Dr. Howarth Testimony On CPV 'Wawayanda 6' Trial

EXHIBIT A
Dr. Howarth
EXHIBIT B
Dr. Ingraffea
EXHIBIT C
Dr. Dyrszka
EXHIBIT D
Percoco Criminal Indictment

20161212-5303 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/9/2016 5:10:51 PM
EXHIBIT E
Wawayanda Town Planning Board

Minutes May 2009
1 TOWN OF WAWAYANDA PLANNING BOARD.
WAWAYANDA, NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------------------X
In Re:
3
CPV VALLEY ENERGY CENTER
4 WORKSHOP SESSION
SBL# 4-1-38.32, 38.33 & 40.22
5 ------------------------------------------X
6 Wednesday -- 6:00 p.m.

May 13 2009
7 Town Hall
Wawayanda, New York
8 B E F O R E:
TOWN OF WAWAYANDA PLANNING BOARD
9 PRESENT:
ANN YATES, Chairwoman
10 JOHN NEIGER, Board Member
BARBARA PARSONS, Board Member
11 DONALD SIEGEL, Board Member
DANIEL LONG, Board Member
12 MARY MARKIEWICZ, Board Member
BENNIE DOMBAL, Board Member
13 WILLIAM BAVOSO, Attorney
PATRICK J. HINES, Consultant
14 STEPHEN P. FLEISCHAKER, P.E.
Consultant
15 DAVID GASKILL, Consultant
GEORGE JANES, Consultant
16 RON MILLER, Consultant
KAREN MCDONALD, Consultant
17 MARY ANN JOHNSON, Consultant
18 COMPETITIVE POWER VENTURES INC.

REPRESENTATIVES:
19 STEVEN REMILLARD
Director of Development CPV
20 RICH COGEN, Attorney
Nixon Peabody LLP
21
22 NEIL BOSTOCK, RPR-CM

Certified Shorthand Reporter
23 40 Stapleton Court
Middletown, NY 10940
24 (845) 291-3128
25
Proceedings 2
1 MADAM CHAIRPERSON: If we are ready, as everyone
2 knows, we do have a stenographer here tonight, provided by
3 the applicant, and he asked that we each go round the
4 table and state our names so he can make some attempt to
5 keep everything straight. And the other thing I would ask
6 is that if people could just speak one at a time. He
7 can't take notes from two people speaking at the same
8 time.
9 (Appearances given, as noted in caption)
10 CHAIRWOMAN YATES: Okay, at this point the
11 applicant had asked to speak, so go ahead.
12 MR. REMILLARD: Steve Remillard, Competitive
13 Power Ventures. What I wanted to do was hopefully have an
14 opportunity to address the board tonight, and the last
15 time we met we had a lot dialogue about the SEQR process.
16 There was a discussion of a supplemental DEIS and public
17 comment period. So I was hoping tonight I'd have an
18 opportunity to talk to the board, and also I brought a
19 colleague of mine, Rich Cogen, from Nixon Peabody, who is
20 very familiar with the SEQR process, and hopefully Rich
21 could sort of outline the process, and from that basis
22 maybe we could look at a process where we could move
23 forward on the project and the review, and the comments,
24 and how we take a step forward in addressing those
25 comments.
Proceedings 3
1 I know from our last meeting public review and
2 comment was a concern, was a very sensitive topic. Rich
3 can also talk about where in the SEQR process there is
4 public review and comment.
5 So Rich, if you could just take a few moments
6 and talk a bit about the SEQR process, and give a
7 timeline.
8 MR. COGEN: Sure, Steve. Thanks. Good evening,
9 everyone. I'm Rich Cogen from Nixon Peabody. I want to
10 say a few words about the process, and what is
11 contemplated in the regulations. I think you all know
12 that once a Draft EIS is accepted, there is a required
13 public comment period, and a public hearing is optional.
14 The minimum required public comment period under SEQR is
15 30 days. And under the statute and the regulations, all
16 that's required by way of public comment is that thirty
17 day period. After that comment period ends what is
18 contemplated is that a final EIS would be prepared,
19 accepted by the lead agency, and then the other thing that
20 the -- or not accepted -- but if it is accepted by the
21 lead agency, the other thing that's required under the
22 regulations is that there be a minimum ten day period for
23 public consideration of the final EIS, before the lead
24 agency issues its SEQR findings, or makes its final
25 decision. And that ten day period is for consideration.

Proceedings 4
1 It's not a formal comment period. But it's intended so
2 that if members of the public are interested, they can
3 review the final EIS, they can provide their views to the
4 lead agency, who may take them into account when it makes
5 its SEQR findings. And that's all that's required under
6 the regulations and the statute for conducting the public
7 participation part of the process.
8 There are also some, I'll call them constraints
9 built into the process, sort of the length of the process,
10 and the steps. One constraint is that the regulations
11 require that a final EIS be accepted within the later of
12 45 days after the close of the public hearing, or 60 days
13 after acceptance of the Draft EIS. The other constraint
14 is that once the Final EIS is accepted, the regulations
15 provide that the SEQR findings must be made within 30
16 days, after the filing of the Final EIS. And I'm not
17 mentioning those constraints to suggest to you that, you
18 know, you have to keep to those time frames, or that C. P.
19 V. is trying to force the board to keep to those time
20 frames. But the reason I'm mentioning them is that they
21 do, I think, establish that there is a balance in the SEQR
22 process between public participation and having an orderly
23 process with some finality to it. You know, it's not
24 intended that the process be an open-ended one. It is
25 intended that there be certain periods defined and

Proceedings 5
1 established and that those periods not be unduly
2 prolonged.
3 Now clearly here, you know, we've had public
4 participation in the scoping process, which was an
5 optional process, and we all went through that process
6 together. We have had a public comment period that is
7 roughly two and a half times the minimum, and I think both
8 of those things, you know, go well beyond the minimum
9 requirement under the regulations, which is a good thing,
10 for the board and for C. P. V., frankly.
11 As I said, we're not here to suggest that, you
12 know, we're looking to keep the board to anything like the
13 minimum time frames, but what we are here to suggest is
14 that the board consider the remainder of the process
15 in light of what the regulations require, and in light of
16 kind of the balancing that's in the statute or
17 regulations, of balancing the opportunities for public
18 input and participation, with the need, and it's a need
19 that serves and helps both the board and the applicant,
20 but it's also a right of the applicant, to have some
21 finality in the process, and to have a definable path that
22 isn't open-ended and that gets done and finished on a time
23 frame that is ascertainable and reasonable, and that kind
24 of meets the expectations of really everyone.
25 So, I'm happy to say more, Steve, but I just

Proceedings 6
1 wanted to make those points.
2 MR. REMILLARD: And I think just in closing, the
3 last time we were together, there was a lot of talk about
4 the public comment period and the Supplemental DEIS. I
5 think one of the things we would look to the board and
6 like you to consider is that the public comment period, we
7 sort of close that, based upon some of the time that we
8 have had so far, and then if there is new information,
9 there is definitely a process that is prescribed, for
10 looking at new information and determining what warrants
11 going into a Supplemental DEIS, but also, as Rich said,
12 there is also an opportunity, as we develop the FEIS,
13 there is going to be input from the consultants and the
14 experts that you've hired, to review that material, and go
15 back and forth, so it still gets to quite a bit of review.
16 I guess in that context I just wanted to suggest that, or
17 ask if the board would consider the timing of the public
18 comment period.
19 MR. COGEN: If I could just say one more thing
20 on that, Steve, and members of the board; on the issue of
21 closing the public comment period, we've worked on
22 environmental impact statements all over the state, and
23 with both state agencies and local agencies, and the thing
24 that, you know, I think has been true in every single
25 process we've ever been involved in, is that the public

Proceedings 7
1 comment period comes to a defined close, and the reason
2 for that is that helps both the applicant and the lead
3 agency, and the reason it helps the lead agency is that we
4 agencies don't want confusion about what is in the record,
5 or not in the record. And if the public comment period
6 closes, you have a bright line. You know what that date
7 is, and any comments received after that date are not
8 timely. That doesn't mean that the lead agency can't
9 accept them into the record, and many lead agencies do,
10 but what it does mean is the lead agency preserves its own
11 discretion and its own ability to accept that comment into
12 the record or not.
13 And the other thing it means is that it doesn't
14 create additional legal risks. You know, if a comment
15 period closes and a comment is submitted late, there are
16 scores of court decisions that support a lead agency
17 saying that comment wasn't timely, it's not in the record,
18 it doesn't have to be considered. And in truth, you know,
19 I don't think any reasonable court is going to disagree
20 with the decision by a lead agency to say that.
21 Conversely if there is not a defined end date for a
22 comment period, and comments keep coming in, it just
23 creates the legal risk that if, for whatever reason, and,
24 you know, not all clerks or secretaries are as efficient
25 as Pat, but if for some reason a comment is submitted and

Proceedings 8
1 slips through the cracks while the comment period remains
2 open, and it's not addressed, that creates a legal error
3 that creates risk both for you and for the applicant.
4 It is because of that that really every lead
5 agency I've ever dealt with has said, you know, the
6 comment period ends here. If we get comments after that,
7 we can decide whether to accept them. As I said, most do.
8 But at least you control the record. The lead agency
9 controls the record, if there is a bright line set and
10 you're eliminating the risk of legal error should
11 something slip through the cracks later. We don't want
12 that risk and we hope you don't want it either.
13 Thanks.
14 MR. REMILLARD: Thank you. I appreciate the
15 opportunity to talk.
16 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Can I just ask Bill a
17 question. In the DEC's comments they state that they are
18 going to have a comment period that would be held here in
19 the town. When do they do that?
20 MR. BAVOSO: I don't know when they intended to
21 do that. Have you heard from them?
22 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I mean, they do state it
23 in their paperwork. So there will be an additional
24 comment period, right?
25 MR. BAVOSO: Yes.

Proceedings 9
1 MR. COGEN: As well as on the Town permit
2 application there is going to be.
3 CHAIRPERSON YATES: I did want to clarify, will
4 we be able to get a copy of the transcript also from
5 tonight's meeting?
6 MR. REMILLARD: Yes.
7 CHAIRPERSON YATES: So I think right now our
8 task is to come up with a way to deal with the issues that
9 weren't fully dealt with in the DEIS; to define what those
10 issues are and to decide how we're going to proceed from
11 here. And hopefully have a thorough, orderly discussion
12 about what the options are, and what the implications of
13 the different options are. So with that in mind I guess
14 I'll turn it over to Mary Ann. Mary Ann and Pat have been
15 kind of narrowing down the options that we have, and we
16 can talk about, and ask questions about what the
17 implications of the different options are, so we can
18 decide how to go from here.
19 I do want to make it clear that, in my opinion,
20 normally these issues would be dealt with before the DEIS
21 was accepted as complete, and in my opinion, and this is
22 only stating my own opinion, the only reason this DEIS was
23 accepted as complete was so that you folks could make that
24 deadline, and we did that as a favor to you, and I do
25 think that we still need to deal with the issues, and they
Proceedings 10
1 should have been dealt with before, but we were, we were
2 pushing things along at your request.
3 So go ahead, Mary Ann.
4 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Well, I think -- could I
5 say something before Mary Ann speaks? I think Pat is the
6 lead on this, aren't you, Pat? You're the one that is
7 supposed to be coordinating all this. Do you have an idea
8 of what these issues are?
9 MR. HINES: I do. It's my understanding that
10 the outstanding issues are, from Steve's office, there is
11 an issue with, and I am certainly not an expert on air
12 discharge, but there are precursors for certain chemicals
13 from the stacks, and atmospheric chemistry that happens
14 after it discharges from there. I know that Karen has
15 some issues regarding the wildlife, vernal pool studies
16 and wildlife studies that were brought out. George had
17 some issues with plume height, plume analysis.
18 MR. JANES: Plume height and also the missing
19 wires.
20 MR. HINES: And the transmission wires, that we
21 have heard about, and I'm not clear on the economics.
22 MR. MILLER: We have concerns about really
23 incompleteness on the fiscal and economic impacts.
24 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Basically we have memos I
25 think from all of the consultants identifying issues that

Proceedings 11
1 are outstanding. Some would be rightfully in the DEIS,
2 and some would be more FEIS type things.
3 The question is, you know, about the ones that
4 normally would have been in the DEIS, that were in the
5 scoping, what are we going to do now.
6 MR. HINES: I think we need to strike a balance
7 between what can be incorporated into a normal FEIS
8 procedure -- I mean, it is a normal routine that issues
9 come up during the review process. You have a tremendous
10 volume of documents before you. What needs to be, what
11 can be addressed in the FEIS, and I think each of the
12 consultants needs to weigh in on their opinions on that so
13 the board can make a reasoned decision on that, and what,
14 if any, are substantive changes that warrant any further
15 review, either through some supplemental or some other
16 process. I know Mary Ann is going to weigh in on that.
17 I have never seen a supplemental be done
18 midstream. I've seen them done after the fact. I'm sure
19 maybe Bill and the applicant's attorney can weigh in on
20 the legalities of that. I know there may be an issue
21 outstanding regarding the timing of that. I think it
22 would be appropriate to hear from the consultants, their
23 issues, and let the board determine if in fact there is a
24 need for a supplemental or, some additional environmental
25 review. I don't know what we're calling it at this point,

Proceedings 12
1 and I think we'll decide that before we leave tonight.
2 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Yes, that's what we're here
3 for. So, yes, that's a question, how to handle it, what
4 does it mean if we handle it this way versus that way.
5 That's what I'm going to ask Mary Ann to kind of run
6 through for us because they kind of narrowed it down to
7 three options, I guess.
8 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: That's what I was curious
9 about. You know, I want to know what can be handled here
10 and what is going to be handled in the FEIS, because I've
11 gone through all the paperwork and there are a lot of
12 things, but it seems to me -- even, I mean, a lot of the
13 things that were in yours, Mary Ann, were going to be
14 handled in the FEIS --
15 MS. JOHNSON: That is correct.
16 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: -- the first few things
17 were mainly for the supplemental.
18 MR. HINES: If I can suggest a process that we
19 hear from the consultants on those outstanding issues that
20 they feel are significant, and then we'll talk about the
21 process to resolve them.
22 CHAIRPERSON YATES: I sort of had it backwards.
23 I was going to do the process first and then the issues,
24 but it doesn't matter to me one-way or the other.
25 MS. JOHNSON: If I could just say, I think Mr.

Proceedings 13
1 Cogen's comment is well taken. I think that closing the
2 public comment period on the DEIS is appropriate. And I
3 think you would be in a position to do that. I don't
4 disagree with anything that you said there. I think that
5 would be fine. I think the issue before the board is the
6 question of the supplemental, when and where, or if it's
7 even appropriate. So I thought we should take a couple of
8 minutes to at least understand the criteria for when you
9 do that.
10 So I have some handouts, maybe you have it
11 already, but let me pass this one around.
12 So as lead agency you can require a Supplemental
13 EIS under certain conditions, and it can be a Supplemental
14 DEIS or a Supplemental FEIS. And those conditions are
15 laid out for you right here; changes proposed for the
16 project, or newly discovered information, or a change in
17 circumstances related to the project. The decision to
18 require preparation of the Supplemental EIS in the case of
19 newly discovered information, must be based upon the
20 following criteria: The importance and relevance of the
21 information and the present state of the information in
22 the EIS. And lastly, if you do a supplemental you do have
23 to follow the procedures that you followed for the Draft
24 EIS.
25 Okay, so that's the criteria under which we have

Proceedings 14
1 to examine these issues
2 MR. COGEN: I'm sorry to interrupt but I think
3 there is one other important criteria, which is that those
4 things you listed have to give rise to specific
5 significant adverse impacts not addressed, or inadequately
6 addressed in the DEIS. That's a very important overlay of
7 all of that. That's right in the regulations.
8 MR. BAVOSO: Yes.
9 MS. JOHNSON: Okay. I also have another handout
10 here. This is sort of where we are at in the process,
11 just so everybody is very clear. Sort of the SEQR road
12 map. I just copied this right out of the SEQR book. I
13 have added some extra stuff, that is the stuff in color.
14 Currently we have completed up to step ten. We have gone
15 through the EAF. We've done the pos dec. We've done the
16 scoping. We have accepted the Draft EIS; public review;
17 we've had public comment. We had the hearing. And now we
18 are in between sort of ten and eleven here, you know, the
19 preparation of the Final EIS.
20 The options that I'm going to present in a
21 minute really deal with whether this information that's
22 outstanding rises to a Supplemental DEIS, in which case we
23 go back and we file a notice of intent and we follow that
24 procedure. Or if it comes after the Final EIS, in which
25 it would be a Supplemental FEIS, okay.

Proceedings 15
1 So that is kind of where we are at in the
2 process. We're almost at the end of this SEQR process.
3 There are twelve steps, and if we do a supplemental we'll
4 be adding a few more.
5 BOARD MEMBER MARKIEWICZ: May I ask a question?
6 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Sure.
7 BOARD MEMBER MARKIEWICZ: You just said that if
8 there was not a supplemental DEIS, that perhaps there
9 would be a Supplemental FEIS. But not necessarily, is
10 that correct?
11 MS. JOHNSON: Correct.
12 BOARD MEMBER MARKIEWICZ: Okay.
13 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Now can I ask a question?
14 In other words, if they, if the things that we need to
15 address, if we don't do a Supplemental DEIS, and they are
16 addressed then in the FEIS, right, so then we have to see
17 whether the FEIS is complete, or whether we need a
18 supplemental to that?
20 BOARD MEMBER DRISCOLL: So you can shift things
21 out of the DEIS into the FEIS, or is there a legal
22 separation that they can't mix?
23 MS. JOHNSON: Well, I'm going to hand that
24 out --
25 MR. BAVOSO: You're going to see that in a

Proceedings 16
1 minute.
2 MS. JOHNSON: I am trying to go step by step.
3 It's a lot to absorb. What I've tried to lay out for you
4 are the options to think about, as you think about what
5 you are going to hear from the consultants regarding what
6 these outstanding issues are.
7 Option one is to continue on the path that we
8 are on, proceed to the FEIS, and in that process the
9 comments will be responded to, the studies that are
10 outstanding would be included, the Planning Board is going
11 to take a look at the FEIS and determine whether it's
12 adequate or not. If it is, you're going to proceed to the
13 public consideration period, as Mr. Cogen described, and
14 after the public consideration period, you're going to
15 prepare the finding statement. If you look at the FEIS
16 and you look at those additional studies, and you decide
17 that there is some more information still needed, that at
18 the time you can also call for a supplemental and have it
19 be a Supplemental FEIS.
20 MR. HINES: DEIS.
21 MS. JOHNSON: No, it would be an FEIS. All
22 right. I tried to do the pros and cons here. The pros of
23 this process would be it is typically what is done. It's
24 what people are used to, it's what people are familiar
25 with. It also does not preclude the Planning Board from

Proceedings 17
1 requiring a Supplemental FEIS if it is deemed necessary.
2 The cons to that are it limits comments on whether those
3 additional studies are in compliance with the scoping
4 document. It does not allow for the same level of public
5 and agency review and comment. They do get an opportunity
6 to look at it, they do get an opportunity to submit
7 comments, but there isn't necessarily a response to any of
8 that. Okay.
9 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Can I ask a question? If
10 they give us comments that could make us decide also
11 whether we need a Supplemental FEIS?
13 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: So in other words they
14 wouldn't be ignored?
15 MS. JOHNSON: No.
16 MR. HINES: And to interject, an agency could
17 incorporate their comments into their findings, as they
18 develop. Each agency has to develop findings too, so
19 there is that option.
20 MS. JOHNSON: Option two is to require a
21 Supplemental DEIS. The preparation of the FEIS can be
22 on-going. The applicant already has a bunch of comments
23 from the public and from its consultants. They can be
24 working on all of that. But the FEIS could not be adopted
25 until the studies that were in the Supplemental DEIS were

Proceedings 18
1 addressed. Okay. This also outlines the process that the
2 lead agency will need to go through, file the notice of
3 intent, the pos dec; you could do scoping. You don't have
4 to. It's optional. There would be the preparation of the
5 Supplemental DEIS. There would be that period of
6 determining whether it's complete or not. There would be
7 a public review, and an optional public hearing.
8 Once that's complete the FEIS would then address
9 issues in the DEIS, and the Supplemental DEIS. You go to
10 your public consideration period, and then you go to your
11 findings statement. The pros for this is, this allows for
12 full agency and public review and comment on the issues
13 that were inadequately addressed in the DEIS. It also
14 clearly demonstrates for the record that the board has
15 taken a hard look, which is a requirement under SEQR. It
16 may preempt a future legal challenge. And these
17 supplementals have been challenged, quite frankly, in both
18 directions, whether they should have been done or
19 shouldn't have been done, whether they needed to be done,
20 whether the lead agency took the appropriate steps in
21 determining whether there needed to be a supplemental.
22 This process will slightly delay your final
23 decision. There are certain minimum statutory
24 requirements that will have to be met.
25 Option three, this would be a hybrid approach to

Proceedings 19
1 the FEIS. Here it would be prepared, you would determine
2 adequacy. But then you would circulate to the agencies,
3 and let the public know that there is a Proposed FEIS
4 that's out there, and ask for their comments, incorporate
5 the comments as necessary, maybe determine if there is a
6 supplemental needed, and then proceed to the public
7 consideration and findings statement. This is not the
8 ordinary process. It has been done. It's not totally out
9 of the question. It provides a compromise position. It
10 streamlines the process a little bit. It may not be
11 necessary to prepare a supplemental, but it again does not
12 preclude the Planning Board from doing so if it's deemed
13 necessary.
14 The cons again are, it doesn't follow the
15 straight regulatory guideline in the process, but it does
16 represent an expansion for public and agency comment and
17 review. The Planning Board is going to have to be careful
18 in how that gets circulated, and what it says in that
19 statement, so that the agencies understand, you know, that
20 they will be encouraged to comment, and will be addressed
21 if it's appropriate.
22 Again, it is not the typical process. It has
23 the potential to confuse involved and interested agencies.
24 BOARD MEMBER MARKIEWICZ: For option three then,
25 what you're saying is, after the FEIS is prepared, it

Proceedings 20
1 could be seen by the public and comments made by the
2 public, and then the Planning Board would decide if those
3 comments needed to be addressed, or the applicants would,
4 or the applicant would, and then when it was -- then a
5 Final FEIS would come with those comments, is that what
6 you're saying?
7 MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
8 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: In other words we would
9 be circulating a Proposed FEIS.
10 MS. JOHNSON: Which is not what typically
11 happens. Usually the FEIS is adopted by the Planning
12 Board. It is -- it is put out for that ten day, minimum
13 ten day, can be put out for longer, it doesn't have to be
14 just ten days, and comments can come back.
15 CHAIRPERSON YATES: So in considering the three
16 options then, as Mr. Cogen pointed out, I mean, the lead
17 agency may require Supplemental EIS limited to the
18 specific significant adverse environmental impacts not
19 addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS. Shall we
20 now talk about what those --
21 MS. JOHNSON: I think you should go through those
22 issues.
23 MR. COGEN: May we just make one other
24 suggestion? And I'll say, we appreciate the spirit
25 in which the third option was proposed. You know, there

