FEIS Chapter III - Comments and Responses

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS April 2008 III-1

III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

INTRODUCTION

This section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses the comments received on the October 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Comments include those presented at the DEIS public hearing held at 7 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2006, at The Town of Wawarsing Town Hall in Ellenville, New York, and written comments submitted to the Town of Wawarsing Planning Board during DEIS public review period held from October 31, 2006, to December 26, 2006. The following table presents a list of individuals and agencies that submitted written comments during the DEIS public review period; comments received verbally at the DEIS public hearing are also included.

Table III-1: Written Comments Received on the DEIS Letter Author Author Affiliation Date of Letter

1. Davidson, Chuck None. Oct. 26, 2006 2. Cragsmoor Fire District

Board of Commissioners Same. Nov. 15, 2006

3. Lesikin, Joan Member, Cragsmoor Association. Nov. 22, 2006 4. McCombs, Harry Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 25, 2006 5. McCombs, June Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 25, 2006 6. McCombs, Scott Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 25, 2006 7. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences Nov. 27, 2006 8. Seeland, Irene Cragsmoor resident. Nov. 27, 2006 9. Markunas, Kenneth NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic

Preservation, Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator.

Nov. 29, 2006

10. Porter, David Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis.

Nov. 29, 2006

11. Damsky, Russell & Monica Cragsmoor residents. Dec. 4, 2006 12. Wiebe, Dianne Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 4, 2006 13. Horn, Ted Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 19, 2006 14. Harris, Wendy Cragsmoor resident, professional

archeologist. Dec. 20, 2006

15. Lanc, John Lanc & Tully Engineering, Town Engineer. Dec. 20, 2006 16. Matz, Sally Cragsmoor Historical Society, President. Dec. 21, 2006 17. Rogers, Linda Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 21, 2006 18. Slade, Jeffrey The Cragsmoor Conservancy, President. Dec. 21, 2006 19. Wagner, Heidi The Nature Conservancy, Sam’s Point

Preserve Manager. Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 21, 2006

20. Clouser, David David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association.

Dec. 22, 2006

21. Franke, Jakob; Meyer, Eric; Hangland, Gary; Spector, Malcolm; Garrison, Andy

Members of Long Path South committee of New York/New Jersey Trail Conference.

Dec. 22, 2006

22. Brown, Wayne Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 24, 2006


Table III-1: Written Comments Received on the DEIS (Continued)

23. Lesikin, Joan Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 24, 2006 24. Rubin, Paul HydroQuest, consultant to

Cragsmoor Association. Dec. 24, 2006

25. Bierschenk, Joanne & Richard

Cragsmoor residents. Dec. 25, 2006

26. Williams, William Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 25, 2006 27. Barbour, James Ecological consultant hired by

Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy.

Received by Wawarsing Building Dept. Dec. 26, 2006

28. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences Dec. 26, 2006 29. Benton, Blake Cragsmoor resident. Received by

Wawarsing Building Dept. Dec. 26, 2006

30. Broderson, Cynthia Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006 31. Gale, Tom Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006 32. Gordon, David Attorney for Cragsmoor

Association Dec. 26, 2006

33. Matz, Sally Cragsmoor Historical Society, President.

Dec. 26, 2006

34. McAlpin, Mary Kroul Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006 35. Williams, Dolores Cragsmoor resident. Dec. 26, 2006 36. Mackey, Douglas NYS Office of Parks, Recreation &

Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Program Analyst - Archeology.

Dec. 28, 2006

37. Swentusky, Jane NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Jan. 23, 2007

38. Crist, Rebecca NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Feb. 2, 2007

Note: In addition to the above comments, a review letter based upon a GML 239-m referral was received on December 27, 2006, from the Ulster County Planning Board. This letter, and the Applicant’s responses to it, are attached as Appendix M to this FEIS.


Table III-2: Commenters at the Public Hearing Speaker Affiliation

1. McKenney, Jim President, Cragsmoor Association 2. Gordon, David Attorney for Cragsmoor Association 3. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences (Cragsmoor Association consultant). 4. Barbour, James Ecologist representing Cragsmoor Association 5. Sherman, Henry Cragsmoor resident 6. Wagner, Heidi Preserve manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident 7. Grace, Karen Cragsmoor resident 8. Matz, Sally President, Cragsmoor Historical Society 9. Radl, Maureen VP, Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP, Friends of the Shawangunks10. Grace, William Cragsmoor resident 11. Nolan, Dick Cragsmoor resident 12. Lesikin, Joan Cragsmoor resident 13. Benton, Blake Cragsmoor resident 14. Wiebe, Dianne Cragsmoor resident 15. Hoff, Barbara Cragsmoor resident 16. Muller, Lucy Cragsmoor resident 17. Ditar, Ruth Cragsmoor resident 18. Peters, Dick Cragsmoor resident 19. Sergenic, Phil Cragsmoor resident 20. Muldoon, Kathleen Cragsmoor resident 21. Grace, Karen Cragsmoor resident 22. Rogers, Linda Cragsmoor resident 23. Meily, Walter Cragsmoor resident 24. Kraft, Jeff Cragsmoor resident 25. Dunn, Irene Cragsmoor resident 26. Beinkafner, Katherine Mid-Hudson Geosciences (consultant to Cragsmoor Association). 27. Blake Benton Cragsmoor resident

The following section summarizes and responds to the comments; copies of all comments received, including transcripts from the public hearing, can be found in Appendix A (Comments Received on the DEIS). A summary of the comments made in each of the above referenced comment letters and public testimony is presented and a response to each comment listed is provided. The commenter’s name is listed after each comment. The responses to comments are organized as follows:

A. General Comments B. Executive Summary C. Description of the Proposed Action D. Land Use and Zoning E. Community Character/Visual Resources F. Flora and Fauna G. Topography, Steep Slopes, Soils and Sanitary Sewage Disposal H. Hydrogeology, Groundwater Resources and Water Supply I. Surface Water and Wetland Resources J. Stormwater Management K. Traffic L. Community Facilities M. Socioeconomic/Fiscal Impacts N. Cultural Resources (historical and archeological)


O. Noise P. Analysis of Alternatives Q. Unavoidable Impacts

A. General Comments NOTE: This section addresses general comments, and, accordingly, the responses are set forth in somewhat general terms. More specific comments on the same topics are responded to with corresponding specificity in later sections of the FEIS (see titles set forth above). A.1 Comment: What Cragsmoor is, is because of what Cragsmoor isn’t. It isn’t foul

water and earth quality that can’t support its pristine habitat. It isn’t an imbalance of people to environment. It isn’t a place of stress. (Chuck Davidson, memo dated October 26, 2006).

