Help wanted!

[Onshore]

As many of you know the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, RSA 483-B, was amended by the Legislature during the 2007 session. The biggest change will arguably be that effective April 1, 2008 "No person shall commence construction, excavation, or filling activities within the protected shoreland without obtaining a permit from the department to ensure compliance with this chapter." The "department" in this case is the Department of Environmental Services(DES). As written this language means that anytime you pick up a hammer or shovel within 250 ft of a protected surface water you will need a permit. (Please don't hit the panic button just yet.) The people involved in putting the new language together did realize that some things just shouldn't need a permit and, therefore, they also added language to allow DES to identify "those activities that may be conducted without obtaining a permit, all consistent with the provisions of this chapter."(see RSA 483-B:17 XI). DES is in the process of developing the rules needed to implement the new permitting process. One of the most important parts of this new rules package is identifying the projects that shouldn't need a permit. DES is looking for your help in identifying these projects. As shorefront home owners, or people who perhaps work in the protected shorelands, please take some time to think about some of the little projects you do around the house and yard that might now need a permit but should probably be exempted from the requirement and list them in a response to this thread. Even if something seems ridiculously simple like planting tulips in the garden, please by all means put it out there for consideration, because if you don't, you may end up needing a permit until such time as it gets added to the list, and trust me... no one wants that to happen.

Thanks in advance for any ideas you may have.

D. Forst
Shoreland Section Supervisor
NH DES Wetlands Bureau

[EllyPoinster]

I have a three foot high, 100 foot long stone wall that needs a bit of TLC every few years to repair ice and wake damage. Nothing serious - just a bit of cement to replace mortar that has washed out or to re-set stones that have fallen out. All work is done by hand. The lowest part of the wall can only be repaired on those years when the lake level is lowered enough to allow dry access. The whole job requires a bag or two of Redi-mix and a couple of hours of time. I'd like to think that this work would fall into the exception category allowed by the legislature.

By the way - Thanks for asking!

[Gatto Nero]

How about fixing or maintaining existing structures such as patios or steps? I would think that the cost and time associated with obtaining the permit for something like that would generally be as much or more that the work itself. I'm sure that's true of a lot small projects that people do on their own.

One thing that might help would be to make the permitting process simpler than it is right now. I'm guessing that a lot of homeowners have never gone through the process of obtaining a permit on their own and would be shocked at what is involved. Most probably hire a contractor to process the paperwork for them, which is all well and good if they're doing a major project like installing a new dock, but who's going to do that for a minor project that they would typically do on their own? Not many would be my guess.

Also, DES doesn't seem to have the resources now to keep up with current workload. I would think that these new regulations will increase the workload 10 fold. How do they expect to be able to keep up? How long will it take to get all these new permits processed? How will these new laws be enforced?

[Onshore]

This is a completely new process. I assume the existing process that you are referring to is the wetlands permit process. This permit process has significantly simpler standards and will be a simpler process than wetlands. We are hoping to pattern it after the process for permitting sub-surface systems and have similar review times.

The legislation that created the permit process also authorized the hiring o up to 6 new staff members that will be paid through the filing fees collected.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I agree that the biggest single thing they could do is make the process less complicated. They need to eliminate the need for detailed maps and drawings for small projects.

Some ideas.....

Cut down a dead tree. (Have a photo for proof)

Cut down a live tree that is less than 6 inches in diameter and constitutes less than 5% of your tree area as measured a 5 feet off ground. (Save photo proof)

Trim bushes down to 50% of their original volume. (Save photo proof)

Plant native items that already grow naturally within 1/4 mile of your planting. For example we would like to plant Hemlock trees to help nature hide our camp.

Things that sit on the ground and can be moved away should be easy to implement.

Restore landscaping to appear more natural and less imposed. (photo proof)

Repair docks without expansion.

[LIforrelaxin]

As Elly points out there should be some leancy on repairing exsisting structures. Nature does a little damage each year, and home owners shouldn't need to to be worried about permits to repair exsiting structures unless there is a significant change that alters the size, original intent, or will cause a major disturbance of the shore.

Also there needs to be leancy on managing shore front shrubs etc that interfear with exsisting docks etc.

