Issues Conference Timetable - To be announced Crossroads Ventures’ proposed Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park Vital Statistics at a Glance* Crossroads’ landholdings for this project 1,960 Acres Project site / development area 573 acres New Impervious Surfaces (roofs, parking lots, roads) 85 acres Earth-moving required, total Cut and Fill Volume 813,000 cu. yards Earth-moving required, in large 15-cu. yard dumptrucks  54,200 truckloads New Construction square footage 1,547,325 + sq.ft (for comparison, this is 7.5 times the square footage of the entire Walmart complex in Kingston NY- 205,394 sq.ft)    Parking spaces  (Assumes only 1 space for each of 372 multibedroom units & private homes. Final number should approximate 2,340 cars) 1,596 cars Construction Period:                         8 years Estimated Construction Cost:                   $300,000,000 Key Facilities, exclusive of supporting Infrastructure facilities Hotel Rooms:                              400 2,3, & 4 bedroom Housing Units and private homes (21)          372 Total bedrooms in 2,3, &4 Bedroom Housing Units             832 Total Housing & Lodging Units                & private homes 772 Total Hotel Rooms, bedrooms,                & private homes 1,253 Golf Courses                             2, 18 holes each plus 2 driving ranges Clubhousesw/Pro Shops                 2 Spas                                     2, with 15 treatment rooms each Pools                                    3, plus 2 lap pools Tennis Courts                             6 Resort Stores                              10 On-site restaurants & food                   10 Service Facilities Total on-site seating, restaurant & food service facilities 1,080 people Additional Banquet / Ballroom facilities .... 3, with total seating for 900 people Meeting Rooms                            12 Chapel                                  250 seats Builder/ Owner/Operator:                                1.Unnamed “national high-end  418 housing & lodging units plus facilities resort operator”, (i.e. Marriot, Hyatt, etc) 2. Crossroads Ventures,LLC.   354 housing & lodging units plus facilities                                                 Developers strike back at resort foes By Jesse J. Smith , Kingston Freeman staff 08/08/2004 HIGHMOUNT - For the second time in recent weeks, developers of a proposed golf resort adjacent to the Belleayre Ski Center have accused opponents of the project of "attacking" the state-run facility as part of their efforts to cast doubt on claims made by the developers in an environmental impact statement currently under review by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. At a DEC-run "issues conference" held to determine whether aspects of the draft environmental impact statement prepared by developers require further scrutiny, resort opponents of the Catskill Preservation Coalition introduced expert testimony which claimed that the combined impact of snowmaking at the ski center, and water use at the proposed Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park could over-stress the local aquifer and result in water shortages in nearby Pine Hill. In a press release, developers Crossroads Ventures L.L.C. characterized the testimony as an attack on the ski center which enjoys strong support both regionally and downstate where many of the center's 170,000 annual visitors hail from. Earlier efforts by Preservation Coalition to gain access to DEC plans for expanding the ski center in order to assess how they might combine with the resort to impact traffic and soil erosion touched off a July 4 confrontation atop Belleayre Mountain between ski center advocates and a group opposed to the resort. Following the July 4 fracas, at which members of the Coalition to Save Belleayre usurped a rally by resort opponents, the Catskill Preservation Coalition issued a statement of unqualified support for the ski center expansion. Catskill Preservation Coalition attorney Mark Gerstman dismissed claims by Crossroads managing partner Dean Gitter that the Coalition's actions threatened the ski center. "This is Dean Gitter pounding the table as the facts are stacking up against him," said Gerstman. According to Gerstman, the Coalition's sole purpose in bringing the ski center into the water supply issue is to show that the developers' analysis of aquifer impact is flawed because it does not take into account plans for an expansion of the ski center. Gerstman added that the coalition was concerned about possible negative impacts of the resort on the ski center. "It is no surprise, under the circumstances that the project sponsor would try to use polarizing tactics to paint us into a position we have not taken," said Gerstman. "If (the resort plan) gets through the process based on bad science, you could have a situation resulting which precludes the expansion of Belleayre. We do not want that to happen." Gitter claims that the CPC's efforts to examine the ski center's expansion as part of the State Environmental Quality Review process for his resort are a delaying tactic intended to force crossroads to spend more time and money on the project. Gitter added that, despite their expressions of support, drawing the ski center into the debate over the resort could endanger future expansion of the facility. "It's like the guy who says, 'I love my wife. I was just trying to give her a haircut and I accidentally cut her jugular." Joe Kelley, head of the Coalition to Save Belleayre said that the CPC was playing a dangerous game by bringing the ski center into the debate over the resort. "I think they are willing to use (the ski center) to achieve their goals," said Kelly whose group has, thus far, remained neutral on the resort issue. "We don't want to see Belleayre used as a hostage or a pawn."Kelley said that scrutiny of the center's expansion plans at the ongoing SEQRA proceedings could cause DEC to back off on improvements to the site which currently has 17 miles of trails and a constitutional mandate to build out to 25 miles. "Anytime a state agency is put on the spot, there is a tendency to draw back," said Kelley. "There has to be care taken that DEC is not discouraged from continuing the great job they have done (at the ski center) over the last five or six years." Foes of Catskills resort plan seek more hearings Colonie -- $240 million project that includes 2 hotels, golf courses still needs state permits   By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer August 5, 2004 Albany Times Union After more than two months of on-again, off-again meetings, the state is expected to soon wrap up discussion on whether a plan to build two upscale hotels and golf courses in the western Catskill Mountains should be awarded permits. But critics say testimony shouldn't end there. Representatives from three environmental groups who have testified against the project hope to convince the state Department of Environmental Conservation to require further hearings -- specifically, a courtlike adjudicatory conference for 10 different issues relating to the project. On Wednesday, opponents Tom Alworth, executive director of The Catskill Center for Conservation and Development Inc.; Eric Goldstein, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Marc Gerstman, an Albany attorney who represents the Catskill Preservation Coalition, met with the Times Union editorial board. The critics "strongly believe the project is the wrong scale and in the wrong place," Alworth said of the proposed $240 million Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park. The project itself is the dream of Dean Gitter, a 68-year-old developer who lives in the mountains. He conceived it five years ago as a way to bring more jobs and tax dollars to the region. The resort would include a five-star hotel with a flat roof covered by grass, built into the side of a mountain. A separate four-star hotel would be built a short distance away. Each would be surrounded by a world-class golf course. The project, to be built mostly on undeveloped forest land in the towns of Middletown and Shandaken in Delaware and Ulster counties, would surround the state-owned Belleayre Mountain Ski Center. The critics voice several concerns: that the resort could hurt local views, contaminate nearby drinking water reservoirs, cause Route 28 to get overdeveloped with shops and traffic, change the character of local communities, cause groundwater to drop due to overpumping, and hurt wildlife, fish and flora. Critics also say Gitter and his partners, operating Crossroads Ventures LLC, failed to provide possible alternatives to the proposal, such as building smaller hotels or just one hotel. They also say they are not opposed to development in the Catskills. "There is room in the Catskills for smart growth," said the Natural Resources Defense Council's Goldstein. "It's our view that this project is not an example of it." Daniel Ruzow, a lawyer for Crossroads Ventures, said there has been enough discussion during the state-required issues conference to address every question. "The facts have all been set out," said Ruzow, a partner at the Albany law firm Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP. Ruzow disputed the critics' concerns, saying there is no alternative to the hotels' 400 rooms because anything smaller would not be economically viable. And building luxury homes instead of the hotels would not bring the same benefits in jobs and tax dollars to the region, he said. Ruzow also said that 72-hour groundwater tests showed no impact on wells, and the critics' demand for a longer test could cost $1 million or more. At the end of the issues conference -- expected later this month -- the presiding administrative law judge will make a recommendation to DEC Commissioner Erin Crotty on whether more hearings are needed. After that process, the judge will recommend to Crotty whether to offer permits to Crossroads. Crotty will make the final decision. The project also will need permits from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the city's drinking water reservoirs in the Catskills. The DEP is opposed to the project. Water, land on the line Dean Gitter has a grand plan for Catskill Park, and critics from the mountains to New York City   By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer First published: Sunday, June 20, 2004 MARGARETVILLE -- The meeting driving local developer Dean Gitter crazy is quietly taking place on the third floor of the Margaretville firehouse in Delaware County. It's not a place for casual spectators. The state Department of Environmental Conservation's "issues conference" is slow and tedious, and runs until the end of the month. The people involved -- lawyers, environmentalists, government types -- sit at little round tables, like those usually found in sports bars, except here they are stacked high with binders, files, laptop computers and bottles of water (the third floor of the firehouse is not air-conditioned). Neckties are optional. On a recent sweltering afternoon, even the state administrative law judge has his button-down shirt open at the collar. But there is a court reporter, along with two people videotaping everything. Under discussion at this meeting is Gitter's dream: Belleayre Resort at Catskill Park, a $240 million hilltop vacation mecca. There are many issues here, but all boil down to one thing: Should the state issue Gitter and friends a permit to build the behemoth resort? More to the point: Will Belleayre Resort help or hurt the Catskill Mountains? Some say the proposed project -- two high-priced hilltop hotels, each surrounded by an 18-hole golf course and private time shares -- could give a much-needed boost to this forgotten corner of the mountains. Jobs in this area are scarce. Most local officials support the project. But Belleayre Resort has many critics, who have raised many concerns. Will cars crowd Route 28, causing the necessary widening of one of the state's most scenic roads? Could sparse groundwater be used up? Could the soaring views of the western Catskill Mountains be forever scarred? Could runoff pollute New York City's drinking water reservoirs, several of which are located nearby, and force the city to build a $6 billion filtration plant? And where would all the employees -- the resort owners would hire the equivalent of 750 full-time positions -- live in this area of scarce and expensive housing? The project was proposed in 1999 by Gitter and his company, Crossroads Ventures LLC. Since then, Gitter and four fellow investors have spent millions of dollars applying for permits, hiring experts, holding hearings and answering questions. Gitter once hoped to see the resort completed by now, but he's still years away from putting shovel to earth. And the longer he waits, the more the bills pile up. Which is why he's so angry. "We're not a nuclear power plant, we're not a paper plant, we're not a chemical plant, we're not strip-mining," says Gitter, 68. "We're trying to build a hotel and some golf courses in the middle of what has been a tourism and recreation area for the better part of 200 years." To understand the root of Gitter's scorn, you must understand the layers of government review he must wade through before he wins permission to build. Because the resort would be built inside the Catskill Park and Forest Preserve, Gitter needs three permits from the DEC. He also needs two permits from New York City over the drinking water issue, along with permits from local governments. In early June, after what Gitter says was the longest public comment period in state history (more than 150 days), the monthlong issues conference began. Over the next few weeks, Administrative Law Judge Richard Wissler will listen to testimony from environmental experts, economic experts, groundwater experts, wildlife experts and residents. When the hearing ends, Wissler may decide some issues need to be discussed further at a second hearing. Eventually, he will write a recommendation to DEC Commissioner Erin Crotty, who will make the final decision. Even with the DEC permits in hand, Gitter would still need to get two permits from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, guardian of the water supply. The DEP has promised he'll never get even one. "Years and years and layers and layers of bureaucratic minutia," grumbles Gitter, "for a project that has the promise of raising the economic fate of an entire region." Gitter is a Catskill Mountain Renaissance man. Years ago, he was an actor and record producer, and he claims to have discovered the folk-singer Odetta in the late 1950s. He also is a Harvard Business School graduate who made his fortune in Boston real estate and at what he described as a Fortune 500 "problem-solving" consulting firm, Synectics Co. In 1970, he moved to the Catskills to follow his spiritual guru, Swami Rudrananda, who had an ashram there and wanted Gitter to manage it. Gitter is a big man with big ambition, not to mention a short fuse. He doesn't like to be interrupted when telling a story. And he doesn't set foot inside the firehouse issues conference. Because of his temper, his lawyers have banned him from going. It's easy to understand why. "Consider the stupidity of the process we're about to engage," he says at one point. "The issues being raised are so arcane, so picayune, as to bore even the opponents to death." In 1996, Gitter built Catskill Corners in Mount Tremper, Ulster County, for $17 million. Down the road from Belleayre, Catskill Corners has two upscale inns and a pricey retail complex. Also here is the world's largest kaleidoscope, made from an Amish-built barn silo and some very tall mirrors. The inspiration for the Ulster County project began four years earlier, when Gitter was appointed to a local committee trying to improve the economy. Then, as now, the region's sole attraction was the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center, a state-operated resort that draws visitors three to four months a year. The committee concluded that the region needed a year-round resort. Moreover, three state-sponsored studies -- in 1963, 1986 and 1998 -- encouraged the same thing, Gitter says. So Gitter conceived of an even bigger gold mine. Within a 100-mile radius of Belleayre are 23 million people, 1.2 million of whom, he says, have annual incomes greater than $100,000. Many are looking for luxury getaways. And, presumably, many of them are duffers. Crossroads Ventures bought up 27 properties on 1,957 acres for about $10 million. The site is at the border of Ulster and Delaware counties, about 90 minutes southwest of Albany off Route 28. The forested hilltop is home now only to hunting cabins, accessible by what feels like, in the back seat of a four-wheel-drive vehicle, the roughest road in the world. Looking at these woods, thick with underbrush and buzzing insects, it's hard to imagine what Gitter has conceived. On one side of the ski area would be Big Indian Resort and Spa, a five-star vacation club centered around a hotel contoured to the mountain. Designed by famed architect Emilio Ambasz, the resort would have underground parking and a flat roof of low plants and ferns to blend in with the surrounding woods. Wildacres Resort, a three- to four-star hotel, would be run by a national resort operator. With its soaring gables, dozens of chimneys and dormer windows, it would look like a Victorian dream house. Each resort would be surrounded by an 18-hole golf course, both of which would be designed by the world-famous Davis Love III. Added would be time shares -- single-family-style houses at Big Indian, town houses at Wildacres. Gitter says the project was created with the environment in mind. No structure would be more than 35 feet high. Little of the resort would be visible from the valley floor. Sewage would be treated at an on-site plant -- since the New York City DEP refused to let Crossroads tap into its underused, $40 million sewage treatment plant at the bottom of the hill. Recaptured rainwater and processed sewer effluent would be used to water the golf courses. The paperwork discussing the project and all of its impacts amounted to 7,543 pages -- 15, 5-inch binders' worth, Gitter says. But, critics say, it's not enough. "All that glitters isn't gold," quips Eric Goldstein, urban program co-director at the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York City. "This project is the most troublesome development proposal in the more than 1 million acres of New York City watershed land," he says. "It represents a significant threat, both to preserving the rural character of the Catskills and the downstate drinking water supply." The list of critics is a veritable who's who of downstate environmental groups. Besides the council, there's Riverkeeper (Robert Kennedy's Hudson River watchdog), the New York Public Interest Research Group, Trout Unlimited, and two groups created solely to opposed this project: Catskill Heritage Alliance and Friends of Catskill Park. Critics say Gitter's figures are inaccurate, his assumptions too optimistic -- everything from the number of cars estimated to use Route 28 when the hotels open to how much soil would be washed off the construction site and into the reservoirs during the three-plus years it would take to build the hotels and golf courses. "We realize the need for more hotel beds. We realize the need for the economy to be vibrant," says Tom Alworth, executive director of the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development in Arkville. "But we think this project's scale has real problems with it." Then there's the DEP. The city's environmental agency maintains a half-dozen huge reservoirs nearby, which supply water to 9 million city residents. In a 65-page response to Belleayre Resort, the agency disputes dozens of facts that support Gitter's proposal. "This isn't a philosophical difference," says DEP Commissioner Christopher Ward. "This is a water-quality and scientific difference, and we need to get the answers." So strong is the opposition to the project that its threat has managed to do what once seemed impossible: unite locals and the DEP. New York City, after all, drowned dozens of small communities between the early 1900s and the 1960s by creating its reservoirs. Generations later, many in the Catskills still haven't forgiven this. But now, many are glad to have the city on their side. Gitter says the environmentalists are trying to put him out of business by coming up with arcane concerns, which Crossroads would then be obliged to address. In 2000, he says, a resident testified at a public hearing that, while hiking 14 miles from the site proposed for the resort a year earlier, he might have heard a purple thrush. The man said some ornithologists believe the purple thrush could be related to the Bicknell's thrush, an endangered species. (Actually, the DEC lists it not as endangered or threatened but under "special concern," according to the agency's Web site.) "Do you know what it cost me to establish that Bicknell's thrush has not been seen in the Catskills for decades, and has never, ever, anywhere been seen below 3,200 feet?" Gitter says. For the record: $10,000. "I had to put two Ph.D. ornithologists in a tent on the mountain for a week to ensure that no Bicknell's thrushes have snuck in," he said. Not just environmentalists are worried about the project. Below the sites are the hamlets of Fleishmanns and Pine Hill. These are tiny communities, home to residents who see Route 28's backwater charm not as a problem to be solved but as a treasure to be kept. "I don't think it's going to benefit the local area," says Elizabeth Landes, a homeowner who was horrified by the anger and abuse she says she saw at the local public hearings on Belleayre Resort. "I didn't move to Pine Hill so I could go through all this." Opponents say they don't think Gitter has a chance of getting his project built. Some advocate full rejection; others want a scaled-back project -- smaller hotels, perhaps one golf course instead of two. No way, Gitter says. He still thinks he's going to win his permits, and has no plans to give up. "I have an obligation to the people who live in this region. I have an obligation to the people of the Catskills who have been here for generations," he says. "And I'm basically a stubborn person."