A.1 Response: The Mahamudra Buddhist Hermitage would not result in an imbalance of

people to environment, nor would it be a place of stress. The goal of the Hermitage is to provide a place for retreatants to immerse themselves in quiet, contemplative practices and teaching. Because the Hermitage’s sole purpose is the development of inner awareness, the activities that will occur on-site will focus completely on the inner, personal interactions within oneself during meditation. The activities on the site will not involve celebratory, external, interaction with large audiences, or any of the noise associated with such activities. The existing natural environment is a major element of the atmosphere required for the Hermitage, and preserving the quality of that environment – in terms of water, soil and wildlife – is a central element of its mission.

A.2 Comment: Please have both SHPO and the Preservation League of New York State

review the final DEIS (Joan Lesikin, member of Cragsmoor Association, memo dated November 27, 2006).

A.2 Response: Both agencies had the opportunity to review the DEIS. The Applicant

received comments from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, of which SHPO is a part. Responses to these comments are contained in Section E, Community Character/Visual Resources, and Section N, Cultural Resources (historical and archeological).

A.3 Comment: Has any thought been given as to the impact on the environment of the

surrounding area (Harry McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

A.3 Response: As per the Scoping Document, the following potential environmental

impacts to the surrounding area were evaluated in the DEIS: land use and zoning; community character/visual resources; flora and fauna; topography, steep slopes, soils and sanitary sewage disposal; hydrogeology, groundwater resources and water supply; surface water and wetland resources; stormwater management; traffic; community facilities; socioeconomic/fiscal impacts; cultural resources (historical and archeological); and noise. The DEIS concluded that potential adverse impacts of the


project include a small increase in local traffic, incremental increases in demand on community services, a slight increase in demand for utilities, an increase in impervious surfaces, some possible disturbance of wildlife habitats, a small decrease to the Town of Wawarsing’s potential tax base and minor visual impacts. The DEIS concluded that these potential adverse impacts can be appropriately mitigated through a range of measures, as more fully explained within the document.

A.4 Comment: What will happen to the value of our property (Harry McCombs,

Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)? A.4 Response: The proposed project will be a very quiet land use that has very limited

visibility from the road. Its development will prevent the site from being subdivided and cleared for a number of residential lots. The modifications to the project, which have reduced its size, visibility and occupancy, will further limit the impacts. Because of the nature of the proposed project, it should not result in any visible impact or significant adverse environmental impacts that would negatively affect property values in the surrounding area. In fact the quiet use of the retreat facilities and the preservation of landscape buffers and restrictions on future development would protect the neighborhood from an as-of-right residential subdivision, thus preserving and enhancing property values.

Given the proposed quiet use of the land, the use’s prevention of future subdivision

and the lack of visible impacts or other significant adverse environmental impacts, property values in the surrounding area should be preserved. Furthermore, the certainty provided by the Applicant’s proposed restrictions on future development, in the form of a permanent buffer around approximately 77 percent of the property perimeter, including all portions bordering public roads, will provide additional protection of property values in the vicinity of the project site. This proposed restriction is discussed in greater detail in Response A.10, below.

A.5 Comment: Has any thought been given as to the impact on the environment of the

surrounding area (June McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

A.5 Response: See response for A.3. A.6 Comment: What will happen to the value of our property (June McCombs,

Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)? A.6 Response: See response for A.4. A.7 Comment: Has any thought been given as to the impact on the environment of the

surrounding area (Scott McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

A.7 Response: See response for A.3. A.8 Comment: What will happen to the value of our property (Scott McCombs,

Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?


A.8 Response: See response for A.4. A.9 Comment: The DEIS states that there will be no fragmentation. This ten-year, 4-

phase development of buildings, roads, water drainage, sewers, parking, etc. will result in ripping apart the landscape. There will be fragmentation (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.9 Response: The project has been planned to have a measured development pace

consistent with the low-impact nature of the proposed use, which will minimize construction-related impacts. The internal road, with attendant utilities, is scheduled for completion as part of Phase I, to avoid any necessity of repeated disturbance of that area. No blasting is expected to occur during any phase of construction, and the project will not require relocation of any existing projects or facilities. The project layout has been designed to minimize construction in areas of steeper slopes, meaning that significant areas will not be re-graded. While approximately 33.5% of the project site with the modified layout will be re-graded and temporarily exposed during construction of the project, the phased process will assure a slow pace of disturbance, limiting areas disturbed at one time. In addition, site plan modifications since completion of the DEIS will reduce final build-out in terms of occupancy, number of buildings, total square footage and parking. These changes will generate decreases in water usage, septic capacity, electrical loads, disturbed areas, parking and landscaping.

As discussed in Chapter IV.C (Flora and Fauna) of the DEIS, fragmentation can be described in two fashions: forest and habitat fragmentation. Forest fragmentation results from the practice of opening up closed forest canopy, allowing edge-oriented species to penetrate into areas of the forest that they could not reach before. Habitat fragmentation is the separation and isolation of habitats and wildlife populations by placing impenetrable barriers between habitats that prevent mixing of formerly connected or adjacent wildlife populations. The site planning for the proposed project has created a layout that will minimize the clearing of forested areas and the creation of barriers for wildlife migration. Furthermore, the proposed modifications to the proposed site plan have reduced the amount of disturbance on the site. During construction, special measures will be taken so that construction limits are clearly defined to prevent disruption of areas that were to remain undisturbed (See Response G.8).

The DEIS stated that there may be temporary disruption of wildlife migration

corridors during construction; however, long-term, they should remain intact. The phasing of the project, as described in Response J.3, will minimize these temporary disruptions, thus minimizing fragmentation impacts. Phase I, which is further divided into several separate sub-phases, involves the construction of the main roads, utilities and infrastructure and the Milarepa Center. The sub-phases were established so that less than 5 acres are disturbed at any one time. The initial two sub-phases involve the road construction from Cragsmoor Road to the Milarepa Center site, leaving the section north of there to Old Inn Road undisturbed. The third sub-phase is the construction of the Milarepa Center buildings, with the final sub-phase being the completion of the road construction to Old Inn Road. This will allow


any temporary habitat disruptions caused by the initial road installation to reestablish while the building construction takes place, which in turn will help mitigate any impacts caused by the construction of the balance of the road. Since Phase I includes all of the work that transverses the site from Cragsmoor Road to Old Inn Road, upon completion, any temporary disruptions of wildlife migration will cease to exist. Future phases involve construction of individual building complexes within contained areas. Due to the limited development area of each site, during the construction of any of these future phases, disruption to wildlife migration is not anticipated. See Response J.3 for a detailed discussion of phasing, and alternate phasing.