Proceedings 21
1 are certainly compromise elements in that, but it also
2 says, and as Mary Ann pointed out, it is very unusual, and
3 I think it would be very confusing, for not only involved
4 interested agencies and the public, but from our
5 standpoint we think there is at least one more much
6 simpler option than any of these, that, you know, we would
7 like to suggest for your consideration. And we hadn't
8 seen these options until we got in the room here.
9 One of the fundamental truisms about the SEQR
10 process is that a Final EIS -- well, let me say one other
11 thing; any thought of a Supplemental Final EIS at this
12 stage is not only extremely premature, but we don't think
13 that would be helpful to anybody, because whatever issues
14 your consultants are thinking about now, we already know
15 about, so that if there is a desire that they be addressed
16 in some other fashion, the way to address them isn't to
17 think that we're going to do a supplemental after a final.
18 We don't think that serves anybody, you or us;
19 but I think the fourth option is that, it's a truism that
20 the Board ultimately controls whether a Final EIS is
21 accepted or not. It's your decision. It's also true that
22 under the regulation we have been talking about, a
23 Supplemental DEIS can only be required if there are
24 specific significant adverse environmental impacts not
25 addressed or inadequately addressed in the DEIS, that

Proceedings 22
1 arise from a change in the project or newly discovered
2 information or changes in circumstances. I would say,
3 respectfully, that the project hasn't changed, so what
4 we're talking about here is whether newly discovered
5 information demonstrates that there is a significant
6 environmental impact that hasn't been adequately
7 addressed.
8 And I think what we would like to suggest is
9 that the board does not have enough information today to
10 make that decision, because there are some other studies
11 going on that we are completing, that your consultants
12 will have, and we don't think the judgment on whether
13 things have been inadequately addressed can be made until
14 those studies are available. You have an idea what our
15 responses to comments that have already been received
16 would be, and then the judgment could be made, and so we
17 would suggest just a very simple process; whether you call
18 it option four or not; is that you don't have to decide
19 this today, nothing requires you to; that you wait to get
20 the studies; that we work through with your consultants
21 and the Board how we're planning to respond to comments,
22 and at that point you can decide whether an FEIS that we
23 may be preparing can be accepted, or whether, based on all
24 the information, you can make the finding that the
25 regulation requires, so that the decision would be made

Proceedings 23
1 later, with the information in hand, that allegedly would
2 serve as the basis for finding that there is specific
3 significant impact that hasn't been adequately addressed.
4 We don't think you can make that determination today.
5 So we would suggest just a very simple process.
6 Let's keep working together. You'll get these studies.
7 We will work through how we're planning to respond to
8 comments. We'll start working on the Final EIS, and then
9 at that point you wouldn't accept the Final EIS if you
10 wanted a supplemental. We would do a supplemental, if
11 that's the finding you make, and go through that part of
12 the process, and move on. If you decide that a
13 supplemental is not needed at that point, then the final
14 would be submitted, and that's what we would suggest.
15 It's a simpler, much more regular process. We
16 think it keeps you within the bounds of the regulation.
17 And frankly we think it's beneficial, both for the
18 applicant and for the Board. I throw that option out.
19 CHAIRPERSON YATES: What are the studies that
20 are outstanding right now?
21 MR. REMILLARD: Some of the ecology studies. I
22 know the vernal pool is one that we're looking at. Stream
23 bio-monitoring. There was the Indiana Bat survey. And I
24 know that there was for, for Steve, we were looking at
25 setting up a protocol to start looking at the secondary PM

Proceedings 24
1 2.5 formation.
2 MR. COGEN: Which frankly we're not sure will be
3 feasible to do.
4 MR. REMILLARD: But we're going to do that in
5 consultation with your consultants, as was outlined in the
6 DEIS, is what agreed to.
7 MR. COGEN: And there may be a few additional or
8 altered simulations.
9 MR. REMILLARD: As Rich said, we prepare those,
10 and submit those, and at that point you'd have the
11 information to make a judgment at that point, whether it
12 meets that criteria. So today we don't have that
13 information for you to render that judgment.
14 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Now, what you're working
15 on at this point, and if you continue to go through that
16 process with our consultants, will all that then end up in
17 the FEIS, is that what you are saying? Or we could, if
18 down the road we felt that it should be --
19 MR. COGEN: Remember, as we have gone through
20 the DEIS process, we have submitted underlying studies
21 that were then used in the DEIS to your consultants, you
22 know, as they have been ready for review, and before they
23 were incorporated into the DEIS. And what we're
24 suggesting is we'll do the same here. You'll get the
25 studies, as you got the studies that were the basis for
Proceedings 25
1 the DEIS. And you can review them and at the point where
2 you have the studies, and we talked about how we're
3 planning to respond to other comments, and usually we have
4 used like a matrix approach to respond to comments. You
5 know, here is the heart of what the response is going to
6 be, and reviewed that with the municipal consultants.
7 Once you have that information, you have a
8 decision to make. You know, does this new information
9 meet the standard for Supplemental DEIS. If it does, if
10 you decide it does, that's the path we go. If instead you
11 decide it doesn't, that it just gets incorporated into the
12 FEIS, then the process goes down that path.
13 MR. BAVOSO: It sounds like that would work if
14 the studies they are doing are the studies that our
15 consultants are requesting.
16 BOARD MEMBER DRISCOLL: Can I ask a legal
17 question of Bill? We had the public hearing, and we did
18 not have the information all available to the public,
19 which they had a legal right to see. Does that leave us
20 with any legal responsibility?
21 MR. BAVOSO: I think what we're saying here is
22 that we're going to get additional information and then
23 when we get that additional information, and again if it
24 is, if it is the information, if they are the studies that
25 our consultants think we need to have, that we didn't have

Proceedings 26
1 before, we still have another crack at deciding whether or
2 not to do a Supplemental EIS, which will then trigger the
3 opportunity for additional comment and review by the
4 public and other agencies.
5 BOARD MEMBER DRISCOLL: If somebody else decides
6 that they could have gone to look at something, and they
7 legally wanted to, is that a problem for us?
8 MR. BAVOSO: Well, it is our determination. It
9 will be our determination as to whether or not what we see
10 rises to the point of significance, that would trigger,
11 in our opinion, the need for an SEIS. So I mean if there
12 is a question, we think this is something that is
13 significant, that needs to be looked at, or commented upon
14 again, we have that opportunity. But we don't know that
15 yet, as they have said, without seeing those studies that
16 they are working on now. And again as long as those
17 studies, it would seem to me, come to us, on the subject
18 matter that our consultants have requested those be, those
19 be prepared for, it seems that we're good.
20 MR. MILLER: I'd just like to elaborate a little
21 bit from our perspective on studies. There are a lot of
22 information gaps in the information on the fiscal and
23 economic, that we didn't say is a study, but we need to
24 have some way of dialogue with the applicant, and his
25 consultants, so that we can, we have an understanding of

Proceedings 27
1 what they will provide in response. Which, you know,
2 that's fine. From my viewpoint, getting information and
3 having a dialogue and meeting is critical, so that we know
4 what they will provide and how, and we can react to that.
5 I mean to me that's the most important, is to see what the
6 technical analysis response will be. You know, I'm not an
7 expert on SEQR, but to me that's very important, for David
8 and I to have a dialogue with Steve and his consultants,
9 on their response to our response, and we have some
10 specific, more targeted ideas on the issue of property
11 values, for example, that we want to propose. So, you
12 know --
13 BOARD MEMBER MARKIEWICZ: Would that be
14 addressed in the FEIS?
15 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Well ultimately that's --
16 MR. BAVOSO: That's what we're going to decide.
17 CHAIRPERSON YATES: I guess we still want to
18 determine what those, what these issues are. We were
19 going to narrow down --
20 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I think what the
21 applicant is saying, that they are, they have worked with
22 our consultants very well up till now, I believe. I don't
23 think anybody has had a problem. Right? They have worked
24 well together. They have come out with the answers. I
25 think what they are saying is, they are prepared to

Proceedings 28
1 continue doing that. And I don't see any reason to not
2 allow that to continue, so that we can at some point --
3 CHAIRPERSON YATES: But Barbara, we need to let
4 our consultants speak.
5 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I know that.
6 CHAIRPERSON YATES: We have heard the applicant
7 but they have not heard any of our consultants yet.
8 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Well, let me finish now.
9 I'm talking. All right? If it's what they feel that has
10 to be addressed, and they are willing, and from what I can
11 understand here, even if it's something that wasn't on the
12 list, you sound like you are ready to address it. So as
13 long as they are continuing to work together, eventually
14 we will all come out with all the answers that we need,
15 right?
16 MR. BAVOSO: I think that the reason that we're
17 here tonight is to address these three or maybe four items
18 that Mary Ann has well identified here --
19 CHAIRPERSON YATES: It may be more than that.
20 MR. BAVOSO: Or if there are more. That we need
21 to address if these are the additional areas that we think
22 require more study. How we're going to handle that, okay,
23 what we're going to do to handle that.
24 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Let's hear from the
25 consultants on the issues that are outstanding, that maybe

Proceedings 29
1 should have been in the DEIS, and, you know, we can digest
2 what we think those are, and agree on them and then decide
3 now or at some future time how we're going to handle them,
4 because there are a lot of options, so I would ask the
5 consultants to weigh in now on the issues that they have
6 identified.
7 MS. JOHNSON: I thought maybe we'd start with
8 Karen, because ecological was a big issue.
9 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Okay.
10 MS. MCDONALD: I have produced two sets of
11 comments for today. One is a summary, it is relatively
12 short, and the other is the full length technical comment,
13 which I prepared with a big disclaimer that they're
14 incomplete. The reason they're incomplete is that I don't
15 yet have the information that I need to evaluate some of
16 the portions of this EIS, and I wanted to be real clear
17 about that.
18 BOARD MEMBER SIEGEL: So the information should
19 be forthcoming from the applicant.
20 MS. MCDONALD: Well, I'll get to that. I just
21 want to begin with four points, four general overall
22 comments that I have from a little bit of a different
23 perspective, not strictly the procedural perspective, but
24 the EIS evaluation perspective, okay, getting in there
25 reading it, deciding what it means.

Proceedings 30
1 First of all, I'm very concerned that the
2 completeness portion of this project was rushed, as Anne
3 mentioned earlier, to allow certain deadlines to be met,
4 and that's okay, but I deferred some of my comments to the
5 technical period because of that. At this point, you
6 know, I believe it's appropriate to slow down enough to
7 finish the outstanding studies, and provide the additional
8 information to allow for a complete review of this
9 project, of its impacts and its mitigation for the
10 impacts. There is some information that is missing from
11 the EIS. Some of the studies that have been mentioned.
12 There are others. This information is needed in order to
13 provide professional review of the significant impacts of
14 this project and the mitigation for those impacts.
15 This has to be done in order. You have to have
16 the information first to be able to describe the impacts.
17 By information I mean the existing conditions. You have
18 to know what is on the site in order to be able to
19 describe the impact on what is on the site, and you can't
20 do the mitigation until you have got both of those
21 complete. You can't do it the other way around. It
22 doesn't work. Which is what I'm finding is already
23 happening within the text of the EIS. There are already
24 conclusions and mitigations being drawn from an incomplete
25 set of initial information and that concerns me.

Proceedings 31
1 I'm concerned that the process keeps moving
2 while we're still scrambling to gather the rest of that
3 basic information that's required.
4 Third, some of the information presented in the
5 Draft EIS is inadequate in terms of its scope or its
6 detail, to allow for professional evaluation of impacts or
7 mitigation.
8 And fourth, at least from the sections that I
9 personally reviewed, the project in its impacts have been
10 presented in segments, rather than as a whole, and I feel
11 very strongly that some of these sections need to be
12 totally revisited and rewritten, because especially --
13 you know, I can say this -- especially for the ecology
14 section at the end, I was presented with four different
15 parts of this project. This is one project, not four.
16 But everything was divided into four parts. Each of those
17 four parts was divided into three subsections which were
18 all divided into three additional subsections, and it was
19 very difficult to gather together all of the same
20 information, of what are the impacts of this entire
21 project on a particular resource, on wetlands, on water
22 quality, et cetera. It is very difficult to do that until
23 some of this stuff is changed.
24 Now the summary that I provided is basically in
25 two pages, a little less than two pages of bulleted

Proceedings 32
1 information on some specifics that I'm talking about. All
2 of the things, the subject areas that I reviewed,
3 wetlands, water resources, ecology, plants and wildlife,
4 fall into only two categories; watersheds, and
5 biodiversity, and that's how I looked at them, when I went
6 through and presented, you know, and tried to pull out the
7 information that was, first, inadequately reviewed,
8 second, missing, and third, that had to do with
9 mitigation.
10 So first, in terms of water, and water
11 resources, I don't know what the value would be for me to
12 zoom through these maybe little more than a dozen
13 specific --
14 MR. BAVOSO: No, I don't see any value.
15 MS. MCDONALD: When you have it in writing.
16 MR. BAVOSO: Exactly.
17 MS. MCDONALD: I will just say in general that
18 there is information inadequately presented with regard to
19 water quality, water supply, downstream impacts on water
20 sources, wetlands, especially indirect impacts to
21 wetlands; there is insufficient information on buffers
22 around streams and wetlands, and that probably, I am just
23 trying to see, and contaminants and disturbed soils, and
24 all of that really has to do with water quality. Some of
25 the other entities that responded in comments, most

Proceedings 33
1 notably the Town of Goshen and the Town of Wallkill, have
2 echoed some of these concerns with downstream effects and
3 I think they are important and they are going to warrant
4 more work and more information.
5 Second, missing information in terms of water,
6 and some of these are promised additional information that
7 was mentioned in the DEIS, that said we're going to be
8 providing this later. I'm kind of waiting, because now
9 it's later. Additional site observations regarding
10 wetlands hydroperiod. Additional information on pre- and
11 post-construction impervious surfaces for watersheds and
12 wetlands. And the role of the project site in terms of
13 overall watershed health. The mitigation in this section
14 as it stands now is not sufficient to effectively address
15 those significant impacts that we already know about, from
16 information that is in the DEIS now, notwithstanding what
17 is still to be added. In part because these impacts have
18 not been completely described. And in part because
19 in most cases the SWPP is being used as virtually the only
20 mitigation for all of these water related impacts, and
21 that is not sufficient mitigation. That's an important
22 point because a lot is being placed on that at this point
23 in the process.
24 SWPP stands for storm water pollution prevention
25 plan, required by the state as part of the phase two

Proceedings 34
1 regulations regarding storm water management on a
2 particular site. Along with that I know that this town
3 has participated in a workshop held by DEC and by the
4 county regarding better site design, and specifically the
5 state has presented a list of 28 better site design
6 principles that it is recommending be followed in all
7 projects that are being reviewed to town level. And I
8 think that in light of the town's involvement that this
9 information should be added into this review, as
10 appropriate. All of those 28 points won't necessarily
11 apply, but I think some of them will, and they need to be
12 added.
13 Now let's zoom on to biodiversity, because I'm
14 trying to zoom here. Here again, biodiversity includes
15 everything. It includes plants, animals, their habitats,
16 the interconnections between those habitats; everything.
17 On this I'll just go to the points of inadequate review,
18 to start with. One major problem that we're still dealing
19 with is the total area of disturbance for this project has
20 not been adequately described or presented on maps.
21 Portions of the project are entirely missing from many of
22 the site maps, and so it's inconsistent, it's very
23 difficult to ascertain what the total impacts from the
24 total project, all four pieces of it, not just one or two,
25 are on the resources that are on this site. This is a

Proceedings 35
1 concern that also was echoed by some of the other
2 responders like the Town of Goshen and the Town of
3 Wallkill.
4 Carpenter Creek, riparian areas, are not
5 described or mapped as a habitat feature. The description
6 of biodiversity in the EIS is incomplete, and misleading.
7 It needs to be changed and revised. The purpose for
8 requesting a listing of species that are of conservation
9 concern on this site, and I mean listing of plants and
10 animals, and I don't mean all of them; I mean only the
11 ones that the DEC defines as conservation concerns, which
12 I have specifically defined and identified in my comments.
13 The purpose for that is so that you can say, okay, here is
14 five species of greatest conservation need, as the state
15 lists them, that are on this site or might be on this
16 site. Here are the habitats that they need. Here are the
17 impacts of the project on those habitats, and therefore
18 the impacts on those species. Those connections have not
19 been made in this document. I have lists, I have great
20 lists of species of greatest conservation need and I have
21 no analysis that tells me, okay, what habitats are they
22 connected to, which parts of those habitats are going to
23 be lost or impacted by this project, and what does that
24 mean in terms of mitigation. All of this information is
25 missing, is not provided.

Proceedings 36
1 For out and out missing information, which has
2 been promised by the applicant team, I would like to add a
3 few things, and I have got a list of them. I don't know
4 whether I need to go through them all. But we have
5 already heard about the vernal pool study, a change in how
6 habitats are described, adding wet meadows to that
7 description. A plant survey during the 2009 growing
8 season for plant species of conservation concern. Not all
9 plants, just plants of conservation concern.
10 On the in-stream habitat survey, the phase one
11 bog turtle survey, a survey of potential bat roosting
12 areas, and evaluation of the perimeter fence, design and
13 location, in terms of impacts on small animals.
14 Specific information regarding invasive species.
15 That's mine. I added that as a result of my review.
16 Impact of converting one wetland type to another wetland
17 type. I also added that. And description of turtle
18 habitat complexes, which are also valid for some other
19 species that require not just one habitat but several
20 in order to be able to thrive. That information is
21 missing too and has been acknowledged by the applicant as
22 being forthcoming.
23 In terms of mitigation, in this section, there
24 are quite a few pieces missing. I alluded to them at the
25 beginning in the discussion of impacts and mitigation, at

Proceedings 37
1 the end is fragmented, it is non-specific, it's very
2 difficult to follow, and it needs to be consolidated and
3 reworked before I can even really evaluate what the
4 impacts on the resources on this site might be.
5 And that's my very quick, speedy, outline. I
6 have it all on paper. I have my more detailed comments on
7 paper, that are incomplete. I want to underscore that.
8 They are not complete yet. They will not be complete
9 until all of this additional information in these studies
10 have been gone through.
11 BOARD MEMBER LONG: Karen, thank you for the
12 summary. Just a quick question as to the details that
13 you're looking for, and additional scope that you're
14 looking for, so you can do your analysis; when did you
15 document it and has the applicant seen it?
16 MS. MCDONALD: I turned all of my comments
17 in today because I had been waiting for some of these
18 other studies that were supposed to be done, that haven't
19 been done yet. But I didn't want to wait longer than
20 today, because of the ending of the comment period, and I
21 wanted to get something to the Planning Board at this
22 time. So now you have everything that I've been able to
23 complete so far.
24 BOARD MEMBER LONG: So they haven't even had a
25 chance to review it yet?

Proceedings 38
1 CHAIRPERSON YATES: If you read the DEIS, in
2 those sections, it says studies to be done, studies to be
3 done, studies to be done, and those are the studies that
4 she has been waiting for. I guess she was thinking, we
5 were all thinking we would have had them by now.
6 MS. JOHNSON: Some of them. And some of the
7 reason Karen waited is that those studies are also related
8 to some of the comments in the other sections. So it is
9 very difficult to do the review when you don't have
10 everything in front of you.
11 BOARD MEMBER LONG: And some of that stuff is
12 seasonal. I was just trying to understand what kind of
13 dialogue -- as you're doing your analysis did you have
14 some dialogue with the applicant, saying, you know, this
15 is missing, can I get some more detail here?
16 MS. MCDONALD: We had dialogue earlier in the
17 process regarding completeness, where some of these issues
18 came up, and I deferred my comment at the request of the
19 applicant, because of the time line, because it was a very
20 tight time line, and things kind of had to be rushed, and
21 I agreed with the idea that at some point we're not going
22 be rushed here. At some point as a reviewer I want to be
23 able to take the time I need and get the information in
24 there that's needed to do a complete review of this
25 project, and that's the point that I feel like I'm at

Proceedings 39
1 right now.
2 BOARD MEMBER LONG: For a project of this
3 magnitude, and what you've seen and scoped so far, what
4 kind of time line are you talking about?
5 MS. MCDONALD: Well, the first thing I'm talking
6 about isn't a time line, it's providing all the
7 information.
8 BOARD MEMBER LONG: Once you have all the
9 information, what kind of time line are you looking at?
10 MS. MCDONALD: That's probably quicker than
11 getting all the information together.
12 BOARD MEMBER LONG: I'm asking for a time line.
13 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Well, she has to read the
14 study and analyze it. It takes a week or two.
15 MS. MCDONALD: Right, probably.
16 BOARD MEMBER LONG: Just a ballpark, just
17 curious.
18 MS. MCDONALD: Not huge amounts of time once it
19 is put together.
20 BOARD MEMBER SIEGEL: So once you get the data
21 together you are talking about a two week determination to
22 get your --
23 MS. MCDONALD: Approximately.
24 CHAIRPERSON YATES: The problem is not that we
25 don't have time to review it, but we don't have the

Proceedings 40
1 material to review.
2 BOARD MEMBER SIEGEL: I understand that. I think
3 Dan was asking that we want some sort of time line.
4 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Also I think it's a case
5 of, if it's incomplete, and she accepts it's incomplete,
6 and otherwise she is going to have another laundry list
7 and that's possibly what may go on, and what I'm -- right
8 now it is possible that they haven't submitted anything
9 because they were waiting for this meeting to see what was
10 going to come out of it. And even though they need to do
11 it, but they didn't -- did that have to be done for now or
12 is it going to be done for the FEIS, so I can understand
13 why you did not get anything. It seems to me that it's a
14 rather long list. I don't even understand why we even
15 accepted the DEIS with this kind of list and I don't
16 remember this being mentioned before we accepted --
17 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Oh my gosh. I mean, we
18 shouldn't have accepted the DEIS. I think that's the
19 bottom line.
20 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: We shouldn't have done but
21 we did.
22 CHAIRPERSON YATES: We shouldn't have accepted
23 the DEIS and we did, and now we're picking up the pieces
24 and spending all of our time and energy trying to do that.
25 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: No, we're not. We're

Proceedings 41
1 trying to get this kept on a straight course, and I
2 think --
3 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Right, but we've kind of
4 taken two steps backwards.
5 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: We're saying here that
6 we'll keep it on a course, on an even keel, that's moving
7 forward. It doesn't have to move forward fast at this
8 point, but --
9 BOARD MEMBER DOMBAL: Well, I think we should get
10 the data before we even move forward.
11 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Exactly. That's what I am
12 saying. This data has to come in. But then it will slowly
13 start to move forward. But she has to accept the data,
14 so, you know, you can't give a time period because, first,
15 whatever they give you, you have to review, and then you
16 may come back with --
17 MS. MCDONALD: Wait, wait, I need to add
18 something to that, okay. The process that works better
19 than me just providing a list of what is missing and
20 giving it to the applicant, is having a dialogue with the
21 applicant. That takes longer than me just reviewing a set
22 of completed studies and saying, these are my finding.
23 What usually takes longer is that then you have to go back
24 and have a dialogue and an iterative process to work out
25 how you're going to address those things, those findings,

