Throughout his tenure, Governor Douglas complained bitterly to anyone who would listen, of the onerous burden imposed on business by Vermont’s system of environmental regulation. Despite all the crocodile tears, one of the worst kept secrets in Montpelier was that the watchdog in charge of enforcement of those regulations had no teeth, and that there was systemic dysfunction in the Agency of Natural Resources.
Here is the first true test of whether or not there’s been a significant change of culture within the Agency. Regulatory violations in connection with the Lowell Wind Project provide a high-profile opportunity for the new ANR Secretary and her team to demonstrate that more than simple delays will be the consequences for those who would play fast and loose with Vermont’s environmental regulations.
The issue here stands quite apart from whether or not the Lowell Wind Farm is a good idea. If violations of rules, once discovered, result in little more than a slap on the wrist, where is the disincentive?
All I’ve read so far with regard to the Lowell violations suggests their discovery may only mean a slight delay for the developers while the issues are “resolved.”
Agency of Natural Resources Secretary Deb Markowitz said her agency has been to the site and is assessing the damage. She expected to determine what consequences,if any, the electric utility would face. Markowitz said at the agency’s request, Green Mountain Power asked the Public Service Board not to give final approval to its conservation easements until the issues are resolved.
(emphasis added)
Without meaningful penalties, disregarding those environmental rules becomes little more than a calculated risk that may be factored into a project even in the conceptual stage.
C’mon Secretary Markowitz, it’s time to let the dogs out.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Vermont’s DEC says the site is a model of how to do things right. What do you think?
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.
http://www.vpr.net/news_detail…