---

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
COMMENTS OF THE NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED INSPECTOR GENERAL
ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND
ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS WITH RESPECT TO
THE PROPOSED "BELLEAYRE RESORT AT CATSKILL PARK."
New York State DEC Application No. 3-9903-00059/00001
April 23, 2004
We appreciate this opportunity to submit comments to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") concerning the draft environmental impact statement ("DEIS") with respect to the Belleayre Resort at the Catskill Park (the "Project"). The position of New York City Watershed Inspector General is a joint appointment of the Governor and the Attorney General within the Attorney General's Office that was established pursuant to the 1997 New York City Memorandum of Agreement.
These technical comments present our concerns with respect to the adequacy and scope of the DEIS as it relates to adverse impacts on water quality. These comments focus on: (i) natural conditions related to water quality such as soil characteristics, rainfall intensity and construction slopes; (ii) the technical adequacy of the program to limit contaminants in runoff both during and after Project construction; (iii) the sufficiency of the assessment of secondary and cumulative growth inducing impacts of the Project; (iv) wetland destruction; and (v) the adequacy of the integrated pest management program that will govern the use and monitoring of pesticides and herbicides.
As explained below, there are significant deficiencies with the DEIS and related documents. We request that there be another opportunity for public comment on the revised DEIS and other documents.
I.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN ITS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT WITH RESPECT TO WATER QUALITY.
The proposed Project is located within both the Catskill and Delaware water supply "systems" of the New York City Watershed ("Watershed"). This portion of the Watershed serves as an unfiltered drinking water source for over 9 million people. The only treatment this water receives from reservoir to tap is disinfection through chlorination. The Project is also situated within the Catskill Park. No portion of the proposed Project is planned to be located within an existing village or hamlet area.
The proposed Project consists of two complexes on mountain ridges and sides that straddle both shoulders of the State-owned Belleayre Ski Center. It would involve 400 hotel rooms, a conference center, 351 additional hotel/condo units and two 18-hole championship golf courses, on 573 disturbed acres. A total of 130 new buildings would be constructed. Full-time employment is estimated by the developer at 542 individuals; part-time employment is estimated at 330. The Project is located in the Towns of Shandaken, Ulster County and Middletown, Delaware County.
The portion of the Project site in Ulster County is generally drained by tributaries of the Esopus Creek, the major source of water flowing into the Ashokan Reservoir. The Project area within Delaware County generally is drained by tributaries of the East Branch of the Delaware River, the major water supply for the Pepacton Reservoir. Both the Ashokan and the Pepacton are classified by DEC as "AA" surface waters. Thus, by virtue of DEC regulation, these water bodies are required to be maintained at a quality that allows each to serve as an unfiltered drinking water source.
The Ashokan and the Pepacton reservoirs are particularly important reservoirs within the Watershed, as the waters of the two other large reservoirs of the Catskill and Delaware systems, the Cannonsville and the Schoharie, are often subject to significant environmental impairments. The Cannonsville Reservoir is affected by algae blooms and eutrophic conditions due to excess phosphorus. The Schoharie Reservoir is adversely affected by high levels of turbidity and suspended solids. Therefore, two of the key water pollutants of concern when reviewing new projects in the Watershed are phosphorus and suspended sediment (also referred to as turbidity). In addition, the Ashokan Reservoir itself exhibits high turbidity at times. For example, during most of the week of March 15, 2004, the Catskill system of the Watershed (which is comprised of the Schoharie and Ashokan Reservoirs) was in a "turbidity alert," with increasingly turbid waters flowing from the Ashokan Reservoir into the Kensico Reservoir and then into the water distribution system. Turbidity levels in water leaving the Ashokan Reservoir had reached 4.07 NTU's as of March 17, 2004. A review of records shows that there were at least eight other Catskill system turbidity events since 1996 * some of which lasted many days and even months. DEC has formally listed the Ashokan as "impaired" due to high silt and sediment levels on its 2004 list of impaired water bodies pursuant to § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Developments such as the Project can affect water quality through construction-related impacts as well as through increased runoff caused by increased impervious surfaces. As discussed below, the Project, particularly given the relevant environmental characteristics of the site, appears to present significant water quality concerns that are not addressed in the DEIS.
The portion of the proposed Project that is located within the "Catskill" portion of the Watershed would appear to raise more significant concerns with respect to drinking water quality. The Schoharie Reservoir, one of two reservoirs within the Catskill system, is already severely impaired, even though the Schoharie basin is not highly developed. The Esopus Creek, which drains the eastern portion of the Project site, has also been formally recognized as impaired on the State's Clean Water Act § 303(d) list due to excess silt and sediment. The Ashokan Reservoir basin is only approximately 257 square miles in size. While the water quality of the Pepacton Reservoir may recover by flowing through a series of other reservoirs before entering the water distribution system, the Ashokan Reservoir is a terminal reservoir so that water can be and is drawn directly from that reservoir into the water distribution system. Even during normal operations, the settling time available to Ashokan waters in the Kensico Reservoir is generally far shorter (approximately 30 days) than those available for Pepacton waters. Moreover, due to its relative proximity to population centers in the southeastern portion of New York State, it is also likely that the Ashokan Reservoir basin will be subject to the highest development pressure over the long-term.