Proceedings 42
1 those issues, so that can take longer, and the two weeks
2 that I gave was strictly me in my office, but really, to
3 have that dialogue, is very important, and can take a
4 little longer.
5 MR. HINES: It helps to have that earlier rather
6 than after.
7 MS. JOHNSON: We find ourselves, quite frankly,
8 in this strange place, that is not really described in the
9 SEQR regulations, so that's the thing that we've got to
10 work with here.
11 MR. BAVOSO: Well, I don't think the applicant
12 has requested, from what I have heard so far at least, a
13 time period. They have said, let the studies get in, and
14 they have agreed that there are still studies to be done.
15 So I don't think we should set a lime limitation. When
16 they get done they get done.
17 CHAIRPERSON YATES: I am just trying to figure
18 out what needs to be done.
19 MR. BAVOSO: But I understand the question, what
20 stage we're at.
21 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Why don't we go on. George.
22 MR. JANES: Because my section is visual, I have
23 a visual, and I encourage you all to move so you can see
24 it. I apologize for the size of the screen but this is my
25 portable screen. My presentation, I am going to skip

Proceedings 43
1 through it a little bit, because I actually did a little
2 bit more than what we're talking about today. I was
3 summarizing my comments, my written comments, so I will
4 skip through some of the things, and try to focus in on
5 the special -- you know, is this a supplemental issue or
6 not, which are really my issues with the DEIS.
7 Before I get into that I want to state a couple
8 of things about the existing visual component of the DEIS,
9 is that it does disclose impacts on visual resources.
10 This is Viewpoint 11 from Route 6. You have the existing
11 conditions. And bam, you have a big project sitting
12 right. That's disclosure. That's an important part of
13 this. And it is not only in the visual, it is also in the
14 text, acknowledging that there are significant impacts on
15 visual resources from the close-up viewpoints.
16 There are nighttime visual simulations, as was
17 requested, and they are done I think very well. Again,
18 you have things like the plumes being simulated to a
19 certain extent, so you can see that there are visual
20 impacts being disclosed. These are good things. Oh, and
21 also, this is also, the other side of that coin is that
22 from far-off viewpoints, visual simulations and the text
23 state that there are little -- there is little impact.
24 This is from the Paramount Theatre in Middletown, and you
25 can see it's a tiny little stack over here. So no impact

Proceedings 44
1 from this point. So in that regard this was a success.
2 Now, but, and there is a big but here, and it
3 has to do with the transmission wires, and a switch yard.
4 Now let's focus on the transmission wires first. You
5 notice here, this is the cover image. This is on the
6 cover of all of your books. There are no wires here.
7 There are no transmission wires here on the edge. Though
8 they are proposed they are not shown here. This is the
9 SP3 and also the SP4, and all of the big fold out plans,
10 the ones that I look at, right, the ones that the
11 technical reviewers look at, and it is missing. There is
12 no wires here.
13 Now we sketched up about what was going to
14 happen here. This is an estimate, so you can take with a
15 grain of salt here, is that there is going be a right of
16 way, and then 120 feet, averaging about 120 feet poles
17 going right along the right of way, the center of the
18 right of way, and then it's going to go underground at
19 some point over here and there may be another switch yard
20 here, which I'll get into in a second.
21 So the order of operations of your typical
22 visual analysis is you define your action, and then you
23 build a 3 D. model and then everything flows from that.
24 You have your view shed mapping, based upon the action you
25 built. You inventory your visual resources. You do your

Proceedings 45
1 field visit. You select your viewpoints for
2 photo-stimulation, all based upon the action, what it is.
3 You take your pictures, you're composing your photograph,
4 what would be the best photograph from this viewpoint to
5 disclose. Then you do your photo simulations and then you
6 analyze the impacts.
7 Now, the first thing was wrong, because the 3 D.
8 model does not have the wires in it. The view shed map
9 was done with all that vegetation, which is going to be
10 removed. So the view shed mapping is understated. So
11 decisions based upon the view shed map may be incorrect,
12 because it's understated.
13 The photo composition, and I will get into this
14 in a second, the photo composition, where you take a photo
15 from, what it looks like, would be different if, because
16 all of these are focusing on the plant, not on the wires.
17 And therefore your findings of significance may be
18 different. So, for example, here is viewpoint thirteen.
19 This is the view from I-84, westbound lane, off the
20 shoulder of the westbound part of I-84. This is how it's
21 published in the EIS. Now, the plant, this is the switch
22 yard that is adjacent to the plant, and then there are
23 wires that go all this way, and I'll just show you what I
24 mean by that. I went out there, and I stood in
25 approximately the same spot, and I did what is called a

Proceedings 46
1 panoramic photo. So I was standing over here, and I took
2 a shot this way, and then I turned, constantly taking
3 pictures as I turned, and they have all been stitched
4 together, to try to give you all an impression of what is
5 missing from this viewpoint.
6 So the approximate field of view of viewpoint
7 thirteen that we just looked at is over here -- there is
8 the plant. The wires extend all the way back up here,
9 going up to where the entrance ramp is, and all of that is
10 missing. Now you wouldn't probably simulate this
11 viewpoint, because it's just -- panoramas have distortion
12 in it, and you don't want to have really big panoramas
13 like this, so what you would do is you would compose this
14 photo differently, and this is another one that I took
15 from the top of the entrance ramp, so you're going
16 westbound on I-84, you're just getting on it, right, and
17 so these wires are going to be coming up this way, and
18 then entering the ground over here. This is where the
19 Horizons complex is over there. But this one is, the
20 power plant is -- probably you wouldn't do this one,
21 because the power plant is minimized versus the wires.
22 This one, from the eastbound lane, would probably be
23 something that I would consider because you are actually
24 able to not have too big of a panorama and be able to get
25 the entire action into the view.

Proceedings 47
1 Now the other thing, and in terms of photo
2 composition, it goes with all of the viewpoints, most of
3 the viewpoints anyway, maybe not all of them, some of the
4 far distant viewpoints are fine, the ones that are looking
5 from two miles away, you get the entire action, but it's
6 the near field viewpoints. Now this one actually came up
7 and is not in my comment letter, because I didn't realize
8 it until I read other people's comments. Somebody noted
9 that Section 18.5 states that the project would
10 interconnect Transmission Systems via on-site overhead
11 transmission lines and an off-site underground
12 transmission conduit to be constructed between the project
13 step up transformers, and the new 145 kilovolt switch yard
14 to be constructed on the eastern portion of the project's
15 122 acre parcel.
16 Now, this is the only mention of a 145 kilovolt
17 switch yard in the entire text, when I searched for it.
18 There is also another mention of a 345 kilovolt switch
19 yard, which is again on the eastern portion, but when I
20 say eastern portion, what is mean is somewhere over here,
21 in this area. Now, what does that switch yard look like?
22 Well, I just went and pulled an image off of Google and
23 that's what a 145 kilovolt switch yard looks like, and I
24 don't know if it's actually proposed or not. But it's in
25 there. And this needs clarity. What is the action?

Proceedings 48
1 And this is different than Karen's problem, all
2 right. Karen's problem, there is stuff that's missing.
3 And in this case, this is a mistake. This is a mistake,
4 this is a mistake done by the applicant. It is a mistake
5 done by me, meaning that I should have caught this before
6 we got to this point. And we should have had a dialogue
7 about these issues far before now. It's a serious
8 mistake. The first thing you do is you define what you're
9 doing. What is your EIS about, and in this case it's
10 about a plant, and it is not about wires, whereas they are
11 proposing wires.
12 All right. We can talk about whether this is
13 DEIS supplemental worthy or not in a moment. I'll get to
14 my other issues. Very large plumes. Now in the air
15 quality section which I didn't review until after I
16 reviewed the visual sections, and a couple of other
17 sections, I didn't review the air quality section for
18 completeness, it discloses that plumes can be over ten
19 thousand meters long and five hundred meters tall. It's
20 only three or four percent of the daylight hours, but
21 that's very, very large. The plumes studied in most of
22 the visual simulations is 50 meters long. Now, there is a
23 lot of language in there, and I'm not sure I understood it
24 all, and this may very well be a conversation, that this
25 goes away in a conversation with Steve and the applicant

Proceedings 49
1 about this, but these are mega-plumes. These are giant
2 plumes. These are off the scale as far as anything that
3 anybody was considering regarding visual simulations of
4 plumes, and again, to show you the example of this, this
5 is the Grieve Road viewpoint, which we considered, both
6 the -- I agree and the applicant states in the EIS, is a
7 relatively minor impact, or no impact on visual
8 resources -- you see the stacks over here, there are
9 plumes, but it's far off, the scale is completely
10 diminished by the distance that's involved here. Now if
11 you have these plumes; five hundred meters is this.
12 Right. This is a thousand meters. Ten thousand meters
13 keeps going like this. It's way off the screen. The size
14 of it is material enough that we need to go, tell me more
15 about these mega plumes? Are they only existing on foggy
16 days? Is that the only time they happen, so that you
17 don't see them at all and that they are an artifact of the
18 weather? It's just not addressed well enough for us to
19 say they have been properly analyzed in this, and once
20 again, I'll talk in a second about whether this is
21 supplemental worthy or not.
22 Another thing I just really quickly want to get
23 into, and I want to say it now, and just get it in the
24 record here, because it's not in my original comments,
25 because this is something that we realized only the day I

Proceedings 50
1 turned in my comments last month; Pine Hill Cemetary was
2 studied in a PDEIS, and then what happened is the
3 applicant came here and said, all right, planning board,
4 we have done these visual simulations; what other places
5 do you want us to analyze, and then you picked out some,
6 and they analyzed some and many of them didn't have
7 impacts at all, but Pine Hill Cemetary was dropped. Now
8 it was dropped, it's not a listed resource, it's not an
9 historic eligible site, even though you may think so
10 considering it really is quite lovely. But it's not a
11 listed -- the state doesn't require it to be analyzed.
12 But it's very close to the site. It has very high
13 elevation and it may be a site that the planning board
14 wanted to have analyzed. It was one that was analyzed and
15 then dropped. I point this out because, again, sitting on
16 the highest stone wall, looking toward the plant, you'll
17 have the plant over here, which will be visible -- this is
18 a very thin band of trees, most of the green here is the
19 grass beyond. And then the wires, which will go this way.
20 This is the only, the underdog portion of this view that's
21 really left. All other sides you see mostly development
22 in this, from this viewpoint, because it's very high. I
23 just wanted to float that out there. It's just an issue
24 the planning board should be aware of. And again it
25 wasn't in my formal comments.

Proceedings 51
1 Now I want to skip these issues because they
2 clearly can be addressed in an FEIS, and I think most of
3 the issues can be addressed in the FEIS. Clearly Pine
4 Hill Cemetary can, probably the plumes can. I'm expecting
5 that you'll be able to assuage my fear. I mean, we just
6 have to be careful when we have that kind of language
7 in there. The most serious issue is the missing
8 transmission wires. When I read some of the comments
9 there is at least a couple of comments that are confused
10 about whether there are transmission wires to this, and,
11 you know, they ask where they are going to be. Some think
12 they might be happening in the future as opposed to now,
13 being proposed in this EIS.
14 I think certainly, I can say with some
15 certainty, that at least some of the comments would have
16 been different had they been properly disclosed, had the
17 simulation shown them, had they shown up in the site
18 plans, the big site plans, that there -- and that to me is
19 one of the thresholds for a supplemental, is that, would
20 there have been materially different comments and would
21 there have been materially different impacts, or there
22 could be, there could be materially different impacts of
23 this, and there almost certainly would have been
24 materially different comments. Or at least people would
25 have understood the action better when they made these

Proceedings 52
1 comments.
2 What the Department of Transportation, which
3 essentially had no comment, commented, had they realized
4 that there had been wires going all the way up that
5 entrance ramp to I-84. We don't know that, but it hasn't
6 been really well disclosed. So where I'm sitting, and
7 again, I'm not an attorney on this, so this is not legal,
8 but as a planner I think, well, you know, if you want to
9 comment on it, you want to comment on the entire action
10 and it's really not clearly disclosed what the action is,
11 or at least not as well as it should be. That's it.
12 BOARD MEMBER MARKIEWICZ: May I ask a question
13 at this point of the applicant; if those wires were
14 underground from the plant, would you need a switch yard?
15 MR. REMILLARD: There would be a transition pole
16 or structure that would take the wires from out of the
17 switch yard on the site, and then take it underground, and
18 then when it goes over to the Marcy South line, there
19 would be a similar structure come above ground, and then
20 it would connect up into Marcy South.
21 MR. JANES: I would follow up your comment by
22 saying, if these wires were underground all of my issues
23 go away, because that is how this has been analyzed,
24 meaning visually it's been analyzed as if those wires were
25 underground.
Proceedings 53
1 MS. MCDONALD: My comments wouldn't go away.
2 MR. JANES: There may be more comments.
3 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: The switch yard is still
4 not on there though.
5 MR. REMILLARD: There is a 3.5 kv switch yard,
6 and I don't know, and again, if it's a typo in the
7 document, and if it's a 145 versus a 345, then that could
8 be the difference, but this is the part of the process
9 where we say we take these comments and we address them or
10 work through them, and then present them back. It's only
11 one switch yard.
12 MR. JANES: It does say in the text that there
13 will be two switch yards. Only in a couple of places, but
14 in Section 18.5 and in Section 12.9 it says that there
15 will be two switch yards, one at the eastern edge of the
16 property.
17 MR. DRISCOLL: Is there anything at the eastern
18 edge?
19 MR. JANES: How does it go underground I guess
20 is --
21 MR. REMILLARD: It's a transition structure.
22 Basically the poles, it comes up to them, and then you
23 transition them down underground.
24 MR. JANES: So no other switch yard on the site?
25 MR. REMILLARD: No.

Proceedings 54
1 MR. JANES: Well, that's great. That's good.
2 MR. REMILLARD: But I think this is part of the
3 process with the comments. We go through this, we bring
4 it back, you clear them up, and then you come down to a
5 short list and say, okay, these are the ones, if they are
6 significant then we start to apply some tests, but again,
7 it is a dialogue to start doing the review in response to
8 comments.
9 MR. JANES: To address your point right now, the
10 switch yard and the wires, they are two sides of the same
11 coin, right? The wires, the comments on the wires, the
12 wires are proposed to be overground, clearly, and
13 overhead, right, and, you know, so there is no switch
14 yard, but there are still the wires and the comments still
15 stand.
16 MR. REMILLARD: Again the process is what I was
17 sort of describing. We should engage in that dialogue
18 that we talked about earlier, to distill it down and to
19 address all of these.
20 MR. COGEN: We think that it makes sense to have
21 that dialogue before these kinds of comments are aired in
22 public, frankly, we really do. We think it helps --
23 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Excuse me, this meeting was
24 for our consultants to identify the issues that we still
25 needed to consider, possibly as part of a supplemental

Proceedings 55
1 DEIS. This is a public meeting. We are not trying to
2 keep this secret from anybody.
3 MR. COGEN: Nor are we, but here is an error
4 that could have been corrected before.
5 CHAIRPERSON YATES: We're doing our best. We
6 have been on a pretty rushed time frame trying to get you
7 guys your DEIS acceptance, and we're doing our best.
8 We want to get to Steve's issues now.
9 MR. FLEISCHAKER: As we talked about at the last
10 meeting, on the air side, we have this one issue which
11 actually we did work back and forth with the applicant,
12 and we have language in the DEIS concerning this secondary
13 formation of fine particulate matter, otherwise known as
14 PM 2.5. We have written into the DEIS, we had joint
15 language, we agreed upon the language, what the process
16 was going to be to come up with this procedure. The
17 procedure didn't occur as part of the DEIS, because of the
18 time constraints, and also, so that the board fully
19 understands, the procedure that we're trying to develop is
20 one that is not an established procedure. What we're
21 trying to do is characterize the total impact of fine
22 particulate matter, as a result not just of stack
23 emissions but also of what happens to those emissions once
24 they get out into the atmosphere and there is additional
25 fine particulate matter created.

Proceedings 56
1 Now I want to emphasize there is no set
2 procedure how one does that. That's not part of an air
3 permit application process, which regulates what comes out
4 of a stack. What we're trying to do here, and the
5 applicant has agreed to developing an approach with us, is
6 to characterize the impact, the total impact with PM 2.5
7 in the area in which this emission is going. Okay. We're
8 not creating a research project. We're not going to delay
9 this thing ad nauseum, but we're going to come up together
10 with a reasonable, practical approach to characterizing
11 this additional fine particulate matter. It's not going
12 to be an easy exercise. We've incorporated it in the
13 language of the DEIS, that we would consult with the
14 regulatory agencies and it is a process that we have
15 agreed we are all going to do together, so that as lead
16 agency your consultant will be involved in the applicant's
17 discussions with the federal and state agencies to say,
18 okay, what is a reasonable approach. And that's really --
19 it isn't necessarily cutting edge. Others have done
20 things like this, but again, there is no set way to do it
21 and we're going to come up with a practical, easy to
22 understand approach, and we're going to work on what that
23 approach is.
24 I wanted the board to really understand that
25 this is something that we felt it was necessary, we

Proceedings 57
1 recommended to you, for proper characterization of the
2 emission impact, okay. All the other things that I've
3 told you before, we worked out a lot of the details, we
4 had a lot of back and forth, and I think that as far as
5 the plume comment, from George on the visual, that is a
6 question that, you know, if it was brought out to our
7 attention, because it was caught, that will be a
8 discussion point that we'll have with Glen, and we'll
9 bring that answer back to you, why does it say what it
10 says. But that will be, that will be part of this FEIS
11 process.
12 As far as this issue of the, going back to the P
13 M 2.5 and the secondary formation of it in the atmosphere,
14 one could argue you could have done it at the DEIS stage,
15 you didn't need to wait, but we recognized the practical
16 significance of trying to push it ahead, so we have agreed
17 that we put the language in the DEIS, and now we're going
18 to do this as part of the FEIS, if that's the way you are
19 all going to decide to go.
20 What I think is important though is what is
21 going to come from the finding of this approach. If there
22 is a very significant finding that it would change
23 something, we'll bring that information to the board, so
24 you understand where we should go next. If it's a
25 negligible impact, then you'll understand that too, and

Proceedings 58
1 you'll know how to make your decision. In the air side of
2 things, it's relatively simple compared to some of the,
3 what the other consultants have said and some of their
4 issues, particularly on the ecological side.
5 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Could I just ask, does
6 everybody know what he is talking about when he talks
7 about PM 2.5?
8 MR. FLEISCHAKER: Fine particulate matter.
9 CHAIRPERSON YATES: And why do we care?
10 MR. FLEISCHAKER: We care because it's those
11 very small particles that you are most concerned about
12 penetrating deeper into a person's lungs if they breath it
13 in, and you're not breathing it in obviously at the stack
14 level, but as it comes down, and it spreads out and it's
15 part of the air quality.
16 CHAIRPERSON YATES: You're saying it is being
17 formed after it leaves the stack?
18 MR. FLEISCHAKER: It comes out of the stack.
19 There is an amount. It's calculated. It is part of the
20 DEIS, it's part of the permit application. But then
21 there is another part where it forms in the atmosphere and
22 it's part of air quality.
23 BOARD MEMBER DOMBAL: What area would this
24 encompass?
25 MR. FLEISCHAKER: That's what the plume maps

Proceedings 59
1 would show, and we'll give you distances when we have the
2 analysis done.
3 BOARD MEMBER DOMBAL: You'd have no idea off the
4 top of your head what the distance is?
5 MR. FLEISCHAKER: I can't tell you that it's
6 going to be a significant impact at this point. We don't
7 think it would be, but we have to go through this
8 approach.
9 BOARD MEMBER DOMBAL: But it's not a good thing.
10 MR. FLEISCHAKER: Well, it becomes an issue
11 because in this general area, we're a non-attainment area
12 for fine particulate matter, but because the emissions out
13 of the stack are at a certain number, it's below the
14 threshold that requires a certain type of restriction,
15 okay. But the point is, if it's further impacting general
16 area, the region, then it's an impact that needs to be
17 characterized. What you do with that information is the
18 lead agency's decision, and determination relative to the
19 project. Our job as your consultant is to define what is
20 the number, and explain to you, here is the limitation in
21 how we developed those numbers, so that you understand
22 what we have done. Like I said it may come back with a
23 negligible number, it may come back with a significant
24 number. That's where the technical folks, in concert with
25 the federal and the state regulatory agency, will come up

Proceedings 60
1 with an approach, and that's essentially the exercise.
2 I just want to make one other comment. I
3 realize that our time is coming close to an end here; in a
4 general sense I think what we have heard from all the
5 consultants is that this process, we all tried to rush at
6 the end because we recognized the importance of a
7 deadline. I think we all talked about that for quite a
8 bit. What I think is most important is that going forward
9 now, what we really want to make sure is that the planning
10 board members are fully apprised of what is the process
11 going to be like on a going forward basis, with the
12 provision of new information, and clarification of
13 information, because one of the things we want to make
14 sure is that we understand the time frame that we're all
15 working under, that it doesn't come down to the 11th hour
16 again, at some point, because there is another deadline.
17 We want to make sure we have adequate enough time, going
18 forward, regardless of what process we wind up going,
19 whether it is supplemental DEIS or FEIS, when those
20 technical reports start coming, I think we should know,
21 what are the technical reports, who is getting them, what
22 is in the technical reports, how long do we think a back
23 and forth process will go, how many iterations, and most
24 importantly, not for air, I don't believe it's going to
25 be, but for the other issues, how are we going to get to
Proceedings 61
1 the point where there is going to be a difference of
2 opinion; how are we going to get those resolved, where we
3 don't have, where the planning board members were fully
4 aware of some of those issues, and I know you all have sat
5 through, and I've sat through, some of the issues on the
6 economic side, and there are differences of opinion. I
7 think we need an agreement on a process going forward,
8 relative to a time frame, so that in the end it's not like
9 this rush, and then we don't feel we have done the job
10 that we need to do for you guys. That's just my general
11 comment on the overall process. So I think we need to
12 flesh out the applicant; what kind of time frame are we
13 going to be dealing with, going ahead with these technical
14 reports and the back and forth and how long it's all going
15 to last.
16 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Do the other consultants
17 have any comments?
18 MR. GASKILL: Yes. We have some of the same
19 concerns that the other consultants did. We went along
20 with the DEIS very reluctantly, and did accept it. But we
21 have to tell you that we do not believe the DEIS -- we
22 believe the DEIS inadequately addresses the scoping
23 document, and we would have liked to have seen the DEIS
24 effectively address the scoping document which we believe
25 it did not do. And so we hope in the time ahead it can do

