The guy could have avoided the fines if he had done what a savvy realtor did near me while building a new house:
1) Locate the well next to the lake (legal).
2) Cut a big swath through the trees to allow the well drilling operation. (legal).
3) Cut another big swath to allow space to build the house (legal).
4) Take three years to build the house (legal...I guess
).
5) In the three-year interim, cut down a bunch more big trees between the house and the lake (definitely not legal).
6) Cut still more big trees on the state's "high-water" turf. (legal?
)
7) Put up one, two, and now a third concentric silt fence to "keep legal" each year during construction—as mud and silt wash into the lake (legal?)
8) Truck in fill that covers stumps (legal?)
While the "basal count" seems a well-intended DES requirement, a lakefront owner can still cut down every shorefront tree should he own the property long enough. (Or serial owners do "view-clearings" over a twenty year period).
It would make far more sense to require the retaining of say, twelve basal inches of trees for every 100' of shoreline owned. (Including re-planting if necessary.)
Depending on the expense of this guy's house, a $40,000 may just be "the cost of doing business" at Lake Winnipesaukee's lakeshore.