While the time for completion of the project in its entirety may vary somewhat, the

minimum anticipated time for such completion is estimated to be approximately 7 years. Even at this maximum building pace, construction periods of 12-18 months would be followed by quiet periods between phases with no construction activity, and it is not anticipated that there will be significant fragmentation impacts, as discussed herein. It is also possible that the time period for completion of the project may extend to a longer period of time, such as the ten year period of time suggested by the commenter, by virtue of longer periods of time between phases. The total length of actual construction activity would be expected to remain constant under any of the potential scenarios for phasing and total project completion. The longer periods between one or more phases will not generate any additional adverse impacts.

A.10 Comment: Additional consideration should be given to a well-defined, 360-degree

“buffer zone” – a Conservation Easement guaranteed, in perpetuity, never to incur future fragmentation or further development (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.10 Response: As discussed in Chapter II, the Applicant is proposing greenspace buffers

along approximately 77 percent of the site boundary, as follows: A buffer approximately 100 feet deep is proposed along the entire frontage of the property along Cragsmoor Road, and the entire frontage along Old Inn Road. A buffer approximately 200 feet deep is proposed along the southern and western boundaries of the property. A buffer continues at a depth of 100 feet along the northwest boundary of the property. These buffers are substantially deeper than the applicable 50-foot yard requirement in the R/C-3A zoning district. The proposed buffer area is depicted in Figure II-4. The purpose of the buffer area is to provide landscaped buffer areas which generally limit placement of facilities above ground level within the buffer area and provide reasonable amounts of natural screening along areas viewed from public and private roadways. In total, the proposed buffers would cover an area of 26.6 acres, or 29 percent of the site.

Dharmakaya would have certain limited reserved rights within the buffer areas,

including the right to place walking and meditation trails and religious statuary; to selectively prune vegetation; and to remove dead or diseased trees. Dharmakaya would also, upon approval by the Planning Board and in the manner shown on approved site plans, be allowed to place structures and facilities within the buffer areas, including access drives, entrance lighting and directional signage; water and


stormwater facilities; septic and other underground utilities; and such other structures and facilities as the Planning Board may deem appropriate in support of the use of the property and consistent with the function of the buffer areas.

The buffer areas would be noted on any approved site plans, with appropriate notes

to implement the restrictions as approved by the Planning Board. In addition, the Applicant would file appropriate covenants and restrictions to implement the buffer restrictions and reserved rights as set forth in the approval resolution, in a form approved by the Planning Board Attorney, additionally naming the Town of Wawarsing as a benefited party with ability to enforce the provisions of the covenants and restrictions. Additionally, the Applicant will offer to the Town of Wawarsing a Conservation Easement, in form approved by the Town Attorney, setting forth the same substantive restrictions and reserved rights as in the covenants and restrictions, and granting the Town the ability to enforce the Conservation Easement. Both the covenants and restrictions and, if accepted by the Town, the Conservation Easement, would be recorded no later than simultaneously with the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for a building within the project.

A.11 Comment: The Planning Board can require Dharmakaya to enter into a

conservation easement with the Cragsmoor Conservancy or another suitable not-for-profit entity to limit both the current use of the property and any further development. Such a conservation easement could limit the size and location of buildings, require specific landscaping, prevent the use of undeveloped land and so on. Any community concern about the size, impact or future use of the project could be met through this conservation easement device (Jeffrey Slade, The Cragsmoor Conservancy, President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.11 Response: See Response A.10. The Applicant is proposing to create buffers around

77 percent of its perimeter, covering approximately 29 percent of its land. Dharmakaya believes that its proposal to create these buffers is not necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, but is consented to by Dharmakaya as a neighborly gesture in a mutual effort to preserve privacy, quiet, and the nature of the community.

A.12 Comment: Due to sensitivity of the site, we urge the Planning Board to consider

requiring a conservation easement on the undeveloped portion of the property, to assure that the undeveloped land be protected in perpetuity (Heidi Wagner, The Nature Conservancy, Preserve Manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

A.12 Response: See Responses A.10 and A.11. A.13 Comment: The figures identified in the DEIS as Site Plan, Schematic Landscaping

Plan, Buffer Area Plan, as well as other mapping within the DEIS, are represented at a scale of 1 inch= 300 feet, which is a scale typically used for very general mapping of large areas, without any significant design detail. For a project of this scale and scope, the DEIS mapping typically has a maximum scale of 1 inch= 100 feet. This larger scale mapping format would allow a proper review of site design elements


(David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

A.13 Response: Appendix F of the DEIS contained 1inch=80 feet scale drawings of the

proposed site plan, which is less than the maximum scale of 1 inch=100 feet that was requested. These plans were included in the copies of the DEIS that were distributed to all involved or interested agencies. This included copies that were available for review at the Town Hall and the libraries. Updated plans, showing the revised site layout at a 1”=80’ scale have been included as Appendix B of the FEIS. In addition, proposed landscaping plans at 1”= 40’ scale for the Construction Phase I Milarepa Center (as were previously submitted for site plan/special permit review) are included in Appendix B. These plans have been revised since the original submission to indicate to scale plant sizes at initial planting and at seven year growth. The scale provides clear view of the site design elements including the proposed plant materials in the landscape buffer between the Milarepa Center and Old Inn Road.

A.14 Comment: The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans were not available on the DEIS

website, thereby preventing review by the public of this important and required element of the site’s environmental protective measures. This omission might be considered a serious flaw in the project’s SEQRA review process, where public review and participation are fundamental tenets of this procedure (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

A.14 Response: These plans were available from other sources during the DEIS review

process. Hard copies of the full DEIS and the maps were available at the Town Hall and the libraries and were sent to all involved and interested agencies, including the Cragsmoor Association, the commenter’s client. The Notice of Completion on the Web site included a list of these locations where these hard copies were available. The revised plans that are part of the FEIS will be posted on the Web site.

A.15 Comment: As one who spent most of his working life as a plumber on construction

projects, I knew immediately the impact of this extensive project. It would mean the destruction of the fragile ecosystem and the way of life that Cragsmoor residents have maintained over generations (Wayne Brown, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006).

A.15 Response: The DEIS concluded that the proposed project would not result in any

significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. See Responses A.3 and A9.