Proceedings 62
1 that. One of the things we have done and I think all of
2 you got it, was in late April we put together I think a
3 seven page document with our comments on the DEIS, and I
4 think the applicants have that I believe, and what Ron has
5 just handed out basically is a two page summary of the key
6 points, the key elements of the longer document that we
7 did in late April. So this tries to pull together in more
8 layman's like language the document that we did in April.
9 The document in April went section by section, section
10 7.4, section 7.6. This simply tries to put it all
11 together in fairly straightforward, simple language, of
12 what we see the problems to be at this point in time and
13 if you ask me right now what is the fiscal impact on the
14 Town of Wawayanda, I would have to tell you, I have no
15 idea, based upon the DEIS. I have no clue as to what the
16 fiscal impact is, and what I'm looking for is a point in
17 time when we get the FEIS, so I can say, I can now tell
18 you what the fiscal impact will be, because today I
19 couldn't tell you, I couldn't even come close to guessing
20 what the fiscal impact is going to be, and I think this is
21 ultimately critical information that you should have. And
22 it should be part of the FEIS. And what this two page
23 does, what the longer document does, is layout what we
24 think we need in order to be able to tell you what the
25 fiscal impact will be. And I can go through this, and it

Proceedings 63
1 is probably not necessary to go through it, but this gives
2 you some of the main areas. I think the applicant already
3 knows what we're looking for. And what I would say and
4 we're talking a lot about dialogue here. We have not had
5 a dialogue with the applicant. We have not had a
6 dialogue, to my knowledge, since the DEIS was filed, and
7 since probably we were last here in February. So we have
8 done the document, they have received it. We have no
9 feeling for their reaction to it, their response to it,
10 what they intend to do it. So we have not been in a
11 dialogue and I do concur that a dialogue would be very
12 useful. We have not been in a dialogue.
13 MR. MILLER: Let me add, on one area, on
14 economic impact that we have concerns, you see it at the
15 end of page two on the property values impacts. We had
16 said in our 7 page April 22nd submittal, where there was
17 an attachment of five pages, with the studies I found in
18 the literature, on the impact of power plants, including
19 transmission lines and structures on property values.
20 There is a whole range of literature out there that was
21 not in the DEIS. They did include in the DEIS one study
22 that I found early on, the original information they
23 provided were two studies, done on the impacts of power
24 plants, both I felt was not up to standards in terms of
25 methodology, and in our submittal, April 22nd, we

Proceedings 64
1 documented there a lot of studies out there that showed
2 different impacts than the two studies that they submitted
3 that showed favorable impacts.
4 More to the point, now after we did a little
5 field work, with George and Mary Ann, and going to some of
6 the residential areas around within a half a mile, a mile
7 of the power plant, we saw where there might be potential
8 implications for property values, Kirby Town Road, Gates
9 Road, those are areas that have scattered, you know,
10 residential housing, not high concentration for
11 residential housing. There are other areas that were
12 identified, including of course Horizon, which is right
13 next to the project. And so we feel that there is more
14 work, there is more literature they should be citing in
15 their study, but also we think, and some of the public
16 comments that you get that I read and I think you read,
17 indicated concerns about the shortcomings in the property
18 value impact analysis and some of the comments said, well,
19 these studies are fine but they are not germane to
20 specifically to this project, the locations around this
21 project. We propose that there needs to be some sort of
22 access to real estate experts, either appraisers or real
23 estate brokers, to deal with the issue of property value
24 impacts in certain locations; however based upon the
25 information that George had pointed out on the lack of

Proceedings 65
1 visuals on transmission lines, I would say, you can't go
2 ahead and move on these further analysis until the
3 supplemental or the additional visual impact analysis is
4 done, because a lot of the property impacts are really
5 dealing with proximity and visual -- you know, whether the
6 view from your backyard or front yard, what do you see,
7 and what does someone who wants to buy your house see. So
8 I think that it would be premature at this time to go
9 ahead with any local analysis specific to this project and
10 locations surrounding it until we sort out the whole issue
11 of the visual information. That would be my
12 recommendation.
13 On David's material we have a whole bunch of
14 information that we think is critical to the fiscal
15 impact, and that information could be provided if the
16 applicant has it. Some of it, like the Pilot issue we
17 know is being negotiated, but we believe that for the
18 planning board to say, we know the potential fiscal impact
19 of the project, we need some information that deals with
20 the Pilot payments. There were comments on that in the
21 public record as well.
22 MR. GASKILL: Pilot is only one piece of it and I
23 don't want the applicant to get the wrong picture. What
24 you had in the DEIS on Pilot was totally acceptable. That
25 was not an issue. We knew you couldn't do anymore than

Proceedings 66
1 you did in the DEIS. So that's not an issue. We expect
2 more in the FEIS, but not in terms of the DEIS. We did do
3 one other thing, and you have more paper than you ever
4 need, but Ron and I read all the public comments, written
5 and oral, and we summarized them in our area so if you
6 want a summary of comments and the fiscal, social,
7 economic area, that's a summary of the comments.
8 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Now these comments can be
9 addressed in the FEIS? I mean they wouldn't have even
10 been available if we hadn't accepted the DEIS as complete
11 for the public to make comments.
12 MR. GASKILL: They could have done far more in
13 the DEIS in terms of certain areas.
14 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: What I'm saying is the
15 comments that we received, we had to first accept the DEIS
16 as complete to put it out to the public for review. What
17 I am saying is, these comments then would be addressed in
18 the FEIS.
19 MS. JOHNSON: We just wanted to make sure we
20 brought the more important ones to the surface.
21 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I've been through all of
22 them. I have seen them myself. As I said, we wouldn't
23 have had the ability to receive these comments if we
24 hadn't accepted the DEIS.
25 CHAIRPERSON YATES: These are for the FEIS.

Proceedings 67
1 Okay, Pat, do you have anything major
2 outstanding right now?
3 MR. HINES: We don't have anything that can't be
4 addressed in the FEIS. We had the opportunity early on to
5 meet with them. During the completeness review we met
6 with the applicant, had a dialogue, gave them extensive
7 comments, so that I think that helped with our areas, and
8 in addition we provided comments on both the site plan,
9 and the DEIS, all of which can be addressed in the FEIS.
10 They are fairly technical in nature. That's it.
11 CHAIRPERSON YATES: And do you have other --
12 MS. JOHNSON: I just sort of summarized three of
13 the bigger issues that I saw in the DEIS that can be
14 addressed in the FEIS. One is consistency with the
15 comprehensive plan. There is some analysis in there. I
16 don't think it goes into enough detail. I don't think it
17 talks about enough of the information in the plan to reach
18 some of the conclusions that are reached. There is an
19 issue with new zoning. You do have a provision that
20 pretty much says you can't have any damage to to health,
21 animals, vegetation, other forms of property related to
22 emissions of all sorts of things. Bill and I have talked
23 about this. This is an extremely high standard, which
24 very few projects could meet. So I want the board to be
25 aware of that. I think the board should probably work

Proceedings 68
1 with Steve on perhaps additional mitigation measures. I
2 think the air quality study that Steve is talking about
3 may help shed some light on what additional mitigation may
4 need to be done to sort of say we minimized this to the
5 maximum extent practicable.
6 And lastly, the other big issue is community
7 character. Some of that relates to the work George has
8 done on visuals. Some of it relates to the information
9 describing community character in your plan which is not
10 described well in that section. Those things are going to
11 need to be addressed in more detail. Those are my big
12 three.
13 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Going back to Steve's
14 question, because Steve really framed the issue, we need
15 to establish how this process is going to move forward
16 from here, and come to an agreement with the applicants.
17 What I don't want to see happen is, okay, now we got, you
18 know, thirty days we're going to have an FEIS and we have
19 fifteen days to approve that and we still haven't got the
20 studies, and maybe we will get them in time for site plan.
21 We have got to get this in order, so we're doing the
22 review, we're seeing this studies, we're getting all the
23 information before we're going to FEIS, before we're
24 having the site plan public hearing and these kind of
25 things. So the people have, they feel like they

Proceedings 69
1 understand the issues fully and everything is considered
2 as a whole.
3 MR. REMILLARD: Can I say one thing. Again,
4 folks, I think I came to the board after the DEIS was
5 deemed complete, and said, you know, we recognize the
6 challenge we had at meeting that schedule. Weather didn't
7 help us in terms of being able to meet with and having
8 some of the planning board meetings. We said we would
9 work with the board in terms of a time line over the next
10 several weeks, months, whatever it is, but work a time
11 line that's comfortable for folks. So I did make that
12 commitment to the board and I just want to reiterate that.
13 CHAIRPERSON YATES: So what I'm envisioning now
14 is perhaps, you know, this would be one way to approach it
15 is that we don't make a firm decision tonight on
16 supplemental DEIS, supplemental FEIS issues, but that we
17 at least are able to get these studies before we move
18 forward with anything else, and that you will waive the
19 time frames for FEIS until those studies are complete and
20 our consultants are comfortable with the results and the
21 board is comfortable with the results.
22 MR. HINES: Right now we're not even in a SEQR
23 time frame.
24 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: We're in limbo.
25 CHAIRPERSON YATES: No, we have had the hearing,

Proceedings 70
1 we have the sixty days or whatever. We do have a time
2 frame.
3 MR. COGEN: We will definitely agree to do that,
4 yes. That is what we were suggesting before.
5 CHAIRPERSON YATES: That we will get all the
6 studies and all the information that we originally
7 contemplated.
8 MR. COGEN: We do ask that the comment period
9 stay closed, but other than that.
10 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I think that's what Mary
11 Ann suggested, right.
12 CHAIRPERSON YATES: We extended it until
13 tomorrow, so it is closing tomorrow, unless we extend it
14 again.
15 MS. JOHNSON: I think you are fine.
16 MR. BAVOSO: It's happening, that's it. It's
17 closed.
18 MR. DRISCOLL: But we can accept written
19 comments if we wish to, is that right?
20 MR. BAVOSO: If they come in we can decide what
21 we're going to do with them.
22 CHAIRPERSON YATES: If they are significant I
23 think we're obligated to consider them really. If
24 something unusual came to light --
25 MR. DOMBAL: We'd have a responsibility to look

Proceedings 71
1 at them.
2 CHAIRPERSON YATES: If it was significant I
3 think we would be remiss -- we'd have to reopen SEQR, if
4 nothing else.
5 BOARD MEMBER LONG: I'd like to suggest, you
6 know, procedurally, going forward, now we had a summary
7 and brought us up to date, I'd like to see the dialogue
8 between consultants and the applicant, back and forth, so
9 we have these checkpoints from time to time, you know, so
10 we can really start to make that dialogue happen and move
11 forward.
12 MR. BAVOSO: My only concern is the issues with
13 regard to both sets of consultants discussing that there
14 hasn't been dialogue in some areas. Well, I think that if
15 there hasn't been dialogue and you are concerned about it,
16 pick up the phone; either you or us, lets just get that
17 done. I haven't had any problem in speaking to Scott
18 Bonacic or Rich Cogen. I think we just need to make sure
19 that everybody speaks from here on out.
20 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Right. Well, I think the
21 applicant, the focus is on the applicant to contact the
22 consultants and request meetings before the board --
23 MR. BAVOSO: I agree but --
24 CHAIRPERSON YATES: And get us all this
25 information.
Proceedings 72
1 MR. BAVOSO: I think if we still have questions
2 on our side we need to make that call too.
3 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Of course.
4 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: I also would like to say
5 that I would like them before the board on a regular
6 basis, with the applicants telling us that things are
7 moving along.
8 BOARD MEMBER LONG: Check points.
9 MR. REMILLARD: Just again, one quick thing. I
10 think it was quiet because we were working on the public
11 hearing, then the comments, so we were letting that sort
12 of all come together, so that then we would take all these
13 comments and sit down with the consultants and yourselves
14 and start to work through those. That's why it's been a
15 little bit quiet since I think the March time frame.
16 We've just been doing some of the work behind --
17 MS. JOHNSON: Which is typically what happens.
18 There usually is a little bit of a quiet period. I think
19 at the last meeting though there was, you know, at least
20 my understanding when I left the meeting was that some of
21 the ecological studies had been done, you were writing the
22 reports, and we were waiting for them.
23 MR. DRISCOLL: Can the consultants meet -- we
24 have our meetings twice a month; can we get a written
25 report if they believe there is movement on what they

Proceedings 73
1 need, so at least we can see if there is communication.
2 All we need is a little fax letter saying --
3 MR. HINES: Just a suggestion is, the applicants
4 were here tonight, they heard the consultants' concerns,
5 maybe if they can generate a list of when they anticipate
6 studies being done. If some are done and just not
7 submitted yet, that would be helpful. I know people have
8 scheduling issues that they need to contend with.
9 CHAIRPERSON YATES: That's a good idea. Maybe
10 anticipated completion dates for those studies, that would
11 give everybody.
12 MS. MCDONALD: And since mine just came out
13 today, I would like some feedback on that too, because I
14 just don't want my comments to just wind up in a response
15 mode where I'm make a comment, and you respond, and then
16 that's kind of the end of it. I'd like to have a
17 dialogue, start with comments.
18 MR. REMILLARD: Like I say, in terms of the
19 public comment period winding down, now we would be
20 engaged in a dialogue with you again.
21 MR. COGEN: We had anticipated at the end of the
22 comment period we would start having that dialogue. We
23 weren't aware that the comments generated by the
24 consultants three weeks ago were being generated, more
25 than that there would be new ones tonight. This is the

Proceedings 74
1 first time we have heard them. We very much like to have
2 a dialogue.
3 MS. JOHNSON: It was indicated in our memo that
4 Karen's comments were forthcoming because we were waiting
5 for the studies. That's the only new comments that you
6 heard.
7 MR. COGEN: It indicated after the studies, so
8 that's why we were surprised to get them tonight.
9 CHAIRPERSON YATES: So at this point, as I
10 understand it, the applicant is agreeing to waive the
11 sixty calendar days after the filing of the Draft DEIS.
12 We're going to finish all these studies and thoroughly
13 analyze them before we move to FEIS.
14 MR. COGEN: That's correct.
15 MR. REMILLARD: Yes.
16 MR. BAVOSO: And we will get status reports on
17 where we are at.
18 CHAIRPERSON YATES: And we will be happy to meet
19 with the applicant at any meeting --
20 BOARD MEMBER LONG: At least once a month.
21 CHAIRPERSON YATES: We would like to put it on
22 on the first agenda available. That sounds fine to me.
23 Is the rest of the board in agreement with this?
24 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Do we have to make any
25 kind of a resolution, Bill?

Proceedings 75
1 MR. BAVOSO: I don't see it.
2 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Does anybody have anything
3 else right now at this time? Do anybody have any of these
4 issues overall that we want to get more information on? I
5 mean, I was worried some people might not understand what
6 PM 2.5 are, what the implications are for health. There
7 are other issues here, other pollutants, other impacts,
8 wetlands, water quality. I mean, we can do little
9 educational things too on these issues, if anybody has any
10 issues they would like to understand better. Not
11 everybody here is a biologist or an air scientist.
12 MR. DRISCOLL: I mean, these plumes, I'm assuming
13 there is a lot of moisture in them --
14 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Would it be helpful to have
15 a little half hour session on what these chemicals are,
16 and what they turn into and what they do?
17 MR. DRISCOLL: Certainly.
18 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Would the rest of the board
19 be interested in something like that?
20 BOARD MEMBER DOMBAL: I'd personally like to see
21 the results. After the results if we have questions --
22 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Okay. Is everybody else
23 okay with it? Okay.
24 MR. FLEISCHAKER: When we get it done we'll make
25 sure that there is enough of an introduction so that

Proceedings 76
1 people get up to speed.
2 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: Also with the plumes, I
3 don't remember, but when we did Cal Pine I thought that a
4 lot of this stuff that comes our way comes from Ohio. So
5 I don't know how far away some of this stuff is going to
6 go.
7 CHAIRPERSON YATES: That is what is going to be
8 analyzed. I mean, if you live in Middletown and your kid
9 has asthma, is this going to affect your kid.
10 BOARD MEMBER PARSONS: They were talking at that
11 time, because I think they took off different things for
12 the air quality, from that area, so that it wouldn't give
13 so much coming into our area, as I remember.
14 CHAIRPERSON YATES: Okay, does anybody else have
15 anything at this time on this project?
16 No. Okay. Thank you.
17 CERTIFIED BY ME TO BE A TRUE AND ACCURATE
18 transcript of the within proceedings
19 ___________________________
20 Neil Bostock
21 Official Reporter
22
23
24
25
Proceedings 78
-------------------------------45 4:12. 3:20, 3:20, 4:11,
-----------X 1:3, 1:9 50 48:22. 4:14, 9:21, 9:23,
10940 1:46. 6. 43:10. 14:16, 21:21, 22:23,
11 43:10. 6:00 1:11, 1:11. 40:15, 40:16, 40:18,
11th 60:15. 7 63:16. 40:22, 66:10,
12.9 53:14. 7.4 62:10. 66:24.
120 44:16, 44:16. 7.6. 62:10, 62:10. accepts 40:5.
122 47:15. 845 1:47. access 64:22.
145 47:13, 47:16, . account 4:4.
47:23, 53:7. . ACCURATE 76:17.
18.5 47:9, 53:14. < A >. acknowledged 36:21.
2.5 24:1, 56:6, 57:13, ability 7:11, 66:23. acknowledging
58:7, 75:6. able 9:4, 30:16, 30:18, 43:14.
2.5. 55:14, 55:14. 36:20, 37:22, 38:23, acre 47:15.
2009 36:7. 46:24, 46:24, 51:5, action 44:22, 44:24,
22nd 63:16, 63:25. 62:24, 69:7, 69:17. 45:2, 46:25, 47:5,
28 34:5, 34:10. above 52:19. 47:25, 51:25, 52:9,
291-3128 1:47. absorb 16:3. 52:10.
3 44:23, 45:7. accept 7:9, 7:11, 8:7, ad 56:9.
3.5 53:5. 23:9, 41:13, 61:20, add 36:2, 41:17,
30 3:15, 4:15. 66:15, 70:18. 63:13.
345 47:18, 53:7. acceptable 65:24. added 14:13, 33:17,
38.33 1:8. acceptance 4:13, 34:9, 34:12, 36:15,
40 1:45. 55:7. 36:17.
40.22 1:8. accepted 3:12, 3:19, adding 15:4, 36:6.

Page: 79 of 90
Concordance 81
addition 67:8. addressing 2:24. ago 73:24.
Additional 7:14, 8:23, adequacy 19:2. agree 29:2, 49:6, 70:3,
11:24, 16:16, 17:3, adequate 16:12, 71:23.
24:7, 25:22, 25:23, 60:17. agreed 24:6, 38:21,
26:3, 28:21, 30:7, adequately 22:6, 23:3, 42:14, 55:15, 56:5,
31:18, 33:6, 33:9, 34:20. 56:15, 57:16.
33:10, 37:9, 37:13, adjacent 45:22. agreeing 74:10.
55:24, 56:11, 65:3, adopted 17:24, 20:11. agreement 61:7, 68:16,
68:1, 68:3. adverse 14:5, 20:18, 74:23.
address 2:14, 15:15, 21:24. ahead 2:11, 10:3,
18:8, 21:16, 28:12, affect 76:9. 57:16, 61:13, 65:2,
28:17, 28:21, 33:14, agencies 6:23, 6:23, 65:9.
41:25, 53:9, 54:9, 7:4, 7:9, 19:2, 19:19, air 10:11, 48:14,
48:17,
54:19, 61:24. 19:23, 21:4, 26:4, 55:10, 56:2, 58:1,
addressed 8:2, 11:11, 56:14, 56:17. 58:15, 58:22, 60:24,
14:5, 14:6, 15:16, agency 3:19, 3:21, 68:2, 75:11, 76:12.
18:1, 18:13, 19:20, 3:24, 4:4, 7:3, 7:3, aired 54:21.
20:3, 20:19, 20:19, 7:8, 7:10, 7:16, 7:20, allegedly 23:1.
21:15, 21:25, 21:25, 8:5, 8:8, 13:12, 17:5, allow 17:4, 28:2, 30:3,
22:7, 22:13, 23:3, 17:16, 17:18, 18:2, 30:8, 31:6.
27:14, 28:10, 49:18, 18:12, 18:20, 19:16, allows 18:11.
51:2, 51:3, 66:9, 20:17, 56:16, alluded 36:24.
66:17, 67:4, 67:9, 59:25. almost 15:2, 51:23.
67:14, 68:11. agency's 59:18. already 13:11, 17:22,

addresses 61:22. agenda 74:22. 21:14, 22:15, 30:22,
Page: 83 of 90
Concordance 85
30:23, 33:15, 36:5, anticipate 73:5. appropriate 11:22,
63:2. anticipated 73:10, 13:2, 13:7, 18:20,
altered 24:8. 73:21. 19:21, 30:6, 34:10.
amount 58:19. anybody 21:13, 21:18, approve 68:19.
amounts 39:18. 27:23, 49:3, 55:2, approximate 46:6.
analysis 10:17, 27:6, 75:2, 75:3, 75:9, Approximately 39:23,
35:21, 37:14, 38:13, 76:14. 45:25.
44:22, 59:2, 64:18, anyway 47:3. April 62:2, 62:9,

63:16,
65:2, 65:3, 65:9, apologize 42:24. 63:25.
67:15. Appearances 2:9. april. 62:7, 62:8.
analyze 39:14, 45:6, applicant's 11:19, area 34:19, 47:21,

56:7,
50:5, 74:13. 56:16. 58:23, 59:11, 59:11,
analyzed 49:19, 50:6, applicants 20:3, 62:4, 59:16, 63:13, 66:5,
50:11, 50:14, 50:14, 68:16, 72:6, 73:3. 66:7, 76:12, 76:13.
52:23, 52:24, 76:8. application 9:2, 56:3, areas 28:21, 32:2,

35:4,
animals 34:15, 35:10, 58:20. 36:12, 63:2, 64:6,
36:13, 67:21. apply 34:11, 54:6. 64:9, 64:11, 66:13,
Ann 1:18, 1:33, 9:14, appraisers 64:22. 67:7, 71:14.
9:14, 10:3, 10:5, appreciate 8:14, argue 57:14.
11:16, 12:5, 12:13, 20:24. arise 22:1.
21:2, 28:18, 64:5, apprised 60:10. around 13:11, 30:21,
70:11. approach 18:25, 25:4, 32:22, 64:6, 64:20.
Anne 30:2. 56:5, 56:10, 56:18, artifact 49:17.

answer 57:9. 56:22, 56:23, 57:21, ascertain 34:23.
answers 27:24, 28:14. 59:8, 60:1, 69:14. ascertainable 5:23.
Page: 87 of 90
Concordance 89
assuage 51:5. 61:14, 68:13, 71:8. 42:19, 70:16, 70:20,
assuming 75:12. backwards 12:22, 71:12, 71:23, 72:1,
asthma 76:9. 41:4. 74:16, 75:1.
atmosphere 55:24, backyard 65:6. becomes 59:10.
57:13, 58:21. balance 4:21, 11:6. begin 29:21.
atmospheric 10:13. balancing 5:16, 5:17. beginning 36:25.
attachment 63:17. ballpark 39:16. behind 72:16.
attempt 2:4. bam 43:11. believe 27:22, 30:6,
attention 57:7. band 50:18. 60:24, 61:21, 61:22,
Attorney 1:25, 1:39, Barbara 1:20, 28:3. 61:24, 62:4, 65:17,
11:19, 52:7. based 6:7, 13:19, 72:25.
available 22:14, 25:18, 22:23, 44:24, 45:2, below 59:13.
66:10, 74:22. 45:11, 62:15, beneficial 23:17.
averaging 44:16. 64:24. BENNIE 1:24.
aware 50:24, 61:4, basic 31:3. best 45:4, 55:5, 55:7.
67:25, 73:23. Basically 10:24, 31:24, better 34:4, 34:5,
away 47:5. 53:22, 62:5. 41:18, 51:25,
. basis 2:21, 23:2, 24:25, 75:10.
. 60:11, 72:6. beyond 50:19.
< B >. Bat 23:23, 36:11. big 29:8, 29:13, 43:11,
back 6:15, 14:23, BAVOSO 1:25, 8:20, 44:2, 44:9, 46:12,
20:14, 41:16, 41:23, 8:25, 14:8, 15:25, 46:24, 51:18, 68:6,
53:10, 54:4, 55:11, 25:13, 25:21, 26:8, 68:11.
57:4, 57:9, 57:12, 27:16, 28:16, 28:20, bigger 67:13.