II.
SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF SOILS FOR EROSION, PERCOLATION, SLOPES AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS AT THE PROJECT SITE.
A. Overview of Soils Analysis
We have undertaken a detailed assessment of the soil and slope characteristics of the Project site, and reviewed the soil and slope conditions that are found generally in the Catskill portion of the New York City Watershed. This information was obtained from the Project sponsor, City DEP, and the various County Soil and Water Conservation Districts that operate within the Watershed. Geographical Information System ("GIS") mapping was employed to assess the actual acreage of various soil types and slope conditions as they relate to specific areas of construction disturbance. This analysis employed the soil use ratings of the United States Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service.
This information, which was not contained in the DEIS, is of critical importance to designing effective engineering controls on polluted runoff and developing appropriate conditions for the SPDES individual stormwater construction permit. It also supports the recommendation (see Part III of these comments) that upward departures from the 5-acre State-wide limit on "raw earth" construction excavations be allowed only after careful evaluation. Further evaluation may also demonstrate that certain areas slated for construction may require reductions below the 5-acre standard. The detailed tables summarizing this assessment are presented as Exhibit 3. The tables are explained below. The background on soils and slopes in the Catskill portion of the Watershed (Table 9 of Exhibit 3) is useful for assessing potential risks associated with secondary or cumulative growth from the Project (see Part IV of these comments).
Many of the soil types located on the Project site have characteristics (high erosivity, clay or colloidal-type particles, low percolation rates, etc.) that can present significant erosion and water quality concerns. Slopes are often steep (15% and above) to very steep (35% and above). The project is in the highest rainfall region in the state. Precipitation for the one-year storm event is 3.5 inches, the two-year storm event is 4 inches, the ten-year storm event is 6 inches, the hundred-year storm event is 8 inches and average annual rainfall is 47.1 inches according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The project site is characterized by a combination of intense rain fall/snow melt events, low soil percolation, high soil erosivity, and colloidal soil particles that can remain suspended for many months and steep slopes, all of which create significant challenges with respect to the protection of water quality.
This soils analysis demonstrates that some of the areas of the Project site that are proposed for construction disturbance pose a very significant risk. Over 230 acres of the project will involve construction on slopes at or in excess of 15% with soils that are classified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as being severely restricted for such use. Moreover, some 157 acres of the Project site will be constructed on slopes at or in excess of 35% with severely restricted soils. Hydrologic soils group C and D soils are the only soils groups found on the entire project site. These soils have very low percolation rates, a factor that tends to significantly increase volumes of stormwater runoff. Many of the soils found on slopes below 15% also present severe erosion potentials. In addition, over 52% of the entire Catskill portion of the Watershed is characterized by slopes at or in excess of 15% with soils that are classified as severely limited. (Table 9 of Exhibit 3).
B. Geology
The Project site is in an area that is strongly influenced by the activities of glaciers that covered the area during the most recent ice advance 16,000 years ago. Both depositional and erosional features resulting from the glaciers are found throughout the area. Although bedrock can be found close to the surface in the higher elevations, significant thicknesses of unconsolidated deposits are also found in the vicinity of the Project site, particularly in the lower elevations and on the valley floors. Depth to bedrock at the higher elevations ranges between 12 to 22 inches. In some areas of the valleys, bedrock can be found 80-100 feet below grade. The unconsolidated deposits are composed largely of glacial tills and glacial lacustrine deposits. Thick deposits of silts and clays, deposited by glacial lakes that once existed, are found throughout the region.
C. Soils
Soils on the Project site were characterized and delineated for the Project sponsor by Roger Case, a consultant and former Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") soil scientist. Mr. Case produced the "Soils Map Eastern Portion"and "Soils Map Western Portion" that are displayed in the DEIS (Figures 3-6 and 3-7 respectively) and which were employed in this analysis. To evaluate the level of impact to soils from construction we referred to two GIS files: (i) the soil maps and (ii) a map of proposed impervious surfaces (e.g., buildings and roads) and landscaped areas (e.g., golf fairways). This data was reviewed to evaluate whether the soils underlying the areas proposed for construction disturbance are suitable for their proposed use pursuant to federal guidelines. A number of tables were assembled to assist in evaluating potential adverse impacts associated with proposed construction.
D. Definitions, Evaluation Methods and Results of the Assessment
Tables 1 and 2 of Exhibit 3 present soil characteristics associated with slope, percolation rates, runoff, and erosivity for both the Big Indian (eastern) and Wildacres (western) portions of the Project site. The soils with specific characteristics are presented in gross acreage and in percentage of the Project site. Soils that comprised less that 1% of the Project site were not included in these tables (explaining why some columns do not add up to 100%). The terms used in these tables as well as the tables themselves are summarized below.
1. DEIS Soils Codes: This column lists the soil codes (e.g., "EkD") that represent the specific soils (e.g., Elka Silt Loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes) that were identified on a portion of the Project site. The soil codes (also called map units) presented in the first column were the ones used in the DEIS. One point of confusion was that different soils scientists and Soil Conservation Districts employ different soils codes for the same soils. We have conformed all of these definitions and identified the construction risk characteristics associated with these soils as defined by the federal Natural Resource Conservation Service.
2. Delaware County Soils Codes: The Eastern portion of the proposed development is in Ulster County and virtually all of the Western portion of the project site is in Delaware County. The Ulster County Soil Survey was published in 1979, whereas the Delaware County Soil Survey was released "on-line" in 2003. Soil scientists at the NRCS were contacted for their expertise and guidance concerning which soils codes to use to interpret site soils. The NRCS soil scientists selected the Delaware County soil codes.
3. % of Eastern / % of Western Project Site: Any soil that was referred to in the DEIS and was present on the Eastern or the Western portion of the site at greater than or equal to 1% is listed and quantified in this column.
4. Slope (%): This represents the slope of the land. Percent is employed as the standard term even though the term "degree" (as in a "30 degree angle") is thought to be more appropriate by some. Slopes exceeding 15% are designated as "steep slopes" by the New York State erosion control guidance manual. Slopes in excess of 15% are considered too steep and deemed unsuitable for siting septic systems in New York by the New York State Department of Health. See 10 NYCRR Part 75, Appendix 75-A p. 4503). Slope influences the retention and movement of water, the potential for soil slippage, accelerated erosion, the ease with which machinery can be used and the engineering uses of the soil. Slopes on this site are often quite steep. For example, about two thirds of the Project site is characterized by steep slopes (15% or more) and more than a third of this site (39%) is characterized by very steep slopes (35% to 70% slopes).
5. Hydrologic Soils Group: The NRCS has grouped soils into four distinct classes based on how they respond to water. The four classes are hydrologic soils group:
A: High Infiltration Rate (water "seeps" into the ground quickly)
B: Moderate Infiltration Rate
C: Slow Infiltration Rate
D: Very Slow Infiltration Rate (if the site is "flat" water is prone to form puddles, if the site is "hilly" the water will likely flow downhill)
(NRCS 2003 Part 618.35). Group A soils are often sandy, whereas Group D soils often have a high clay content or a restrictive layer (e.g., bedrock). Soils at the project site are classified as C and/or D. As a result, runoff is high and infiltration is low.
6. Erosion Factor (Kf): Erosion is an important process that affects soil formation and may remove all or parts of the soils formed in natural landscapes. Evaluating the degree of erosion that takes place is important in assessing the health of the soil and in assessing the soil's potential for different uses. Removing increasing amounts of soil alters various properties and capabilities of the soil. Soil erosion factors (Kf) were developed to quantify how susceptible very small soil particles (e.g., clay, fines, <2.0 millimeters) are to being detached from soil and rock by water. These factors are particularly important in the Watershed because (as discussed in Part I) detached clay particles suspended in water cause turbidity and adversely impact drinking water quality. The Kf soil erosion factor also accounts for freeze thaw cycles and predicts long term average soil loss. Kf erosion factors range from none (0.02) or slight to severe or very severe (0.49 in the northeastern US). The higher the Kf erosion factor the greater the probability that small particle erosion will occur. Soils at the project site have Kf erosion factors of .28 - .32 indicating that erosion of small soil particles at the project site is a significant concern. (NRCS 2003 Part 618.55).
7. Runoff Class: The index surface "runoff class" refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Runoff classes can be estimated using soil slope and permeability. There are six runoff classes: negligible (N), very low (LV), low (L), medium (M), high (H), and very high (HV). (NRCS 2003 Part 618.49). Applying the runoff class values to the soils on the Big Indian portion of the site, 35% of the soil (428 acres) is classified as having very high runoff potential, 37% (436 acres) as having high to very high runoff potential, and 28% (345 acres) has medium runoff potential. Applying the runoff class values to the soils on the Wildacres portion of the site, 30% of the soil (213 acres) is classified as having very high runoff potential, 51% (364 acres) as having high to very high runoff potential, and 18% (130 acres) has medium runoff potential.
8. Soil Interpretation Rating Guides: Soil Interpretation Rating Guides prepared by the NRCS were employed to assess a soil's limitations for different uses. Based on the proposed land use at the Project site, the following soil interpretation rating classes were assessed:
(1) dwellings with or without basements;
(2) local roads and streets; and
(3) golf fairways, lawns, and landscaping.
These soil ratings are defined in terms of severity such as "slight," "moderate," or "severe."
(i) Slight (Not limited): This rating is given to soils that have properties favorable for the use. The degree of limitation is minor and can be overcome easily. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected (NRCS 2003 Part 620.03).
(ii) Moderate (Somewhat limited): This rating is given to soils that have properties moderately favorable for the use. This degree of limitation can be overcome or modified by special planning, design, or maintenance. The expected performance of the structure or other planned use is somewhat less desirable than for soils rated slight. The needed measures usually increase the cost of establishing or maintaining the use, but the cost is generally not prohibitive.
(iii) Severe (Very limited): This rating is given to soils that have one or more properties unfavorable for the rated use. This degree of limitation generally requires major soil reclamation, special design, or intensive maintenance. Some of the soils, however, can be improved by reducing or removing the soil feature that limits use; but in most situations, it is difficult and costly to alter the soil or to design a structure so as to compensate for a severe degree of limitation. This rating does not imply that the soil cannot be adapted to a particular use, but rather that the cost of overcoming the limitation would be high.
Individual tables for each of these three rating classes and their limiting features -- the soil characteristics that create the risk -- were prepared for the eastern and western portions of the Project site (Exhibit 3, tables 3-8.) Use of the soil interpretation rating guides in the planning and evaluation process allow the user to identify and recommend site selection and plan measures that minimize impacts on the soil resource (NCRS 2003 Part 620.05).
Table 3 of Exhibit 3 evaluates the 14 acres of soil at the Big Indian portion of the property that has been set aside for buildings. The data demonstrate that more than two thirds (10.6 acres) of this area is proposed to be built on steep slopes that exceed 15%. The rating class for the proposed development with basements is severe for all 14 acres. Dwellings without basements have a moderate rating as long as the slope of the land does not exceed 15%.
Table 4 of Exhibit 3 evaluates the 10.5 acres of soil at the Wildacres portion of the property that has been set aside for buildings. The data demonstrate that just under half (4.8 acres) of this area is proposed to be built on steep slopes that exceed 15%. The rating class for the proposed development with basements is severe for 10.2 of the acres.
Local roads and streets are those roads and streets that have all-weather surfacing (commonly of asphalt and concrete) and that are expected to carry automobile traffic year-round. For the purpose of interpreting how these proposed impervious surfaces at the Project site might impact soils, parking lots were included in our local roads and streets evaluation.
Table 5 of Exhibit 3 evaluates the 36.7 acres of soil at the Big Indian portion of the property that has been set aside for roads, streets, and parking. The data demonstrate that approximately two thirds (24.0 acres) of this area is proposed to be built on steep slopes that exceed 15%. The rating class for 22.9 acres of the 24 acres is severe.
Table 6 of Exhibit 3 evaluates the 24.6 acres of soil at the Wildacres portion of the property that has been set aside for roads, streets, and parking. The data demonstrate that more than a third (8.8 acres) of this area is proposed to be built on steep slopes that exceed 15%. The rating class for more than 10.2 acres is severe.
Lawns, landscaping, and golf fairway soils are rated for their use in establishing and maintaining turf. The ratings are based on the use of soil material at the location that may have some land smoothing. Irrigation may or may not be needed and is not a criterion in the rating. Golf greens are not included in this rating.

Table 7 of Exhibit 3 evaluates the 235.2 acres of soil at the Big Indian portion of the property that has been set aside for lawns, landscaping, and fairways. The data demonstrate that over 60% (148.6 acres) of this area is proposed to be cleared on steep slopes that exceed 15%. The rating class for all 148.6 acres is severe. In addition, 100 acres of land that has a slope of greater than 35% is proposed to be disturbed.
Table 8 of Exhibit 3 evaluates the 161.2 acres of soil at the Wildacres portion of the property that has been set aside for lawns, landscaping, and fairways. The data demonstrate that almost half (73.7 acres) of this area is proposed to be cleared on steep slopes that exceed 15%. The rating class for the 73.7 acres proposed on steep slopes have been rated as severe. In addition, 30.5 acres of land that has a slope of greater than 35% is proposed to be disturbed.
This soil information was not included in the DEIS and reflects highly relevant data for the water quality impact analysis. The DEIS should be revised to address the challenges presented by the soil and slope characteristics of the site, recognizing the risks established by the NRCS.

