Rules Were Not Made to Be Broken.

Diebold (4.00 / 2)

As Sec of State, Markowitz couldn't be bothered with Diebold's Black Box Voter Fraud election machines.  If Diebold says they aren't doing anything wrong, then that's all she needed to hear.

I expect her to bring that sense of fine discernment to her new job of coddling environmental destructionists.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 13:41:45 PM UTC

Violations as described in the article don't warrant much penalty. (0.00 / 0)

Sue - I wouldn't use these violations to mark the entire enforcement policy of the new administration.  First violation, cutting of trees instead of branches prior to receiving approval, seems quite minor.  The second violation, placing fill within a wetland by an adjacent landowner on which land GMP plants on obtaining an easement, is easily remedied by removing the fill, revegetating the wetland, and, potentially, requiring a mitigation component.

---

by: ApacheTrout @ Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 13:07:05 PM UTC

Here are the details (4.00 / 3)

Glad to provide some background to this incident, which has several aspects and involves both ANR and the PSB.  

1.  GMP's inability to control its contractors, in this case surveyors who cut trees they weren't supposed to cut, is typical of what wind developers have been doing in every instance -- the companies hired to do the work trespass, they put up equipment in the wrong place, sometimes on neighboring properties without permission.  They claim they're doing something else (in Georgia Mountain it's a sugar house they say they're building but that sugar house is getting a mighty fine road to it).  The PSB usually takes a look and says no big deal, maybe there is a small fine -- in Sheffield and Ira there were fines.  No problem, go ahead.

2.  The Lowell landowner's logging road and encroachment into the beaver pond that is part of the parcel designated for wetlands mitigation is more interesting.  Here's the letter GMP's VP and General Counsel (who has not entered an appearance with the PSB in the wind case) sent to the PSB last Thursday:
http://www.vce.org/Hudson%2007...
See page 2, #4, which discusses the landowner's activity on a logging road that "appear to have been made within the last several months."

For a better understanding of the issues, here's the most recent project map which identifies the proposed mitigation areas
http://www.vce.org/Forest%20an...
and photos taken by some interested Vermonters on Saturday
https://picasaweb.google.com/1...
The "logging road" in question runs between Parcels 1 and 2.  It was news to me that leases are not yet in place for these mitigation easements, because the GMP CPG requires they be in place prior to commencement of construction, and GMP says they're starting work next Monday.  The beaver pond at issue is the green area on Parcel 3.  Note it even shows a road leading into it.  As an aside, this beaver pond area is supposed to mitigate the filling and degradation of headwater wetlands, and it doesn't take an advanced degree to recognize (as Shannon Morrison of the Wetlands Division pointed out in her testimony) that this beaver pond area at mid-level elevation in no way compensates for the high-elevation wetlands that would be lost.

This is where it gets interesting.  Trip Wileman's logging road was not put in "within the last several months" as suggested in GMP's letter to the PSB.  It was cleared in Sept. 2009, and was so wide and long and involved so many culverts that area residents contacted ANR, which did a site visit.  Wileman persuaded everyone that the road was part of his forest management plan.  This is when VCE got involved with GMP and this wind issue in Lowell.  Here's the correspondence from October 2009 between a neighbor, VCE, GMP, and Trip Wileman
http://www.vce.org/LowellLoggi...
and photos of that logging road taken at the time
https://picasaweb.google.com/1...

So now GMP is suggesting to the PSB that GMP and ANR were not aware of this road, even though it was brought to their attention at the time it was developed.  It is pretty clear from the aerial photos that the road has been improved since then.  Neighbors tell me that no logs were removed from that road, so the question is what is it for?

Now look again at the map that shows the parcels that ANR and GMP have been discussing using as mitigation for the wind project's impacts.  That logging road, which is now quite a wide and long road, is between two parcels that have been planned to mitigate wetland and wildlife impacts.  Are they just now figuring out that the landowner has installed a road which was not adequately stabilized at the time, in the middle of the area proposed for mitigation?  Seems like that road should have been an issue from the beginning.  

So it's a week before GMP has been saying they are going to begin construction, the company doesn't have a lease with the landowner, the landowner has put in a road that has probably been draining sediment into the beaver pond for more than a year, and the impression GMP is giving to the PSB in its letter is that, gee, we just discovered this, and it only happened within the last couple months.

---

by: VCE @ Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 13:45:42 PM UTC

Thanks for the salient details, VCE! (4.00 / 3)

I don't agree with ApacheTrout that the violations are "minor."  

What has been happening at Lowell would seem to have been enabled by the culture of enforcement paralysis that has characterized the ANR over the Douglas years; and without a strong penalty message in this case, developers and their sub-contractors are likely to assume in the future that they can conduct business "as usual."