59:22, 59:23, 60:22, 32:14, 32:16, 42:11, Bill 8:16, 11:19,
25:17,
Page: 91 of 90
Concordance 93
67:22, 74:25. built 4:9, 44:25. 51:4.
bio-monitoring 23:23. bulleted 31:25. CENTER 1:6, 44:17.
biodiversity 32:5, bunch 17:22, 65:13. certain 4:25, 10:12,
34:13, 34:14, 35:6. buy 65:7. 13:13, 18:23, 30:3,
biologist 75:11. . 43:19, 59:13, 59:14,
bit 3:6, 6:15, 19:10, . 64:24, 66:13.
26:21, 29:22, 43:1, < C >. Certainly 10:11, 21:1,
43:2, 60:8, 72:15, C. 4:18, 5:10. 51:14, 51:23,
72:18. Cal 76:3. 75:17.
bog 36:11. calculated 58:19. certainty 51:15.
Bonacic 71:18. calendar 74:11. CERTIFIED 1:44,
book 14:12. call 4:8, 16:18, 22:17, 76:17.
books 44:6. 72:2. cetera 31:22.
Bostock 1:43, 76:20. called 45:25. CHAIRPERSON 2:1,
bottom 40:19. calling 11:25. 15:6, 28:6, 72:3.
bounds 23:16. caption 2:9. CHAIRWOMAN 1:18,
breath 58:12. care 58:9, 58:10. 2:10.
breathing 58:13. careful 19:17, 51:6. challenge 18:16, 69:6.
bright 7:6, 8:9. Carpenter 35:4. challenged 18:17.
bring 54:3, 57:9, case 13:18, 14:22, chance 37:25.
57:23. 40:4, 48:3, 48:9. change 13:16, 22:1,
brokers 64:23. cases 33:19. 36:5, 57:22.
brought 2:18, 10:16, categories 32:4. changed 22:3, 31:23,
57:6, 66:20, 71:7. caught 48:5, 57:7. 35:7.
buffers 32:21. Cemetary 50:1, 50:7, changes 11:14, 13:15,

Page: 95 of 90
Concordance 97
22:2. 54:12. 52:3.
character 68:7, 68:9. clerks 7:24. commitment 69:12.
characterization 57:1. close 4:12, 6:7, 7:1, communication 73:1.
characterize 55:21, 50:12, 60:3, 62:19. community 68:6,
56:6. close-up 43:15. 68:9.
characterized 59:17. closed 70:9, 70:17. compared 58:2.
characterizing 56:10. closes 7:6, 7:15. Competitive 1:35,
Check 72:8. closing 6:2, 6:21, 13:1, 2:12.
checkpoints 71:9. 70:13. complete 9:21, 9:23,
chemicals 10:12, clue 62:15. 15:17, 18:6, 18:8,
75:15. Cogen 1:39, 2:19, 3:8, 30:8, 30:21, 37:8,
chemistry 10:13. 3:9, 6:19, 9:1, 16:13, 37:8, 37:23, 38:24,
circulate 19:2. 20:16, 71:18. 66:10, 66:16, 69:5,
circulated 19:18. Cogen's 13:1. 69:19.
circulating 20:9. coin 43:21, 54:11. completed 14:14,
circumstances 13:17, colleague 2:19. 41:22.
22:2. color 14:13. completely 33:18,
citing 64:14. comes 7:1, 14:24, 49:9.
clarification 60:12. 53:22, 56:3, 58:14, completeness 30:2,
clarify 9:3. 58:18, 76:4, 76:4. 38:17, 48:18, 67:5.
clarity 47:25. comfortable 69:11, completing 22:11.
clear 9:19, 10:21, 69:20, 69:21. completion 73:10.
14:11, 29:16, 54:4. coming 7:22, 46:17, complex 46:19.
Clearly 5:3, 18:14, 60:3, 60:20, 76:13. complexes 36:18.
51:2, 51:3, 52:10, commented 26:13, compliance 17:3.

Page: 99 of 90
Concordance 101
component 43:8. 43:11. consistency 67:14.
compose 46:13. conducting 4:6. consolidated 37:2.
composing 45:3. conduit 47:12. constantly 46:2.
composition 45:13, confuse 19:23. constraint 4:10, 4:13.
45:14, 47:2. confused 51:9. constraints 4:8, 4:17,
comprehensive confusing 21:3. 55:18.
67:15. confusion 7:4. constructed 47:12,
compromise 19:9, connect 52:20. 47:14.
21:1. connected 35:22. consult 56:13.
concentration 64:10. connections 35:18. Consultant 1:26, 1:28,
concern 3:2, 35:1, cons 16:22, 17:2, 1:29, 1:30, 1:31,
35:9, 36:8, 36:9, 19:14. 1:32, 1:33, 56:16,
71:12. conservation 35:8, 59:19.
concerned 30:1, 31:1, 35:11, 35:14, 35:20, consultants' 73:4.
58:11, 71:15. 36:8, 36:9. consultation 24:5.
concerning 55:12. consider 5:14, 6:6, contact 71:21.
concerns 10:22, 30:25, 6:17, 46:23, 54:25, contaminants 32:23.
33:2, 35:11, 61:19, 70:23. contemplated 3:11,
63:14, 64:17, 73:4. consideration 3:23, 3:18, 70:7.
concert 59:24. 3:25, 16:13, 16:14, contend 73:8.
conclusions 30:24, 18:10, 19:7, 21:7. context 6:16.
67:18. considered 7:18, 49:5, continue 16:7, 24:15,
concur 63:11. 69:1. 28:1, 28:2.
conditions 13:13, considering 20:15, continuing 28:13.
13:14, 30:17, 49:3, 50:10. control 8:8.

Page: 103 of 90
Concordance 105
controls 8:9, 21:20. criteria 13:8, 13:20, days 3:15, 4:12, 4:12,
conversation 48:24, 13:25, 14:3, 24:12. 4:16, 20:14, 49:16,
48:25. critical 27:3, 62:21, 68:18, 68:19, 70:1,
Conversely 7:21. 65:14. 74:11.
converting 36:16. curious 12:8, 39:17. deadline 9:24, 60:7,
coordinating 10:7. Currently 14:14. 60:16.
copied 14:12. cutting 56:19. deadlines 30:3.
copy 9:4. . deal 9:8, 9:25, 14:21,
correct 12:15, 74:14. . 64:23.
corrected 55:4. < D >. dealing 34:18, 61:13,
county 34:4. D. 44:23, 45:7. 65:5.
couple 13:7, 43:7, damage 67:20. deals 65:19.
48:16, 51:9, 53:13. Dan 40:3. dealt 8:5, 9:9, 9:20,
course 41:1, 41:6, DANIEL 1:22. 10:1.
64:12, 72:3. data 39:20, 41:10, DEC 18:3, 34:3, 35:11.
Court 1:45, 7:16, 7:19. 41:12, 41:13. Dec's 8:17.
cover 44:5, 44:6. date 7:6, 7:7, 7:21, dec. 14:15.
CPV 1:6, 1:38. 71:7. decide 8:7, 9:10, 9:18,
crack 26:1. dates 73:10. 12:1, 16:16, 17:10,
cracks 8:1, 8:11. David 1:29, 27:7. 20:2, 22:18, 22:22,
create 7:14. David's 65:13. 23:12, 25:10, 25:11,
created 55:25. day 3:17, 3:22, 3:25, 27:16, 29:2, 57:19,
creates 7:23, 8:2, 8:3. 20:12, 20:13, 70:20.
creating 56:8. 49:25. decides 26:5.
Creek 35:4. daylight 48:20. deciding 26:1, 29:25.

Page: 107 of 90
Concordance 109
decision 3:25, 7:20, describing 54:17, dialogue 2:15, 26:24,
11:13, 13:17, 18:23, 68:9. 27:3, 27:8, 38:13,
21:21, 22:10, 22:25, description 35:5, 36:7, 38:14, 38:16, 41:20,
25:8, 58:1, 59:18, 36:17. 41:24, 42:3, 48:6,
69:15. design 34:4, 34:5, 54:7, 54:17, 54:21,
decisions 7:16, 45:11. 36:12. 63:4, 63:5, 63:6,
deemed 17:1, 19:12, desire 21:15. 63:11, 63:11, 63:12,
69:5. detail 31:6, 38:15, 67:6, 71:7, 71:10,
deeper 58:12. 67:16, 68:11. 71:14, 71:15, 73:17,
deferred 30:4, 38:18. detailed 37:6. 73:20, 73:22, 74:2.
definable 5:21. details 37:12, 57:3. difference 53:8, 61:1.
define 9:9, 44:22, 48:8, determination 23:4, differences 61:6.
59:19. 26:8, 26:9, 39:21, different 9:13, 9:17,
defined 4:25, 7:1, 7:21, 59:18. 29:22, 31:14, 45:15,
35:12. determine 11:23, 45:18, 48:1, 51:16,
defines 35:11. 16:11, 19:1, 19:5, 51:20, 51:21, 51:22,
definitely 6:9, 70:3. 27:18. 51:24, 64:2, 76:11.
delay 18:22, 56:8. determining 6:10, differently 46:14.
demonstrates 18:14, 18:6, 18:21. difficult 31:19, 31:22,
22:5. develop 6:12, 17:18, 34:23, 37:2, 38:9.
Department 52:2. 17:18, 55:19. digest 29:1.
describe 30:16, 30:19. developed 59:21. diminished 49:10.
described 16:13, developing 56:5. directions 18:18.
33:18, 34:20, 35:5, Development 1:38, Director 1:38.
36:6, 42:8, 68:10. 50:21. disagree 7:19, 13:4.

Page: 111 of 90
Concordance 113
discharge 10:12. 37:15, 53:7, 61:23, 73:19.
discharges 10:14. 61:24, 62:3, 62:6, downstream 32:19,
disclaimer 29:13. 62:8, 62:9, 62:23, 33:2.
disclose 43:9, 45:5. 63:8. dozen 32:12.
disclosed 43:20, documented 64:1. Draft 3:12, 4:13,

13:23,
51:16, 52:6, 52:10. documents 11:10. 14:16, 31:5, 74:11.
discloses 48:18. doing 19:12, 25:14, drawn 30:24.
disclosure 43:12. 28:1, 38:13, 48:9, DRISCOLL 15:20,
discovered 13:16, 54:7, 55:5, 55:7, 25:16, 26:5, 53:17,
13:19, 22:1, 22:4. 68:21, 72:16. 70:18, 72:23, 75:12,
discretion 7:11. DOMBAL 1:24, 41:9, 75:17.
discussing 71:13. 58:23, 59:3, 59:9, dropped 50:7, 50:8,
discussion 2:16, 9:11, 70:25, 75:20. 50:15.
36:25, 57:8. DONALD 1:21. During 11:9, 36:7,
discussions 56:17. done 11:17, 14:15, 67:5.
distance 49:10, 59:4. 14:15, 18:19, 30:15, .
distances 59:1. 37:18, 38:2, 38:3, .
distant 47:4. 38:3, 40:11, 40:12, < E >.
distill 54:18. 40:20, 42:14, 42:18, EAF 14:15.
distortion 46:11. 45:9, 50:4, 61:9, earlier 30:3, 38:16,
disturbance 34:19. 68:4. 42:5, 54:18.
disturbed 32:23. down 9:15, 12:6, 24:18, early 63:22, 67:4.
divided 31:16, 31:17, 25:12, 27:19, 30:6, eastbound 46:22.
31:18. 53:23, 54:4, 54:18, eastern 47:14, 47:19,

document 17:4, 35:19, 58:14, 60:15, 72:13, 47:20, 53:15,
Page: 115 of 90
Concordance 117
53:17. eliminating 8:10. entirely 34:21.
easy 56:12, 56:21. emission 56:7, 57:2. entities 32:25.
echoed 33:2, 35:1. emissions 55:23, entrance 46:9, 46:15,
ecological 29:8, 58:4, 55:23, 59:12, 52:5.
72:21. 67:22. environmental 6:22,
ecology 23:21, 31:13, emphasize 56:1. 11:24, 20:18, 21:24,
32:3. encompass 58:24. 22:6.
economic 10:23, encourage 42:23. envisioning 69:13.
26:23, 61:6, 63:14, encouraged 19:20. error 8:2, 8:10, 55:3.
66:7. end 7:21, 15:2, 24:16, especially 31:12,
economics 10:21. 31:14, 37:1, 60:3, 31:13, 32:20.
edge 44:7, 53:15, 60:6, 61:8, 63:15, essentially 52:3, 60:1.
53:18, 56:19. 73:16, 73:21. establish 4:21, 68:15.
educational 75:9. ending 37:20. established 55:20.
effectively 33:14, ends 3:17, 8:6. estate 64:22, 64:23.
61:24. ENERGY 1:6, 40:24. estimate 44:14.
effects 33:2. engage 54:17. et 31:22.
efficient 7:24. engaged 73:20. evaluate 29:15, 37:3.
either 8:12, 11:15, enough 22:9, 30:6, evaluation 29:24, 31:6,
64:22, 71:16. 49:14, 49:18, 60:17, 36:12.
elaborate 26:20. 67:16, 67:17, evening 3:8.
elements 21:1, 62:6. 75:25. eventually 28:13.
elevation 50:13. entering 46:18. everybody 14:11, 58:6,
eleven 14:18. entire 31:20, 46:25, 71:19, 73:11, 75:11,
eligible 50:9. 47:5, 47:17, 52:9. 75:22.

Page: 119 of 90
Concordance 121
everyone 2:1, 3:9, extremely 21:12, feel 12:20, 28:9,

31:10,
5:24. 67:23. 38:25, 61:9, 64:13,
everything 2:5, 31:16, . 68:25.
34:15, 34:16, 37:22, . feeling 63:9.
38:10, 44:23, 69:1. < F >. feet 44:16, 44:16.
Exactly 32:16, 41:11. fact 11:18, 11:23. felt 24:18, 56:25,
examine 14:1. fairly 62:11, 67:10. 63:24.
example 27:11, 45:18, fall 32:4. fence 36:12.
49:4. familiar 2:20, 16:24. few 3:5, 3:10, 12:16,
Excuse 54:23. far 6:8, 37:23, 39:3, 15:4, 24:7, 36:3,
exercise 56:12, 60:1. 42:12, 47:4, 48:7, 36:24, 67:24.
existing 30:17, 43:8, 49:2, 49:9, 57:4, field 45:1, 46:6, 47:6,
43:10, 49:15. 57:12, 66:12, 76:5. 64:5.
expansion 19:16. far-off 43:22. fifteen 68:19.
expect 66:1. fashion 21:16. figure 42:17.
expectations 5:24. fast 41:7. file 14:23, 18:2.
expecting 51:4. favor 9:24. filed 63:6.
expert 10:11, 27:7. favorable 64:3. filing 4:16, 74:11.
experts 6:14, 64:22. fax 73:2. Final 3:18, 3:23, 3:24,
explain 59:20. fear 51:5. 4:3, 4:11, 4:14, 4:16,
extend 46:8, 70:13. feasible 24:3. 14:19, 14:24, 18:22,
extended 70:12. feature 35:5. 20:5, 21:10, 21:11,
extensive 67:6. february. 63:7. 21:17, 21:20, 23:8,
extent 43:19, 68:5. federal 56:17, 59:25. 23:9, 23:13.

extra 14:13. feedback 73:13. finality 4:23, 5:21.
Page: 123 of 90
Concordance 125
find 42:7. 62:20, 62:25, 65:14, 57:13.
finding 16:15, 22:24, 65:18, 66:6. formed 58:17.
23:2, 23:11, 30:22, five 35:14, 48:19, forms 58:21, 67:21.
41:22, 57:21, 49:11, 63:17. forth 6:15, 55:11,

57:4,
57:22. FLEISCHAKER 1:27, 60:23, 61:14, 71:8.
findings 3:24, 4:5, 55:9, 58:8, 58:10, forthcoming 29:19,
4:15, 17:17, 17:18, 58:18, 58:25, 59:5, 36:22, 74:4.
18:11, 19:7, 41:25, 59:10, 75:24. forward 2:23, 2:24,
45:17. flesh 61:12. 41:7, 41:7, 41:10,
Fine 13:5, 27:2, 47:4, float 50:23. 41:13, 60:8, 60:11,
55:13, 55:21, 55:25, flows 44:23. 60:18, 61:7, 68:15,
56:11, 58:8, 59:12, focus 43:4, 44:4, 69:18, 71:6, 71:11.
64:19, 70:15, 71:21. found 63:17, 63:22.
74:22. focusing 45:16. four 22:18, 28:17,
finish 28:8, 30:7, foggy 49:15. 29:21, 29:21, 31:14,
74:12. fold 44:9. 31:16, 31:17, 34:24,
finished 5:22. folks 9:23, 59:24, 69:4, 48:20.
First 12:16, 12:23, 69:11. four. 31:15.
30:1, 30:16, 32:7, follow 13:23, 14:23, fourth 21:19, 31:8.
32:10, 39:5, 41:14, 19:14, 37:2, 52:21. fragmented 37:1.
45:7, 48:8, 66:15, followed 13:23, 34:6. frame 5:23, 55:6,
74:1, 74:22. following 13:20. 60:14, 61:8, 61:12,
first. 44:4. force 4:19. 69:23, 70:2, 72:15.
fiscal 10:23, 26:22, formal 4:1, 50:25. framed 68:14.

62:13, 62:16, 62:18, formation 24:1, 55:13, frames 4:18, 4:20,
Page: 127 of 90
Concordance 129
5:13, 69:19. 42:21, 57:5, 64:5, ground 46:18, 52:19.
frankly 5:10, 18:17, 64:25, 68:7. growing 36:7.
23:17, 24:2, 42:7, germane 64:19. guess 6:16, 9:13, 12:7,
54:22. gets 5:22, 6:15, 19:18, 27:17, 38:4, 53:19.
front 38:10, 65:6. 25:11. guessing 62:19.
fully 9:9, 11:1, 55:18, getting 27:2, 29:24, guideline 19:15.
60:10, 61:3, 69:1. 39:11, 46:16, 60:21, guys 55:7, 61:10.
fundamental 21:9. 68:22. .
future 18:16, 51:12. giant 49:1. .
. give 3:6, 14:4, 17:10, < H >.
. 41:14, 41:15, 46:4, habitat 35:5, 36:10,
< G >. 59:1, 73:11, 76:12. 36:18, 36:19.
gaps 26:22. given 2:9. habitats 34:15, 34:16,
GASKILL 1:29, 61:18, gives 63:1. 35:16, 35:17, 35:21,
65:22. giving 41:20. 35:22, 36:6.
Gates 64:8. Glen 57:8. half 5:7, 64:6, 75:15.
gather 31:2, 31:19. Google 47:22. Hall 1:13.
gave 42:2, 67:6. gosh 40:17. hand 15:23, 23:1.
general 29:21, 32:17, Goshen 33:1, 35:2. handed 62:5.
59:11, 59:15, 60:4, grain 44:15. handle 12:3, 12:4,
61:10. grass 50:19. 28:22, 28:23, 29:3.
generate 73:5. great 35:19, 54:1. handled 12:9, 12:10,
generated 73:23, greatest 35:14, 35:20. 12:14.
73:24. green 50:18. handout 14:9.
George 1:30, 10:16, Grieve 49:5. handouts 13:10.

Page: 131 of 90
Concordance 133
happen 44:14, 49:16, help 68:3, 69:7. hybrid 18:25.
68:17, 71:10. helped 67:7. hydroperiod 33:10.
happened 50:2. helpful 21:13, 73:7, .
happening 30:23, 75:14. .
51:12, 70:16. helps 5:19, 7:2, 7:3, < I >.
happens 10:13, 20:11, 42:5, 54:22. I-84 45:19, 45:20,
55:23, 72:17. high 50:12, 50:22, 46:16, 52:5.
happy 5:25, 74:18. 64:10, 67:23. idea 10:7, 22:14,

38:21,
hard 18:15. highest 50:16. 59:3, 62:15, 73:9.
head 59:4. Hill 50:1, 50:7, 51:4. ideas 27:10.
health 33:13, 67:20, HINES 1:26. identified 28:18, 29:6,
75:6. hired 6:14. 35:12, 64:12.
hear 11:22, 12:19, 16:5, historic 50:9. identify 54:24.
28:24. hope 8:12, 61:25. identifying 10:25.
heard 8:21, 10:21, hopefully 2:13, 2:20, ignored 17:14.
28:6, 28:7, 36:5, 9:11. image 44:5, 47:22.
42:12, 60:4, 73:4, hoping 2:17. Impact 6:22, 22:6,
74:1, 74:6. Horizon 64:12. 23:3, 30:19, 36:16,
hearing 3:13, 4:12, Horizons 46:19. 43:23, 43:25, 49:7,
14:17, 18:7, 25:17, hour 60:15, 75:15. 49:7, 55:21, 56:6,
68:24, 69:25, hours 48:20. 56:6, 57:2, 57:25,
72:11. house 65:7. 59:6, 59:16, 62:13,
heart 25:5. housing 64:10, 64:11. 62:16, 62:18, 62:20,
height 10:17, 10:18. huge 39:18. 62:25, 63:14, 63:18,

held 8:18, 34:3. hundred 48:19, 49:11. 64:18, 65:3, 65:15,
Page: 135 of 90
Concordance 137
65:18. includes 34:14, 34:15. intended 4:1, 4:24,
impacted 35:23. including 63:18, 4:25, 8:20.
impacting 59:15. 64:12. intent 14:23, 18:3.
impervious 33:11. incomplete 29:14, interconnect 47:10.
implications 9:12, 29:14, 30:24, 35:6, interconnections
9:17, 64:8, 75:6. 37:7, 40:5, 40:5. 34:16.
importance 13:20, incompleteness interested 4:2, 19:23,
60:6. 10:23. 21:4, 75:19.
important 14:3, 14:6, inconsistent 34:22. interject 17:16.
27:5, 27:7, 33:3, incorporate 17:17, interrupt 14:2.
33:21, 42:3, 43:12, 19:4. introduction 75:25.
57:20, 60:8, 66:20. incorporated 11:7, invasive 36:14.
importantly 60:24. 24:23, 25:11, inventory 44:25.
impression 46:4. 56:12. involved 6:25, 19:23,
in-stream 36:10. incorrect 45:11. 21:3, 49:10, 56:16.
in. 41:12. Indiana 23:23. involvement 34:8.
inadequate 31:5, indicated 64:17, 74:3, issue 6:20, 10:11,
34:17. 74:7. 11:20, 13:5, 27:10,
inadequately 14:5, indirect 32:20. 29:8, 43:5, 50:23,
18:13, 20:19, 21:25, ing 74:4. 51:7, 55:10, 57:12,
22:13, 32:7, 32:18, initial 30:25. 59:10, 64:23, 65:10,
61:22. input 5:18, 6:13. 65:16, 65:25, 66:1,
INC. 1:35. instead 25:10. 67:19, 68:6, 68:14.
include 63:21. insufficient 32:21. items 28:17.
included 16:10. intend 63:10. iterations 60:23.

