Comments submitted for:                                                                   

Draft Strategic Plan and Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for State Forest Management

On behalf of:

Stewart Park and Reserve Coalition (SPARC)

November 19, 2010

 

Broad Considerations

 

The fact that this document is to be considered the DGEIS for the Plan, even as it outlines the plan itself, Strategic Plan for State Forest Management or SPSFM, places a responsibility on the NYS DEC to make the document as comprehensive as is possible.  Combining in one document two giant steps in the SEQRA review process raises concerns about adequacy, especially given the scope of the lands covered under the plan, 441 parcels totaling 786, 329 acres. 

 

Further, if adopted, the DGEIS would permit individual projects and/or UMP’s to be tiered under the DGEIS and considered with only Environmental Assessments, which have much more limited public input than any full scale EIS.  A much more extensive and inclusive document than the current one is critical and justified.

 

Page 21 of the SPSFM states the SEQRA  “process is initiated by drafting an Environmental Assessment Form.”  This EA must be included in full with the document, along with the legal determination of significance, logically as an Appendix.

 

On page 34, under “SEQR Analysis”, etc., it is stated “Specific objectives and management actions are listed along with their short-term and long-term impacts, cumulative impacts mitigation measure and alternatives, and where applicable, thresholds for requiring additional SEQR are established.”   This is not written consistently throughout the plan, particularly as to cumulative impacts, and the thresholds for additional SEQR seem arbitrary, since rationales defending the trigger are often missing.

 

An EIS should specifically provide and analyze current conditions, practices, regulations, and the legal framework.  Clearly missing from the plan is the legal framework, that is Conservation Law and current regulations, which are governing current uses, goals and practices on these State Forest lands.  This should be attached as an Appendix or contained within the text, so that the modifications proposed have a frame of reference.   In certain instances we see partial lists of current guidelines, but this is not sufficient.  The reader/commenter should have access to the complete legal picture as an attachment to this plan. 

 

Also missing are many specific current conditions, for example wildlife inventories, or hunting harvesting statistics, or financial information, that is, dollar figures that include, for example,  land maintenance costs, sources of revenue, both specific to each unit, and overall. Also, the plan should report the planned and anticipated expenses listed in the specific UMP’s of specific forests and statewide. 

 

Specific information provides a rationale for changing current practices or keeping them, as the case may be.  Without data how can we judge the need for and the potential effectiveness of the proposed SPSFM.  We would hope that the DEC has this data, and if they do, they must disclose and include it in this document.

Certain Specific Considerations

 

Re pages 96, 97, 98, on Herbicide/Pesticide Use, needed is more specific information on triggers for pesticide use, and it must include the actual text of Sections 33-0301 and –0303.  Included also should be reports on the rate of success of current pesticide use and the  SEQR analysis thresholds that would require generation of an EA and public comments and hearings.  Further, this section on pesticides has no discussion of short, longterm, cumulative impacts, etc.  Also there is no rationale for choosing 40 acres as the trigger for doing a SEQR analysis regarding timbering or pesticide application.  Why not fewer or more than 40 acres?

 

In the section on Soil and Water protection, waterways classification information should be provided for the waterways and water bodies on State Forest Lands, along with an Appendix containing the “Protection of Waters regulations”, referenced on p. 108.  Another Appendix should provide a copy of “Guidelines for Seismic Testing on DEC Administered State Land, Draft 12/20/07”, referenced on p. 109. 

 

The conclusion that “Soil and water protection strategies established in this section [Chapt. 3, Soil and water protection] will avoid and minimize potential impacts to the maximum extent practicable (emphasis added) and no further SEQR review will be conducted”, is unacceptable and arbitrary, particularly because this section includes mention of oil and gas exploration and development, stating “The Division of Lands and Forests is responsible for managing surface impacts from oil and gas exploration and development on State Forests”_ _ _ “under a TRP which includes special terms and conditions. . . “

 

Further the text points out that subsurface impacts is the responsibility of Division of Mineral Resources and that currently we only have a “Draft Guidelines for Pipeline Construction on DEC Administered State Lands”.  Declaring that “no further SEQR review will be conducted “given these unresolved and complicated conditions, is simply irresponsible and incomprehensible.

 

Regarding “At Risk Species”, p. 126, the plan says continuing with current management practices (‘no-action alternative’) would exempt any additional SEQR review.  However there is no discussion of the short, long term or cumulative impacts of current policy given the proposed changes in the plan overall, including expanded oil and gas industry use.  Clearly, additional SEQR review must be an option.  The same situation exists on p. 137, with the section on Visual Resources and Aesthetics, which again exempts additional SEQR review, even while the text states that the SPSFM will include clear cutting and oil and gas development.  Again, no mention of short term and long term impacts, and cumulative impacts for this section.

