Freedom—August 24, 2025—Decisions by two State agencies last week advanced Wabanaki Campground’s goal of increasing its legacy boat capacity by 36% as part of a plan to sell campsites to the public.
The N.H. Department of Environmental Services (DES) on August 20 approved a 5 ft. x 80 ft. pier with a 3.6 ft. x 75 ft. walkway running parallel to the shoreline and containing three 5 ft. x 20 ft. fingers and an “L”-shaped pier comprised of a 5 ft. x 60 ft. pier with a 5 ft. x 10 ft. finger along 809 feet of Ossipee Lake frontage.
Days later, the N.H. Department of Safety (DOS) revealed that Marine Patrol supports the proposed increase in the number of boats, and plans to hold a public hearing on adding a 31-unit congregate mooring field at the site. The hearing will be on September 9.
The expansion of boats by combining docks and moorings is opposed as unreasonable by the campground’s residential neighbors and Ossipee Lake Alliance.
Mark Salvati, Wabanaki’s principal owner, applied to the two State agencies in March after DES ordered him to remove docks he installed two years ago without approval. At around the same time, DOS voided the congregate mooring permit the business held for decades after the agency learned that Salvati had transferred ownership of the property and added docks.
The number of boats at the campground became a controversial issue after Salvati began soliciting down payments for campsites as part of a planned conversion to a 77-unit cooperative. The campground’s marketing materials assured potential buyers that their boats could be accommodated.
Without approved docks or moorings this summer, Wabanaki obtained DES’s approval to allow campers to tie their boats to the shoreline. Dozens did so.
Wabanaki neighbor Richard Hiller complained to DES that Salvati put 11 docks into the lake and connected 29 watercraft, effectively doubling the capacity of a pre-existing 31-boat congregate mooring field.
Hiller said the boat increase was “grossly excessive and unjustifiable.” He joined abutters Maureen and Dr. Anthony Raynes to lobby DES and DOS to address the safety and environmental issues they said were caused by the “marina-like” transformation.
Documents obtained by Ossipee Lake Alliance through a right-to-know request show that DOS not only had no objection to the Wabanaki plan, it embraced the idea.
In a July 1 letter of support for Salvati, Marine Patrol Officer Frank Balantic wrote “I support this application for 31 moorings in combination with the pending plan for docks.”
Balantic said the increase in the number of boats would have “little negative impact on the environment, the view of abutters, vessel navigation in the area, or the recreational use of the waterbody by the public” — all issues raised by conservationists and the campground’s neighbors.
“With the 11 additional slips/berths available on the docks, Wabanaki Campground would have a capacity for 42 guest boats providing improved access to guests…This capacity is well absorbed by the available space and frontage of the property,” Balantic concluded.
DOS did not release Balantic’s support letter or the mooring application until last week despite five months of right-to-know requests from Ossipee Lake Alliance, including a letter to Executive Councilor Joe Kenney asking him to intervene to ensure public transparency. Kenney did not respond to the letter.
DOS said its policy is to not release application documents until after completing an internal review of the submission, forming an opinion on it, and announcing a hearing date. Its policy is in sharp contrast to DES’s right-to-know procedure of making documents available as soon as they are submitted.
Ossipee Lake property owners and associations have long been critical about what they say is an unsustainable number of boats on the lake and Marine Patrol’s inability to police them adequately. The northern two-thirds of the lake has been a particular focus.
That part of the lake system has eight approved congregate mooring fields with 183 moorings spread across businesses and property owner associations, as well as a major campground, Sun Retreats Westward Shores, with scores of boats hitched to docks, making it a crowded part of the lake despite having substantial water acreage.
There is a 30-day window to appeal the DES decision to the Wetlands Council. The decision must also be ratified by the Executive Council and the Governor. The campground’s neighbors declined to say whether they will appeal.
DOS said it was not immediately able to say whether a hearing would proceed if there is an appeal. The 30-day appeal window extends well past the DOS hearing date.
The state doesn’t give a damn about Ossipee Lake. If you ever doubted that, you now have this example to set you straight.
Maybe Freedom will have to buy Wabanaki just like Ossipee had to buy Loon Island to protect Leavitt Bay residents from DES.
It’s always difficult to comprehend how some business owners are given the green light, when if the general public were asked and considered, the answer would be “please no, not until we can manage the current boat traffic!” We have been asking for more Marine Patrol presence with no results. Most residents will tell you they’ve seen Marine Patrol once or twice this summer, when we all agree we need full time attention. Abutting homeowners are ignored, but yet Mr. Balantic gives his blessings and that carries more weight than the abutters? He is rarely on site. How could he know? What’s in it for him? It’s just wrong.