Page: 139 of 90
Concordance 141
iterative 41:24. Karen 1:32, 10:14, known 55:13.
. 29:8, 37:11, 38:7. knows 2:2, 63:3.
. Karen's 48:1, 48:2, kv 53:5.
< J >. 74:4. .
J. 1:26. keel 41:6. .
JANES 1:30, 10:18, keep 2:5, 4:18, 4:19, < L >.
42:22, 52:21, 53:2, 5:12, 7:22, 23:6, lack 64:25.
53:12, 53:19, 53:24, 41:6, 55:2. laid 13:15.
54:1, 54:9. keeps 23:16, 31:1, lane 45:19, 46:22.
job 59:19, 61:9. 49:13. language 48:23, 51:6,
JOHN 1:19. kept 41:1. 55:12, 55:15, 55:15,
JOHNSON 1:33, 12:15, key 62:5, 62:6. 56:13, 57:17, 62:8,
12:25, 14:9, 15:11, kid 76:8, 76:9. 62:11.
15:19, 15:23, 16:2, kilovolt 47:13, 47:16, large 48:14, 48:21.
16:21, 17:12, 17:15, 47:18, 47:23. last 2:14, 3:1, 6:3,

50:1,
17:20, 20:7, 20:10, kind 5:16, 5:23, 9:15, 55:9, 61:15, 63:7,
20:21, 29:7, 38:6, 12:5, 12:6, 15:1, 72:19.
42:7, 66:19, 67:12, 33:8, 38:12, 38:20, lastly 13:22, 68:6.
70:15, 72:17, 74:3. 39:4, 39:9, 40:15, late 7:15, 62:2, 62:7.
joint 55:14. 41:3, 51:6, 61:12, later 4:11, 8:11, 23:1,
judgment 22:12, 22:16, 68:24, 73:16, 33:8, 33:9.
24:11, 24:13. 74:25. laundry 40:6.
. kinds 54:21. lay 16:3.
. Kirby 64:8. layman's 62:8.

< K >. knowledge 63:6. layout 62:23.
Page: 143 of 90
Concordance 145
lead 3:19, 3:21, 3:23, light 5:15, 5:15, 34:8, 43:23, 43:23, 43:25,
4:4, 7:2, 7:3, 7:8, 68:3, 70:24. 64:4, 72:15, 72:18,
7:9, 7:10, 7:16, 7:20, limbo 69:24. 73:2, 75:8, 75:15.
8:4, 8:8, 10:6, 13:12, lime 42:15. live 76:8.
18:2, 18:20, 20:16, limitation 42:15, LLP 1:40.
56:15, 59:18. 59:20. local 6:23, 65:9.
least 8:8, 13:8, 21:5, limited 20:17. location 36:13.
31:8, 42:12, 51:9, limits 17:2. locations 64:20, 64:24,
51:15, 51:24, 52:11, line 7:6, 8:9, 38:19, 65:10.
69:17, 72:19, 73:1, 38:20, 39:4, 39:6, LONG 1:22, 37:11,
74:20. 39:9, 39:12, 40:3, 37:24, 38:11, 39:2,
leave 12:1, 25:19. 40:19, 52:18, 69:9, 39:8, 39:12, 39:16,
left 50:21, 72:20. 69:11. 60:22, 61:14, 71:5,
legal 7:14, 7:23, 8:2, lines 47:11, 63:19, 72:8, 74:20.
8:10, 15:21, 18:16, 65:1. longer 20:13, 37:19,
25:16, 25:19, 25:20, list 28:12, 36:3, 40:6, 41:21, 41:23, 42:1,
52:7. 40:14, 40:15, 73:5. 42:4, 62:6, 62:23.
legalities 11:20. listed 50:8. look 2:22, 6:5, 16:11,
legally 26:7. lists 35:15, 35:19, 16:15, 16:16, 17:6,
length 4:9, 29:12. 35:20. 18:15, 26:6, 44:10,
less 31:25. literature 63:18, 63:20, 44:11, 47:21,
letter 47:7, 73:2. 64:14. 70:25.
letting 72:11. little 19:10, 26:20, looked 26:13, 32:5,
level 17:4, 34:7, 29:22, 31:25, 32:12, 46:7.
58:14. 42:4, 43:1, 43:1, looking 5:12, 6:10,

Page: 147 of 90
Concordance 149
23:22, 23:24, 23:25, mapped 35:5. maximum 68:5.
37:13, 37:14, 39:9, mapping 44:24, MCDONALD 1:32,
47:4, 50:16, 62:16, 45:10. 29:10, 29:20, 32:15,
63:3. maps 34:20, 34:22, 32:17, 37:16, 38:16,
looks 45:15, 47:23. 58:25. 39:5, 39:10, 39:15,
lost 35:23. March 72:15. 39:18, 39:23, 41:17,
lot 2:15, 6:3, 12:11, Marcy 52:18, 52:20. 53:1, 73:12.
12:12, 16:3, 26:21, MARKIEWICZ 1:23, meadows 36:6.
29:4, 33:22, 48:23, 15:5, 15:7, 15:12, mean 7:8, 7:10, 8:22,
57:3, 57:4, 63:4, 19:24, 27:13, 11:8, 12:4, 12:12,
64:1, 65:4, 75:13, 52:12. 20:16, 26:11, 27:5,
76:4. Mary 1:23, 1:33, 9:14, 30:17, 35:9, 35:10,
lovely 50:10. 9:14, 10:3, 10:5, 35:10, 35:24, 40:17,
lungs 58:12. 11:16, 12:5, 12:13, 45:24, 47:20, 51:5,
. 21:2, 28:18, 64:5, 66:9, 75:5, 75:8,
. 70:10. 75:12, 76:8.
< M >. material 6:14, 40:1, meaning 48:5, 52:24.
MADAM 2:1. 49:14, 65:13. means 7:13, 29:25.
magnitude 39:3. materially 51:20, measures 68:1.
main 63:2. 51:21, 51:22, meet 69:7, 72:23,
mainly 12:17. 51:24. 74:18.
major 34:18, 67:1. matrix 25:4. meeting 3:1, 9:5, 27:3,
management 34:1. matter 12:24, 26:18, 40:9, 54:23, 55:1,
map 14:12, 45:8, 55:13, 55:22, 55:25, 55:10, 69:6, 72:19,
45:11. 56:11, 58:8, 59:12. 72:20, 74:19.

Page: 151 of 90
Concordance 153
meetings 69:8, 71:22, MILLER 1:31, 10:22, 35:24, 36:23, 36:25,
72:24. 26:20, 63:13. 68:1, 68:3.
meets 24:12. mind 9:13. mitigations 30:24.
mega 49:15. mine 2:19, 36:15, mix 15:22.
mega-plumes 49:1. 73:12. mode 73:15.
members 4:2, 6:20, minimized 46:21, model 44:23, 45:8.
60:10, 61:3. 68:4. moisture 75:13.
memo 74:3. minimum 3:14, 3:22, moment 48:13.
memos 10:24. 5:7, 5:8, 5:13, 18:23, moments 3:5.
mention 47:16, 47:18. 20:12. month 50:1, 72:24,
mentioned 30:3, 30:11, minor 49:7. 74:20.
33:7, 40:16. minute 14:21, 16:1. months 69:10.
mentioning 4:17, minutes 13:8. mostly 50:21.
4:20. misleading 35:6. move 2:22, 23:12, 41:7,
met 2:15, 18:24, 30:3, missing 10:18, 30:10, 41:10, 41:13, 42:23,
67:5. 32:8, 33:5, 34:21, 65:2, 68:15, 69:17,
meters 48:19, 48:19, 35:25, 36:1, 36:21, 71:10, 74:13.
48:22, 49:11, 49:12, 36:24, 38:15, 41:19, movement 72:25.
49:12. 44:11, 46:5, 46:10, moving 31:1, 41:6,
methodology 63:25. 48:2, 51:7. 72:7.
Middletown 1:46, mistake 48:3, 48:3, municipal 25:6.
43:24, 76:8. 48:4, 48:4, 48:8. myself 66:22.
midstream 11:18. mitigation 30:9, 30:14, .
mile 64:6, 64:6. 30:20, 31:7, 32:9, .
miles 47:5. 33:13, 33:20, 33:21, < N >.

Page: 155 of 90
Concordance 157
names 2:4. New 1:2, 1:14. NY 1:46.
narrow 27:19. newly 13:16, 13:19, .
narrowed 12:6. 22:1, 22:4. .
narrowing 9:15. next 57:24, 64:13, < O >.
nature 67:10. 69:9. obligated 70:23.
nauseum 56:9. nighttime 43:16. observations 33:9.
near 47:6. Nixon 1:40, 2:19, 3:9. obviously 58:13.
necessarily 15:9, 17:7, No. 53:25. off-site 47:11.
34:10, 56:19. non-attainment office 10:10, 42:2.
necessary 17:1, 19:5, 59:11. Official 76:21.
19:11, 19:13, 56:25, non-specific 37:1. Ohio 76:4.
63:1. Nor 55:3. Okay 2:10, 13:25, 14:9,
needed 16:17, 18:19, normal 11:7, 11:8. 14:25, 15:12, 17:8,
18:21, 19:6, 20:3, normally 9:20, 11:4. 18:1, 28:22, 29:9,
23:13, 30:12, 38:24, notably 33:1. 29:24, 30:4, 35:13,
54:25. noted 2:9, 47:8. 35:21, 41:18, 54:5,
needs 11:10, 11:12, notes 2:7. 56:7, 56:18, 57:2,
26:13, 35:7, 37:2, nothing 22:19, 71:4. 59:15, 67:1, 68:17,
42:18, 47:25, 59:16, notice 14:23, 18:2, 75:22, 75:23, 75:23,
64:21. 44:5. 76:14, 76:16.
negligible 57:25, notwithstanding on-going 17:22.
59:23. 33:16. on-site 47:10.
negotiated 65:17. number 59:13, 59:20, Once 3:12, 4:14, 18:8,
NEIGER 1:19. 59:23, 59:24. 25:7, 39:8, 39:18,
Neil 1:43, 76:20. numbers 59:21. 39:20, 49:19, 55:23,

Page: 159 of 90
Concordance 161
74:20. 18:4, 18:7. 61:11, 75:4.
one-way 12:24. options 9:12, 9:13, overground 54:12.
one. 4:24. 9:15, 9:17, 12:7, overhead 47:10,
ones 11:3, 35:11, 14:20, 16:4, 20:16, 54:13.
44:10, 44:10, 47:4, 21:8, 29:4. overlay 14:6.
54:5, 66:20, 73:25. oral 66:5. own 7:10, 7:11, 9:22.
open 8:2. order 30:12, 30:15, .
open-ended 4:24, 30:18, 36:20, 44:21, .
5:22. 62:24, 68:21. < P >.
operations 44:21. orderly 4:22, 9:11. P. 1:27, 4:18, 5:10.
opinion 9:19, 9:21, ordinary 19:8. p.m. 1:11.
9:22, 26:11, 61:2, original 49:24, 63:22. page 62:3, 62:5, 62:22,
61:6. originally 70:6. 63:15, 63:16.
opinions 11:12. Others 30:12, 56:19. pages 31:25, 31:25,
opportunities 5:17. otherwise 40:6, 55:13. 63:17.
opportunity 2:14, 2:18, ourselves 42:7. panorama 46:24.
6:12, 8:15, 17:5, outline 2:21, 37:5. panoramas 46:11,
17:6, 26:3, 26:14, outlined 24:5. 46:12.
67:4. outlines 18:1. panoramic 46:1.
opposed 51:12. outstanding 10:10, paper 37:6, 37:7, 66:3.
Option 16:7, 17:19, 11:1, 11:21, 12:19, paperwork 8:23,
17:20, 18:25, 19:24, 14:22, 16:6, 16:10, 12:11.
20:25, 21:6, 21:19, 23:20, 28:25, 30:7, Paramount 43:24.
22:18, 23:18. 67:2. parcel 47:15.
optional 3:13, 5:5, overall 29:21, 33:13, PARSONS 1:20, 8:16,

Page: 163 of 90
Concordance 165
8:22, 10:4, 12:8, parts 31:15, 31:16, personally 31:9,
12:16, 15:13, 17:9, 31:17, 35:22. 75:20.
17:13, 20:8, 24:14, pass 13:11. perspective 26:21,
27:20, 28:5, 28:8, Pat 7:25, 9:14, 10:5, 29:23, 29:23,
40:4, 40:20, 40:25, 10:6, 67:1. 29:24.
41:5, 41:11, 53:3, path 5:21, 16:7, 25:10, phase 33:25, 36:10.
66:8, 66:14, 66:21, 25:12. phone 71:16.
69:24, 70:10, 72:4, PATRICK 1:26. photo 45:5, 45:13,
74:24, 76:2, 76:10. payments 65:20. 45:14, 45:14, 46:1,
part 4:7, 23:11, 33:17, PDEIS 50:2. 46:14, 47:1.
33:18, 33:25, 43:12, Peabody 1:40, 2:19, photo-stimulation
45:20, 53:8, 54:2, 3:9. 45:2.
54:25, 55:17, 56:2, penetrating 58:12. photograph 45:3,
57:10, 57:18, 58:15, people 2:6, 2:7, 16:24, 45:4.
58:19, 58:20, 58:21, 16:24, 51:24, 68:25, pick 71:16.
58:22, 62:22. 73:7, 75:5, 76:1. picking 40:23.
participated 34:3. people's 47:8. picture 65:23.
participation 4:7, 4:22, percent 48:20. pictures 45:3, 46:3.
5:4, 5:18. perhaps 15:8, 68:1, pieces 34:24, 36:24,
particles 58:11. 69:14. 40:23.
particular 31:21, 34:2. perimeter 36:12. Pilot 65:16, 65:20,
particularly 58:4. periods 4:25, 5:1. 65:22, 65:24.
particulate 55:13, permit 9:1, 56:3, Pine 50:1, 50:7, 51:3,
55:22, 55:25, 56:11, 58:20. 76:3.
58:8, 59:12. person's 58:12. placed 33:22.

Page: 167 of 90
Concordance 169
places 50:4, 53:13. 48:18, 48:21, 49:2, pollutants 75:7.
plan 33:25, 67:8, 67:15, 49:4, 49:9, 49:11, pollution 33:24.
67:17, 68:9, 68:20, 49:15, 51:4, 75:12, pool 10:15, 23:22,
68:24. 76:2. 36:5.
planner 52:8. PM 23:25, 55:14, 56:6, portable 42:25.
Planning 1:1, 1:16, 58:7, 75:6. portion 30:2, 47:14,
16:10, 16:25, 19:12, point 2:10, 11:25, 47:19, 47:20,
19:17, 20:2, 20:11, 22:22, 23:9, 23:13, 50:20.
22:21, 23:7, 25:3, 24:10, 24:11, 24:15, Portions 29:16, 34:21.
37:21, 50:3, 50:13, 25:1, 26:10, 28:2, pos 14:15, 18:3.
50:24, 60:9, 61:3, 30:5, 33:22, 33:22, position 13:3, 19:9.
65:18, 69:8. 38:21, 38:22, 38:25, possibly 40:7, 54:25.
plans 44:9, 51:18, 41:8, 44:19, 50:15, post-construction
51:18. 52:13, 54:9, 57:8, 33:11.
plant 36:7, 36:8, 45:16, 59:15, 60:16, 61:1, potential 19:23, 36:11,
45:21, 45:22, 46:8, 62:12, 62:16, 64:4, 64:7, 65:18.
46:20, 46:21, 48:10, 74:9. Power 1:35, 2:13,
50:16, 50:17, 52:14, point. 44:1, 48:6, 59:6. 63:18, 64:7.
64:7. pointed 20:16, 21:2, practicable 68:5.
plants 32:3, 34:15, 64:25. practical 56:10, 56:21,
35:9, 36:9, 36:9, points 6:1, 29:21, 57:15.
63:18, 63:24. 34:10, 34:17, 62:6, pre- 33:10.
Plume 10:17, 10:17, 72:8. preclude 16:25,
10:18, 57:5, 58:25. pole 52:15. 19:12.
plumes 43:18, 48:14, poles 44:16, 53:22. precursors 10:12.

Page: 171 of 90
Concordance 173
preempt 18:16. 63:7, 67:25. propose 27:11, 64:21.
premature 21:12, problem 26:7, 27:23, Proposed 13:15, 19:3,
65:8. 34:18, 39:24, 48:1, 20:9, 20:25, 44:8,
preparation 13:18, 48:2, 71:17. 47:24, 51:13,
14:19, 17:21, 18:4. problems 62:12. 54:12.
prepare 16:15, 19:11, procedural 29:23. proposing 48:11.
24:9. procedurally 71:6. pros 16:22, 16:22,
prepared 3:18, 19:1, procedure 11:8, 14:24, 18:11.
19:25, 26:19, 27:25, 55:16, 55:17, 55:19, protocol 23:25.
29:13. 55:20, 56:2. provide 4:3, 4:15,

27:1,
preparing 22:23. procedures 13:23. 27:4, 30:7, 30:13.
prescribed 6:9. proceed 9:10, 16:8, provided 2:2, 31:24,
PRESENT 1:17, 13:21, 16:12, 19:6. 35:25, 63:23, 65:15,
14:20, 53:10. proceedings 76:18. 67:8.
presentation 42:25. produced 29:10. provides 19:9.
presented 31:4, 31:10, project's 47:14. providing 33:8, 39:6,
31:14, 32:6, 32:18, projects 34:7, 67:24. 41:19.
34:5, 34:20. prolonged 5:2. provision 60:12,
preserves 7:10. promised 33:6, 36:2. 67:19.
pretty 55:6, 67:20. proper 57:1. proximity 65:5.
prevention 33:24. properly 49:19, 51:16. published 45:21.
principles 34:6. property 27:10, 53:16, pull 32:6.
probably 32:22, 39:10, 63:15, 63:19, 64:8, pulled 47:22.
39:15, 46:10, 46:20, 64:17, 64:23, 65:4, purpose 35:7, 35:13.

46:22, 51:4, 63:1, 67:21. push 57:16.
Page: 175 of 90
Concordance 177
pushing 10:2. 72:18. realized 49:25, 52:3.
put 20:12, 20:13, quite 6:15, 18:17, really 5:24, 8:4,

10:22,
39:19, 57:17, 62:2, 36:24, 42:7, 50:10, 14:21, 32:24, 37:3,
62:10, 66:16, 60:7. 42:2, 42:8, 43:6,
74:21. . 46:12, 49:22, 50:10,
. . 50:21, 52:6, 52:10,
. < R >. 54:22, 56:18, 56:24,
< Q >. ramp 46:9, 46:15, 60:9, 65:4, 68:14,
quality 31:22, 32:19, 52:5. 70:23, 71:10.
32:24, 48:15, 48:17, range 63:20. reason 4:20, 7:1, 7:3,
58:15, 58:22, 68:2, rather 31:10, 40:14, 7:23, 7:25, 9:22,
75:8, 76:12. 42:5. 28:1, 28:16, 29:14,
question 8:17, 11:3, Re 1:4. 38:7.
12:3, 13:6, 15:5, reach 67:17. reasonable 5:23, 7:19,
15:13, 17:9, 19:9, reached 67:18. 56:10, 56:18.
25:17, 26:12, 37:12, react 27:4. reasoned 11:13.
42:19, 52:12, 57:6, reaction 63:9. receive 66:23.
68:14. read 38:1, 39:13, 47:8, received 7:7, 22:15,
questions 9:16, 72:1, 51:8, 64:16, 64:16, 63:8, 66:15.
75:21. 66:4. recognize 69:5.
quick 37:5, 37:12, reading 29:25. recognized 57:15,
72:9. ready 2:1, 24:22, 60:6.
quicker 39:10. 28:12. recommendation
quickly 49:22. real 64:22, 64:22. 65:12.

quiet 72:10, 72:15, realize 47:7, 60:3. recommended 57:1.
Page: 179 of 90
Concordance 181
recommending 34:6. 38:7, 67:21. request 10:2, 38:18,
record 7:4, 7:5, 7:9, relates 68:7, 68:8. 71:22.
7:12, 7:17, 8:8, 8:9, relative 59:18, 61:8. requested 26:18,
18:14, 49:24, relatively 29:11, 49:7, 42:12, 43:17.
65:21. 58:2. requesting 25:15,
regard 32:18, 44:1, relevance 13:20. 35:8.
71:13. reluctantly 61:20. require 4:11, 5:15,
regarding 10:15, remainder 5:14. 13:12, 13:18, 17:20,
11:21, 16:5, 33:9, remains 8:1. 20:17, 28:22, 36:19,
34:1, 34:4, 36:14, Remember 24:19, 50:11.
38:17, 49:3. 40:16, 76:3, 76:13. required 3:12, 3:14,
regardless 60:18. REMILLARD 1:37, 3:16, 3:21, 4:5,
region 59:16. 2:12, 2:12, 53:25. 21:23, 31:3, 33:25.
regular 23:15, 72:5. remiss 71:3. requirement 5:9,
regulates 56:3. removed 45:10. 18:15.
regulation 21:22, render 24:13. requirements 18:24.
22:25, 23:16. reopen 71:3. requires 22:19, 22:25,
regulations 3:11, 3:15, report 72:25. 59:14.
3:22, 4:6, 4:10, 4:14, Reporter 1:44, 76:21. requiring 17:1.
5:9, 5:15, 5:17, 14:7, reports 60:20, 60:21, research 56:8.
34:1, 42:9. 60:22, 61:14, 72:22, residential 64:6,

64:10,
regulatory 19:15, 74:16. 64:11.
56:14, 59:25. represent 19:16. resolution 74:25.
reiterate 69:12. REPRESENTATIVES resolve 12:21.

related 13:17, 33:20, 1:36. resolved 61:2.
Page: 183 of 90
Concordance 185
resource 31:21, 50:8. 48:16. routine 11:8.
resources 32:3, 32:11, reviewer 38:22. RPR-CM 1:43.
34:25, 37:4, 43:9, reviewers 44:11. run 12:5.
43:15, 44:25, 49:8. reviewing 41:21. rush 60:5, 61:9.
respectfully 22:3. revised 35:7. rushed 30:2, 38:20,
respond 22:21, 23:7, revisited 31:12. 38:22, 55:6.
25:3, 25:4, 73:15. reworked 37:3. .
responded 16:9, rewritten 31:12. .
32:25. Rich 1:39, 2:19, 2:20, < S >.
responders 35:2. 3:2, 3:5, 3:9, 6:11, salt 44:15.
response 17:7, 25:5, 24:9, 71:18. sat 61:4, 61:5.
27:1, 27:6, 27:9, riparian 35:4. saw 64:7, 67:13.
27:9, 54:7, 63:9, rise 14:4. saying 7:17, 19:25,
73:14. rises 14:22, 26:10. 20:6, 24:17, 25:21,
responses 22:15. risk 7:23, 8:3, 8:10, 27:21, 27:25, 38:14,
responsibility 25:20, 8:12. 41:5, 41:12, 41:22,
70:25. risks 7:14. 52:22, 58:16, 66:14,
rest 31:2, 74:23, Road 14:11, 24:18, 66:17, 73:2.
75:18. 49:5, 64:8, 64:9. says 19:18, 21:2, 38:2,
restriction 59:14. Ron 1:31, 62:4, 66:4. 53:14, 57:10,
result 36:15, 55:22. room 21:8. 67:20.
results 69:20, 69:21, roosting 36:11. SBL# 1:8.
75:21, 75:21. roughly 5:7. scale 49:2, 49:9.
reviewed 25:6, 31:9, round 2:3. scattered 64:9.
32:2, 32:7, 34:7, Route 43:10. schedule 69:6.