All in all I understand what DES and lawmakers are trying to do.... However I think the risk of creating a system that is going to be to hard to enforce and is going to crate a mountian of paperwork.....

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by shore things

This permit process has significantly simpler standards and will be a simpler process than wetlands.

What you are describing sounds a lot like the Permit by Rule (PBR) process in Maine. You fill out a one page application, take some pictures, write a narrative, write a check for $55 and send it in, return receipt. If you don't hear back in 14 days, your request is considered granted. There are strict rules and only certain activities that are allowed. I did it so I could hire a crane/barge to move some rocks for navigational purposes and a dock. I've attached a couple of links to the form and the rules if you want to look at it.

www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/rules/NRPA/2006/305.pdf
www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/nrpa/pbrform.doc

Blue Thunder

[Formula260SS]

My feeling is the things needed to maintain reasonable usability and keep a level of safety on the property should not have to be permitted, I am not fully up to speed on the new rules so maybe this is already the case.

This year my neighbor had an insect problem inside their cottage, the leaves and fallen branches around the cottage had created an enviroment for these insects to thrive in. Maybe some sort of setback line from the structure that can be cleaned and kept clear with respect to trees, branches and leaves.

I also agree with Elly, there always seems to be something that needs to be maintained especially on the islands, rocks move, walls move and brances fall every year. Not sure what the rules are with respect to trees but often a tree will be alive but damaged higher up, the need to take it down for safety reasons may exist, this type of work should be allowed. I like the idea of pictures to document these types of scenarios.

I also think planting vegatation, flowers, bushes should be done without a permitt, my thought is those are positives to the shorefront and should be encouraged. Again not sure how the rules read now but my .02 cents.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I agree that the biggest single thing they could do is make the process less complicated. They need to eliminate the need for detailed maps and drawings for small projects.

Some ideas.....

Cut down a dead tree. (Have a photo for proof)

Cut down a live tree that is less than 6 inches in diameter and constitutes less than 5% of your tree area as measured a 5 feet off ground. (Save photo proof)

Trim bushes down to 50% of their original volume. (Save photo proof)

Plant native items that already grow naturally within 1/4 mile of your planting. For example we would like to plant Hemlock trees to help nature hide our camp.

Things that sit on the ground and can be moved away should be easy to implement.

Restore landscaping to appear more natural and less imposed. (photo proof)

Repair docks without expansion.

To this list I would add encouragement for homeowners to learn how to care for and improve the health of their woodland (foresters say that overgrowth is never good for a forest or for fire safety), and allow the following:

(1) Cut down a less-healthy/malformed tree that is having a negative impact on the growth of a healthier/straighter-growing tree (growing too close, overshadowing, etc.)

(2) Cut overgrown brush in the interest of wildfire safety.

(3) Cut down a tree that is alive but not healthy (while leaving dead tree trunks that are homes to wildlife, provided they don't pose a safety threat.)

(4) Cut down any tree that poses a threat to safety (history of dropping limbs, leaning precariously, not solidly rooted, etc.

(5) Repair or cleanup of storm, flood, or iceout damage.

(6) Filling areas where trees have uprooted or where large rocks have become displaced over time.

(7) Normal DIY homeowner tasks. Many of the less-affluent waterfront owners have been here for years and are accustomed to performing their own home & property maintenance. Skyrocketing taxes makes DIY even more important because now there is less money for hiring professionals. The DES should try to encourage such people to stay. If they leave, their property would probably sell to someone with enough money to replace the entire site with something of much greater size and environmental impact -- all under permits obtained by well-paid lawyers.

I agree with Formula260SS that planting of native plants should not require a permit. Perhaps the DES should consider putting out a Woodland Maintenance Guide to waterfront owners, that explains stuff like this in words and pictures. If this is done, it should be interesting enough so people will actually enjoy reading it, yet informative, explaining how the ecosystem works and perhaps including tips for encouraging certain types of wildlife (loons, eagles, etc.) The DES could probably save a few pennies on the production of such a guide by farming it out to UNH seniors/grad students as a "for credit" interdiscplinary project between Environmental Conservation and English... both strong programs at UNH...

[Belkin]

Originally Posted by Formula260SS

... Maybe some sort of setback line from the structure that can be cleaned and kept clear with respect to trees, branches and leaves.

