Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMDGInvasiveSpeciesPlanComments_v201/08/17 Invasive Species Control Plan Comments Pg. 1 of 4 Marcus Gingerich Comments on the Invasive Species Control Plan (new text in red) Since this plan has not changed appreciably, if at all, most of the old comments still apply and new/additional comments are included in red. Comments from the DEC and USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife) as part of the FEIS are included as well. A general overview assessment of the ISCP in its current form is that the plan pretty vague and general and doesn't provide any real objective criteria or enforceable requirements. It sounds more like a general expression of goals and practices. You can't really disagree with anything it says but there is nothing in it that you can actually enforce. Instead, the Plan should contain detailed objective requirements for controlling invasive species before, during and after land disturbance work. In addition, rather than generally pronouncing that suitable erosion and sediment control will be installed, the Plan should detail how all disturbed areas of soil will be rapidly revegetated and that they will be mulched and seeded as soon as possible following disturbance (when?). Equipment must be cleaned before arriving on site, and re-cleaned whenever it is used in surface waters or areas inhabited by invasive species. The Plan alludes to an Appendix A which is a list of invasive species identified by NYS, but the Appendix is missing. They describe a few species that they have apparently found in the area, but that is not enough. The following priority species should be added to the Plan and should be actively searched for and controlled: Purple Loosestrife; Common Reed (Phragmites); Japanese Knotweed; and Giant Hogweed. In addition to our comments below, we note the following comments from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) on invasive species contained in the Final EIS: i) The USFWS commented that all existing locations of invasive species within the proposed construction areas should be identified and mapped. They should also be treated to eliminate invasive species prior to construction and they should be monitored following construction to determine if invasive species are becoming newly established in the project area. Alarmingly, BOWF's response is that the only areas that they intend to treat for invasive species are "within NYDEC regulated wetlands, streams and other riparian areas affected by wind development areas." Furthermore, BOWF states that they do not intend to survey, remove or monitor invasive species in disturbed forested areas. The only control management they intend to undertake for disturbed forested areas is construction materials inspection and construction equipment sanitation. The Wind Permit should require BOWF to comply with the USFWS's request that all locations within the construction area be treated for invasive species. ii) The USFWS commented that all the FEIS provides that disturbed areas will be re-graded and 01/08/17 Invasive Species Control Plan Comments Pg. 2 of 4 Marcus Gingerich seeded. USFWS wants these areas to be promptly replanted with native species to encourage native regeneration. They also recommend that all disturbed areas be promptly reseeded to prevent soil erosion and reduce the potential for establishment of invasive plant species. iii) NYDEC indicated that the general location of invasive species should be located on Construction Plans and equipment cleaning areas and procedures should be indicated on Drawings. Furthermore, they pointed out that equipment should be cleaned prior to leaving an area if ANY species are found in the area, not just if there is "an abundance" found as the FEIS provides. Once again BOWF indicates they only intend to carry out invasive species control "within NYDEC regulated wetlands, streams and other riparian areas affected by wind development areas", not in all disturbed areas because it is "impracticable" in other areas such as agricultural fields and roadside fringes. Similarly, they indicate no intent to do so within disturbed forested areas either. BOWF should be required under the Wind Permit to conform to the NYDEC's requests. 1) The second line says, "The Project is anticipated to include seven wind turbines with a rated capacity of 2.3 megawatts (MW),..." When will we know for sure what the project will have, this needs to be clarified and solidified as far as details. If the exact configuration of the project is not yet known or determined, then no plan(s) or permits should be approved until the project is finalized. 1b) This plan specifically specifies 2.3MW wind turbines for which there is now strong evidence that the Project configuration can not be built in compliance with the Enfield Town wind as it is currently configured. Specifically, the location of turbine 2 appears to be too close to a non-participating property line. The town board needs to require verification, as per the Enfield Town wind law, that the Project Sponsor has the permission to build/locate turbine #2 in compliance with the Enfield Town wind law setback requirement. 2) The second line of the second paragraph, "...which will included...soil disturbance of a 200-foot radius around each turbine sit for turbine construction and rotor assembly." This implies that the 3-4 of the turbines will require trespassing onto and utilizing non-participating properties as some of the turbines are not even located 200 feet from the non-participating property lines. This should not be allowed to proceed as it is a violation of private property. 