Page: 187 of 90
Concordance 189
scheduling 73:8. 53:14, 62:9, 62:9, serve 23:2.
scientist 75:11. 62:9, 62:10, 68:10. serves 5:19, 21:18.
scope 31:5, 37:13. sections 31:8, 31:11, SESSION 1:7, 75:15.
scoped 39:3. 38:2, 38:8, 48:16, set 41:21, 56:1.
scoping 5:4, 11:5, 48:17. sets 29:10, 71:13.
14:16, 17:3, 18:3, seeing 26:15, 68:22. setting 23:25.
61:22, 61:24. seem 26:17. seven 62:3.
scores 7:16. seems 12:12, 26:19, several 36:19, 69:10.
Scott 71:17. 40:13. Shall 20:19.
scrambling 31:2. seen 11:17, 11:18, shed 44:24, 45:8,
screen 42:24, 42:25, 20:1, 21:8, 37:15, 45:10, 45:11, 68:3.
49:13. 39:3, 61:23, 66:22. shift 15:20.
searched 47:17. segments 31:10. short 29:12, 54:5.
season 36:8. SEIS 26:11. shortcomings 64:17.
seasonal 38:12. select 45:1. Shorthand 1:44.
Second 32:8, 33:5, sense 54:20, 60:4. shot 46:2.
45:14, 49:20. sensitive 3:2. shoulder 45:20.
second. 44:20. separation 15:22. shouldn't 18:19, 40:18,
secondary 23:25, SEQR 2:15, 2:20, 3:3, 40:20, 40:22.
55:12, 57:13. 3:6, 3:14, 3:24, 4:5, show 45:23, 49:4,
secret 55:2. 4:15, 4:21, 14:11, 59:1.
secretaries 7:24. 14:12, 15:2, 18:15, showed 64:1, 64:3.
Section 31:14, 33:13, 21:9, 27:7, 42:9, shown 44:8, 51:17,
36:23, 42:22, 47:9, 69:22, 71:3. 51:17.

48:15, 48:17, 53:14, serious 48:7, 51:7. side 43:21, 55:10,
58:1,
Page: 191 of 90
Concordance 193
58:4, 61:6, 72:2. site 30:18, 30:19, 33:9, Sort 2:21, 4:9, 6:7,
sides 50:21, 54:10. 33:12, 34:2, 34:4, 12:22, 14:10, 14:11,
SIEGEL 1:21, 29:18, 34:5, 34:22, 34:25, 14:18, 40:3, 54:17,
39:20, 40:2. 35:9, 35:15, 35:16, 64:21, 65:10, 67:12,
significance 26:10, 37:4, 50:9, 50:12, 68:4, 72:11.
45:17, 57:16. 50:13, 51:17, 51:18, sorts 67:22.
significant 12:20, 14:5, 52:17, 53:24, 67:8, sound 28:12.
20:18, 21:24, 22:5, 68:20, 68:24. sounds 25:13, 74:22.
23:3, 26:13, 30:13, sitting 43:11, 50:15, sources 32:20.
33:15, 43:14, 54:6, 52:6. South 52:18, 52:20.
57:22, 59:6, 59:23, size 42:24, 49:13. SP3 44:9.
70:22, 71:2. sketched 44:13. SP4 44:9.
similar 52:19. skip 42:25, 43:4, 51:1. speaking 2:7, 71:17.
simple 22:17, 23:5, slightly 18:22. speaks 10:5, 71:19.
58:2, 62:11. slip 8:11. special 43:5.
simpler 21:6, 23:15. slips 8:1. species 35:8, 35:14,
simply 62:10. slow 30:6. 35:18, 35:20, 36:8,
simulate 46:10. slowly 41:12. 36:14, 36:19.
simulated 43:18. small 36:13, 58:11. Specific 14:4, 20:18,
simulation 51:17. social 66:6. 21:24, 23:2, 27:10,
simulations 24:8, soils 32:23. 32:13, 36:14, 65:9.
43:16, 43:22, 45:5, Somebody 26:5, 47:8. specifically 34:4,
48:22, 49:3, 50:4. someone 65:7. 35:12, 64:20.
single 6:24. somewhere 47:20. specifics 32:1.
sit 72:13. sorry 14:2. speed 76:1.

Page: 195 of 90
Concordance 197
speedy 37:5. statement 16:15, storm 33:24, 34:1.
spending 40:24. 18:11, 19:7, 19:19. straight 2:5, 19:15,
spirit 20:24. statements 6:22. 41:1.
spot 45:25. states 47:9, 49:6. straightforward
spreads 58:14. stating 9:22. 62:11.
stacks 10:13, 49:8. status 74:16. strange 42:8.
stage 21:12, 42:20, statute 3:15, 4:6, 5:16. Stream 23:22.
57:14. statutory 18:23. streamlines 19:10.
stand 54:15. stay 70:9. streams 32:22.
standard 25:9, 67:23. stenographer 2:2. strictly 29:23, 42:2.
standards 63:24. step 2:24, 14:14, 16:2, strike 11:6.
standing 46:1. 16:2, 47:13. strongly 31:11.
standpoint 21:5. STEPHEN 1:27. structure 52:16, 52:19,
stands 33:14, 33:24. steps 4:10, 15:3, 18:20, 53:21.
Stapleton 1:45. 41:4. structures 63:19.
start 23:8, 23:25, 29:7, Steve 2:12, 3:8, 5:25, studied 48:21, 50:2.
34:18, 41:13, 54:6, 6:20, 23:24, 27:8, study 26:23, 28:22,
54:7, 60:20, 71:10, 48:25, 68:1, 68:2, 36:5, 39:14, 63:21,
72:14, 73:17, 68:14. 64:15, 68:2.
73:22. Steve's 10:10, 55:8, stuff 14:13, 14:13,
state 2:4, 6:22, 6:23, 68:13. 31:23, 38:11, 48:2,
8:17, 8:22, 13:21, STEVEN 1:37. 76:4, 76:5.
33:25, 34:5, 35:14, stitched 46:3. subject 26:17, 32:2.
43:7, 43:23, 50:11, stone 50:16. submit 17:6, 24:10.
56:17, 59:25. stood 45:24. submittal 63:16,

Page: 199 of 90
Concordance 201
63:25. support 7:16. talks 58:6, 67:17.
submitted 7:15, 7:25, supposed 10:7, tall 48:19.
23:14, 24:20, 40:8, 37:18. targeted 27:10.
64:2, 73:7. surface 66:20. task 9:8.
subsections 31:17, surfaces 33:11. team 36:2.
31:18. surprised 74:8. technical 27:6, 29:12,
substantive 11:14. surrounding 65:10. 30:5, 44:11, 59:24,
success 44:1. survey 23:23, 36:7, 60:20, 60:21, 60:22,
sufficient 33:14, 36:10, 36:11, 61:13, 67:10.
33:21. 36:11. tells 35:21.
suggest 6:16, 12:18, switch 44:3, 44:19, Ten 3:22, 3:25, 14:18,
23:5, 23:14, 71:5. 45:21, 47:13, 47:17, 20:12, 20:13, 20:14,
suggested 70:11. 47:18, 47:21, 47:23, 48:18, 49:12.
suggesting 24:24, 52:14, 52:17, 53:3, ten. 14:14.
70:4. 53:5, 53:11, 53:13, terms 31:5, 32:10,
suggestion 20:24, 53:15, 53:24, 54:10, 33:5, 33:12, 35:24,
73:3. 54:13. 36:13, 36:23, 47:1,
summarized 66:5, SWPP 33:19, 33:24. 63:24, 66:2, 66:13,
67:12. Systems 47:10. 69:7, 69:9, 73:18.
summarizing 43:3. . tests 54:6.
summary 29:11, 31:24, . text 30:23, 43:14,
37:12, 62:5, 66:6, < T >. 43:22, 47:17,
66:7, 71:6. table 2:4. 53:12.
supplementals 18:17. talked 25:2, 54:18, Thanks 3:8, 8:13.
supply 32:19. 55:9, 60:7, 67:22. Theatre 43:24.

Page: 203 of 90
Concordance 205
thin 50:18. till 27:22. 8:19, 9:1, 33:1, 33:1,
thinking 21:14, 38:4, timeline 3:7. 34:2, 34:7, 35:2,
38:5. timely 7:8, 7:17. 35:2, 62:14, 64:8.
Third 20:25, 31:4, timing 6:17, 11:21. town's 34:8.
32:8. tiny 43:25. transcript 9:4, 76:18.
thirteen 46:7. today 22:9, 22:19, 23:4, transformers 47:13.
thirteen. 45:18. 24:12, 29:11, 37:17, transition 52:15,

53:21,
thirty 3:16, 68:18. 37:20, 43:2, 62:18, 53:23.
thorough 9:11. 73:13. Transmission 10:20,
thoroughly 74:12. together 39:11, 39:21, 44:3, 44:4, 44:7,
Though 40:10, 44:7, 46:4, 62:11. 47:10, 47:11, 47:12,
50:9, 53:4, 57:20, tonight 2:2, 2:14, 2:17, 51:8, 51:10, 63:19,
72:19. 12:1, 28:17, 69:15, 65:1.
thousand 48:19, 49:12, 73:4, 73:25, 74:8. Transportation 52:2.
49:12. tonight's 9:5. trees 50:18.
three 12:7, 18:25, took 18:20, 46:1, tremendous 11:9.
19:24, 20:15, 28:17, 46:14, 76:11. tried 16:3, 16:22,

32:6,
31:17, 31:18, 48:20, top 46:15, 59:4. 60:5.
67:12, 68:12, topic 3:2. tries 62:7, 62:10.
73:24. total 34:19, 34:23, trigger 26:2, 26:10.
threshold 59:14. 34:24, 55:21, 56:6. TRUE 6:24, 21:21,
thresholds 51:19. totally 19:8, 31:12, 76:17.
thrive 36:20. 65:24. truism 21:19.
throw 23:18. toward 50:16. truisms 21:9.

tight 38:20. Town 1:1, 1:13, 1:16, truth 7:18.
Page: 207 of 90
Concordance 209
try 43:4, 46:4. typo 53:6. understood 48:23,
trying 4:19, 16:2, . 51:25.
32:23, 34:14, 38:12, . unduly 5:1.
40:24, 41:1, 42:17, < U >. unless 70:13.
55:1, 55:6, 55:19, ultimately 21:20, until 17:25, 21:8,
55:21, 56:4, 57:16. 27:15, 62:21. 22:13, 30:20, 31:22,
turn 9:14, 75:16. underdog 50:20. 37:9, 47:8, 48:15,
turned 37:16, 46:2, underground 44:18, 65:2, 65:10, 69:19,
46:3, 50:1. 47:11, 52:14, 52:17, 70:12.
turtle 36:11, 36:17. 52:22, 52:25, 53:19, unusual 21:2, 70:24.
twelve 15:3. 53:23. useful 63:12.
twice 72:24. underlying 24:20. .
two 2:7, 5:7, 17:20, underscore 37:7. .
29:10, 31:25, 31:25, understand 13:8, < V >.
32:4, 33:25, 34:24, 19:19, 28:11, 38:12, V. 4:19, 5:10.
39:21, 41:4, 42:1, 40:2, 40:12, 40:14, valid 36:18.
47:5, 53:13, 53:15, 42:19, 56:22, 56:24, VALLEY 1:6.
54:10, 62:5, 62:22, 57:24, 57:25, 59:21, value 32:11, 32:14,
63:15, 63:23, 64:2. 60:14, 69:1, 74:10, 64:18, 64:23.
two. 39:14. 75:5, 75:10. values 27:11, 63:15,
type 11:2, 36:16, 36:17, understanding 10:9, 63:19, 64:8.
59:14. 26:25, 72:20. vegetation 45:9,
typical 19:22, 44:21. understands 55:19. 67:21.
typically 16:23, 20:10, understated 45:10, Ventures 1:35, 2:13.
72:17. 45:12. vernal 10:15, 23:22,

Page: 211 of 90
Concordance 213
36:5. 65:3, 65:5, 65:11. 34:1, 75:8.
versus 12:4, 46:21, visually 52:24. watershed 33:13.
53:7. visuals 65:1, 68:8. watersheds 32:4,
via 47:10. volume 11:10. 33:11.
view 44:24, 45:8, . Wawayanda 1:1, 1:2,
45:10, 45:11, 45:19, . 1:14, 1:16, 62:14.
46:6, 46:25, 50:20, < W >. Weather 49:18, 69:6.
65:6. Wait 41:17, 41:17. Wednesday 1:11.
Viewpoint 27:2, 43:10, waited 38:7. week 39:14, 39:21.
45:4, 45:18, 46:5, waiting 33:8, 37:17, weeks 42:1, 69:10,
46:6, 46:11, 49:5, 38:4, 40:9, 72:22. 73:24.
50:22. waive 69:18, 74:10. weigh 11:12, 11:16,
viewpoints 43:15, wall 50:16. 11:19, 29:5.
43:22, 45:1, 47:2, Wallkill 33:1, 35:3. westbound 45:19,
47:3, 47:4, 47:6. wanted 2:13, 6:1, 6:16, 45:20, 46:16.
views 4:3. 23:10, 26:7, 29:16, wet 36:6.
virtually 33:19. 37:21, 50:14, 50:23, wetland 36:16, 36:16.
visible 50:17. 56:24, 66:19. wetlands 31:21, 32:3,
visit 45:1. wants 65:7. 32:20, 32:21, 32:22,
visual 42:22, 42:23, warrant 11:14, 33:3. 33:10, 33:12, 75:8.
43:8, 43:9, 43:13, warrants 6:10. whatever 7:23, 21:13,
43:15, 43:16, 43:19, water 31:21, 32:3, 41:15, 69:10, 70:1.
43:22, 44:22, 44:25, 32:10, 32:10, 32:19, whereas 48:10.
48:16, 48:22, 49:3, 32:19, 32:19, 32:24, whether 8:7, 14:21,
49:7, 50:4, 57:5, 33:5, 33:20, 33:24, 15:17, 15:17, 16:11,

Page: 215 of 90
Concordance 217
17:2, 17:11, 18:6, within 4:11, 4:15, .
18:18, 18:19, 18:20, 23:16, 30:23, 64:6, .
18:21, 21:20, 22:4, 76:18. < Y >.
22:12, 22:17, 22:22, words 3:10, 15:14, yard 44:3, 44:19,

45:22,
22:23, 24:11, 26:1, 17:13, 20:8. 47:13, 47:17, 47:19,
26:9, 36:4, 48:12, work 22:20, 23:7, 47:21, 47:23, 52:14,
49:20, 51:10, 60:19, 25:13, 28:13, 30:22, 52:17, 53:3, 53:5,
65:5. 33:4, 41:24, 42:10, 53:11, 53:24, 54:10,
wildlife 10:15, 10:16, 53:10, 55:11, 56:22, 54:14, 65:6.
32:3. 64:5, 64:14, 67:25, yards 53:13, 53:15.
WILLIAM 1:25. 68:7, 69:9, 69:10, YATES 1:18, 2:10,
willing 28:10. 72:14, 72:16. 15:6, 28:6, 72:3.
wind 60:18, 73:14. worked 6:21, 27:21, York 1:2, 1:14.
winding 73:19. 27:23, 57:3. yourselves 72:13.
wires 10:19, 10:20, working 17:24, 23:6, .
44:3, 44:4, 44:6, 23:8, 24:14, 26:16, .
44:7, 44:12, 45:8, 60:15, 72:10. < Z >.
45:16, 45:23, 46:8, works 41:18. zoning 67:19.
46:17, 46:21, 48:10, WORKSHOP 1:7, zoom 32:12, 34:13,
48:11, 50:19, 51:8, 34:3. 34:14.
51:10, 52:4, 52:13, worried 75:5. .
52:16, 52:22, 52:24, worthy 48:13, 49:21. .
54:10, 54:11, 54:11, writing 32:15, 72:21. < Dates >.
54:12, 54:14. written 43:3, 55:14, 4-1-38.32 1:8.

wish 70:19. 66:4, 70:18, 72:24. may 13 2009 1:12,
Page: 219 of 90
Concordance 221
1:12, 1:12.
Page: 221 of 90
EXHIBIT F
Wawayanda Town Planning Board

Minutes June 2009
EXHIBIT G
CPV Valley Energy Center - Technical

Review of DEIS
. '- r
GREENPIAN
To: Ann Yates, Cbaii:person GREENPLAN JNC.

Emri.tcnmm~ Planncu
Town of Wawayanda Planning Board 302PclhRoll.d
Rl>n<b<a, NY 12572-3354
From: J. Theodore Fink, AICP 845.8765775
FAX8'76.3188
Mary Ann Johnson, AICP ..... ' - ,. ' ..
.<.. ~'
__,_...._
Date: 4/22/09
Subject: CPV Valley Ene<gy Center - Technical Review of DEIS
Applicant: CPV Valley, LLC
We have completed our technical review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) Volwnes I-III dated February 2009 for the above captioned application. The DEIS
was accepted as complete on February, 23 2009 and has been subject to public and agency
comment since that time.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement

Our comments together with other Town consultants' comments, involved agency
comments and comments from interested agencies and parties must be responded to in a
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). We assume that the applicant will prepare
drafr responses to comments as well as preparing modifications to the DEIS, if necessary, in
PB 1-1
a proposed FE.IS document for the Town to consider.

The FEIS is to consist of the draft EIS, copies or a summary of substantive comments
received, the lead agency's response to substantive comments and revisions to the draft EIS.
Regardless of who prepares the FEI.s, it is the lead agency's responsibility to ensure adequacy
and accuracy of the document. It is crucial for the Planning Board to understand that this is
your document, more so even than the DEIS, and the language it contains must reflect your
understanding of the proposed action. The lead agency has the ability to revise any responses
to comments offered by the project sponsor. Moving forward, the Findings Statement (the
document which declares that all SEQR requirements for making decisions on the action
have been met) will rely upon information in this document, along with the DEIS, to reach
conclusions.
Summaiy of Most Import.mt Issues
1. The DEIS states that ecological srudies will be conducted and in fact, we were PB1-2
contacted by CPV who indicated the studies were underway. These studies are
important information and we recommend the Planning Board consider having them
submitted as a Supplemental EIS (SEIS). '.I.bis provides both the public and involved
and interested agencies an opportunity to review and comment on them. If these are
only provided in the FEIS, the opportunity for public review will be extremely
Wawaya.nd2 PJanniog Boxd P>g<2 4/'12/09
limited. Further, we recommend you hold the public comment period on the DEIS PB12
open and once a submission has been made and circulated, select an appropriate date (cont'd)
to close the comment period. The Planning Board has the option of holding a public
hearing on the SEIS if it so chooses.
2. The entire action is not depicted on the Site Plans. The above gmund transmission
lines and its associated 150 foot right of way from the facility to 17M are missing
although it is discussed in the text and appears on various figures in the DEIS. This
has potential implications related to visual impacts.
3. Consistency with the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan has not been adequately IPB1-4
addressed.
4. Issued related to fiscal impacts remain outstanding. IPB1-5
5. Community character has not been addressed adequately. IPB1-6
Section LO Executive Snmmaiy
6. Page 1-1. The applicant needs to provide justification for the statement "Due to PB1-7
efficiency of natural gas combined cycle technology, the CPV Valley Energy Center
is expected to help reduce dependency on the use of older and less efficient
generators that currently serve the region, thus improving the region's environmental
profile". Please define where the older and less efficient generators are located,
describe how this region will be less dependent on them and describe the region's
environmental profile pre and post construction of this facility.