III.
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN .
A. Overview
Polluted runoff flowing from the project site both during and after construction was correctly determined by DEC to be an attribute of the proposed development project that could have significant adverse impacts on the environment, thereby requiring review within an environmental impact statement. DEC has also determined that the proposed project will require an individual stormwater permit, as opposed to the project being "covered" under DEC's SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-02-01) ("General Permit"). DEC is reviewing both the DEIS as it relates to stormwater pollution and the application for an individual SPDES stormwater permit at the same time. These comments also address both documents.
The potential for adverse impacts to water quality from construction of this Project is significant. According to EPA, sediment runoff rates from one acre of a construction site are typically 1,000 to 2,000 times that of one forested acre. Therefore, the stormwater sedimentation and associated contaminants flowing from one uncontained acre subject to construction are generally equivalent to the sedimentation from two to three square miles of forest (1 square mile = 640 acres). Once eroded, clay particles (a type of particle that is represented at a high level in soils on and around the project site) often remain suspended for 6 to 9 months and even longer. This period of suspension could allow these particles to remain in the water as it flows from the project site to the Ashokan Reservoir and on into the New York City water distribution system where it is then consumed. Similarly, the increased volume of stormwater from new impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lots, roadways, roof tops, etc.) is high. One acre of impervious surface creates the same amount of runoff as 16 acres of naturally vegetated meadow. Numerous studies indicate that impervious surfaces areas at levels below 8 to 10% in a standard watershed can result in significant adverse impacts on water quality. Therefore, new impervious surfaces (as well as the substantially less-pervious surfaces created by the removal of vegetation and compaction of soils associated with construction excavations) can transmit very high volumes of stormwater relative to natural conditions that then operate to destabilize streams and cause additional erosion. As discussed in the introduction to these comments, elevated turbidity or suspended sediment levels present particular public health concerns in an unfiltered drinking water supply; a problem that already significantly affects the Catskill portion of the New York City Watershed, including the Schoharie and Ashokan Reservoirs and the Esopus Creek. Thus, the stormwater from the project must be carefully analyzed and fully addressed.
B. General Comments
1. The DEIS should include a detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ("SPPP") for the entire project. The DEIS now contains only a limited proposed SPPP for an 85-acre portion of the Big Indian resort complex. This SPPP is to serve as an example of the type of program the project sponsor would follow for other portions of the site. A complete SPPP is necessary to analyze impacts as required by SEQRA. Moreover, engineering designs and calculations must be attuned to the highly varying conditions found throughout the project site, so one sample set of designs cannot address other portions of the site. A full SPPP is also required to allow DEC to adopt mitigation measures, as mandated by SEQRA, that will mitigate adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable taking into account social and economic considerations.
2. The limited SPPP contains numerous deficiencies with the proposed program to address both erosion and sediment controls (the controls on polluted runoff during project construction) and stormwater controls (the controls on polluted runoff after completion of the project). According to DEC guidelines, the SPPP should comply with the standards and requirements contained in the DEC General Permit for Construction Activity, as well as the technical manuals its references: New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Empire State Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society) April 1997 and New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (prepared for DEC by the Center for Watershed Protection) October 2001. Other guidance has been provided by U.S. EPA, see National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas (published at www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html) (July 2002), as well as by numerous reports issued by technical organizations such as the Center for Watershed Protection (see generally, www.cwp.org). However, due to its incomplete and general nature, it is not possible to demonstrate compliance. Given the highly sensitive nature of this project site, the SPPP should be re-done in more detail, showing how it complies with these standards.
3. Overall, the SPPP must include much greater detail. The SPPP as it relates to the erosion and sediment control plan for the 85-acre Phase 2 area does not contain the "fully designed and engineered stormwater management practices with all necessary maps, plans and construction drawings" required by the General Permit at Part III.D.2. The specific requirements of the erosion and sediment control plan are outlined in the General Permit at Part III.D.2(a)(1 to 16); these requirements have not been met. The fact that this is a large site does not justify the use of a conceptual SPPP that would be unacceptable at smaller sites. Rather, the size indicates a need for greater, not lesser, detail. At a minimum, for each area of the site, the SPPP should contain specific design details concerning: (i) the phasing of construction; (ii) the clearing of vegetation; (iii) the movement and stockpiling of earth; (iv) the channeling and volume of stormwater; (v) the deployment and sizing of erosion control measures such as check dams, stone channels, geo-textile materials, hydro-seed, silt fencing, sod, and mulch; and (vi) detention basin sizing, location, peak flow attenuation, decantation and maintenance. This information should be presented on engineered construction plans in a manner that allows for actual implementation by construction contractors.
The SPPP must be designed based on the attributes of the construction site (e.g., average peak storm intensity, soil erosivity, soil percolation rates, levels of impervious surfaces after construction, slopes, etc.) and the use of standard engineering models and formulas to calculate the size and spacing of various stormwater control measures (e.g., the appropriate capacity of a detention pond based on likely stormwater volume within a particular catchment area). The conceptual SPPP presented in the DEIS does not allow for effective review and critique; nor does it provide sufficient information for DEC to make fact-based determinations on appropriate individual stormwater permit conditions.
C. Specific Comments

4. The DEIS has incorrectly identified design discharge points at the bottom of the mountain near the property boundary for stormwater calculation comparisons. The removal of vegetation, the manipulation of earth and the construction of the proposed project will significantly alter the hydrology of the project site. This change in hydrology will be most significant at the point where the construction disturbance ends and stormwater is discharged. The DEIS and its predicate calculations, however, do not assess the effects of the stormwater discharges (from basins or ditches or other methods) at the various locations on the side of the mountain where the discharges actually occur, but rather, assume the boundary is the discharge point. This failure has taken place in the development of both the erosion and sediment control plan and the post-construction stormwater plan. Therefore, these stormwater calculations were not determined in accordance with DEC's Stormwater Management Design Manual.
As a result, the calculations and assessments with respect to: (i) appropriate rates of discharge from basins; (ii) detention basin volume and outfall design; and (iii) the erosive impacts of the stormwater discharges at the point of discharge on the mountain side, are not valid and must be re-done. The redesign of stormwater controls based on correct inputs should be required.
The selection of design discharge points at the bottom of the mountain should not be accepted by DEC as it would tend to significantly reduce the projected impact of stormwater discharges by ignoring the impact on the undeveloped land within the Project's boundary. Moreover, contrary to what is suggested in the DEIS, natural "sheet flow" conditions will not be replicated along the middle of the mountainside in a manner that existed prior to construction because the hydrology of the project site will have been dramatically altered by construction activity. Finally, design discharge points at the base of the mountain are not appropriate because stormwater effects will not be mitigated as the water travels down mountain slopes because: (i) the project site consists of hydrologic soil group "C" and "D" soils that have very low percolation rates * especially under storm flow conditions and (ii) the site has steep slopes so there will be little retention time for infiltration.
5. The DEIS does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with water quality standards and to further improvement of the impaired Esopus Creek. The DEIS must demonstrate compliance with all New York State Water Quality Standards. See 6 NYCRR Part 703. Of particular applicability to construction activity are the water quality standards for turbidity ("[n]o increase that will cause a substantial visible contrast to natural conditions") and for suspended, colloidal and settleable solids ("[n]one from . . . wastes that will cause deposition or impair the waters for their best usages"). 6 NYCRR § 703.2. The DEIS must also address the additional silt and sediment pollution that will be discharged from the eastern portion of the project site in light of the fact that the Ashokan Reservoir and the Esopus Creek, which drain this area, are listed as "impaired" for silt/sediment by State DEC on its 2004 Clean Water Act § 303(d) list, as the DEIS forms the basis for SEQRA mitigation measures and SPDES permit conditions. Currently, in both scope and specificity, the DEIS and SPPP lack such detail.
6. As detailed in Part II of these comments, all soils on the site are hydrologic soil group C and D soils with little to exceedingly low percolation rates. It appears that the DEIS indicates lower levels of stormwater volumes as a result of water infiltration in a number of situations (e.g., in detention basins and on steep mountain slopes after discharge from basins). For example DEIS Appendix 10 at pp. 2-3 describes a 29% volume loss in stormwater in the lined detention ponds that the are situated in low to no percolation soils. This would appear to be a very significant overestimate. Given the exceedingly large number of calculations associated with the design of the SPPP presented in the DEIS, we were not able to review all of the predicate calculations and modeling assumptions to determine the full extent of this inappropriate methodology. An underestimate of stormwater volumes due to assumed infiltration that is in fact unlikely to occur, would result in the inadequate design of numerous stormwater and erosion control measures. The DEIS should re-do calculations and model assumptions to determine where infiltration was improperly assumed, correct any mis-calculations, and re-design/re-size stormwater measures as appropriate.

7. The stormwater model used was not correctly calibrated. The DEIS employs a stormwater model known as "WinSLAMM" to support much of the stormwater plans contained in Appendix 10 of the DEIS. This office consulted with Professor Robert Pitt, Ph.D., who is the Cudworth Professor of Urban Water Systems in the University of Alabama's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Professor Pitt is the principal author of the WinSLAMM model, as well as other stormwater modeling systems. After a detailed review of the DEIS, Appendix 10 and other data, Professor Pitt reports that it was inappropriate for the project sponsor to employ the WinSLAMM model to estimate pre-development conditions (e.g., stormwater volumes and pollutant levels). The existing project site is presently heavily wooded with some prior logging and minor clearance. According to Professor Pitt, the WinSLAMM model was never intended (or likely ever tested) for use as a mechanism to determine pre-development stormwater attributes of such an area. The "undeveloped" or "open space" conditions modeled in WinSLAMM are, according to Professor Pitt, for small undeveloped areas in otherwise developed urban areas. Furthermore, the model results for such areas are not likely to accurately represent wooded lands or lands that have been subject to logging. Professor Pitt further determined that the WinSLAMM model used in the DEIS was not calibrated with actual local water quality and flow measurement data; rather, the parameter files employed in the model to determine stormwater attributes prior to construction were simply the general "default" files that are supplied with the WinSLAMM program. As a result, the pre-development stormwater information in the DEIS lacks model support and should not form the basis of the stormwater plans. A re-calculation and re-assessment of the stormwater management program should be undertaken employing accurate modeling information concerning pre-development conditions as a predicate. Claimed pollutant removal efficiencies of stormwater and erosion controls that are presented in the DEIS relative to projected pre-development conditions should be revised to reflect valid calculations from a valid model. See General Permit at Part III.D.2(b)(5).