I believe if the area around your structures are already cleared of "Natural Ground Cover" (i.e. you have grass or mulch) then you have the right to keep it cleared.

"Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may
maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer."

The way I read this, if you already have open space around your structures, then it is Ok to maintain it in the cleared state. This should include (I assume) removal of natural vegitation that appears in areas that were cleared as of April 1, 2008. Maybe everyone should take extensive photographs of there property on March 31, 2008 to prove that you have previous cleared areas so that you do not get into trouble if you remove a seedling that appears on your lawn or mulched areas.

Belkin

[Belkin]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

(3) Cut down a tree that is alive but not healthy (while leaving dead tree trunks that are homes to wildlife, provided they don't pose a safety threat.)

(4) Cut down any tree that poses a threat to safety (history of dropping limbs, leaning precariously, not solidly rooted, etc.

Here is the condition in the new shoreland protection act that already covers dangerous trees:

"Dead, diseased, or unsafe, trees, saplings, or shrubs that pose an imminent
hazard to structures or have the potential to cause personal injury may be removed regardless of any requirements that pertain to the natural woodland buffer under this chapter."

The only thing that is unclear is whether you can remove a dead or diseased tree if it is not a safety threat. Or is a dead tree automatically a safety threat since it could fall down at any time (if a tree falls in the woods and does not hit anyone did it make a noise? )

Belkin

[Belkin]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I agree that the biggest single thing they could do is make the process less complicated. They need to eliminate the need for detailed maps and drawings for small projects.

Some ideas.....

....

Trim bushes down to 50% of their original volume. (Save photo proof)

....

I have some issues with some of the Shoreland Protection Act of 2008, but I do like the fact that it does clarify some things. For instance, regarding trimming of bushes:

Belkin


"No natural ground cover shall be removed except as necessary for a foot
path to water as provided under RSA 483-B:9, V(a)(2)(D)(viii), cutting those portions that have grown over 3 feet in height for the purpose of providing a view, or as specifically approved by the department, pursuant to RSA 482-A or 483-B:11, II."

Also, it addresses trimming branches on trees:

"Normal trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches to the extent necessary to protect structures, maintain clearances, and provide views is permitted.
Trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches for the purpose of providing views shall be limited to the bottom 1/2 of the trees or saplings.

Belkin

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Be nice if the law could stop people from building big ugly things that look completely out of place. Kind of hard to legislate good taste. (nor would I want them to try)

[Onshore]

Thanks Belkin for addressing many of the tree and vegetation "maintenance" issues that have been raised.

[Grant]

Installing the swim ladder that hangs off the dock.

Removing refuse (leaves, logs, driftwood, tennis balls, trash, the occasional sailboat tiller, even a wayward canoe) that wash up on the northeast-facing side of our dock each spring and fall (often requires a shovel and pitchfork).

Applying water seal to the exposed wood on the dock.

Cutting down dead trees and removing brush from along the shoreline.

[Redwing]

I have consulted with my husband, and we came up with the following list of "routine" activities to be conducted without obtaining a permit:

1. Deck and Dock repairs
2. Deck and Dock staining
3. Hanging Docks - lowering in Spring; lifting in Fall
4. Seasonal dock removal and installation
5. Raking woods and beach areas, and relocating (mulching) brush/rakings to a different location on owner's property, or hauling to dump
6. Cutting-up (chain saw, or otherwise) of dead/fallen trees
7. Floating Raft - putting in, and taking out
8. Outhouse Usage (yes, we still have an outhouse, and actually use it when we have plumbing challenges in the cottage)
9. Putting Water pipe line into lake, and removing it at time of winterizing cottage; replacing footvalve on said water pipe
10. Painting cottage - both exterior and interior
11. Roof cement repairs on cottage
12. Routine plumbing repairs inside/outside cottage
13. Carpentry repairs to cottage and outhouse (both exterior and interior)

Thank you, "Shore Things" for providing the Forum members with an opportunity to make these critical suggestions!!

[SAMIAM]

I'll bet this one is a "first".......constant snowmobiling and spring high water tend to pack the sand down on the beach.So each spring I roto-til the whole thing.Might sound crazy but the sand remains fluffy and beautiful all summer but I'm wondering if this is allowed under the new law.