Regarding the project’s impacts on habitats, the modifications made to the original

site plan will substantially reduce the area of disturbance on the site. The initial site plan described in the DEIS resulted in a total site disturbance of 35.61 acres, or 39.32 percent of the project site. Due to the Applicant’s reduction in the size and number of proposed buildings and in parking spaces, this total site disturbance will be reduced to 30.38 acres, or 33.5 percent of the total project site. Site disturbance is discussed in greater detail in Response A.32, below. The decrease in the project’s


anticipated disturbance to the site will preserve more than five additional acres of the total project site. In addition, the Applicant’s proposed restrictions on future development, in the form of a permanent buffer around the property perimeter, will preserve approximately 26.6 acres, or about 29 percent of the 91-acre project site. This buffer is discussed in greater detail in Responses A.10 and A.11.

A.16 Comment: The projected buildings are massive compared to the scale of present

buildings in Cragsmoor. Since a retreat center is in the business of growth, I don’t think restricting size now will prevent future growth. What limits can the township impose that will stick (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006)?

A.16 Response: While the buildings are larger than the existing buildings in Cragsmoor,

they are also on a much larger property, and much further set back from the outer boundaries of the property. Furthermore, all proposed buildings have been sited so as not to create undue disturbance to the existing landscape. For example, the Milarepa Center has been designed to “step down” the natural terrain and therefore be substantially obscured from views from Old Inn Road. The project’s minimal impacts on views are fully discussed in Section E of this chapter. In addition, as detailed above, the Applicant is proposing a permanent buffer of approximately 100 to 200 feet around approximately 77 percent of the property perimeter, which will provide additional setbacks and screening of the proposed buildings from surrounding areas. See Responses A.10 and A.11.

The DEIS has addressed the proposed total ultimate size of the project for purposes

of the special permit application. The Town will enforce these maximums in its special permit. The special permit will not allow any development in excess of the limits studied in the EIS process. The Town also has an additional review authority, in that the Applicant is only seeking site plan approval for the first phase of the project. The Town will enforce compliance with the conditions of the special permit and site plan through its Building Inspector. The site plan approval processes will also be public review processes. It is not anticipated that any additional SEQRA review will be required at the time of additional site plan approvals, because the SEQRA impacts of the whole project were already addressed in this EIS process. Dharmakaya is not in the business of growth, but is a not-for-profit religious undertaking to provide worship and meditation in a quiet environment.

A.17 Comment: The DEIS presented and discussed at the last meeting this month was

irredeemably flawed. The DEIS is diametrically opposed to the opinions of the experts hired by the Cragsmoor Association and as such we are requesting that the Board hire experts that will receive their funding from the Planning Board and be responsible solely to the Board to prepare another DEIS. The Dharmakaya should supply funding to the Board (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

A.17 Response: The Town of Wawarsing Planning Board has hired several experts to

review the DEIS, and their comments form part of the record and are responded to in the FEIS. Specifically, the Planning Board hired the planning firm of Frederick P. Clark Associates to review the DEIS for initial acceptance. It also hired


hydrogeologist Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to evaluate the Applicant’s hydrogeological studies. The Town’s engineering firm, Lanc & Tully, also reviewed the DEIS. These experts are responsible solely to the Board. The Planning Board has required that the Applicant fund an escrow account which is used by the Planning Board, at its discretion, to pay expenses of the review, including the cost of these experts hired by the Planning Board, even though the experts are responsible solely to the Board.

A.18 Comment: One cannot place any confidence in the work of the so-called experts

who were totally debunked, for example by Spider Barbour’s assessment of their inclusion in the DEIS of rare plants found solely in Australia. We would love to see their credentials. In fact, the Board should ask for, and scrutinize that information (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

A.18 Response: The project team for the Mahamudra Hermitage DEIS consists of a

number of established professional consulting firms with expertise in the area of environmental analysis. The following is a list of all preparers of the DEIS, as well as a summary of qualifications for each contributor:

Cuddy & Feder LLP (Attorney)

Responsible for overall document review. Cuddy & Feder LLP is a law firm with a land use practice representing a diverse client base, including local, regional, national and multi-national clients with sites located throughout the Hudson Valley, the metropolitan New York area and Connecticut. The firm’s practice areas include zoning, land use, environmental and municipal law before state, county and municipal boards. The firm has acted as counsel in connection with the development of waterfront sites; large residential communities; retail; commercial, office and industrial buildings; shopping centers; apartment buildings; museums and institutional developments such as nursing homes schools, assisted-living facilities and continuing-care retirement communities. Cuddy & Feder has also acted as special counsel to municipalities in the review of complex zoning and planning matters, and the drafting of zoning and planning regulations.

BFJ Planning (Planner) Responsible for document assembly. Contributed to the following sections: Executive Summary, Project

Description, Land Use and Zoning, Community Facilities, Socioeconomic/Fiscal Impacts, Noise, Analysis of Alternatives, Unavoidable Impacts and Other SEQR Environmental Impacts.

Founded in 1980, BFJ Planning is a multi-disciplinary consulting firm offering services in planning and zoning, environmental analysis, transportation, urban design, site planning and real estate analysis. For over 25 years, the firm has provided clients with high-quality planning and design solutions to a range of complex problems. BFJ’s work is distinguished by a high degree of principal participation in the technical work of each project, exceptional capabilities in graphic design and presentation and a strong commitment to participatory


planning. The firm has taken a leading role in providing environmental review services in New York City and New York State.

Chas. H. Sells, Inc. (Engineer and Traffic Consultant)

Contributed to the following sections: Topography, Steep Slopes, Soils and Sanitary Sewage Disposal; Hydrogeology, Groundwater Resources and Water Supply; Surface Water and Wetland Resources; Stormwater Management; and Traffic.

Recognized by the Engineering News Record as “One of the Nation’s Top 500 Firms” in the transportation industry, Chas. H. Sells, Inc. specializes in bridge design and inspection, transportation engineering, civil engineering, surveying/GPS and comprehensive mapping services. With more than 82 years of experience and a large staff of engineers, surveyors and photogrammetrists in nine office locations, the firm is dedicated to providing innovative, quality-driven and cost efficient services to exceed its client’s needs. Chas Sells’ continual reassignment by numerous agencies and municipalities is testament to the firm’s commitment brought forth by encompassing the very best resources to every endeavor it undertakes.

Cerniglia Architecture and Planning, P.C. (Architect)

Contributed to the Community Character/Visual Resources section.