 

 

Mineral Resources

 

Regarding the mineral resources on State Forest Land, we should have an appendix conveniently providing the New York Conservation Law and current applicable regulations, governing mining in State Forests. It is critical information allowing for interpretation of the  proposed changes and the interaction between agencies, and the discussion then has context.

.

Also lacking, and necessary, are more specifics regarding the active and inactive wells now on State Forest Lands referenced on p. 225: what type of wells, what are the impacts, what are the supportive services they require, and was SEQRA performed?  It is also simplistic to assume that subsurface impacts do not also impact the surface, meaning that Lands and Forests should responsibly be consulting with the Division of Mineral Resources.

 

Clarification is needed for the statement at bottom of p. 226, “DEC will prioritize acquisition of the mineral estate wherever it is split from a State Forest tract.”  Further, how has DEC’s mission squared with the gas leasing that has already been occurring on State Forest lands in Regions 7, 8, and 9.  Was SEQRA followed, which companies were and are involved, what quantities of gas and oil are currently being produced?   We need these specifics in the SPSFN.

 

There is a contradiction inherent in the statement (p. 227) that, “DEC is inclined to consider natural gas development on State Forests due in part to the fact it is a cleaner burning energy alternative”, when the process of removing it from the ground is documented as extremely dirty and polluting.  This should be DEC’s more important consideration, since they are managing the Forests for environmental and recreational benefits.  Also an important detail is that the maps of well sites, pp. 228 and 229 and 230, are difficult to interpret because the legend is too small and unclear.  And an even smaller map on p. 231 is almost useless as a result.  These visuals must be substantially enlarged.

 

Although the text says “Any decision regarding hydraulic fracturing on State Forests will be deferred until current efforts to assess and analyze its impacts have been completed.” (p. 231), it also asserts that “these developments will, most likely, result in further nominations of State Forests for new leases.  Exactly when or if additional lease sales may occur is unclear at this time.”  (bottom, p. 231) 

 

On the next page we read, “Prior to any new leases, DEC will hold public meetings to discuss all possible leasing options”, but this is not enough because the DEC should also discuss previously acquired and existing leases, which may be reactivated or deactivated or being restored to production.  Further, there should be a proper SEQRA review and studies which incorporate the “Tract Assessment process”, because SEQRA allows for meaningful public involvement.  The components for consideration mentioned, such as “proximity to wetlands, riparian areas, slope steepness, recreation trails, rare, threatened or endangered species, and unique ecological communities” should be the subject of a complete EIS, and should not be decided cavalierly on a “case by case” basis.

 

The section goes on to discuss such additional supporting infrastructure as roads and pipelines, as well as exploratory procedures including seismic exploration (involving explosives) or geochemical and/or surface sampling procedures, which it is asserted would only need a lease and a TRP.  These are insufficient procedures for lands that are entrusted to the DEC for environmental protection and recreation, and here we have our state environmental agency turning our open lands into industrial sites without even a full SEQR process?

 

Then there is the question of underground storage of natural gas and apparently there are six natural gas storage sites beneath State Forests now, and “Gas storage under State Forest parcels has been occurring since at least the early 1960’s.”  Further, some pipeline and utility corridors are regulated under Public Service Commission Law, which means that SEQRA does not apply, but an “Article 7 Review” by the PSC does.  We need a copy of this Article 7 review in the text or as an Appendix.

 

The “objectives and actions” proposal reads “Provide for natural gas and other mineral resource exploration and development while protecting natural resources and quality recreational opportunities.”  On p. 242, the SPSFM says the DEC will consider oil and gas industry leasing on a case by case basis, prior to granting any new lease.  They reject closing State Forests to all future leasing because “minerals leasing provides economic benefits and resources needed by society.  Development on public lands, with heightened protection and oversight, has proven to be a compatible use of State Forests.”

 

Actually, nowhere in the SPSFM is it demonstrated that this is true.  There is no analysis of the impacts of current and past industrial oil and gas mining, either from the environmental or recreational perspective, or regarding economics.  If the hard data exists it must be included and analyzed in this plan. 

 

But there is a further and overarching concern: there is no apparent justification for converting lands belonging to the people of New York for environmental protection, habitat for wildlife, and for recreation, and instead turning them into industrial tracts to fund the state’s coffers. 

 

DEC’s mission is on page I of the plan and quotes from ECL 1-0101(l): “The quality of our environment is fundamental to our concern for the quality of life.  It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of New York to conserve, improve and protect its natural resources and environment, and to prevent, abate and control water, land and air pollution, in order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state, and their overall economic and social well-being.”

 

The NYS DEC is stretching logic when “overall economic” is assumed to permit polluting industrial exploitation.  In fact, such a use could destroy many other economically beneficial uses of lands on or adjacent to our State Forests.  If the state agency charged with our environmental protection is complicit in hawking our common natural heritage to send cash to Albany, they are cynically betraying their mission, and the people of our state, at the same time.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan.  We trust that our comments will be incorporated into substantive changes to the SPSFM.