A fundamental element in the environmental analysis of stormwater and erosion impacts is an accurate understanding of pre-development conditions. Projected pollution and flow levels in stormwater both during and after construction are compared to pre-development conditions to understand potential adverse environmental effects relative to the "no-build" condition. Moreover, pre-development conditions often serve as a bench-mark for the pollutant removal efficiencies and flow attenuation levels to which an SPPP is required to be engineered. For example, City DEP generally requires pollutant loadings to be returned to pre-construction conditions as part of its individual permitting program. Similarly, an accurate assessment of pre-development sediment loadings is important when evaluating the additional burden this project may place on the Ashokan Reservoir and the Esopus Creek, water bodies that drain all of the eastern or "Big Indian" portions of the proposed project site and which are already classified as "impaired" due to high silt/sediment levels. An accurate depiction of pre-development sediment levels flowing from the project site is an essential element of such an analysis.
8. Construction phase discharges should be no greater than the current discharges to avoid further impairment. As discussed above, the Ashokan Reservoir and the Esopus Creek are already impaired due to silt/sediment levels and are in violation of state water quality standards. Given this status, the SPPP for the eastern portion of the proposed project that drains into the Esopus Creek should be designed to a standard that maintains stormwater sediment discharge levels at accurately determined pre-development levels during and after the eight-year construction period. This condition should be contained in the individual SPDES permit for the project and the project sponsor should be required to demonstrate compliance in the SPPP and supporting calculations. There is precedent within the Watershed for such a requirement, as City DEP generally requires all SPPPs, within the Watershed to be designed to achieve discharge levels that are no higher than pre-development conditions.
9. Construction phasing should follow DEC guidelines and ensure proactive monitoring. The General Permit at Part III.D.2(a)(4) requires the project sponsor to "provide a construction phasing plan describing the intended sequence of construction activities, including clearing and grubbing, excavation and grading, utility and infrastructure installation and any other activity at the site that results in soil disturbance." This provision further identifies the state-wide requirement that "there shall not be more than five acres of disturbed soil at any one time without prior written approval of the [DEC]." The New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control ("E&SC Standards"), that are the DEC recognized SPDES standards (see General Permit at Part III.D.1), also state that "[n]o more than 5 acres of unprotected soils should be exposed at any one time" and goes on to state that "[s]ite factors including topography, soil erosion potential, proximity to wetlands and water courses may require limiting the amount of raw earth that can be exposed at any one time to less than 5 acres." See E&SC Standards at Appendix A, Section E.1.
Despite these standards, the DEIS proposes a construction phasing plan that seeks to exceed the 5 acre standard, with construction phases exposing as much as 50 acres of raw earth at one time on the project site. The project sponsor has also requested that it be allowed to depart from the state-wide standard as part of its individual SPDES stormwater construction permit application.
As detailed in Part II of these comments, the soils, slopes and intensity of rain/snow melt events present significant technical challenges for the design and implementation of effective controls on polluted runoff. The significant percentage of "small particle" or clay-type soils makes this site particularly sensitive because of its location within a major unfiltered drinking water system. Indeed, the sensitivity of this site would justify a downward departure from the normal 5 acre "raw earth" standard due to the risks associated with a significant failure. Moreover, the major deficiencies in the SPPP and the DEIS that these comments identify support the conclusion that there is no technical justification for a departure from the 5 acre state-wide standard.
Experience with construction in the Watershed suggests that the 5-acre standard is sound and appropriate. For example, the New York State Department of Transportation's approximately 50 acre construction site along the Taconic Parkway in Westchester County sent high volumes of highly turbid water on at least eight occasions into an adjacent stream that flows into the New Croton Reservoir. Expansive plumes of brown, sediment-laden, water were observed in the New Croton Reservoir repeatedly from the Fall of 2001 to the Spring of 2002 as a result of this construction site, despite vigorous enforcement actions by DEC and the Attorney General's Office, a full "stop work and remediate" order, and the emergency expenditure of approximately $1 million by DOT to deploy additional stormwater control measures.
Similar discharges occurred at the Hanna Country Inn and Golf Resort in Delaware County that is a short distance from the proposed project. The Hanna project involved the construction of an access road up a steep slope to a new club house. Even though this roughly 5 acre roadway excavation was the subject of a detailed SPPP approved by DEP, the site failed on repeated occasions from May of 2002 until at least the winter freeze of that year. Despite active monitoring and enforcement by City DEP, as well as extensive remedial programs by Hanna (e.g., staking sod along most of the slope) this site continued to discharge significant amounts of sediment into Hubble Hill Brook and then to the East Branch of the Delaware River and then to the Pepacton Reservoir. On numerous occasions as reported by City DEP staff and others, turbid flows from the Hanna Construction site gave the Hubble Hill Brook and the East Branch of the Delaware River the appearance of thick chocolate milk. The portion of the Hubble Hill Brook above the construction site was clear. Though it was not a large site, the clay/colloidal soils at the Hanna site combined with steep slopes and intense rainfalls to make the effective implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan exceedingly difficult. The relevant attributes of the Hanna site (steep slopes, problematic soils, intense rain events) are very similar to those of the project site.
Thus in accordance with DEC guidelines, there should be no deviation from the 5-acre standard, until a complete SPPP is submitted for the entire site, along with all supporting assumptions and calculations, in a manner that allows for effective evaluation. In addition, post-excavation "stop-work" authority should not be viewed as an effective back-up plan for the requested large excavations because very substantial volumes of turbid water frequently continue to discharge from problem construction sites despite enforcement actions and extensive remedial efforts by the site owner in response to enforcement. Construction phases could be limited to no more than 5 acres in any one reservoir drainage basin (e.g., the Ashokan or the Pepacton) at any one time for a total of 10 acres but should also be limited to levels below 5 acres on portions of the project site that are steeply sloped or have highly problematic soils. At a minimum, DEC should require the pilot testing of the erosion and sediment control plan on a small portion of the site (in a manner observed and verified by DEC and City DEP) prior to any grant of authority to the project sponsor to exceed the 5 acre standard.
10. Properly prepared site grading plans are needed. To the extent they are shown, the erosion and sediment control measures are presented on the "phasing" plans; these plans provide a large scale overview of what area is worked on during each phase of construction. Phasing plans are not employed to govern actual project implementation by contractors. Rather, standard practice during construction is that the deployment of erosion and sediment control measures are depicted on the far more specific construction "grading" plans. The grading plans will be employed by the construction contractor to understand exactly what is to be accomplished and implemented. This failure, if not corrected, will confuse site contractors and frustrate effective implementation of the erosion and sediment control plan. The grading sheets should contain the appropriate tables and information describing the specific attributes of the erosion and sediment controls.
11. The erosion and sediment control mechanisms for the proposed site (stone check dams, silt fencing, temporary drainage swales, etc.,) should be designed for a minimum 2-year storm, which is 4 inches. Given the present status of the erosion and sediment control plan, it is not possible to determine the engineering criteria employed for the design of these measures, to the extent these measures are presented at all. The numerous steep drainage ditches need to be protected with stone lining or turf reinforcement mats.
12. A sediment removal plan is needed. The design goal for the sediment basins are properly targeted to capture the 10-year storm and the appropriate bare earth C soils curve number has been employed to determine storm flows. However, a detailed sediment removal plan for these basins is absent and must be presented. General Permit at Part III.D.2(a)(2).
13. A detailed plan for clearing and grubbing waste disposal is needed. The clearing and grubbing of this site would generate large quantities of waste materials (e.g., brush, sod and stumps) that would be many acres in size. Though the DEIS states that these materials will be buried, no waste areas are designated on the drawings. The high volume of wood wastes generated at this site has the potential to harm groundwater. The DEIS should address transporting the waste materials offsite. The waste material must not be buried in a ravine or in an area that could affect a drinking water well. If the waste material is to be buried onsite, an erosion and sediment control plan needs to be developed to account for additional deforestation and to address newly created stormwater concerns.
14. The DEIS should conduct on-site studies of project soils. Most of the soils at the project site have little or no percolation. Based on data provided in the DEIS for the soil test pits excavated on site, soils contain 50 to 60% silt and clay, and the clay content was between 12 and 22%. The very small size of these soil particles, which can flow through a size 200 micron sieve, means that they can remain suspended in water for a long period of time * with important implications for drinking water quality. It would be useful to better understand the actual suspension time by employing a hydrometer analysis. The results from this test will provide useful estimates concerning how long clay/silt soils should be expected to remain in suspension in still water and the rate of settling. (It would not provide useful information about settling rates in moving water). This information also will assist in the evaluation of whether the introduction of a chemical additive to detention ponds, as is proposed, will aid in removing clay particles from the water and will help determine the appropriate period of time that the water needs to be retained in sediment basins before it will be clear enough to decant.
15. A detailed plan regarding use of a chemical additive for stormwater treatment that removes turbidity is needed. Should DEC decide to consider the use of a chemical additive to remove suspended clay and silt particles in detention basins, both laboratory "bench tests" and field tests need to be conducted to confirm the product's effectiveness on these soils. Field tests need to be run because the performance of chemical additives are affected by water temperature, clay type, flow rates, and chemical levels. The field tests are also necessary to determine whether the chemical additives will be decanted from the basins into area trout streams. If this chemical is placed in the detention ponds, it would appear highly likely that it will flow into area trout streams. Should there be a chemical discharge, the regulatory requirements associated with the addition of chemicals to area streams needs to be assessed, and a SPDES permit may be required.
16. A detailed plan for selecting a chemical additive for stormwater treatment that is safe to aquatic organisms is needed. The chemical additive that is proposed for use in detention ponds is soluble chitosan acetate. Tests need to be designed and run which will determine if this chemical will cause adverse impacts to the species that live in the trout streams that will receive stormwater flows from the project site. There is at least one detailed scientific study which found that the proposed chemical additive kills rainbow trout at fairly low running levels of 38 parts per billion over six days or at approximately one part per million over a few hours. G. Bullock, V. Blazer, S. Tsukuda, S. Summerfelt, Toxicity of Chitosan Acetate for Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Cultured in a Recycle System, published in the proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Eastern Fish Health Workshop (Atlantic Beach, N.C., March 9 to 11, 1999).
17. A detailed plan to drain the detention ponds is needed. Draining detention ponds in a timely manner is an important practice that will better assure that the detention ponds have available capacity to retain stormwaters from the next storm. If the detention ponds are full, they will simply be by-passed and the stormwaters left untreated. As proposed, during construction, water would be pumped out of detention ponds and into a device called a "level spreader." The level spreader is a perforated plastic pipe that is proposed to run at level across a contour line of the mountain for long distances, often through forest. One of the level spreaders is to run some 1,000 feet. This practice is highly likely to fail. Placing the level spreader at level in the woods and along a mountainside will be exceedingly difficult, particularly given the trees, rock outcrops, topography curves and intermittent streams. The likely dips in the plastic piping will cause high pressure to build up and the piping to break. The resulting flow of water will likely cause severe hillside erosion at the point of failure. Therefore, some other workable method to decant the detention ponds should be developed and proposed.
18. A detailed plan is needed for soil stockpiles. The project involves extensive construction excavations and grading throughout the project site. By necessity, large piles of earthen materials will be created and moved. Large piles of excavated soils, if not handled properly, have a significant potential to emit sediments during storms. The SPPP for the Phase 2 area does not take into account these stockpiles of excavated soils, describe their location or duration on grading sheets, or provide for any specific erosion control measures to stabilize these soil stock piles. This substantial omission is contrary to General Permit Part III.D.2.(a)(4) and good practice. The grading sheets should provide complete details with respect the manner in which these materials will be effectively managed as part of the overall SPPP. Moreover, while the various cuts and fills appear to be balanced, the timing and routing of excavated earthen materials is an important element of the program to control off-site sedimentation. The DEIS and the SPPP should contain far more detailed information so that it can be verified that the transfer of these materials will be managed effectively.
19. The numerous steep fill slopes proposed throughout the Project site must be carefully and individually evaluated. We were able to examine only a few of these fills for potential impacts on erosion and sedimentation. In the Belleayre Highlands map (SG-5) there are numerous slopes shown at 1.5 to 1 (one foot and a half horizontal to one foot vertical). This is extremely steep for fill slopes. Without information on the attributes of the fill material, a slope stability analysis is not possible and given the steepness, there is a risk of failure. One such fill is over 100 feet high and is topped with the weight of an access roadway. In addition, it appears that the project sponsor has proposed to place a level spreader to discharge stormwater on that slope * thereby adding large quantities of water from a detention pond in addition to natural rainfall. The weight and soaking effect of this water would likely further destabilize this slope * creating a possible safety risk to drivers, in addition to a risk of soil erosion. All steep fills on the site should be carefully evaluated for stability and more moderate grades or vertical retaining walls should be employed where appropriate. Level spreaders and other detention basin discharges should be removed from steep fill areas throughout the Project.
20. Significant erosion can occur from the unprotected portions of the project site. For example, a 1.38 acre area of exposed soil on sheet SG-5 has no identified erosion and sediment controls and drains to a roadside ditch. Calculations using the "Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation" show that 250 tons of soil will be lost from this area over the course of one construction season. This amount of soil is equivalent to the capacity of 10 large construction dump trucks. The 1.38 acre site is one of many uncontrolled areas where stormwater sediments can be transported off site without any containment. The SPPP should identify other such areas and present an adequate erosion and sediment control plan. Moreover, road side ditches throughout the proposed Project do not appear to include any erosion and sediment controls, a situation that should be rectified in a revised SPPP.
21. A revised grading and excavation schedule is needed. Grading and excavation operations should not be permitted outside of the growing season because vegetation will not be able to be effectively established to stabilize soils. This likely means that excavations and grading should not take place at this high altitude site before April 15th and after October 1st.
22. Methods to stabilize site soil need to be tested in the field. The DEIS does not mention the use of straw mulch. Instead Soil Guard and Eco-Aegis are discussed. These products cement soil and alter infiltration, which means that the use of these agents may promote more runoff. Field tests need to be performed on whatever product is selected to confirm whether or not the sponsor's selected measure is adequate for this climatic region.
23. A revised schedule to stabilize soil with vegetative cover is needed. As a best management practice, the project sponsor should develop a program where all graded slopes are seeded within 7 days of final grade. Any slopes in excess of 3 to 1 should be seeded and stabilized with a rolled erosion control mat. Once a road slope is excavated, the cut should be shaped and seeded immediately.
24. No construction waste (e.g., asphalt shingles, fuels, lubricants, garbage, etc.) management plan is detailed in the SPPP as required by General Permit III.D.2(a)(4).
25. Waste water from concrete production needs to be treated prior to release. Water will be used on site to wash aggregate to produce concrete. Wastewater from this process and from concrete truck washout facilities contains fine suspended material that needs to be treated separately from other site stormwater. The DEIS does not address this issue.
26. Although water quality volume ("WQV") computations are presented in the DEIS for the overall project, they are not presented for each sub-catchment. This information was not provided for the Phase 2 SPPP. This prevents an evaluation of whether the post construction stormwater quality measures were properly sized. These computations, as well as those for calculating pollutant removal efficiencies, need to be provided in the DEIS.
27. Water quality treatment volumes comparing rainfall and snow melt are needed. The computations used to compare the water quality treatment volume between rainfall and snow melt is absent from the DEIS and needs to be included, as per the 2003 New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (Appendix I). Without further explanation, the DEIS appears to use low values.
28. Times of concentration used in the DEIS appear to be incorrect. Times of concentration (Tc's) for the "hydrocad" routings appear to be much too long for the steep watershed slopes (e.g., for sub-catchment 22, the Tc is stated at 30.5 minutes). A similar TR-55 model analysis would estimate the Tc at only 9.6 minutes. A longer Tc results in much lower estimates of peak rates of post-development discharge flows ("Q.") Thus, discharge rates that are presented in the DEIS appear to be much lower than they should be. Higher values would demonstrate more severe erosive forces, particularly on steep slopes. The Tc values should be re-evaluated for the entire SPPP and accurate assumptions employed in the calculations.
29. The "n" coefficients used in the DEIS appear to be incorrect. The "n" coefficients, which measure the "roughness" or friction associated with surface stormwater flows, and used in the DEIS for overland flow computation, appear incorrect when compared to values presented in USDA SCS TR55, chapter 3. This raises questions regarding the validity of the final routing values employed in the stormwater models. With the confused methods that were presented in the DEIS, it cannot be verified whether this value was correctly calculated. An incorrect "n" value would result in incorrect velocity and erosive force values, thereby making inaccurate the engineering calculations that serve as a predicate for the engineered design of stormwater controls. This value should be re-assessed and recalculated for the entire SPPP.
IV.
ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY GROWTH IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT A DETAILED CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS BE UNDERTAKEN TO ASSESS THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF GROWTH ON DRINKING WATER QUALITY.
This office requested that Dr. Gerrit Knaap, Director of the National Center for Smart Growth Education and Research at the University of Maryland (with the assistance of Terry Moore and others at Dr. Knaap's selected consulting firm, ECONorthwest), review the DEIS for the proposed Project as it relates to secondary and cumulative growth impacts. The large regional nature of this Project raised concerns that the Project might itself, or in combination with other developments, create a situation that injures drinking water quality.
As documented in Part II above, much of the entire Catskill portion of the Watershed, in addition to the project site, contains steep slopes, clay or colloidal-type soils, and intensive rainfall events (Exhibit 3, Table 9). A number of the relevant water bodies, particularly in the Catskill portion of the Watershed, are already impaired or stressed by pollutant loadings.
We requested that Dr. Knaap independently review and critique the secondary growth analysis conducted in the DEIS, identify points of concern or agreement, and conduct his own assessment of secondary impacts using data and economic models that are professionally appropriate and justified. We also requested that Dr. Knaap conduct an evaluation of whether the DEIS, which does not contain a cumulative impact analysis, should have done so given an economic evaluation of likely growth within the Watershed. The goal of Dr. Knaap's assessments was to provide projected estimates concerning likely off-site acres of land (i) that may be subject to construction disturbance and (ii) that may be converted to new impervious surfaces both as a result of the Project alone and in conjunction (cumulatively) with other projects. We were interested in understanding potential growth over the 10, 20 and 50 year period. Dr. Knaap's report, with associated appendices, is attached as Exhibit 4 and is incorporated into these comments.
With respect to the secondary growth impact assessment contained in the DEIS, Dr. Knaap found numerous specific disagreements but largely concurred in the DEIS's basic conclusion: that the Project, standing alone, is not likely to cause extensive levels of new impervious surfaces and construction disturbances in off-site areas. Dr. Knaap's projections of new construction are higher than those contained in the DEIS, but not of a magnitude that we would characterize as significant.
The assessment of potential cumulative impacts does raise significant concerns. Dr. Knaap's report identifies the potential for sizeable amounts (many squares miles) of new acres of impervious surfaces and construction disturbances cumulatively in Watershed over time due to likely development pressure. The key finding of Dr. Knaap is that the DEIS is deficient because it failed to require a detailed cumulative impact analysis to better determine the full extent of growth impacts so as to better guide decision-making on the large-scale regional development Project proposed in the DEIS. We recommend that a cumulative analysis be undertaken in a revised DEIS.