Cerniglia Architecture and Planning, P.C. provides architectural design and site planning services to both the public and private sector. Its diversified client and project portfolio includes municipal governments, institutions, corporations, the development community and private individuals. The firm has endeavored to achieve a tradition of excellence in architecture through the strict enforcement of high, companywide standards of professionalism and service. As a general-practice architecture, planning, design and interiors firm, Cerniglia Architecture and Planning is licensed in New York and Connecticut. Its range of architectural services include, but are not limited to, comprehensive programming, space analysis, conceptual, schematic and final design, construction cost analysis, presentation drawings, construction documents and specifications, bidding administration, contract negotiations and construction administration. Site planning services include land use analysis, zoning analysis, environmental evaluation, master planning, site design, re-zoning procedures, municipal approvals and ADA (American's with Disabilities Act) facility surveys.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. (Environmental Consultant)

Contributed to the Hydrogeology, Groundwater Resources and Water Supply section.

Leggette, Brashears & Graham (LBG) was the nation's first firm to provide specialized consulting services in the field of groundwater geology. The firm has been in business for 64 years, longer than any other firm committed to the original core specialty of hydrogeology. LBG has maintained state-of-the-art expertise in the areas of groundwater movement, utilization, modeling,


contamination and remediation. Technical personnel receive extensive field training in all aspects of hydrogeologic and soils investigations, as well as in remedial engineering functions. Each project is completed under the direct supervision of a principal of the firm. The activities of the firm involve providing investigation, design, management and advisory services to public and private organizations, both foreign and domestic, on problems that lie within the specialized fields of hydrogeology and environmental engineering. The firm undertakes only the type of work for which it is qualified and for which there is a genuine need for environmental engineering and/or groundwater specialists.

LBG has been providing public and industrial water-supply consulting since 1944. Assignments have included municipal and community well-field development, design, testing, maintenance and expansion. The firm has extensive experience with water-supply development in both bedrock and sand and gravel aquifers. LBG has developed numerous supplies in bedrock and sand and gravel in New England and southern New York. For most of the water-supply development projects, LBG has been involved in all aspects of the work, from performing initial hydrogeologic studies and exploratory drilling to well design, construction oversight, well testing and permitting. Many of the well sites have required wetland studies. The more recent projects have required compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule regulations. Within New York State, LBG has extensive experience in water supply analysis, and has conducted groundwater assessment for numerous municipalities in Dutchess, Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties. The firm’s long record of work with water-supply development, contamination problems and computer modeling throughout the Northeast establishes LBG as a firm uniquely qualified to prepare all aspects of water-supply studies.

Ecological Solutions, Inc. (Environmental Consultant)

Contributed to the Flora and Fauna section. Ecological Solutions staff has more than 18 years experience completing natural resource inventories. The firm has analyzed the life history requirements of several endangered plant and animal species, including Blanding’s turtle, bog turtle, bald eagle, Indiana bat and Karner blue butterfly. This analysis allows the firm’s staff to determine the extent of rare, threatened or endangered species and the potential impacts presented to a project. Ecological Solutions’ vegetation and wildlife surveys:

o Determine the density, frequency and dominance of plant communities through aerial photography and on-site field reconnaissance

o Conduct surveys of endangered, threatened and rare wildlife populations;

o Determine the presence of specific fish and wildlife species on individual sites or areas.


o Design and supervise ongoing monitoring programs to assess status and impacts to ecological communities.

Kathy Michell (Biologist, Environmental Consultant)

Evaluated the site for potential for timber rattlesnake habitat. Kathy Michell is a New York State-certified biologist, and holds a Class 1, Federal Migratory Bird License, a License to Collect or Possess Animals and is a NYSDEC wildlife rehabilitator. Ms. Michell is one of three people certified by Region 3 of NYSDEC for the assessment of timber rattlesnake habitat.

Tim Miller Associates, Inc. (Environmental Consultant)

Contributed to the Cultural Resources (historical and archeological) section.

Tim Miller Associates, Inc. provides land planning and environmental services to developers, corporations, municipalities and community planning associations. These include services in the areas of municipal planning, zoning and community development, development feasibility studies, environmental impact statements, wetland delineation and analysis, groundwater and geotechnical sciences, air quality, noise and traffic studies, phase 1 and 2 environmental audits and site assessments, stage 1 archeology studies, landscape design and related advisory services. Tim Miller Associates has active projects throughout the greater New York metropolitan area, including New Jersey; Connecticut; New York City; and Westchester, Putnam, Orange, Rockland, Dutchess, Ulster and Sullivan Counties. The firm’s in-house staff offers a depth and breadth of experience rarely found in small- to mid-size consulting offices. In-house capabilities include transportation planning, traffic, environmental and community planning, economics, water resources, biology and natural sciences, environmental impact assessment, hydrogeology, hazardous waste investigations, asbestos services, landscape design and wetland delineation.

CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants (Environmental Consultants)

Contributed to the Cultural Resources (historical and archeological) section.

CITY/SCAPE provides a variety of services to organizations requiring cultural and environmental analyses; open space planning; and presentation surveys of historic sites, including landscapes and architectural elements, lectures, interpretive programs and exhibitions.

A.19 Comment: The Planning Board should be aware that although the Dharmakaya

claims that theirs will be a religious endeavor, there will be a great deal of tax-free money generated as income to the organization. Will the Dharmakaya offer its conference facilities to other corporations for meeting purposes? It would certainly be a grave injustice to the Town of Wawarsing residents to pay extra taxes to support the expense caused by the Dharmakaya community while they are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars and are not supporting the community (William Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 25, 2006).


A.19 Response: Dharmakaya has no plans to offer any of the Hermitage facilities to

outside organizations or to corporations for meeting purposes. All facilities at Dharmakaya will be focused on the space and infrastructure for Buddhist teachings and programs, especially the core three-year meditation retreat. As a non-profit organization, Dharmakaya’s activities (and those of its affiliate organization, the United Trungram Buddhist Fellowship (UTBF) are made possible through the support of its members and private donations. This is not dissimilar to other religious groups and churches, which take collections or rely on donations for part of their support. The Hermitage is not expected to achieve a “profit,” as all program income will be used to pay operating expenses. Income above and beyond operating expenses is not expected.

A.20 Comment: Planning boards and town boards sometimes are not aware that the

services of consultants to the town can be charged to developers. This is a provision of state law. It’s a good idea to have the town hire more experts because a poorly designed project or a project whose impacts are inadequately and inaccurately described and assessed is bound to cost the town eventually, in remediation of damage, increased services and legal defense (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

A.20 Response: See Response A.17. A.21 Comment: Why did the Planning Board allow the Applicant to decimate the content

of the scoping document? And why did the Applicant elect to ignore the public request for hydrogeologic information (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences (consultant to Cragsmoor Association), memo dated December 26, 2006)?

