Cspa protest

[eyenotall777]

Just wondering what everyone else has been thinking regarding the recent articles regarding the new CSPA rules that went into effect back 7/08. It seems some are not pleased....and what does this new development of protest mean?

http://www.wmur.com/news/18758869/detail.html

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090302/GJNEWS02/703029887/-1/CITIZEN

[Grady223]

I am all in favor of the new rules - we have to do something to protect our lake. The rules are not unreasonable - maybe very difficult to enforce - but not unreasonable. I agree that a moratorium at this point would lead to much undesirable development.

[Little Bear]

If the State wants ultimate control of our shorefront properties (which they have under the CSPA), then let them pay the property taxes. They can even come have a picnic on my/their land.

[tis]

I agree with you Little Bear. We did have enough rules already. They didn't have to go quite this drastic.

[Seeker]

I think it is totally unreasonable. The couple that bought their place a few years back and is trying to accumulate enough money for a few upgrades when they retire, or maybe add a garage or other outbuilding is most likely out of luck. The towns could care less as long as they get their pound of flesh. If I need to cut down a tree that has a problem or could create a problem it is coming down, regardless of where it is.

[krm]

I agree with seeker, I also like the idea I have heard about letting people put it in current use, since the land owner can not make full use of their property. And I know that there are current use rules that would need to be changed, but rules are made to be changed.

[Resident 2B]

If the State wants ultimate control of our shorefront properties (which they have under the CSPA), then let them pay the property taxes. They can even come have a picnic on my/their land.

Great idea!!

This new rule is nuts!

R2B

[tis]

The EE and ED Committee voted 5-0 on SB 139 (inexpedient to legislate) and the full senate is expected to agree on 3/11 (today). This will kill the bill.

[HUH]

Whats blatently obvious to me is that the states real reason behind the bill was revenue.. Acid rain is doing far more damage to the lakes in the northeast than runoff ever will.

[krm]

People tend to loose focus on the big issue, and it is important to remember that we are usually talking about rain water and dirt. I am sure a lot more damage is done to the lake from fuel and oil getting into the water.

[HUH]

acid rain? don't you know that rain water (also know as nuclear waste)has the potential to create erosion, it is terrible, it drags dirt from one place to another and it has created such places as the grand canyon

I know this is a hot topic but I think human kind in general need to step out side them selves and relies that our impact is very small and insignificant, thinking we can effect a entire planet, we can only kill ourselves.
(all with a lot of sarcasm)
And poor spelling ...LOL:rolleye2:
Rainwater is nuclear waste?:confused:

[ApS]

The EE and ED Committee voted 5-0 on SB 139 (inexpedient to legislate) and the full senate is expected to agree on 3/11 (today). This will kill the bill.
Does another post here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=90585) need to be reconciled with yours?

"On Wednesday, March 11th, the NH Senate voted SB 139 Inexpedient to Legislate. This effectively kills this bill that would have created a moratorium on the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act and compromised the pristine quality of NH’s lakes."

[Lakegeezer]

Whats blatantly obvious to me is that the states real reason behind the bill was revenue.. Acid rain is doing far more damage to the lakes in the northeast than runoff ever will.My gut reaction to this is to disagree. While acid rain has an impact, the alkalinity buffering of the lake will likely keep the PH in balance for another few decades. Runoff from cleared shoreline areas reduces the flow buffer to the lake, so more water ends up in the lake, faster. More nutrients, more soil, more erosion. We've seen the lake level rise quickly several times over the past decade. With a better 250' buffer, that rise would be slower, and water that makes it to the lake will be cleaner.

My take on what the state is doing is that the DES has our best interests in mind. It wants to put in place rules to stop the biggest problems and it wants to charge enough in permit fees and fines to fund itself. Without people to process the permit and waver applications and to do field checks and audits, the lake quality will get worse. NH taxes by use, not by income or spending, so the fees make sense here.

I've been coming to the lake only a bit more than 25 years - others have much more time here. The quality of the lake has changed a lot over that time. There is more muck on the bottom, rather than clear sand. The depth that you can see is nowhere what it used to be. Acid rain tends to make the lake more sterile and clear. That's not what we are experiencing.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

I'd like to see the DES take a water sample at each property that has an obviously fertilized lawn. We've all seen them. The lake is getting too many nutrients and the water plants are loving it. <O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p

[tis]

The one I wrote, Acres, was BEFORE the FULL Senate vote. The other post was after.

[Pine Island Guy]

Well said LG, I agree! The revenue generated by the CSPA will hardly cover the additional people that are hired to review and enforce it (I recall 6?).

And another good point LG made is that if acid rain is a problem, then the 250 foot buffer can only be a better way of mitigating it since the run-off will not go directly into the lake but be absorbed by the natural vegetation.

I'll say it again (and again), but my dealings with the NH DES to get a permit to rebuild an existing house within the buffer, have been great! Everyone there has spent as much time as I needed to understand what can be done (often without a permit), and what can not be done, how to make modifications to my design which will in turn benefit the Lake, etc. They are not an onerous organization that is saying "no" to everything!!!

