfeboro Police Department has documented nude sexual acts in the cove…” yet the petitioners have not attached a copy of such documentation. The claims of one person versus incidents being witnessed by a police officer are two very different things, but neither has anything to do with the creation of a “no rafting zone”. An incident such as this would have to be addressed by a court as to whether there was an expectation of privacy, and whether any such incident had actually occurred.


In conclusion, the petitioners state, “Some modicum of respect and distance to protect the property owners and minimize pollution is all we ask” yet it is in fact not all they ask. They are specifically asking for the creation of a “no rafting zone” for issues that have nothing to do with rafting.

To more directly address the issues raised pursuant to RSA 270:43, we submit the following:

(1) At its widest point, the cove is 1176.1 feet, three times the “almost 400 feet” claimed by the petitioners. The length of the cove is at least 2381.5 feet. At its narrowest point, the islet to the East Southeast is 147 feet. A review of historical maps of Lake Winnipesaukee does not show Worcester Island being connected to the mainland. It appears the existence of this cove is due only to the land bridge serving Worcester Island. We would argue that the creation of this land bridge would have been allowed on the condition that it not further infringe on the rights of others. We believe any such documents need to be located and reviewed before any action on this petition could be considered.

(2) (A) No evidence has been presented that would indicate there would be any increase in public safety. Public safety on the lake as a whole would be negatively effected by adopting the proposed no rafting zone, as addressed in (4).

(B) The creation of a no rafting zone would have no effect on residential values. Creating a no rafting zone has the potential to negatively effect the recreational value of the area. Multiple people have reported this is a great place for kids to fish. There would be no positive effect on the scenic value of the area by creating a no rafting zone. The negative effects would hypothetical.

(C) The adoption of the proposed rule would have no positive effect on the variety of uses of the lake or the cove.

(D) There is no evidence that the adoption of the proposed rule would positively impact the environment or the water quality. In fact, the arguments on this issue made by the petitioners are unsupported by, and in contrast to the findings of the NHDES.

(E) There is no evidence that the adoption of the proposed rule would affect threatened or endangered species. No evidence has been presented claim that any specific species of wildlife are even present in the cove.

(3) The number of persons positively impacted by the adoption of the proposed regulation is zero. The petitioners stated reasons for requesting the creation of a no rafting zone are not backed by any evidence, and are specifically refuted by the evidence. The additional complaints made in the petition are irrelevant to the creation of a no rafting zone. The number of people negatively affected by adopting the petition is unknown, but would be equal to the number of boaters who use the lake annually. This regulation, which in this case is unnecessary, would require every boater to be aware of the new regulations.

(4) Adopting the proposed rule would have not be practical from an enforcement standpoint. Based on the petitioners application, they do not understand the regulation they are requesting. This will result in numerous erroneous calls to the marine patrol, rather than reporting actual offenses to the appropriate agency. Responding to these “nuisance” calls, where the reported offense is not actually occurring, would negatively effect the public safety on the lake by placing an unnecessary reactive burden on marine patrol when they could be keeping all users of the lake safe through proactive patrols and enforcement of actual regulations.




Sincerely,

[AC2717]

it looks good to me, do you have the email address?

[Lakeboater]

Originally Posted by Jt Travers

I will include in the following post a letter of dissent in regards to the petition. I would appreciate any proof reading. Otherwise, I recommend that everyone who agrees put your name and street address at the bottom and send it to the email address provided in the hearing notice. Alternatively, I will accept any signatures and submit a copy from any group to who this is preferred. I hope to attend the hearing on behalf of the "the group", but would welcome anyone else who could attend to join me or to take my place if needed.


Thanks

Jt

The notice says that the hearing was to be held Monday June 13th.

[Rinkerguy]

The letter outlining an opposing opinion to the NRZ is great
Where do we sign our names?

Email Address, website, other???

[HellRaZoR004]

Your best bet at this point in time is to print out the letter above and hand sign it. Scan both the letter and any signatures and then send it to the following address:

EMAIL: SAFETY-HEARINGS@DOS.NH.GOV

MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL MAILED OR EMAILED AND RECEIVED BEFORE 4:15 PM ON JUNE 21, 2016!!!

[Rich]

Minor edits:

this sentence again:

swimmers on the lake to where strobe lights

swimmers on the lake to wear strobe lights

AND

(4) Adopting the proposed rule would have not be practical from an enforcement standpoint

Should probably read:

(4) Adopting the proposed rule would not be practical from an enforcement standpoint



Since this letter says "We" all throughout, what's the best way to send it as a solo person, I guess I can edit it and just say "I" everywhere.

There were also a few "effect" vs "affect".

How did the meeting go? Anyone know?

[Rich]

I sent in an entry in as a single dissenter.

Thanks to Jt Travers for the inspiration.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HellRaZoR004

Your best bet at this point in time is to print out the letter above and hand sign it. Scan both the letter and any signatures and then send it to the following address:

EMAIL: SAFETY-HEARINGS@DOS.NH.GOV

MUST RECEIVE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN MATERIAL MAILED OR EMAILED AND RECEIVED BEFORE 4:15 PM ON JUNE 21, 2016!!!

May I ask where this submission deadline came from? I hope my letter is included.

[HellRaZoR004]

Originally Posted by Rich

May I ask where this submission deadline came from? I hope my letter is included.

Hi Rich. It was in the Notice of Hearing that the webmaster posted in the OP.

https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/...ve-hearing.pdf

BTW - thanks for making updates. I'll print out mine, sign it and email it this afternoon.

[Rich]

Perfect!!

I hope they get the email and it doesn't get lost somehow.

Thanks!

[HellRaZoR004]

Just a reminder....

Letters / Emails must be received BEFORE 4:15 PM TODAY.

If you don't want to see our privilege to use this public resource erode then send in a letter objecting the petition. If you do nothing now, don't complain later.

[Pineedles]

So does anyone have any updates?

[HellRaZoR004]

I haven't seen anything. No updates posted on the site. I think these take a couple months.

[ishoot308]

While no boaters showed up for the hearing, the no rafting zone proposal in Springfield Cove was shot down. 6 people wrote letters and that seemed to make a difference...

If anyone wants a copy of the final order, PM me.

Dan

[Rich]

Thanks for the update.

Where are these results published?

Perhaps post your info here?

I wonder if any of us made a difference?

[ishoot308]

Here they are... I hope!

Dan

[HellRaZoR004]

That was a very well written Decision and Final Order. Thank you for providing the update.

This goes to show that if the community believes the petition doesn't have merit then it can and will be turned down.

To those that helped, thank you.