[Onshore]

Many of the items raised thus far are activities that occur in or over the lake and not in the "protected shoreland". Activities like dock repairs do not occur in the shoreland and won't need the new shoreland permit. In addition, there is a provision in the law that says that any impact permitted in a Wetlands Permit will not need a redundant Shoreland Permit.

Also, maintenance of existing open areas is specifically allowed in the law. Things like mowing the lawn and raking the leaves off the lawn are already allowed and are not going to need a permit.

We will definately be adding something to the effect of "maintenance of existing structure that results in no change to the size, location, or configuration of the structure will not require a permit."

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Shore things,
Thank you for attempting to steer us onto the target.

I guess I am still not sure I understand what the items under consideration.

I think you said.
Things that require a permit now still will.
Things that don't make your building bigger will not.
Things over the water will not be impacted.

So I am trying to think of things that might require a permit.

Assume that all of these are within 250 of shore
Removing a live tree or limb
Removing a dead tree or limb
Removing a fallen tree or limb
Removing vegetation
Adding fill.
Removing dirt.
Removing a bolder from the shoreline.
Building a structure.
Building a deck.
Adding a septic system.
Adding pathway lights
Building a stone fireplace
Building a stone wall
Removing a stone wall
Asphalting your driveway
Having utility poles installed
Adding a storage shed
Vegetation on the street side of your house
Putting on an addition or garage
Installing storm drainage
Installing a paver patio

Are these the kinds of things that "would" fall under the shore land protection act?

[Belkin]

I think we need to consider the original post. Based on the literal interpretation of the new law, anything that requires "construction", "excavation" or "filling" within 250 feet of the water would require a permit. Not wanting to speek for shore things, but I believe what he is asking is what activities that do involve "construction", "excavation" or "filling" are so low impact that it would be rediculous to require a permit. For example, planting a flower bulb requires "excavation" (you have to dig a hole), but it would be unreasonable to require someone to pay $100 for a permit and wait 30 days just to plant a tulip. I am assuming that DES will consider our suggestions and come up with an official list of "construction", "excavation" and "filling" activities that do not require a permit.

Here are a few suggestions from me:

1. Planting a flower garden
2. Planting native ground cover
3. Planting a vegatable garden (or does this come under agriculture)
4. Repairing of existing structures where the size is not affected
5. Repairing of existing landscaping (walkways, retaining walls, etc.) where the size is not affected.
6. Construction that takes place entirely within the interior of a building.
7. Construction of non-permanent structures / objects (swing sets, etc)
8. Refreshing of mulches, crushed stones, etc. in previously cleared areas (driveways, walkways, etc.)


Belkin

[Rattlesnake Guy]

It's the 250 foot part that is most concerning. That is on the street side of most of the houses and in many cases across the street. Fixing the culvert under your driveway 200 feet from the house does not seem like it should require $100 and months of waiting for a determination. It just seems like most people won't bother getting a permit and the rest of us will be trying to do what is required. From the research I have done it seems many projects that require a shore land permit now do not get one.

It would be nice if the threshold was also conditioned somehow on:

Can you see project from the water?
Does it impact water that might run into the lake?
On lake side or street side of structure?
On lake side or other side of road?
Will project make shore line "less natural" or "more natural" in appearance?
Is long term impact of project permanent(Fire place) or temporary (flowers / mulch)?

I applaud the State's attempt to be reasonable. I deal with the DES in my other life and they are always reasonable. I know they only have our best interest in mind. I just don't want to go through this new process and see another huge house built next to the water with all the trees removed and the shore line completely changed because the contractor had the right lawyers to push the project. If the state determines that this kind of destruction is OK than their is nothing I can do that would even come close.

[DRH]

Originally Posted by Belkin

Not wanting to speek for shore things, but I believe what he is asking is what activities that do involve "construction", "excavation" or "filling" are so low impact that it would be rediculous to require a permit.

Actually, "shore things" is a "she". I have dealt with her on several occasions in the past and she has always been extremely helpful and professional. As some others have mentioned, the information she has provided here in the past, and her current effort to request feedback and suggestions from the general public regarding the practical implementation of the new regulation, are much appreciated.