---

by: Sue Prent @ Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 14:04:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GMP and Trip Wileman's Conservation Easement/Draft (4.00 / 1)

Here's the draft Conservation Easement for Parcel 3, the one with the beaver pond and the area designated to be used for wetlands mitigation
http://vce.org/Draft%20Form%20...

It is not signed, and apparently has not yet been signed.  This and some other draft easements were submitted to the PSB at the end of June.

---

by: VCE @ Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 17:57:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The tree cutting remains a minor violation but had potential for greater impacts. (0.00 / 0)

I suspect that the reason why tree cutting was and is not allowed during the survey phase of work is that adequate construction phase stormwater control measures are not in place.  The wetlands scientist certified that the tree cutting did not degrade streams or wetlands.  Therefore, a minor violation, likely to result in little or no enforcement activity.

As for the wetlands filling on the landowner property, the severity of the violation depends upon the extent of impact to the Class 2 wetland.  Neither the article nor the letter from GMP quantify the amount of fill placed in the wetland.  Trying to read between the lines here, so I could be way off base here, but it's interesting that the letter from GMP contained a statement from the wetlands scientist regarding the tree cutting but not a word from him regarding the wetlands impact.  I suspect that if the impact had been minor, the wetlands scientist would have prepared a statement for inclusion in the letter.  I suspect that more is at play here, quite possibly due to the fact that the landowner is acting independent of GMP.

---

by: ApacheTrout @ Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 21:14:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Each violation (4.00 / 1)

could recieve at the very least the punitive actions which are on the books, such as fines & cost-per-tree etc. But really they should be large & severe enough to make the violaters & their supporters including apologists stop classifying them as 'minor' with major ramifications. If it doesn't cost them anything it will never end.

Or why have any rules or protections at all?  

---

by: stardust @ Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 17:15:05 PM UTC

I'm neither a supporter or an apologist, but a realist that the punishment (0.00 / 0)

should match the severity of the violation.  I have not seen the situation first hand, but the cutting of 10 trees along the 2,500 path of a proposed (and approved) access road during the survey phase does not strike me as severe and does not require a severe penalty.  Now if they had cut down 60 trees, left slash piles, and causes significant erosion and sedimentation of adjacent streams/wetlands, that's a different story.  But that's not the case as described in the BFP story or the GMP letter.

The fine is not going to based on a cost per tree basis.  The trees were slated to be cut down, but not at this phase.  Logging of trees along the 2,500 foot path of the road requires stormwater controls.

---

by: ApacheTrout @ Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 23:30:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please (0.00 / 0)

Despite claim not to be a supporter or apologist, behavior would indicate otherwise. Clearly your position despite the defensiveness is consistant.

Noun 1. apologist - a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; "an apologist for capital punishment"
justifier, vindicator
advocate, advocator, exponent, proponent - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

---

by: stardust @ Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 00:16:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

despite your helpful definition, you're missing my main point (0.00 / 0)

that this is probably not a good case to paint the Shumlin Administration as either spineless or strong on environmental enforcement.  If the wetland violation on the landowner's property proves to be significant, then I will gladly stand corrected.  

---

by: ApacheTrout @ Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 12:10:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

GMP cut more than 10 trees (4.00 / 1)

VCE now has documentation that more than 10 trees were cut, and they were larger than GMP told the PSB about.  

As for the damage to the beaver pond, it is relatively minor compared to what is occurring on First Wind's site in Sheffield.

Here's a 3 minute and 50 second video that is a compilation of photos of the Sheffield First Wind construction site, in chronological order beginning Sept. 2010 through July 23, 2011.  http://vimeo.com/26965317

Vermont's DEC says the site is a model of how to do things right.  What do you think?

---

by: VCE @ Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 16:12:12 PM UTC

That's pretty alarming run-off! (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for sharing the video.

---

by: Sue Prent @ Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 16:28:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is also not the point (4.00 / 2)

"[..]If violations of rules, once discovered, result in little more than a slap on the wrist, where is the disincentive?"

This is the basis for my opinion, and the main point imo. I see no desire to tar the Shumlin administration but to scrutinize enforcement & compare it to the Douglas administration dismal record. How this is handled & any action taken, or not, will serve to show whether violations will be taken seriously.

Although levels of significance are wide-ranging, those contributing to the story have provided documented credible sources & related information to support the main points whereas you have provided none & offer only your opinion. Opinions are thin evidence unless the opinionator is uniquely qualified & even then should be able to back it up with credible sources. I simply do not think you have proven that the actions in question are insignificant though your comments have consistantly supported this stance.

You may be right but I would like to see some evidence of this, that is all.

---

by: stardust @ Wed Jul 27, 2011 at 16:29:10 PM UTC

VPR had a story (0.00 / 0)

Regulators Won't Approve GMP Permits Before August
Tuesday, 07/26/11 5:50pm and Wednesday, 07/27/11 7:34am

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail...

---

by: stardust @ Thu Jul 28, 2011 at 13:48:28 PM UTC