A.21 Response: Actually, the Planning Board expanded the scoping document from the

initial submission to include additional requirements. Nor has the Applicant ignored the public request for hydrogeologic information. The study done for the DEIS was very robust, and performed by a recognized consulting firm, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., who in its 64 years of business has competed over 6,000 groundwater projects for more than 4,000 clients. The firm has received numerous awards from both engineering associations and private entities for its work, and is recognized in the engineering community as an expert in the field of groundwater and environmental services. (See Response A.18). The Town hired an independent consultant, Malcolm, Pirnie, Inc., to review all the hydrogeological reports generated under the DEIS review process. The review comment letter from Malcolm Pirnie, and the response of Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. are both included in Appendix D of the FEIS.

A.22 Comment: I have personally investigated many of the cited Centers for Buddhist

Worship cited in the DEIS (the Karme Choling Retreat Center; the Shambhala Mountain Center; the Zen Mountain Center), and found another common thread throughout – the impact of these centers on the surrounding communities was and continues to be that of devastating consequences. For example, the DEIS cited the


Karme Choling Retreat Center as a project of similar nature to the proposed Hermitage in Cragsmoor – this center started out as a small weekend retreat and is now one of the largest centers of its kind and supports a local factory that manufactures articles related to Buddhist practices (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor resident, memo received December 26, 2006).

A.22 Response: People in Dharmakaya’s organization have approximately 30 years of

knowledge about these other centers, and we know of no such “devastating consequences.” Based on this experience, it is the Applicant’s opinion that all Buddhist centers mentioned are good neighbors and have a harmonious and positive relationship with their local communities. Karme Choling does not have a factory but a small cottage business that makes meditation cushions, to support its programs. Nevertheless, the examples of Buddhist centers provided in the Appendix A of the DEIS were selected for the fact that places of Buddhist worship have been successfully integrated into other communities, not as direct comparisons to the projected size, scale and use of the proposed Hermitage. One important difference is that the proposed Hermitage will be exclusively used for worship and meditation, study and retreat, with the most serious students participating in the traditional three-year retreat. Retreats of such intensity and duration are not offered at any other center in the U.S. of which we are aware. Mahamudra Hermitage will be a worship and retreat center, perhaps more similar to a small religious community, while the other centers named function as program centers, which may offer a wide range of activities. Also, see Response A.16.

A.23 Comment: We read in the DEIS that Rinpoche, the spiritual leader of the

Dharmakaya, is regarded as one of the top Lamas of Tibetan Buddhism. Isn’t it therefore natural to assume he and his followers will attract this type of future growth cited above in our comparatively small community? I ask, what will the town Board do to prevent this development in our community (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor resident, memo received December 26, 2006)?

A.23 Response: The principal function of the proposed Hermitage will be for meditation

and study for serious Buddhist practitioners, with the most serious students participating in the traditional three-year retreat. Casual use of the Hermitage facilities by drop in visitors will not be allowed and is inconsistent with its quiet retreat use. See Responses A.4, A.16 and A.22.

A.24 Comment: I don’t believe the people behind the Center care a hoot for their

neighbors. This is all about their own selfish ambition to turn a dollar under the guise of a spiritual retreat. We will be yet another casualty at the price of what? Some sort of spiritual gentrification (Cynthia Broderson, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

A.24 Response: Throughout the planning process for the Hermitage, Dharmakaya has

conducted outreach efforts in the Cragsmoor community, and the Applicant’s spiritual leader, Rinpoche, has traveled to the area to discuss the project with residents and conduct teachings and meditation sessions for the community. Regarding any intention of Dharmakaya to earn a profit through the Hermitage, please refer to Response A.19. In the fall of 2003, before Dharmakaya bought the


land, its representatives asked to meet with the Cragsmoor community and did so in the Stone Church. At that time, Dharmakaya laid out plans for a community of approximately 100 full-time residents on the site, focused on short- and long-term meditation practices, with six to eight larger teachings each year (each a single-day event with no additional overnight guests). The Applicant also discussed the various buildings types that would be needed to make the facility work. Since then, Dharmakaya has had meetings with the community each year: one large community meeting, multiple meetings with abutters of the land (in addition to offering teachings/meditation sessions each June at the home of a neighboring land owner for anyone who wanted to come) and a meeting with various representatives of the Cragsmoor community groups in the spring of 2007. The Applicant has consistently stated its goals to neighbors and intends to continue to be a good neighbor by preserving the intent of the community – an atmosphere of quiet retreat.

A.25 Comment: It would be better if you would look to preserve and protect what lies in

your own backyard, namely Cragsmoor! (Cynthia Broderson, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

A.25 Response: The proposed Hermitage would preserve far more land and result in

significantly less development impact than would a conventional residential subdivision allowed under the site’s current zoning. In addition, the proposed project would generate less traffic and demand for utilities and community services than such a subdivision.

A.26 Comment: I recommend that Mahamudra include in the Final EIS a statement of

intent to pursue the program consistently presented to the township and the Cragsmoor community and only that program (Tom Gale, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

A.26 Response: The Applicant intends to pursue only the program as consistently

presented, which is set forth in this EIS. See Responses A.16 and A.22. A.27 Comment: Further, I recommend that Mahamudra provide a statement in the Final

EIS offering discussion intended to lead to granting conservation easements on selected areas of the site in furtherance of joint Mahamudra, township and community recognition of intent to harmonize Hermitage activities and environmental amenities (Tom Gale, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

A.27 Response: The Applicant has proposed to create a 100- to 200-foot permanent

buffer around approximately 77 percent of the perimeter of the project site, covering approximately 29 percent of the property. For detailed discussion of this plan, see Responses A.10 and A.11.