I encourage everyone to post questions to them, read materials on their site, or attend one of their outreach education sessions. Find out the facts, rather than the misconceptions, rumor, and inuendo that floats around.

looking forward to ice-out (and finally fixing the PIG cams)... PIG

p.s. when I started my project, I was told by many builders that I needed to hire a "permitting expert" who could navigate the NH DES for me... as a native NH resident and general cheapskate that really rubbed me the wrong way, so I have tackled this on my own, and it really hasn't taken very much time, and I've met some really great people along the way!!

[upthesaukee]

...our own attitudes in dealing with those in government offices can make a world of difference in how we are treated. Ranting and raving accomplishes little in the way of positive results, while please and thank you are usually the door opener to a good relationship.

P. I. G., I like your last paragraph.:)

[jmen24]

I have to agree with LG 100% that the DES is not trying to prevent you from working on and around your lake front property. Most cases you do not need to have a tree count done or have your property surveyed if your increased non-permiable surface change is less than 20%. Even with that said if you add a garage to an existing structure you are only required to deal with the new runoff created by the garage, you do not need to revamp your entire property. Go beyond the outreach seminars and take the same course that I did that is a full day program (mine was in Lebanon) and really learn what CSPA is all about and stop listening to your neighbors about how restrictive this is. It IS good for the lakes all the way down to fourth order streams. You would also be suprised by how many tree points you have on your property as well and if you want to cut down that big oak you can. This program actually makes working around the lake easier because it is a one stop shop and if your project requires a wetlands permit, i.e. dock or boat house, you do not even need a CSPA permit as long as you are not extending past the wetlands buffer.

Seriously, folks some education on the CSPA is in definite need, the state just wants the future of the states waters to be better than it is today.

If you do not think that runoff water is that big an issue, run a hose through one of your flower gardens and only turn it on a quarter of the way and watch it for an hour.

[tis]

Well I think those of you who have been so happy with the permitting process are very lucky. We did not do the permitting ourselves but had professionsals do it and they were not happy at all with the way the whole thing went. Nor were we.

[jmen24]

Tis I am sorry to hear of your experience, can you elaborate on the circumstances that caused you all to be dissatisfied with the process.

[tis]

I do not want to be specific, but we felt it was not handled in the professional manner we would have expected (or maybe not). The whole process takes far too long, they find excuses to stall. For example, the first time we heard from them, they wrote and said a certain thing is missing which isn't, but we had to respond and tell them it IS there. This happened several times with different things but we felt it gave them the opportunity to stall. The person who did ours has done many and has done them with a certain setback and suddenly they decided they would not allow that anymore. They approved the septic system and after the foundation was in they were told by our septic designer that a mistake was made so they changed the number allowed. Why didn't the state catch that mistake the first time? As I said I don't want to get into great detail but it was a very frustrating experience for us. And we are not alone, we know lots of people who feel the process is too long and drawn out.

[Pine Island Guy]

Tis – I’m sorry your experience differed so greatly from mine. You mentioned that you used ‘professionals’ to do your work. Are you sure that they were not to blame rather than the State?

The CSPA has specific targets for responding to permit applications. I believe (but haven’t double-checked the regs), that the DES has to ask for missing information within 30 days of you filing, or it is defacto approved.

Again, I would encourage you to attend one of the full day seminars they offer. I attended the one at Church Landing last August and met many of the DES folks that do the work every day, learned a lot of information from third party speakers they brought in, and was able to ask detailed questions and get first hand answers about my specific project (plus got a great breakfast spread for FREE – are you listening FLL?)!

Not to say that there aren’t valid reasons for having a professional permitting expert, I would just suggest that getting involved with the process first hand will be highly rewarding. For most of us, a house at the Lake is probably not only our single biggest investment, it is also one of the most important things for “living a good life”!

As I said in my previous post, being a general Yankee cheapskate is what initially drove me to doing it myself, but the benefits have gone far beyond the dollars saved. “Be one with the house”, and let the so called professionals do work for absentee homeowners :)

PM me if you’d like any additional information or I can help in any way… PIG

[Onshore]

In the interest of improving the process so that others don't have a negative experience... were your difficulties related to your subsurface system approval or were they specifically related a CSPA standard?

You said that we "changed the number allowed". It's not clear what that was the number of, but my first guess would be bedrooms. If that is the case, how was the CSPA an issue? Loading calculations and requirements aren't set by the CSPA.

I understand you feel you didn't get treated the way you should have, and for whatever part we in Shoreland may have played in that, I apologize. I can only tell you that we are trying to make this as unobtrusive as we can. You can choose not to believe it if you wish and I would understand and not hold it against you. But if you want us to fix something we need you to tell us what you think was wrong. You are welcome to PM me and I'll give you the Division Director or Commissioner's contact info if you don't want to deal with the staff directly.

D. Forst
Shoreland Section Supervisor
NHDES Wetlands Bureau

[tis]

I guess the worst thing is the time involved. Nothing was done in a timely manner. It shouldn't take a year to get a permit for anything. I suppose it depends on the project, but it is very complicated and I couldn't imagine trying to get through the process on my own, by that I mean without a professional. PIG, I truly admire you for doing it on your own and getting through it. On here, shore things, you make it sound like you really do care but in all honestly, that was not the feeling we got at all as we went through the process. I am sorry, I am just telling you the way we felt. And I know we are not alone. It would really be nice if you could improve the process, make it less obtrusive and leave a better taste in people's mouths. I really and truly hope we never have to do another project on the lake.