V.
REVIEW OF PROPOSED INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: PESTICIDE AND HERBICIDE USE.
A. Overview
In general, the DEIS contains language describing the elements of an Integrated Pest Management Program ("IPM") designed to minimize - but not eliminate - the use of chemical pesticides. A review of DEIS Section 2.4.8 provides some discussion of non-chemical management techniques, a statement that pesticide use will be the lowest choice in the hierarchy of pest management options and a claim that pesticides will be used only for curative, and not preventive, purposes. All are elements of a good IPM program. It took careful review, however, to find those assurances and piece them together into a coherent statement of pest management policy.
For instance, Section 2.4.8 "Golf Course Integrated Pest Management" starts at page 2-73 with a discussion of pesticides, and the methods used to select the products to be used. The concept of limiting chemical use to curative treatments is introduced after the discussion of the chemical selection process, and is not an unqualified commitment (i.e., 2.4.8.C: "In almost all instances, only affected greens and tees would be treated . . ." ). The hierarchy of pest management options, and the preference for non-chemical methods is not clearly stated until 2.4.8.D.6 at page 2-88. If there is a real commitment to constructing, maintaining and operating the facility in accordance with IPM/ITM principles and practices, there should be a clear statement to that effect at the beginning of 2.4.8.
In the correct hierarchy of pest management options, chemical controls are not only placed last, but in that category, emphasis is placed on the role of toxicity and risk assessment in the selection of specific products to be used. We were unable to find mention of that critical evaluation in the current DEIS. As is set forth in our specific comments below, the evaluation of the health and environmental risks of the pesticides proposed for use is seriously flawed by critical omissions.
B. Specific DEIS Comments

1. Inert Ingredients are not identified; their impacts are not assessed. The DEIS does not consider the potential impacts of "inert" ingredients, which generally comprise at least half of the formulated product. The narrative generally refers to pesticide products or pesticides (e.g., 2.4.8.B), but the assessments of toxicity and mobility deal only with active ingredients. (See also, Appendix 14, section 2.4 and Appendix 15). In fact, the only product identification is in Table 2-8 (page 2-90), where the absence of useful information on the inert ingredients formulated in the products proposed for use is clear. Although the inert ingredients are "not listed" that does not mean that they are not present.
The products identified in Table 2-8 are not the only ones which contain the listed active ingredients. Other products with the same active ingredients may well contain different formulations of inert ingredients. Will the products identified for each active ingredient be the only ones used, or will other formulations of the same active ingredients be applied? Note also, that inerts are not considered in the risk assessments summarized in Appendix 15. Without the identity of the inerts, the value of any health or environmental risk assessment is, at best, seriously compromised.