[Belkin]

My apologies to D. Forst. When I was writing my post I was wondering if shore things was a man or a woman. I was not sure if I could go back to view the original post once I had started my reply. I remembered that the poster had put their real name and I could have sworn that it was a man's first name, but I now realize that she only put her first initial.

I think it is great that there is someone from DES that participates in this forum. What a source of information vs most of the rest of us who are just guessing when trying to deal with these complex issues.

I have also posted a question to DES (by e-mail) and received a prompt, courteous answer.

Belkin

[tis]

Personally I think this is ridiculous. They are always adding more laws but it really doesn't change anything. I think having to go to the state to get a permit to build is going to be a big hassle. The state takes so long to do anything, give a dock permit, sand permit, boathouse permit etc. When something is requested within the existing rules, there is no need for dragging it out for months and months like the state does. With this amendment to the law, all you are doing is creating a bigger hassle and ultimately won't change much. If you really want to change things then shut the lake down.

[camp guy]

So many good comments have been made about what can/should be allowed by this rule that I will not attempt to add to them; but, my comment is simply that the waterfront landowners are already under heavy regulation and taxation, and new rules will create a morass from which some will never emerge. The honest landowner will try to abide by the rules, go through the hassle and aggravation of regulatory procedures, and end up frustrated. Others will go about their merry way and do what they do now - whatever they @*&% please. Somewhere, oh, please, let their be common sense.

[tis]

Originally Posted by camp guy

The honest landowner will try to abide by the rules, go through the hassle and aggravation of regulatory procedures, and end up frustrated. Others will go about their merry way and do what they do now - whatever they @*&% please. Somewhere, oh, please, let their be common sense.

Said so much better than I tried to say it, camp guy. Thank you.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by camp guy

The honest landowner will try to abide by the rules, go through the hassle and aggravation of regulatory procedures, and end up frustrated. Others will go about their merry way and do what they do now - whatever they @*&% please. Somewhere, oh, please, let their be common sense.

Well put.... It is interesting how easily some honest landowners get corupted though... we had a neighbor who did everything by the book when he first bought.... but now it would seem he is no long worrying as he is doing things that are not permitted.... not that he as done anything I would call extreme.... however as I try to obey the laws I do find it fustrating....

[newbie]

As my family is in the process of designing our home, we are thinking about pulling all of our permits before April 1, 2008 (3-6 months ahead of the first shovel hitting the ground). So my questions are (I am looking for opinions)

1) Will they grant permits that early in the process (i should have all my design drawing done, but not construction drawings)?

2) If I get the permits before April 1st and dig after April 1st, will I be permitted to operate under the old RSAs?

3) I can get some of the clearing done before the winter comes and was wondering if I should perform that activity in 2007?

Any advice would be great, this is our first time going through this process and I do not want to make any major mistakes and still follow the laws.

Thanks

[Heaven]

#3 -- without a building permit, timber permit or forestry permit I don't believe you can cut/clear anything

[ApS]

Originally Posted by shore things

"...As written this language means that anytime you pick up a hammer or shovel within 250 ft of a protected surface water you will need a permit...DES is in the process of developing the rules needed to implement the new permitting process..."

Is there a specific purpose for the new rules?

Ideally, new construction should have only a brief negative impact on local waters. (Though this September, I saw a newish two-story lakefront house getting a new drain installed under the middle of it!)

If the purpose is to improve water quality by reducing algae formation and discouraging exotic milfoil growth, I think the legislature is looking in the wrong place. If the "basal count" for existing trees treats all trees as equals—that's an error. IMHO.

To the health of Winnipesaukee, a six-inch diameter white birch tree is nowhere near the importance as the equivalent white pine tree. Unfortunately, large white pines are highly marketable, and birch trees always fall down—especially when its neighbor-trees get removed.

Even when a white pine is retained, it gets the "lollipop-tree" treatment.

Also, why are large dead trees being included in tree surveys on building lots?

[hemlockpoint]

Thank you Darlene for doing this proactively while writing up the rules. As you can see from the posts there are quite a few people who dont understand exactly what is happening

Some suggestions for exemptions within the 50 foot setback.