A.28 Comment: The conclusions in the Environmental Impact Statement about the

impacts on biological resources are at least in the preliminary draft we put together worthless. Too little information is provided to support any conclusions regarding


impacts to the project (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.28 Response: As discussed above, the DEIS was accepted as complete on October 25,

2006. This acceptance came after a full review of the draft DEIS by Frederick P. Clark Associates, and resultant modifications to the draft by the Applicant. The information in the DEIS regarding Flora and Fauna (biological resources) was studied by an expert in the field, Michael Nowicki, of Ecological Solutions, Inc. (see Response A.18). Mr. Nowicki has more than 19 years of experience in the field of natural resources investigations. The Natural Resources Survey completed for the site took a hard look for species of special concern, threatened and endangered species that occur in New York State as listed by the NYSDEC during the appropriate seasons. Common species were also catalogued on the site. Breeding birds, herptiles, plants and other vegetation were also observed and documented on the site. All of the species observed on the site were identified and included in the Natural Resources Survey. In addition, as part of the FEIS and in response to comments raised, the Applicant had the site assessed for rattlesnake habitat by Kathy Michell, who is licensed by NYSDEC in this field. The NYSDEC also has a copy of the DEIS for review and offered no comments on the Natural Resources Survey. Also, additional field surveys were conducted by Mr. Nowicki, on July 24, 2007, and August 8, 2007. During these additional field surveys, no additional species of special concern or threatened, endangered or rare species were observed

A.29 Comment: With respect to the SEQR timeline, the one thing that wasn’t put up was a

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Every one of the impacts I’ve cited would be sufficient to require a SEIS to be certain that you are viewing the significance of this site (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006). [Note: the impacts referred to by the commenter relate to the project’s compliance with Town zoning, community character, traffic, wildlife and habitats, viewsheds, hydrogeology, analysis of alternatives and the potential for future project growth. The full text of the comments is found in Appendix A of this FEIS.]

A.29 Response: See Responses A.17 and A.28. A supplemental EIS is not required. The

DEIS adequately and fairly evaluated all potential impacts. Comments raised by the public are appropriately addressed in this FEIS.

A.30 Comment: You don’t have the road frontage. The road facilities. You don’t have the

water means. My question to you is do you want to ruin that community with corporate America? It is time for our Board to stand up and say no (Henry Sherman, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.30 Response: As shown in Table IV.A-1, on page IV.A-14 of the DEIS, the project site

has 1,949 feet of road frontage, more than 10 times the minimum 175-foot frontage required by the Wawarsing Zoning Code. Cragsmoor Road is a County highway, and road improvements including shoulder widening and drainage improvements will be completed as part of the project. In addition, the site plan proposes an internal road network that will adequately address the needs of the site’s occupants, and that will be privately maintained at no cost to the Town.


Regarding water issues, see Response A.21 and Section H. The proposed use has little in common with a corporate campus. There will be far less traffic than on an office site. The buildings on the site are not adaptable to corporate office structures. The interests of the project sponsors are religious, not “corporate.”

A.31 Comment: Due to the sensitivity of the site and the concern of residents in

Cragsmoor about the potential for additional development on the site, we urge the Planning Board to consider requiring a conservation easement on the undeveloped portion of the property to assure that undeveloped land be protected in perpetuity (Heidi Wagner, preserve manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.31 Response: See Response A.10 and A.11 for a full discussion of the Applicant’s

proposal for a buffer around the property perimeter, which is discussed at various points throughout the FEIS.

A.32 Comment: This plan has only outlined a construction sequence for Phase I, which is

proposed to be just under 12 acres. Soil disturbance must be limited to 5 acres or less at any one time during the construction phase. A phasing plan, with detailed construction sequence for each phase at full build-out, must be included on the site plan and must limit areas of disturbance to 5 acres or less. These phases must be clearly delineated on the site plan (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

A.32 Response: The Applicant acknowledges the obligation to limit disturbance to 5 acres

or less at any one time during the construction phase. Site plan approval is only being sought for Phase I at this time. Each phase subsequent to the first shall be required to obtain Planning Board site plan review and approval prior to construction. Detailed construction sequencing will be developed for the particular phase under review at the time of site plan approval. All construction sequencing and soil disturbance will be done in accordance with NYSDEC Phase II Stormwater Regulations. As described in Response J.3, Phase I will be broken down into sub-phases to assure that the amount of disturbance is less than 5 acres. During this Phase, a maximum of 4.3 acres will be disturbed in any one sub-phase. Subsequent phases will involve the construction of the individual building complexes or combinations of buildings. As described in Response J.3, only Phase IV will exceed 5 acres (8.0 acres). However, work during that phase will be broken down into sub-phases so as to assure that disturbance is limited to less than 5 acres at any one time See Tables III.A-1 and III.A-2, below, for a revised summary of site disturbance to reflect the modified site plan.


Table III.A-1: Area of Disturbance Breakdown

USE AREA OF DISTURBANCE (Acres)

PERCENT (%) OF TOTAL PARCEL AREA

Buildings/Landscaped Areas

9.89 10.92%

Roads 7.54 8.33%

Parking 1.75 1.93%

Septic Systems * 2.64 2.92%

Drainage Facilities 8.56 9.45%

Total 30.38 33.54%

• There is an additional 1.46 acres or 1.61% of the site that is designated as SSDS expansion areas that would remain undeveloped unless the area is needed for expansion. There may be some variation in the area of disturbance due to the SSDSs, based on final design and permitting. However, large variations are not expected. Any additional area of disturbance will be in the SSDS areas shown in the modified site plan and is not expected to create any additional environmental impacts.

Table III.A-2: Disturbance by Cover Types

NO. COVER TYPE AREA OF DISTURBANCE (Acres)

PERCENT (%) OF TOTAL PARCEL AREA

1 Wetland/Watercourse 0.00 0.00%

2 Mature Forest 16.82 18.57%

3 Young Woods 9.35 10.32%

4 Upland Meadow 4.21 4.65%

TOTAL 30.38 33.54%

A.33 Comment: I recommend the creation of conservation easements on all lands which

will not be used in the project proposal (Maureen Radl, VP Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP Friends of the Shawangunks, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.33 Response: See Responses A.10 and A.11. A.34 Comment: I can’t figure out in all of this that who is the legal entity that somebody

would go after when and if they don’t do what they are supposed to do (Dick Nolan, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.34 Response: The project Applicant, Dharmakaya, Inc. is a not-for-profit organization

registered in the State of New York and an affiliate of the United Trungram Buddhist Fellowship (UTBF), a nonprofit organization established in 1992. In the United States, Dharmakaya fills the role of all dharma teaching activities for UTBF and oversees meditation groups in New York City, Boston and Seattle. Contact information for Dharmakaya is found on its Web site, http://www.dharmakaya.org. As noted in Response A.16 above, the Town will enforce compliance with the conditions of the special permit and site plan, through its Building Inspector,


reserving to the Town all additional authority of a Town under New York State Law to enforce its zoning and planning laws.