2. There is little discussion of the health effects associated with the active ingredients proposed for use. EPA has identified two of the active ingredients proposed for use as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." These are the insecticide ethoprop, and the herbicide oxadiazon. An additional half dozen active ingredients have been identified by EPA as "possible human carcinogens" (Fungicides propiconazole and vinclozolin, insecticides acephate and bifenthrin, and herbicides prodiamine and trifluralin.) There is no discussion of the carcinogenic potential of these compounds, and no justification for their use at the golf course, or in the Watershed, in light of their carcinogenicity.
Two of the insecticides proposed for use (acephate and ethoprop) are organophosphates - a class of pesticides whose neurotoxic effects are well documented, widely known and the subject of current reevaluation by EPA. Although still underway, the EPA reassessment has already resulted in substantial new restrictions on the use of several organophosphates. The DEIS does not discuss the neurotoxic potential of these compounds, and does not justify their use at the golf course or in the Watershed in light of their neurotoxicity.
Of course, with little or no information about the inert ingredients formulated in the products proposed for use there is no discussion of their carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity or other chronic health effects.
3. LC50 is a crude instrument for the assessment of environmental risk. The assessment of environmental risk attributable to pesticide runoff is based on a comparison of maximum runoff concentrations to LC50 values for fish and aquatic invertebrates. Eight pesticides were eliminated as candidates for use because their maximum modeled runoff concentration exceeded one or more LC50 values. While it is appropriate that short term mortality of 50% of resident aquatic fauna is deemed unacceptable, there is no other threshold of damage applied. Chronic toxic effects of the pesticides on aquatic organisms is not addressed. Neurotoxicity might alter individual behavior and ability to survive long term in the natural habitat. Mutagenicity, teratogenicity and endocrine disruption can all diminish reproductive success. These chronic effects, not reflected in short term individual mortality can nonetheless result in the loss of local natural populations in a relatively short period of time, although measured in months or years and not hours or days as is the case with experimentally derived LC50 values.
Of course, with little or no information about the inert ingredients formulated in the products proposed for use there is no discussion of their environmental effects, even by such a crude measure as LC50 values.
4. There appears to be no adequate provision for monitoring ground and surface water resources for pesticides and fertilizers during the "operational phase." While modeling may provide the basis for the initial selection of chemicals and treatment regimes, it should not be the final determinant of long term operations. Provisions for ongoing ground and surface water monitoring for active and inert pesticidal ingredients, their degradation products as well as nutrients, should be included in the operational plans for the golf course. The deep ground water wells that have been proposed for use in operational monitoring are deficient as they will provide little to no useful information concerning impacts. The deep ground water to be tested is drawn from locations that are likely to be by-passed by ground water which is closer to the surface. It is the ground water that is closer to the surface that is most likely to be impacted. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells should be employed for comprehensive testing.
C. Specific Comments on Appendix 14
1. Historical uses do not justify development of the new course. The existence of other golf courses in the area "up to the 1960's" provides little comfort as to the current site suitability. The suite of chemicals used for turf management would have been quite different, as were the regulatory requirements and oversight practices. Were these golf courses maintained to the standards of the proposed course? Is there any monitoring data to support the implied conclusion that the previous golf courses did not adversely impact the local environment?
2. The risks and costs associated with the use of chemical controls are substantially understated. The discussion at Section 3.4 ignores a number of important considerations. While chemical controls may reduce labor costs, they also increase material costs and the probability of adverse effects on human health and environmental quality, thereby increasing liability costs. More important, the conclusion that the association of pesticide residues with adverse environmental impacts resulted only from improper use or over use is unsupported and unsupportable. The history of pesticides for which the registrations have been canceled or the uses modified after original registration demonstrate the fact that unanticipated adverse effects occur under the conditions of use originally accepted by EPA and DEC. In fact, federal regulations speak clearly on this point in the prohibition of any label claims as to the safety of the pesticide or its ingredients, even with a qualifying phrase such as "when used as directed." 40 CFR § 156.10(a).
3. The discussion of Biological Controls is inappropriately argumentative and belies a questionable commitment to their inclusion in the pest management program. In counterpoint to the overly sympathetic introduction to chemical controls (see above) biological controls are introduced with mention of "pseudo-factual reports" about pesticides and the unsupported conclusion that biological controls are "complex, not totally effective and not always predictable." One could easily say the same of chemical controls, based on the need for repeated re-treatment, the proposal of alternative chemical controls for specific pests, and the many instances in which unanticipated adverse effects have occurred after use of chemical pesticides in accordance with label instructions. Biological controls are not presented in the context of valuable tools for turf management, but rather as "[o]ne approach that may provide some level of relief for turf managers . . ." from increased pressure to reduce pesticide applications (see section 3.4 at top of page 26).
4. Misleading terminology is used throughout Sections 4, 5 and 6 to describe the chemicals proposed for control. In many instances, the reference to "products" is in fact a reference to an active ingredient without acknowledgment that the active ingredient is not used in isolation, but rather formulated with other ingredients generally not identified on the label and not included in the modeling and toxicological evaluations presented in this DEIS.
5. The prioritization of control options in Sections 4, 5 and 6 is not clear, and does not reflect a commitment to the use of chemical pesticides only as a last resort. Generally, options are presented in a sequence of "cultural," "biological" and "chemical." It is not clear here that the options will be implemented in that order, and what criteria will be used to judge that one option has proven inadequate and justify the implementation of the next option in the hierarchy for each specific pest. In some instances, chemical control seems to be the intended management tool to the exclusion of other options. For example, in section 6.3.6 chemical treatment is listed as the second option, before at least two cultural controls. Cultural Strategy V for annual bluegrass, "Apply a preemergence herbicide . . ." is a chemical strategy, not a cultural one.
Similarly, in the discussion of control options for White Grubs (see 5.5.1 at page 50), parasitic wasps are discussed as the third option and parasitic nematodes as the fourth option. While the text notes that parasitic wasp populations may take 2 to 3 years to reach effective levels, there appears to be no plan to establish the wasps during the construction or early days of operation of the course. Without such preparation, it seems unlikely that parasitic wasps can play a meaningful role in the control of white grubs, and chemical controls will be used instead.
6. Record keeping, as described in the DEIS, is inadequate to assess the efficacy of pest management strategies. The brief discussion of record keeping in Appendix 14, section 3.3.3 (p. 24) and the accompanying Figure 4 deal only with records of scouting. While these are useful in determining when and if control measures are needed, they do not help with subsequent analysis of their effect. If any control methods are implemented as a result of scouting/monitoring then there should be a record of what was done, and what effect resulted. These records would not necessarily be required for those preventive measures that are part of the construction and routine operation of the course, but should be generated and kept for all actions taken in response to a pest infestation. These records will document the efficacy of treatments, chemical or otherwise, and should be a valuable resource to the golf course management and others. To maximize their utility, the records should be publicly available.
7. There is no provision for notice to golfers, other visitors and neighbors, when chemical pesticides are applied. Given the known and potential adverse health effects associated with chemical pesticides, adequate notice should be given to those who work at the golf course, those who use it and those who reside on neighboring property. This can be accomplished by signs posted around treated areas and by notices displayed prominently at key locations, such as the first and ninth tees. Neighbors should receive advanced notice of applications to allow them to take precautions as they see fit.
D. Specific Comments on Appendix 15: Fertilizer and Pesticide Risk Assessment
1. General Comment. To comment comprehensively on the modeling described in Appendix 15, it would be necessary to research each of the models used in some depth, and better understand all of the inputs used and assumptions made. Lacking time and resources for this kind of in-depth review, we can provide only the following general observations and comments. In no case did the modeling consider either pesticide degradation products or inert ingredients of pesticide products, which, as discussed above, is a severe shortcoming for an analyses described as a "risk assessment."
2. WINPST Modeling. In Section 2 (p.2) and 2.1 (p.3) the USDA's WINPST model is described as an initial screening tool for determining overall pesticide mobility. It is unclear why the WINSPT modeling was even conducted, because there is no indication that any pesticides were accepted or rejected for use based on this exercise. Although the properties of four different soil series were reportedly modeled, Attachment 1 presents only the results for one soil series. Although the modeling produces indices of both pesticide mobility and hazard (hazard potential is based upon toxicological data in an internal WINPST database), the hazard rankings are ignored. The writers apparently prefer to compare LEACHM and GLEAMS generated concentration results to drinking water standards and LC50 values than to consider in any way the hazard potential results generated by the WINPST modeling. This results in the retention of at least nine pesticides that WINPST predicts will present a high hazard to humans and/or fish. No basis is given for ignoring these results.
3. LEACHM Modeling. The modeling utilized 1996 precipitation records, with 1996 being described as a high-precipitation year. The precipitation records are not provided, and so it is not clear whether precipitation was in fact heavy during the pertinent time periods when pesticide applications were modeled (April - October).
Although soils were identified and mapped in the field by the LA Group soil scientists, the modeling incorporated characteristics of type location soils reported in the Greene County Soil Conservation Service publications and the National Resources Conservation Service. Site specific soil characteristics could well have been determined but were not. The modeling apparently did not consider the effects of golf course construction activities on soil parameters (disturbance/cut-and-fill/artificially constructed soils for tees and greens where heavy pesticide applications are the rule).
The criteria applied to retain or reject pesticide products was: "Only the products that did not leach at all through the soil profiles and the products that had undiluted leachate concentrations below drinking water standards are recommended for use based on this portion of the this risk assessment." Claims of the conservativeness of the chosen criteria aside, the use of these criteria seems to assume no uncertainty concerning either model results or the protectiveness of the applicable drinking water standard (which in most instances are the New York State Department of Health "default"standard of 50 parts per billion for unspecified contaminants). A more conservative approach would eliminate those products that were predicted to have undiluted leachate concentrations at 10% or more of the drinking water standard. EPA HALS could and should be considered as well.
4. GLEAMS Modeling. Section 4.3 (p. 20) reports that, "Of the 53 pesticide active ingredients analyzed, all but two [emphasis added] were present to some degree in the worst case modeling . . . ." The criteria applied to reject pesticides was a concentration in undiluted runoff equal to or greater than the LC50 for the pesticide in question. As discussed above, the LC50 is questionable as a protective criteria in any event, and the application of the criteria assumes no uncertainty concerning model results or toxicological effects other than death. To better account for all uncertainties and unknowns like sub-lethal effects and effects on different life stages, undiluted runoff concentrations that are greater than 10% of the LC50 could be used.
E. Conclusion.
The attached spreadsheet (Exhibit 5) summarizes an alternative pesticide retention/rejection scheme. Products in blue font are selected for use both in Appendix 15 and by application of the comments above. Products stricken out in red font are those that were retained in Appendix 15 but would be rejected based on the comments above. Products stricken out in black font are those that were rejected both in Appendix 15 and by application of the above comments. The purpose of this spreadsheet is to demonstrate how arbitrary the selection criteria used in Appendix 15 are. The pest management plan should be re-done with more consistent and conservative methods and incorporating a clear commitment to IPM.

VI.
ASSESSMENT OF ADEQUACY OF THE DEIS REVIEW OF THE DESTRUCTION AND DEFORESTATION OF HEADWATER WETLANDS ON THE PROJECT SITE.
A. Introduction and Recommendations
Wetlands provide flood control, wildlife habitat, and improve drinking water quality by retaining phosphorus and processing nitrogen, trapping sediments, removing and transforming human and animal wastes, and degrading certain pollutants. Any disturbance to wetlands or their adjacent "buffer" areas within the Watershed is highly disfavored. The restoration or re-creation of wetlands that have been disturbed is usually unsuccessful.
Within the New York City Watershed, wetlands play a particularly important water quality protection function, and they comprise only a small fraction of the total land area. In short, the Project can and should be re-designed pursuant to SEQRA so that there is no disturbance or destruction of the 4.5 acres of wetlands or the associated buffer area (an area that is generally 100 feet in width) contrary to what is presently proposed. Moreover, as presented below, there are significant factual and technical disputes over the scope and existence of certain wetlands and water courses on the Project site. These disputes must be resolved prior to the EIS process being found to be complete so that decisions are made on an accurate factual record.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), with the assistance of City DEP, conducted an inventory of wetlands located within the Watershed as part of the National Wetlands Inventory. Tiner, R.W., Atlas of National Wetlands Inventory Maps for Watersheds of the New York City Water Supply System (1996). This inventory of wetlands that generally are 1 acre or more in size was developed through the interpretation of aerial photographs taken in 1986 and 1987, as well as through partial on-ground verification. The inventory found that within the Delaware portion of the Watershed, wetlands, exclusive of streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and reservoir shores comprise only about .81% of the total area. In the Catskill portion of the Watershed, wetlands, including large reservoir shore areas but excluding streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs comprise about 1.06% of the total area. This is a low level of wetland coverage. The Croton portion of the Watershed, for example, is approximately 7% wetland.

Given the importance of wetlands for water quality protection and the location and scale of the proposed development, potential impacts to wetlands are an important component of this DEIS. As is discussed in more detail below, however, the DEIS is deficient in this area because the document:
1. Fails to analyze the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed filling of 1.47 acres of wetlands, the removal of trees from forested swamps and stream corridors totaling 2.84 acres, and the destruction of associated wetland buffer area;
2. Fails to discuss why the wetland impacts could not be avoided through alternative project size or layout;
3. Fails to clearly describe the area of affected wetlands by erroneously excluding from the substantive discussion of wetlands in the DEIS the so-called "isolated" wetland areas;
4. Does not accurately depict existing site conditions because it excludes stream corridors that drain wetland complex ## 33-35 and wetland complex ##19-22, and apparently connect those purported "isolated" wetlands to Birch Creek and Emory Brook, respectively;
5. Fails to differentiate between the "waters of the United States" regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the federal Clean Water Act and the analysis of adverse impacts to wetlands for purposes of SEQRA; and
6. Does not propose any wetland replacement for the area of wetlands proposed to be filled or cleared by creating, expanding or enhancing wetlands elsewhere in the affected watersheds, proposing instead to "mitigate" the wetland impacts by preserving other existing wetlands on the development's property, but for which there appears to be no reasonably foreseeable plans to fill or alter.
B. Federal Regulation of Wetlands
Separate and apart from SEQRA, filling or clearing wetlands in New York State may be subject to regulation under federal law. Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over "waters of the United States," includes wetlands. The Clean Water Act mandates that the federal government "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The U.S. Army Corps' program to implement that mandate with respect to wetlands is specified under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. Rather than being subject to New York State programs, small headwater wetlands like those at issue here are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act.
U.S. Army Corps regulations adopted under the Clean Water Act define "waters of the United States" to include, among other wetlands, wetlands that are themselves tributaries or are adjacent (bordering, contiguous or neighboring) to tributaries of traditional navigable waters, and wetlands that are themselves water, or are adjacent to other water, "the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes . . ,"
33 C.F.R. §§ 328.3(a)(3); 328(a)(5) and (7) and 328.3(c).
Not all water, however, is included within the "waters of the United States" and regulated under the Clean Water Act. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ("SWANCC"), 531 U.S. 159 (2001), the United State Supreme Court ruled that water that collected in abandoned pits from a defunct sand and gravel mine, creating a scattering of permanent and seasonal ponds, were not "waters of the United States." Courts have recognized, however, that SWANCC created a narrow exception to the broad scope of the original definition.
C. DEIS Analysis of Wetlands.