Painting or repair of existing structures.

Removal and placement and storage and repair of existing seasonal docks.

If a well is located in the setback then repair and cleaning of the well as well as maintenance of the buried water and electric lines. For example what happens if you have a electric or problem with a pipe burst underground do you do without water until a permit is issued?

Gardening activities that involve only the use of hand tools and the movement of less than one yard of dirt.

Thanks again

[Rattlesnake Guy]

APS,
I would agree it would be helpful to understand the purpose as it is not obvious.

Is it to raise more fees?
Avoid development disasters?
Discourage development?
Document what is being developed?
Help the Eco system around the lake?

The biggest incentive we have to do the right thing is the value of our properties which is impacted by good and bad decisions we make. Filling out a form and paying a fee is not going to stop bad judgment.

[Lakegeezer]

The core of the new rules is to slow run-off into the lake by preventing more permeable land from becoming impermeable. We’ve seen three floods in the past two years. An increase in impermeable land is likely to be part of the cause. The onset of the new rules is a bit radical, but it’s the kind of government action that may help Winnipesaukee and those downstream. The DES’s request here is an example of what makes NH a nice place to live. Imagine; a government agency asking its citizens for help making the rules workable. If the great suggestions that have been posted are built into the implementation of the shoreline protection act, we may find more compliance than one might imagine.

[moose tracks]

Originally Posted by shore things

As many of you know the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, RSA 483-B, was amended by the Legislature during the 2007 session.

Is the new revision to Title L: Chapter 483-B which comes effect April 2008 available on the web? I assume the revision that is on the web now is the current act not the one that would become effective in April.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

It would be really nice if the State could prepare a 20 minute on line video so we could get the high points of the shoreline protection act. I suspect that 20 percent of it pertains to 98% of us around the lakes and ponds. I learn much better by visual examples rather than a 25 page document that you need a lawyer to interpret. There is so much uncertainty surrounding the current and pending acts that it would be a shame if it is easier to ignore than attempt to comply.

How about something like, "Keeping it legal, What every water front property owner needs to know".

Maybe it's impossible to condense but I would love to know what they consider the most important 20 minutes. Maybe an environmental studies major needs a project that would make a real difference.

[tis]

Rumor has it there will be FIVE people issuing permits. That would be permits for people on water ALL OVER THE STATE! How long is THAT going to take to get a permit? I believe they are saying you will get one in 30 days, but I just can't see how that can happen.

[Onshore]

First, I would like to thank everyone for their input thus far. Many of your suggestions will be worked into the rule section which will exempt certain projects. Some of the suggested activities are already exempted and won't need to be included in the rules. A section will also be added to the rules outlining special provisions for emergency situations. (Thanks to Hemlockpoint for bring this up because we had overlooked it.)

This process has also been helpful in highlighting areas on which we should concentrate our education efforts. We are trying to put together a series of short educational powerpoints to be posted on the Shoreland Protection Program website. It is just going take a little time to develop them. The language of the law as it will appear on April 1, 2008 is already posted on the site. The main Shoreland Protection site is www.des.state.nh.us/cspa.

I realize there are other questions here that I have not answered yet. I will try to answer them in the coming days as time allows.

Please keep the comments coming.

[moose tracks]

I would like to thank shore things, for all the help she has given us in understanding chapter 483-B and soliciting our ideas regarding what projects should be exempt from needing a permit in April. I am certain we all care about the health of the lakes we live and play on. I am also sure; we all want to comply with the new rules. The problem is correctly interrupting the law, having a complete understanding what you, can and cannot do, and when you need a permit. Shore Thing’s suggestion of a series of short educational power points on the Shore Protection Program website would be great. Thanks for your dedication and help shore things!

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by shore things

A section will also be added to the rules outlining special provisions for emergency situations. (Thanks to Hemlockpoint for bring this up because we had overlooked it.)

Please keep the comments coming.

--Emergency Situations--

The Big Lake has some big weather that does big damage on a regular basis.

I installed a weather station on the Winnipesaukee waterfront in 1997 and in that time have recorded wind gusts to 60 mph at least once per year, and a handful of 75-mph events through the decade.