We need to elect more people who are willing to cast aside the current old boy network and provide more protective policies for the future of Ossipee Lake. DES has been absolutely dismissive of Ossipee resident concerns. When we need to do remediations for lake health, their pockets will be empty and as residents, we’ll be on our own. Time to vote for the lake! It may be our only method toward change.
Marine Patrol can’t keep us safe from all the boats, so it is helping a business sell campsites so it can bring in more boats. Any elected official who doesn’t speak up against this should be hounded out of office.
Anyone who has spent time on the lake will tell you that there are too many boats in the water now. Adding more will only make the problem worse. It is becoming more obvious that the State does not care about the health and safety of the lake. First Loon Island, then Spindle Point and the ramp on Pine River. Looks like the towns will have to protect themselves.
Show up on September 9 to express our concerns!
I have seen the Marine Patrol boat twice the entire summer. Give to get – make Wabanaki pay for extra Marine Patrol days on Ossipee Lake
WHERE and WHEN do we show up on September 9th?
You are all cry babies. The lake isn’t only for you and your future. Get over yourselves. You’re bullying a campground full of families with kids by running to the state and town with false claims.
Gloria, the link to the hearing info is now in the third paragraph of the story.
As someone who enjoys spending time with my family at Wabanaki Campground, I wanted to offer a different perspective. This is a quiet, family-oriented campground where people come to respectfully enjoy the beauty of Ossipee Lake. We, too, care deeply about the lake’s health and well-being.
What I find puzzling about the opposition to the docks and moorings is the practical alternative. By fighting a state-inspected plan for organized boat slips, the only other option for campers is to beach their boats. Surely, having boats rubbing against the shoreline, causing potential erosion and fluid leaks, is far worse for the lake environment than having them secured on professionally managed, state-approved moorings.
It’s also important to remember that Ossipee Lake is a public resource for everyone to enjoy, not the private property of a few. Boat traffic on any given day is already variable, as anyone can use the launches for even just a day. This proposal is simply about providing safe and environmentally responsible access for families who are already here. At the end of the day, this is about allowing families to create memories and enjoy the lake, just as everyone else has the right to do.
@Kyle, you must know that Wabanaki had an approved mooring field for 31 boats for more than 40 years and no one ever had a problem with it. It’s adding docks for more boats that’s the issue. Tying boats to the shore was only needed because the docks were illegal and the mooring permit was rescinded because of the docks. The campground created that problem! The campers had to pay for it all summer. The number of campsites hasn’t changed in 40 years, and 31 moorings for 68 campsites is still a reasonable number. I believe opposition to the moorings would immediately evaporate if the campground gave up the docks.
Pete, I’ve been camping at Wabanaki Campground since 1965. Wabanaki has had multiple docks over the years. They had a long boat dock in front of the main lodge and another long dock closer to Camp Cody. They’ve also had multiple smaller dock along the waterfront sites. Over the years the dock have changed some but the camp has always had docks. Wouldn’t there be more of an environmental impact if the boat owners were putting their boats in and out of the water everyday? Isn’t parking at the public ramps already a nightmare?
Wabanaki Campground is a small family friendly campground. We have never had any issues with the town or the neighbors. We all love the lake the surrounding area. We hope our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy it in the future.
Thanks for all for the comments. Pete the Boater and Mark Gibbons have raised questions that should be clarified. When Wabanaki applied to DOS in 2007 to renew its congregate mooring field permit it stated it had two docks for two boats, and “no viable alternative [to moorings] exists for securing boats.” For decades, the baseline number of boats was 33—two on the two docks and 31 on the 31 moorings. The campground’s relationship with its neighbors was cordial, as Mr. Gibbons notes. That changed in 2023-2024 after the business used docks to increase the number of boats to 60 without required approvals (or discussing it with neighbors, whether required or not). So, the proposed new number of boats may be a reduction from the illegal number of 60, but it is higher than the legacy number of 33. Those numbers, and the process of how we got to this point, provide the context needed to understand the disagreement among the parties about what number of boats is a reasonable number.
To a large degree I think that concerns that are being expressed here are not about the campground per se, but to other factors. The first is the inconsistency in approval protocols, and the second is the lack of marine patrol presence on the lake. Over the years as the number of boats have increased substantially, there seems to be a corresponding decline in marine patrol supervision. I realize this has to do with resources, but what can we do to ensure that the marine patrol is more present on weekends during the summer?