CON ED IS RETURNING TO THE ROW TO "FINISH THE WORK FROM 2009."

Please take a moment to read the brief email tread between me, and Mike Amato-Con Ed.

Sent: Jun 8, 2011 10:53 AM

Subject: RE: sprouts on the ROW

Amy,

I'm glad to hear your positive observations regarding the low-growing shrub habitat and associated wildlife!  That is what we generally want on the corridor. While we do not intend to do any stump grinding, it is our plan to selectively re-cut and treat the taller tree stumps that were left, and any new sprouts growing from them in the next few days in your area.  We are only targeting the incompatible species which can grow tall enough to eventually impact safety & reliability.  Also, if these saplings are allowed to grow taller, they will start to shade out & out-compete the low-growing shrub habitat you observed.       If there is anything specific you want to look at out there, I would be more than happy to do so.  Let me know. 

-Mike  

-----Original Message-----   

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:24 AM 

To: Amato, Michael  

Subject: sprouts on the ROW

Mike, I was visiting with Tom and Kristina Bracken on Saturday, and Tom mentioned that a few weeks before the order was read, you told him that Con Ed was planning to return and grind the stumps of the new growth that is sprouting on the ROW.  The area I am referring to, begins just north of us, on Old Farm Lane, and continues south down Sprain Road to where it crosses over to Deer Hill Lane.  What is growing down there now are elderberry bushes, white japanese wild roses, other low growing vegetation, and intermittently, what looks like black, and honey locus, maybe some cherry. The trees begin at least 5 feet downslope of the aqueduct, and are 5-7 ft in height.  The most cost effective way to mitigate down there is to allow that buffer to reinstate itself.  Two springs have passed now, and there are good things happening down there. The habitat has returned in full force....the low growing shrubs are housing tons of wildlife. I was hoping that this area would be a buffer that could be retained, rather than removed.

The growth is well in the boarderzone, on the far side of the aqueduct, and is beyond and clearance mandate...even Gallent wet of 10.44 ft, referred to in draft 5 of FAC 003-2.  The trees that are coming up begin several feet down slope of the aqueduct roadway.  The wires are at least 50 ft off the ground....within "best Practices" policy..."The point is that wire-border zone technique is a useful tool where it meets management objectives. Whether or not it should be employed depends on the judgement of the qualified vegetation Managers."  The foliage is just about covering the view of the north lane of the Sprain, and by next year it may reach to the other side. We have some hope, Mike.  Although, this vegetation is “undesirable,” order 10-E-0155 gives you freedom to use your own judgement, to allow this vegetation to stay. Maybe we could walk the area together, to talk about it more specifically.  

Most Respectfully, 

Amy M Kupferberg

Mr Amato, and I walked the ROW on Thursday.  He told me that Con Ed had already started, and was making their way throughout the ROW.  The plan is to “selectively” remove every sapling that grew from every stump on the ROW.  They are treating the stumps with herbicide.  They are leaving the grass, and low growing shrubs.
 
*When I asked him about wz/bz clearances...he said Con Ed's TVMP was approved by the PSC, and the clearance in their plan state 130 ft, from the center of the tower, out in both directions. 
 
*When I suggested that this area should be considered a buffer, on an open roadway-his reply was "this is a transmission corridor."
 
*When I asked about notification-he said, “this is cyclical maintenance,” we don't have to notify.
 
*When I asked why cut this all down now, when in a few weeks the Order will take effect, and maybe some of these trees can stay-he said, there is nothing in either order that says we have to stop the work we are doing.
 
*When I asked about the new densely populated plan, he said, I have to write a paragraph by July, 17th, or the 29th.
 
*When I suggested the new order would allow for "undesirables" in the ROW- He said, there was nothing in the order that says that.  Con Ed's TVMP was approved by the PSC, and the plan states.....all undesirables species, in the priority zone, that in their lifetime will compromise the safe and reliable.....
 
*When I asked him, why they didn't do this when the work was done in 2009, or last spring, when it would be less disruptive-He said, they didn't want to treat the stumps, and spread the herbicide all over, while they were dragging the trees when removing them.
 
*When I pressed again about the clearances, he said that I wasn't understanding that those minimum clearances don't take into account a tree at it's full height at maturity. And sometimes you really have to be a lawyer, or an engineer to understand everything.
 
Federal mandate FAC 003 states that a Transmission Owner must create a TVMP, and they must implement the clearances according to the plan they create.  The PSC approved Con Edison’s TVMP.  They approved a plan that use clearances of 130 feet, from the center of the tower out, throughout the entire length of the ROW, with no provisions for highly populated suburban neighborhoods, where abutting property owners, would be adversely impacted.  The most cost effective way to mitigate down there is to allow that buffer to reinstate itself.  Two springs have passed now, and there is a good thing happening down there.