An uprooted tree creates a giant hole in the ground that needs to be filled. A large boulder, rock wall, or even a section of land that gets undermined by 6 inches of rain in 24 hours requires immediate stabilization by construction equipment.

Never mind the wind damage--what about damage caused by lake ice? That's an annual rite of passage. In addition to dock damage (which I understand is fixable without a permit) the ice can and does move big rocks to where they're suddenly in the way. These are just examples of emergency situations waterfront owners face on a regular basis. Life out here is interesting -- that's what I like about it. I'd like to be able to keep living it without having to seek permission.

--Positive encouragement--

Also, how about encouraging projects that improve the health of the woodland and reduce runoff? I think a lot of waterfront owners (myself included) would be happy to *help* the DES protect the lake, especially given some positive motivation and a promise that there's no red tape involved.

If prevention of runoff is part of the goal, What about encouraging "green rooftops" (where physically possible) as they are currently doing in major cities? What about encouraging owners to redirect runoff paths toward thirsty plants & trees?

Since this is mostly a rural area, you could promote rural character by encouraging unpaved driveways & parking areas versus paved ones. This would accomplish the goal of keeping more surfaces permeable.

Can the rules be written to encourage people to make their property more environmentally sustainable?

Most people respond really well when you tell them "This is what TO do" rather than "DON'T do this"... (or as Nascar drivers say, if you think about avoiding the collision, you'll be involved in it - so just focus on driving.) Since the health of our much-loved lake is what's at stake here, I'd hope the rules for protecting it could be written in such a way that people like me who care about the lake could have the option of "pursuing the right way" instead of feeling confined to "avoid the wrong way."

[Lakegeezer]

As the rules are currently written, I think a crushed stone driveway is counted just as impermeable as a paved one, when calculating total permeable space. This doesn't seem right. My driveway at the lake is crushed stone, and I never see water running down it. At my other residence, you can see sheets of water running down the paved driveway when it rains. Perhaps giving 50% permeable credit for crushed stone driveways would encourage people to not pave. There should also be permeable credit for blueberry bushes, even if its only 1 point per square yard.

[moose tracks]

In the maintenance of a waterfront buffer, the planting of native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings and trees is encouraged. The University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension has a couple of publications I found helpful. “Landscaping at the Water’s Edge: An Ecological Approach” and “The Best Plants for New Hampshire Gardens and Landscapes”. You can find these books on the NH Cooperative Extension’s web site -http://extension.unh.edu/Pubs/Pubs.htm. Iwill be planting some low growing wild blueberries this spring by the lake.

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by tis

Said so much better than I tried to say it, camp guy. Thank you.

Absolutely correct. Whatever damage caused by construction has already been done. The Bahre estate. The balance of land that is still available is already overregulated and comes under a microscope when construction takes place. Having dealt with the wetland bureau in the past and seeing what projects get approved and which don't it is obvious you have to hire someone who is " connected" or knows the buzzwords to use. This is usually the lawyers or large waterfront dock builders. How about a rebate on my taxes now that I no longer can do anything with the 200 feet of my most valuable piece of waterfront property.
This is just another bigggggggg boondogle.
Incidentally I have not removed one rock and only enough trees to build my home. I tried so hard not to take down any trees it cost me 3500 to take one down when it becomes a danger of falling on the house.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

.... How about a rebate on my taxes now that I no longer can do anything with the 200 feet of my most valuable piece of waterfront property.
This is just another bigggggggg boondogle......

How true. Sure, 500 years from now, the microscoped property might be more valuable than the ones that aren't. But I won't live that long. What are all these rules going to do to the already depressed real estate market? Do current waterfront owners cut and run before all the buyers realize that what they buy is what they have for ever and ever? Who can afford all this? Certainly not common folk that bought years ago, who, due to unbridled spending, are just trying to keep up with these taxes

Since this seems to be a system of incentives, how about the state pick up 75% of the cost of one of their mandates. So, for example, the state says: in order to sell our (ooops: your) property you have to move the septic back 250 feet. (Assuming there is 250 feet in your lot) The state can pay 75% of the cost of it, after all, its the state as a whole, in the long run, that benefits from this all. If they can effortlessly place all these rules on us, then whats a few more bonds to float?