3) On page 2 at the end of the first paragraph, "Invasive plant control will be considered successful when 0% net increase in the aerial coverage of invasive species (compared to a baseline survey of the target area) is realized." Does this mean that if there is more than a 0% increase, control measures will continue to be escalated by the project until 0% is achieved? If not, what is the maximum acceptable limit? If that limit is not met what are the penalties to the project? Does the town need to mitigate the problem? If so, who pays for it? Where is the enforceability of any of this? Also, has the baseline survey already been done at the turbine locations? If so, where is the data? Does 01/08/17 Invasive Species Control Plan Comments Pg. 3 of 4 Marcus Gingerich the town get a record of the baselines so that there is a reference to which the town can refer? Assuming the project will do a proper baseline, maintain the proper data, and then follow up with the proper final survey, is not a safe assumption. One would expect some sort of photographic record of the sites would be on record with the town. 3b) An attachment A is mentioned, but is not part of this revised document. Attachment A must be included before the plan can be approved. 4) Pg. 3, paragraph 1 indicates that a survey study was done over 5 years ago in 2011, that seems like old data at this point in time. This study should be updated. Also, it seems that the project layout has changed since 2011, so how does the town know that the survey was actually done at the correct locations for the current turbines. Where is the data showing the detail? Is it on record with the town for future comparison? 5) Pg. 3, paragraph 1 goes on to indicate that a baseline survey will be conducted prior to construction to determine the approximate aerial coverage of each invasive species within the target area. Will this only be to look for those species already mentioned or will the survey look for any new ones? The loose language of the approximate aerial coverage of each invasive species within the target area seems to be in distinct contrast to the 0% figure for successful control. Why is there a disconnect and which is the true anticipated figure of merit? Also, there are not details on precisely how the aerial survey will be conducted and with what resolution? Will it be from an airplane with a resolution of 100' (or more or less) or will it be conducted on the ground with 1/4" resolution? The exact detail should be included to determine acceptability of the procedure. Better resolution would reduce the likelihood of error. 5b) pg. 3 'Proposed Control Measures', section 1 says, “...spread and graded to match original contours following construction activities).” Is the contour of relevance at turbine locations 4 and 5 before 'pre- construction' was started in 2014 or when actual construction actually begins? 6) pg. 4 paragraph 3. Construction Equipment Sanitation: How will the equipment be cleaned? Will it be with water? If so, where does the water come from? Where does the waste water go? Will clothing be cleaned every day as workers go to and from a work site? Or will it just be a formality to have clean clothes at the beginning of the project and then at the end? 7) pg. 4 Construction Monitoring: "...the Environmental Monitor will confirm that all required practices are being implemented during construction activities." What happens if they are not? What happens in any part of the ISCP if the project is not in compliance? Is this a breach of the local wind law and grounds for revoking the project's permit? What leverage does that town have to make sure the project comes back into compliance? 8) pg. 4 Post-Construction Monitoring: a visual inspection will be conducted by an experienced 01/08/17 Invasive Species Control Plan Comments Pg. 4 of 4 Marcus Gingerich biologist..." This is conducted for 2 consecutive years, but is this conducted once per year, 10x per year, or how many times per year? “In the event that the ISCP goals are not met,..." What are the goals, 0% increase in invasive species? Who decides what the revised control plan is? Does the town have a say in that plan? This plan should have to meet town approval and/or approval of a town chosen expert. 9) Is this plan completely applicable to the decommissioning process and ALL decommissioning activities including removal of ALL underground conduit and wiring? If so, is there sufficient funds in the decommissioning bond to cover this procedure including 2 years of monitoring in the eventuality that the town becomes responsible for decommissioning the project at some time in the future? 10) This plan mentions an Environmental Monitor, who hires this person? Does this person report to the town? If so, how? 11) Is the Environmental Monitor responsible for compliance of this entire program? 12) What part of this plan is actually enforceable by town? Is there actually any recourse for the town or the neighbors if this plan is not followed properly? 13) Is this plan also in effect if there were a catastrophic failure of a component (i.e., turbine collapse) which would require repair or replacement of a major component, thus require 'reconstruction' activities?