The DEIS addresses wetlands in Section 3.5.2 (pages 3-89 through 3-96), and incorporates material submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding wetlands delineation (a delineation report identifies, maps, and discusses the wetlands on site) and permitting under the federal Clean Water Act as Appendix 17.
The DEIS includes no further analysis of wetlands other than present the material submitted to and accepted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That approach is not adequate for compliance with SEQRA because it erroneously delegates all relevant wetlands issues and decision-making to the U.S. Army Corps, a federal agency that is not subject to SEQRA, and improperly narrows the scope of the issues in terms of both geographic area and subject matter.
For example, the summary in the DEIS states that "the project requires the placement of clean fill in jurisdictional wetlands totaling 0.0993 acre." (DEIS at 3-94.) Yet material in Appendix 17 makes clear that the projected impacts to wetlands include the filling (destruction) of an additional 1.47 acres of wetlands. (Appendix 17A at 19, table 19). There is, however, no mention or analysis in the DEIS of the adverse impacts of that projected filling of those wetlands, apparently under the belief that the additional 1.47 acres of wetlands was outside the definition of "waters of the United States" for purposes of Army Corps jurisdiction. That omission in the DEIS appears to be both factually and legally unsupported. Factually, as described below, information from scientists from FWS and DEP suggests that there are additional wetlands. Legally, it is not dispositive to a SEQRA analysis whether or not a wetland is regulated by the Corps of Engineers (or DEC or any other agency); SEQRA demands an analysis of the site regardless of other statutory requirements. Here, the DEIS does not discuss the fact that a much larger area of wetlands is projected to be filled, does not analyze the adverse environmental impacts of such filling, and provides no analysis of avoiding or mitigating those impacts. Those elements must be part of the SEQRA review of this project regardless of federal regulatory jurisdiction.
Those same requirements also apply to the projected clearing of trees from almost 3 acres of forested swamps and stream corridors. While the wetland tree removal protocols convinced the Army Corps that the clearing activity would not itself require an Army Corps' permit, those "how it will be done" protocols do not present a SEQRA analysis of the habitat or other environmental impacts of removing the trees from forested swamps and stream corridors, alternatives to avoid the impacts, or practicable ways to mitigate unavoidable impacts.

D. The DEIS Omits Stream Corridors Found by FWS and the City DEP.
The developer's wetland delineation report was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. On August 16, 2000, an Army Corps official met with the project sponsor to examine the wetlands on site. The FWS became involved with this project when asked to review a Pre-Construction Notification Permit Application (Number 2000-00748-YS) by the Army Corps. In response, a biologist from the FWS inspected portions of the proposed project site for wetlands. In addition, wetland scientists from the DEP also inspected the proposed project site for wetlands and water courses.
Based on site wetland investigations conducted by scientists representing both the FWS and DEP, the wetlands section of the DEIS is factually incorrect and deficient because it does not identify all of the water courses or streams on site. Without a thorough and accurate accounting of the water courses and streams on the project site, the DEIS cannot properly present the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed development.
1. FWS Site Inspection. Following the field inspection, the FWS sent a letter dated July 11, 2003 to the Army Corps identifying a number of potential inconsistencies concerning site wetlands. One week later the Army Corps filed an internal "memorandum for record" document entitled "Statement of Findings for Application No. 2000-00748-YS by Crossroads Ventures, LLC". The FWS letter to the Army Corps challenged whether all of the wetlands at the site had been properly delineated. According to the FWS:
Direct wetland impacts are associated with the construction of road crossings over four stream and wetland complexes. Project plans also include numerous crossings of streams and wetlands by golf course paths. Numerous road crossings are also planned over non-jurisdictional wetlands. At least 13 crossings were noted on the project plans of both streams and wetlands. It is unclear if all of the streams including the ephemeral and intermittent streams have been shown on the plans. We recently visited the project site and found channels and discernable bed and banks located downslope of mapped channels. For example, we observed channels south of Gunnison Road adjacent to proposed golf tee #5, which are not shown on the plans. If all of the water courses have not been documented, then not all of the impacts have been considered. Intermittent and ephemeral streams provide important functions on the landscape such as carrying storm flows and providing habitat for life cycles of some species of fish and invertebrates. (Emphasis added.)
The importance of the FWS observations concerning unmapped water courses or streams is two-fold. First, accurate assessment of the potential impacts of filling or clearing wetlands cannot be performed if water courses and streams downslope from the impacted wetland areas * the stormwater pathways from those impacted areas * are not accurately mapped and depicted in the DEIS. Second, if the relevant wetland areas are drained by streams or water courses, then those wetlands would likely constitute "waters of the United States" that would also require an Army Corps' permit before they legally could be filled.
The Army Corps' response to FWS was that the FWS was mistaken concerning the location of the stream in question and that it was "confident that all waters of the United States were identified within the project area." The Army Corps was correct that the stream in question was not south of Gunnison Road at proposed golf tee #5. (The area of concern being questioned by the FWS was actually south of Gunnison Road, near the green at hole 13, as well as north of Gunnison Road).
In an effort to resolve this contradiction, a freedom of information act request was sent to both the FWS and the Army Corps concerning the proposed project wetlands. After reviewing the files, a March 30, 2004 telephone conversation with the FWS biologist who had walked the site both north and south of Gunnison Road revealed the following observations down slope from wetland complex ##19-22: drift patterns, drainage patterns, erosion, defined bed and bank, exposed roots, rocks and deposited sediment. These factors in concert with the site topographic map tend to indicate that the wetland complex ## 19-22 is connected to the north to this drainage channel, which likely connects to a tributary of Emory Brook under high precipitation conditions. Wetlands identified on either side or parallel to this wetland complex were not classified as isolated in the DEIS. Wetland #16 located to the west, and wetland # 23 located to the east, both flow into a tributary of Emory Brook, which is a tributary of the Pepacton Reservoir. This factual issue needs to be resolved before the EIS process under SEQRA is concluded.
2. DEP Site Inspection. Independent of the FWS review, the DEP wrote a letter to the Army Corps dated December 8, 2003, disagreeing with some of their jurisdictional determinations concerning wetlands at the project site. The DEP confirmed FWS's suspicion that the area north (downslope) of wetland complex ## 19-22 was not properly delineated or mapped as an "isolated" wetland. DEP scientists field identified those wetlands as tributaries of Emory Brook. The DEP also found that the area north of wetland complex ## 33-35, on the eastern portion of the site, was not properly characterized. According to the site DEP's inspection, these three wetlands are tributaries to Birch Creek, which in turn is a tributary of the Ashokan Reservoir. This factual issue also needs to be resolved before the EIS process under SEQRA is concluded.
E. The Proposed Wetland Mitigation is Inadequate
To the extent that filling wetlands cannot practicably be avoided, the adverse impacts of the lost wetland functions and values must be mitigated under SEQRA unless demonstrated to be impracticable, by replacing the wetland area to be filled by restoring a larger area of former wetland or expanding a larger area of existing wetland within the same tributary system. To the extent that clearing trees from forested swamps and stream corridors cannot practicably be avoided, those impacts must also be mitigated, unless demonstrated to be impracticable. The mitigation proposed in the DEIS, to preserve other wetlands existing on site for which there appears to be no reasonably foreseeable plans to fill or alter, does not meet SEQRA's requirement that "to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided." ECL § 8-0109(8).
* * * * *Respectfully submitted,

James M. Tierney Charles Silver, Ph.D
Watershed Inspector General Watershed I.G. Scientist
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Protection Bureau Environmental Protection Bureau
The Capitol The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12224
(518) 474-4843 (518) 473-6620

---

Woodstock Times - Editorial 2/12/2004
No Savior Need Apply

by Brian Hollander
If the Belleayre Resort project passes muster in its environmental review, it will demonstrate perhaps the largest flaw of all in the SEQRA process - that the environmental impact statement, the central document involved in judging whether a project can or cannot be built, is bought and paid for by the project applicant. In a perfect world, an applicant would use the process to discover potential problems and then to make judgments as to whether it can proceed in a safe manner. In the real world, however, some distance from the perfect version, an environmental impact statement is often used to justify already drawn conclusions, backfill rationales after the fact and manipulate information...in short, it can say whatever the people who pay for it want it to say. And the size of the credibility of the document depends on the reputations of the experts you buy.
Of course, a lead agency must sign off on this document, but lead agencies tend to be political bodies and subject to pressures that may have nothing to do with environmental concerns.
For instance, the State Department of Environmental Conservation is the lead agency in this project. Might there be, at least, the appearance of a conflict of interest in the fact that the state also owns and runs the Belleayre Ski Center, nestled, so to speak, into the bosom of the resort and that this very ski center is the subject of a large expansion announced this month?
The point is, it seems as if only in an imperfect process could a project the size of Crossroads Ventures Belleayre Resort - two golf courses, two luxury hotels, time share condos, luxury homes, spas and restaurants - be approved as environmentally sound in the New York City watershed, an area where individuals often endure excruciating scrutiny or are outright denied the ability to build a single home with a single septic system. How many of those people do you know? I can name a few.
We believe the Belleayre Resort is not a suitable project for this area, a watershed that provides our resources as well as New York City's; that it is not pivotal for our economic development and that it does not reflect the area's culture, nor will it do anything to enhance the culture of the area.
This portion of the Catskills is not in a desultory state. Like any area, there are problems. There are people without work and there are more people without work that pays enough. There are people without shelter, and there is a housing vacancy rate in the county of 1.2 percent, a crunch of great proportions. There are hungry people and more who don't have proper medical care. These problems are not addressed in the DEIS.
But property values are rising, and people don't like that when it comes to paying taxes, but do like it when they contemplate their net worth. Many businesses are thriving, artists abound in the area, musicians play; even educationally, life seems to pulsate outward in concentric circles, with two colleges in the county, and a school system that we love to complain about but still seems to turn out some awfully creative people. People who stay here, or who move here, tend to do it on purpose. The notion that the area needs an economic savior or a cultural overseer is absurd.
Would Route 28 - a two lane, fast track highway that runs past a high school-middle school-elementary school complex, a road that has always been well known as one that kills people dead, a road that is a necessity to many area commuters - have to be widened and divided? Would that not encourage more strip development along that road?
And what if the project should fail? Would that not set back the steady growth the area has been experiencing and leave a great environmental scar?
But it is New York City that will likely hold sway on this issue. The city has always been the bogeyman around here. The widely perceived hundred-year-old hatred for its cruel town-swiping, reservoir-building, police-patrolling, water hogging is a reality, although that enmity is also constantly manipulated and exaggerated for political purposes. The $6 to $10 billion it would have to spend to filter its water should the federal EPA find declining water quality warrants such a course, is enough reason for the city to go to the wall on this one, though probably not by a brave, you-shall-not-pass stand. More likely, action will be subtle and take a long time. But the potential to improve relations in the area is real.
The prickly public persona of Dean Gitter, the leading figure in the quest for approval, hasn't helped Crossroads Ventures. Certainly not in Woodstock, where his blinking tower sits atop Overlook Mountain, despoiling what is surely one of the world's most beautiful acres for a television station no one around here has ever seemed to watch.
He has said that he believes "that every single person in Shandaken and Middletown... will benefit from this project."
But we believe that the obvious real negatives far outweigh the pie-in-the-sky portraits of "legendary golf retreats" he mentions like the Greenbriar and the Broadmoor, wealthy playgrounds for members only.
Our community should stand united in its opposition to this project.++