7. New York State Energy Plan (2002). What is notably rrussing from the discussion on PB 1. 8
pages 1-4 to 1-5 is the State's goals related to energy conservation and increasing the
share of renewable energy use. Specifically1, ''lbe Energy Plan adopts an energy
efficiency goal of reducing primary enexgy use per unit of Gross State Product (GSP)
25% below the 1990 level by 2010" and "In addition to the energy efficiency goal,
the Energy Plan adopts a renewable enexgy goal of increasing the share of renewable
energy use 50%, by 2020, as a percentage of total primary energy use." wrule it is
obvious the proposed action involves the generation of enexgy using non-renewable
resources, the Planning Board may wish to consider how rrutigation measures can
assist in furthering some of these other goals of the State Energy Plan for which this
action is not consistent.
8. Interested Agencies. We had recommended, prior to the acceptance of the DEIS, PB1-9
that several additional communities be added to the list of interested agencies. These
included Walkill and Goshen. It appears from the public hearing that Goshen did
receive a DEIS, but the FEIS should include all interested agencies in the list.
9. Page 1-11. The FEIS needs to clarify who will benefit from the construction of this PB1-10
facility. There are statements in this section indicating there is a need for 1050 MW
in the w1JJer Hfldson Vafky (define the specific geographic area), that the plant will
generate enough power for 600,000 homes and the plant will provide additional
electric power to Orange County.
1
New Yod: Sate Enew Plan. (2002). l?g.13<1.
Wawa.y:andn Planning Booed Pogc3 4/22/09
10. Secti.on 1.7.2 indicates there ace no significant impacts to archeological resources.
However, the applicant is required to additional accheological field work according to
a December 23, 2008 letter from the NYS Office of Packs, Recreation and Historic
Preservation (OPRHP). Until this additional fieldworlc has been conducted to the
satisfaction of OPRHP, a conclusion related to impacts cannot be reached. The
PB1 -11
additional field work has been acknowledged by the applicant and this section of the
DEIS needs to accurately relect this situation.
11. Section 1.B. Typically, this section identifies both the impact and the related
mitigation measures. Table 1-2 should be revised to include the relevant impacts in
IPB1 -12
each section noted.
Section 2.0 Project Description
12. Page2-15. The ten notes that wastewater will be returned to the Middletown Sewage PB113
Treatment Plant or to the treatment plant outf.tll pipe. The applicant should indicate
if an option has been finalized and we defer to Allegiance Resources or Pat Hines to
determine if the cption selected has been analy:zed sufficiently.
13. Figure 2-6. This is inconsistent with the teitt which describes 130 feet of clearing and PB1 -14
transmission line poles in excess oflOO feet. We note this figures provides a very
good perspective on the scale of this project and how it relates with the surrounding
area including the DOT facility.
Section 3.0 Land Use
14. Page 3-4. In the description ofland use in the northeastem quadrant, there is
mention of the former Calpine project. 1bis not a current land use and it is not clear
why this project is mentioned or why it is relevant to this SEQR review.
15. In several places in the DEIS, it mentions that the project will occupy approximately
22 acres out of the 122 acre site. Please identify the nwnber of acres associated with
IPB1-15
PB1-16
environmental constraints which make certain portions of the site unsuitable for
siting a building, in particular the acreage of wetlands, so that a better understanding
of the impact on the site.
16. Page 3-15. In the subsection on Operation, the text accurately describes how the site it PB1-17
bounded by l-84 and Route 6. However, it fails to mention that this places the
facility in a highly visible area for people traveling along these roadways.
Additionally, Exit 3 from I-84 essentially serves as a gateway to three communities:
Wawayanda, Middletown and Goshen. There is no evaluation of how this land use
will impact this gateway area for these three towns.
17. Page 3-16. There is discussion of the physical separation of the facility to the PB1 18
workforce housing site Horizons at Wawayanda. Here the text notes there is
"separation consisting of primarily tree cover". The DEIS states that there will
clearing of 130 feet of trees and vegetation for the above ground transmission Jines.
It would seem that this "tree cover separation" does not accurately reflect the post
construction condition of the site or any assodated impacts. 1bis statement appears
to be inconsistent with the discussion of construction impacts on page 3-17.
IPB1-19
18. Discussion of impacts. Industrial uses are generally considered "incompatible" with
adjacent or neai:by residential uses. In fact, this is one of the reason zoning became a
.
Wav.-ayanda PfanningBoatd Pagc4 4/22/09
common practice in land use planning. The Town's Zoning recognizes issues of
incompatibility in the description of the intent of the MI zone, 1his district is
intended to pmvide areas for various industrial and manufacturing enterprises within
well-planned complexes on parcels with gocd access to the regional transportation
system, where they can be free ofpo&:ndally incompatible land llSes' [emphasis
PB1-19
(cont'd)
added]. This facility is proposed for an area in which development has already
occurred. This development include residences adjacent to and nearby to the project
site, including the workforce housing complex, and the Pine Hill cemetery. There is
no discussion of how this industrial project will impact the experience of those
burying their loved ones or those who visit the cemetery. This project will alter the
existing agriculture/open space land use to one with Iaige industrial buildings wruch
will produce noise, air pollutants and visible vapors. In our opinion, this pmject
creates incompatible land uses and this impact needs to be disclosed in this section.
19. Mitigation. Related to the item above, this section needs to acknowledge that the I PB1-20
incompatible land use issue is un-mitigatable.
20. Page 3-17. This section of the DEIS treats the electrical interconnect almost as a PB1-21
separate part of the action. Tills is not appropriate as the entire action, in totality,
needs to be evaluated. Further, the section on impacts indicates these will be
compatible with the existing transmission lines in the area. Again, this is not
disclosing the potential incompatible land uses, particular for the workfurce housing
project and the cemetery. The mitigation sections needs to acknowledge there will be
un-mitigatable impacts.
21. Page 3-19. There is additional discussion of the workforce housing project along PB1-22
with the Bradley Comers hotel project and it states these sites would be buffered
from the project through landscaping and wooded open space on both properties.
This needs to be clarified and quantified. Is the applicant proposing to landscape the
workforce housing and hotel site? How much buffering exists on these parcels? The
te..'<t uses the phrase "soften the views from this location". Describe in more detail
how the view is "softened" as this is a large industrial complex with very tall bo~ type
buildings. We are unable to tell from the site plans where the clearing of trees and
other vegetation will occur for the transmission lines. We note the Visual Assessment
does not .pro"1de any photo simulations of the electric transmission lines.
22. This pmject has the potential to affect the future development potential of vacant PB1-23
land due to visual, water quality, air quality and community character impacts. There
needs to be additional qualitative and quantitative analysis of these lands including a
map showing the parcels, the zoning district they are located in overlaid on the
theoretical viewshed map.
23. Section 3.4. This section does not adequately describe the information contained the PB1-24A
Town of Wawayanda Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of a comprehensive plan is
to be a guide for decision making on public and private development proposals. It
compares how a community appears at the time of the adoption to what it vision is
for the future. This is important document and the FEIS needs to:
* Include the vision statement found on page 1.2; IPB1-24B
jPB1-24C
; Identify the goals from each section of the Plan;

* Address the information contained in section 2.1 - Promoting Ecrmomir Dewlopmt11I !PB124D
Pag< 5 122/09
and Direr.ri!)', particularly the statement regacding "encouraging clean low impact
commercial entexprises";
* Address section 2.2 -Maintaining and Snpporling WmJJ'!)'anda's &1ral Character,
specifically the "desire to maintain the scenic quality and rural character of the
Town 11 :
I PB1-24D
I
(conrd)
PB124E
*Address the recommendation (p. 5.1) to "Establish more prominent gateways into
Town" (We note Route 6 and 17M ace considered "important focal points'');
I PB1 24F
Address the recommendation (p. 7.4) to "Protectwaterquality in Wawayanda's I PB1-24G
lakes and streams";
*Identify the roads recommended to noted as view corridors (pg. 9.7) I PB1 24H
24. The Comprehensive Plan makes a recommendation for the Town to research
potential types of agriculture-based tourism. Will this project present a barrier for the PB1 -25
Town in pursuing this strategy in terms of the community image because this large
industrial proposal is in a prominent acea?
25. Tbe Comprehensive Plan recommends all Zoning districts need to be examined in PB1 26A
terms of size and allowable uses. Specifically, it states (p. 12.3) "Currently, the MI
district in Wawayanda is lacge and allows certain uses (i.e. "other manufacturing" or
mining) that are vague or not in line with the Town's vision". This type of language
in the plan would presents challenges for the proposed action to justify how it is
consistent with the plan. It is not difficult to imagine that the crafi:ers of this plan
would also consider "other industrial" uses in a similar way as 11 other manufacturing11
is described above.
Additionally, the Plan includes a recommendation to "Control nuisances attributable

to noise, odors, and unsightly uses in all districts ... " Once again, the Plan is PB1 268
providing guidance to decision-makers which challenge the consistency of this
project with the Plan.
26. The Orange County Comprehensive Plan (OC Plan) provides a regional perspective PB1 27
and guidance for decision makers. In the DEIS, limited attention is paid to certain
perspectives offered by the document. The DEIS notes the project site is located in
an Intensive Business Corridor. This is adjacent to a residential/agricultural corridor
and this particular project site.appeacs to be close to the area where the corridor
changes from one to another. The guidance. offered by the QC Plan is as follows:
"Specific roadways may exhibit the characreristics of diffurent corridor types for
sepacate segments along their route. Poor transitions between different segments
along the same corridor weaken the character of the corridor. Strategies for
enhancing community character could focus on these transition points." This project
presents a challenge as the scale of this project, specifically the size and design of the
builrungs makes it difficult to offer transition which "enhances community
character".
27. The OC Plan describes Intensive Business Corridors as follows: PB1-28
"These corridors include most of the primary or larger scale retail, service and related
business activity in the County. Here road capacity needs to provide access and
mobility for a large number of trav'elers while improvements may be needed for
pedestrian accessibility, streetscape design, and access management." This

W2w2ynnda Planning Bo2td Page6 4/22/0?
description varies from the description offered in the DEIS on page 3-25.
Specifically, the DEIS adds phrases such as "major land uses" and "industrial".
28. The OC Plan offers strategies, priorities and recommended action on a variety of
areas including industrial/office parks (p. 52). Many of strategies and priorities are
noted in the Town of Wawayanda Comprehensive Plan. While the DEIS touches on
PB128
(cont'd)
PB1-29
some of these, the DEIS does not address bullet 3 - ''Encourage the development of
well- designed industrial and office parks that provide an attractive setting for
business 11
29. Due to the deficiencies regarding the Town of Wawayanda Comprehensive Plan and PB130
the OC Plan as noted above, the section on potential impacts and mitigation is
inadequate. An analysis of consistency (i.e. impacts) with these two plans including
the additional information requested above needs to be included in the FEIS. In our
opinion, there are impacts to land use and the mitigation section should identify any
un-mitigatable impacts as well as any mitigation measures offered.
30. Page 3-32. The discussion of the NYS Bike Route 17 does not accurately reflect the
PB131
visual simulation of a point along the route - please see viewpoint 11 taken from
Route 6. ln regards to the simulation, the DEIS states (p5-19), "The planting of
trees along the southern edge of Route 6 will help to soften the impact, but the scale
of the facility is such that at this distance no landscaping can fully mitigate the impact
from this distance." 'lb.is needs to be addressed and the impact needs to be
acknowledged.
31. Zoning compliance -Section 195-9. The applicant did not address item B of this
section and the DEIS incorrectly states "blinking or flashing lights" are a prohibited
use. The Zoning states "blinking or flashing signs" are a prohibited use.
32. Page 3-52 states a variance will be required for a nwnber of buildings/ facilities. We
believe the applicant does not need a variance for the water storage tank as it is listed
I
PB1-32
PB133
as an exemption in 195-l!B. The Planning Board should verify this with Mr.
Bavoso. There should be some clarification regarding the buildings which will
require a variance. The building references should be consistent with the descriptions
on page 2-5. The applicant has not indicated there is a need for a variance for the
stean:i generation building which is no.ted .to be 102 feet high on page 2-5.
33. We defer to Allegiance Resources to provide guidance on compliance with I PB1-34
195-19C & D.
34. We direct the Planning Board's attention to 195-19Hwhich states "No emission of
fly ash, dust:, fumes, vapors, gases or other forms of air pollution shall be permitted PB1-35
on a regular or continuing basis which can cause any damage to health, animals,
vegetatio.a, orotberfoDJJSofpropertyorwhich can cause any excessive soiling"
[emphasis added). The DEIS states that the project will be in compliance with all
applicable federal and state air standards. We defer to Allegiance Resources for their
verification however; we note that compliance with standards does not always mean
there will be no impact. No doubt your Zoning has set a very high standard in
regards to air pollution. If this project cannot achieve this standard (e.g the DEIS
states project can emit 95 tons/year of PM 2.5), then the Planning Board should
.. '
W:iw2yanda Plarming llou:d P.g< 7 4/22/09
work with Allegiance to identify additional mitigation strategies (.if appropriate) to

ensure all impacts have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
35. Page 3-56. In the discussion of compliance with 195-19K, the DEIS does not
disclose there are un-mit:igatable impacts as noted in Section 5.0. There should be
consistency between the two sections along with comments from George Jan es on
PB1-35
(cont'd)
PB136
visual should also considered in the FEIS.

36. Page 3-63 to 3-64. The discussion of compliance with the City of Middletown Code PB1 -37
389-29 does not offer any evidence to support the conclusion. If this evidence is
supplied in another section, then it should be appropriately referenced here. If not,
additional information needs to be provided.
37. The FEIS should explain whether the release of "slug discharge" is a possibility as a PB1-38
result of this project. If it is, then additional information such as frequency and
estimated amounts should be provided. If it is not, then it should be stated.
38. Page 3-65 offers several scenarios (cases) fur w.astewater discharge. We defer to PB1-39A
Allegiance Resources to determine if the analysis provided is appropriate. We note
the pH of the discharge appears to be relative close the upper threshold number
noted in 389-29.
Please note the text in the last paragraph refers to "Item B", but item Bis not
articulated in the DEIS.
I PB1-39B
I PB1-40
39. Does CPV have a letter from the City of MidcDetown Superintendent which concurs
with the evaluations made in the DEIS?
40. 389-53 indicates there are discharge limits for certain pollutants however the DEIS
does not include the list or the limits but simple states there will be compliance.
IPB1-41
There needs to be evidence to support this statement.

41. Section 3.5.2.3 is likely to need revision once the items noted above have been
addressed. We believe additional mitigation measures related to air quality may need
IPB1-42
to be considered.
42. The conclusion for Section 3.4 (pg. 3-68) should not appear after Section 3.5. 'This
needs -to be a correction.
IPB1-43
Section 4.0 - Cultural Resowces
43. The DEIS states additional fieldwork was necessary to satisfy the NYS Office of
Parks, Recreation arid Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The Planning Board cannot
PB1-44
reach a finding on cultural resources until OPRHP requirements have been satisfied
and a determination of sigruficance issued.
44. The DEIS states CPV has requested recommendations from OPRHP regarding the
Cooley Cemetery. Any recommendations made by OPRHP should be incorporated IPB1-45
into the FEIS.
45. Page 4-16. In the discussion of noise as it relates to the Pine Hill Cemetery, the text PB1-46
indicates there will be some noticeable noise from construction. The text describes
the impacts as "relatively short in duration''. 'This needs to be explained more fully by
, . . -.. '
W11w:i.yanda Planning Bo:a:rd J>ogc 3 4/22/09
indicating what is meant by the phrase and more fully describing what type of noise
can be eapected.
Section 5.0- VisualResowces and Aesthetics
46. Comments are being provided by Geotge Janes and Associates in separate
PB1-46
(cont'd)
memorandum.
Section 6.0- Community Facilities
47. Comments related to community facilities are being provided by the Hudson Group
in a separate memorandum.
IPB1-47
Section 7.0 - Socioeconomics and EnvironmentaIJnstice
48. Comments on socioeconomics are being provided by the Hudson Group in a PB1-48
separate memorandwn.
49. It is our understanding comments are environmental justice are being provided by PB1-49
Allegiance Resources.
Section 8.0 -T r:iffic and T r.msponation
50. It is our understanding Pat Hines is providing comments on this section. PB150
Section 9.0-Air Quality
51. It is our understanding Allegiance Resources is providing comments on this section. PB151
Section 10.0- Noise

Section 11.0 - Geology, Seismology and Soils
53. GREENPLAN is providing comments on soils only- These comments will be PB153
forthcoming once the ecological studies h'1ve been provided by the applicant.
Section 12.0 - Infmstrocture
54. It is our understanding Pat Hines is providing comments on this section. PB154
Section 13.0 - Water Resowces
55. These comments will be forthcoming once the ecological studies have been provided
by the applicant
Section 14.0 - Ecology
56. These comments will be forthcoming once the ecological studies have been provided
by the applicant.
I PB1 .55
Section 15.0 - Construction ImpaclS
57. It is our understanding Pat Hines is pro'i'iding comments on this section. I PB1-56
Section 16.0- Community Character
58. Community character is the dist:ingu.isftiog physical and social qualities of the town,
PB157
region or neighborhood These qualities are what make a community a desirable or
undesirable place to live, wock or visit Community character is influenced by many

w,,w,,yanda Planning Baud 4/22/09
things including land use plans and regulations and even surrounding areas. For
example, the City of Middletown is likely to have a broader range of socioeconomic
classes and mix of land uses than Wawayanda It is considerably more ucban whereas
Wawayanda is more suburban and nmtl. These examples are offered to assist the
Planning Board in thinking about the distinguishing qualities of your town. The
PB1-57
(cont'd)
Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan speaks of the residents desire to maintain the
scenic quality and rural character of the Town, to protect natural resources and notes
the "existing character of the Town's hamlets, scenic roads, and agricultural features
should be preserved through the development and application of design guidelines".
It is clear from the Comprehensive Pl:an that character of the community is an
important issue.
59. Overtime, the character ofa community may change. For example, many PB1-58
communities in the Hudson Valley were once primarily agricultural and now they are
more suburban. This is noted in your plan where it states "As growth from the New
York City metropolitan area expanded from Westchester, Bergen and Nassau
Counties to Orange, Putnam and Dutchess counties, communities such as
Wawayanda began to experience a change in character as development increased.
However, agricultural and vacant or environmentally constrained lands remain
prominent land uses in Town, while development oflow-density single-family
residential uses continue." The question is not whether community character will
change but rather wiU the change introduced by this proposed action be inconsistent
with existing character. Community character cannot be justifies by stating the use is
a permitted or special permitted use in a Zoning district. Your adopted Plan

questions this MI district and its relationsrup to the Town's vision. Does that mean
any development proposal in the MI district or on this paaicular site will be
inconsistent with existing character? No, probably not but ultimately the infurmation
in the FEIS and the finding on community character is a decision of the Planning
Board.
60. It is appropriate to look at a community's adopted land use plans when evaluating PB1-59
community character. In fact, the Town's adopted Comprehensive Plan is mentioned
and briefly discussed, however the DEIS falls short of capturing the town's character
as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan notes it was "developed with the
intent of achieving a balance between hamlet, suburban and rural perspectives and a
balance between new growth. and protecting the existing quality oflife". The plan
includes a vision statement and fuur themes designed to achieve the balance noted in
the previous sentence. This section needs more detail from the Plan in order to have
a better understanding of the how the residents of Wawayanda perceive the
community character now and in the future. 1be FEIS should include the vision
statement and more details about the four major themes.
61. Page 16-2 mentions the project site is located within a proposed Mixed Commercial PB1-60
Zone recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. As noted in a previous comment
related to the Land Use section, additional recommendations include a
reexamination all of the Zoning Districts and in particular, points out that certain
uses in the MI are vague or not in line with the Town's vision. There should be an
explanation as to how tlUs use is consistent or not consistent with the Town's vision.
.... . ~ .
Wa:wayanda P&nning Doud p'!l" 10 4/22/09
62. All data in thls section points to an attractive community with a high quality oflife
which people axe seeking out to pur:chase homes and make Wawayanda their place of
residence. Does this project, due its massive scale, location, noise and air quality
impacts, have the potential to alter the character of the community so that people no
longer seek it as a primary residence? If the additional studies requested by the
PB1 -61
Hudson Group and members of the public in fuct show devaluation in property
values, does this project then alter the socio-economics of the community?
63. In section 16.7 -Impacts to Community Character, the DEIS states "The siting of PB1-62
the project allows economic development without threatening the goals of the other
themes in the Town's Comprehensive Plan." As noted earlier in this memorandum
on the Land Use section, there was not enough information provided from the Plan
on the themes and goals in the DEIS or an evaluation of consistency from which
you can draw thls conclusion.
Section 17.0- Cumulative lmpacts
64. Section 17.2 discusses cumulative socio economic and fiscal impacts. We note the PB1-63
Hudson Group has provided which call for additional analyses which may require
some changes to this section, however, this is not known at this time.
65. Section 17.2 ends with a conclusion that states "In summary, from a cumulative PB164
socio-economic standpoint, the large revenues related to the CPV Valley Energy
Center will provide much needed revenue for the Town and will help offset the
additional costs for municipal services that will result from the other proposed
projects". Without additional information on the PU.OT or the costs associated with
the other projects, it is not possible to evaluate the merit of this claim.
Section 18.0 - Other Environmental Impacts
66. Section 18.3.1 incorrectly states the intent of the MI district. According to the PB165
Schedule of Zoning District Regulations for the MI district, "1bis district is intended
to provide areas for -,.arious industrial and manufacturing enterprises within well-
planned complexes on parcels with good access to the regional transportation
system, where tbey can be free ofpotentially incompatible land use$' [emphasis
added]. 1bis last phrase was omitted from the DEIS and in its place is the phrase
"which allows electric genecating &dlities by special permit". This is also incorrect
The list of special uses does not include electric generating facilities. 1bis proposed
use has been described as "other industrial" in other sections of the DEIS.
67. Section 18.4.4 states that development of the facility is consistent with the goals of PB1-66
the Town of Wawayanda. Please see our earlier comments on Section 3.0 -Land
Use. 1bis statement may need to be revised once additional analysis is provided in
the FEIS. Further, the reference to "expressly allows electric generating facilities by
special permit" needs to be corrected as oared in the previous item.
68. It is our understanding Section 18.7 is being reviewed by Allegiance Resources. PB1-67
Section 19.0 -Alternatives
Waway~ Planning Boan:! Page11 4/'22/09
Cc: Bill Bavoso, Esq.

Dave Cole, Wawayanda Town Board
Stephen Fleishackec, PE
Pat Hines, McGoey, Hauser and Edsall
Mathy Stanislaus, Esq.

Dr. Howarth Testimony On CPV 'Wawayanda 6' Trial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr. Howarth Testimony On CPV 'Wawayanda 6' Trial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXHIBIT A

Percoco Criminal Indictment

Wawayanda Town Planning Board

6 Wednesday -- 6:00 p.m.

18 COMPETITIVE POWER VENTURES INC.

22 NEIL BOSTOCK, RPR-CM

1 MADAM CHAIRPERSON: If we are ready, as everyone

2 knows, we do have a stenographer here tonight, provided by

3 the applicant, and he asked that we each go round the

4 table and state our names so he can make some attempt to

5 keep everything straight. And the other thing I would ask

6 is that if people could just speak one at a time. He

7 can't take notes from two people speaking at the same

9 (Appearances given, as noted in caption)

10 CHAIRWOMAN YATES: Okay, at this point the

11 applicant had asked to speak, so go ahead.

12 MR. REMILLARD: Steve Remillard, Competitive

13 Power Ventures. What I wanted to do was hopefully have an

14 opportunity to address the board tonight, and the last

15 time we met we had a lot dialogue about the SEQR process.

16 There was a discussion of a supplemental DEIS and public

17 comment period. So I was hoping tonight I'd have an

18 opportunity to talk to the board, and also I brought a

19 colleague of mine, Rich Cogen, from Nixon Peabody, who is

20 very familiar with the SEQR process, and hopefully Rich

21 could sort of outline the process, and from that basis

22 maybe we could look at a process where we could move

23 forward on the project and the review, and the comments,

24 and how we take a step forward in addressing those

1 I know from our last meeting public review and

2 comment was a concern, was a very sensitive topic. Rich

3 can also talk about where in the SEQR process there is

4 public review and comment.

5 So Rich, if you could just take a few moments

6 and talk a bit about the SEQR process, and give a

8 MR. COGEN: Sure, Steve. Thanks. Good evening,

9 everyone. I'm Rich Cogen from Nixon Peabody. I want to

10 say a few words about the process, and what is

11 contemplated in the regulations. I think you all know

12 that once a Draft EIS is accepted, there is a required

13 public comment period, and a public hearing is optional.

14 The minimum required public comment period under SEQR is

15 30 days. And under the statute and the regulations, all

16 that's required by way of public comment is that thirty

17 day period. After that comment period ends what is

18 contemplated is that a final EIS would be prepared,

20 the -- or not accepted -- but if it is accepted by the

21 lead agency, the other thing that's required under the

22 regulations is that there be a minimum ten day period for

23 public consideration of the final EIS, before the lead

24 agency issues its SEQR findings, or makes its final

25 decision. And that ten day period is for consideration.

1 It's not a formal comment period. But it's intended so

2 that if members of the public are interested, they can

5 its SEQR findings. And that's all that's required under

6 the regulations and the statute for conducting the public

7 participation part of the process.

8 There are also some, I'll call them constraints

9 built into the process, sort of the length of the process,

10 and the steps. One constraint is that the regulations

11 require that a final EIS be accepted within the later of

12 45 days after the close of the public hearing, or 60 days

13 after acceptance of the Draft EIS. The other constraint