A.35 Comment: The Board should consider an escrow account for the mending and

complete repair of the terrain for each phase of the project, should the Applicant ever abandon any part of it, at least there would be finances to repair the ground (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.35 Response: The Applicant will abide by all Town requirements concerning this issue,

and will not be treated any differently than any other applicant for site plan approval. Additionally, applicable stormwater regulations limit the amount of land that can be exposed at one time. The Town will require sedimentation and erosion control measures, and landscaping bonds relating to certain improvements.

A.36 Comment: I would like to inquire as to whether this Planning Board has found this to

be an overwhelming project and has employed outside, independent consultants focused entirely and only on this DEIS as provided by SEQR. This project is of monumental size and although I realize many New York State agencies have been requested to comment, I ask if you clearly understand (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

A.36 Response: See Response A.17. A.37 Comment: Cragsmoor residents are already speaking with independent and skilled

consultants, and I believe it appropriate to ask this Planning Board to require the Applicant to pay these professional fees. The proposed cost is beyond the ability of Cragsmoor residents and the figures rise daily (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006.

A.37 Response: As discussed above and in Response A.17, the Applicant is providing

funding, through a lawfully established escrow account, for the experts hired by the Planning Board to review the DEIS, as required by the Town. The Applicant is not required to fund the professional fees of consultants hired by project opponents.

B. Executive Summary No comments received. C. Description of the Proposed Action C.1 Comment: Please upgrade Old Inn Road (off of Cragsmoor Road) to accommodate

two-way fire apparatus and please keep road maintained during course of construction (Cragsmoor Fire District Board of Commissioners, memo dated November 15, 2006).

C.1 Response: Old Inn Road is a privately owned road. Other commenters, including

owners of properties with rights to use Old Inn Road, have expressed concerns


about preserving the quiet nature of the road, and avoiding “over-improvement” that would change its character (see Comment and Response N.23 and N.24, for example). Based on meetings with the fire district, as represented by Commissioner Jack Kissel, the fire district has indicated that Old Inn Road will not need to be widened from its current width. They indicated that pull-off areas need to be provided along the road’s length so vehicles during any emergency would be able to pass. Upon further field investigation and discussion with the Old Inn Road Neighborhood Association, the applicant is proposing that the existing driveways at each residential driveway entrance accommodate this requirement. It is important to note that Old Inn Road will function only as a secondary emergency entrance back-up to the primary Cragsmoor Road Hermitage entrance. Further, it should be noted that all construction will be mobilized and serviced from Cragsmoor Road only. Hence, Old Inn Road will not experience any construction traffic during the course of the project’s construction and will not require any maintenance associated with such use.

C.2 Comment: The request by the Fire District to widen Old Inn Road is unreasonable

and excessive. The road is currently quite adequate for large vehicles and will not be a primary access road for the Dharmakaya Center (Irene Seeland, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 27, 2006).

C.2 Response: See Response C.1. C.3 Comment: The scale of the proposed project, both its size (Disneyesque) and

timeframe for its execution, is unacceptable. We strongly believe that a 70,000+ sq. ft. construction project smack in the middle of the hamlet will irreparably detract from the bucolic charm that has been intrinsic to Cragsmoor since its establishment (Russell and Monica Damsky, memo dated December 6, 2006).

C.3 Response: As has been noted in previous responses (see A.1 and A.4, for example),

the Dharmakaya project was designed to be a place of quiet meditation and repose. While the buildings are larger than others in Cragsmoor, the site is also far larger than other sites in Cragsmoor. The buildings suit the function of the center of worship. However, they are not visually intrusive, and have deep setbacks from the property line. They are designed to be visually attractive when seen. Even in the initial proposal (as evaluated in the DEIS), the project had deep setbacks and proposed a less intensive development scenario than the clearing and development necessary for single-family development permitted as-of-right. Deep buffer/landscaped areas along Cragsmoor Road screened the site from viewing by passers-by and nearby residents.

Moreover, in response to public comments on the DEIS, the Applicant has made

numerous substantive modifications to the project. As described in Chapter II of this FEIS, overall, the site plan changes result in a reduction in final build-out in terms of occupancy, number of buildings, total square footage and parking. These modifications would generate decreases in water usage, septic capacity, electrical loads, disturbed areas, parking and landscaping. The alterations also include the relocation of certain buildings, which would significantly improve views from neighboring properties. The changes include a reduction in the footprint of the


proposed Hermitage from 78,246 square feet to 67,557 square feet, a decrease of approximately 14 percent. As a result of this decrease in total footprint, total occupancy of the Hermitage, on a day-to-day basis, would be reduced from 107 people to 85 people, or approximately 21 percent. Finally, the changes would result in a net reduction of total parking spaces on the project site, of 33, from 112 spaces to 79, or approximately 29 percent. A rendering of the revised site plan is provided in Figure II-1, of this FEIS, and full-scale engineering drawings are provided in Appendix B. Refer to Chapter II for a detailed discussion of changes to the original site plan.

C.4 Comment: The proposed time frame of up to 10 years for construction, which

entails extensive blasting and other noise pollution connected with the massive clearing and construction processes, is a real long-term threat (Russell and Monica Damsky, memo dated December 6, 2006).

C.4 Response: See Response A.9 for a description of the overall plan for development,

and Response J.3 for a description of phasing and potential alternate phasing plans. No blasting is expected to occur during any phase of construction. While the time for completion of the project may vary somewhat, the minimum anticipated time for such completion is estimated to be approximately 7 years. Even at this maximum building pace, construction periods of 12-18 months would be followed by quiet periods between phases with no construction activity. The phased process will assure a slow pace of disturbance, limiting areas disturbed at one time. It is also possible that the time period for completion of the project may extend to a longer period of time, such as the 10 year period suggested by the commenter, by virtue of longer periods of time between phases. The total length of actual construction activity would be expected to remain constant under any of the potential scenarios for phasing and total project completion. The longer periods between one or more phases will not generate any additional adverse impacts. As noted, the extended period of a slower paced development is itself a method of limiting the intensity of construction-related impacts at any one time. Regarding noise, it is expected that site clearing and other construction of the proposed project may result in some short-term noise-related impacts, although the noise levels will diminish in intensity as site preparation, excavation work and foundation development are completed. To mitigate these impacts, the Applicant proposes to limit construction to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays; with no construction activities occurring on Sundays. This construction schedule is more stringent than that provided in the Town of Wawarsing Noise Ordinance. Because some short-term noise levels at adjacent property lines may, without mitigation, exceed levels permitted under the Town of Wawarsing Noise Control Law, the Applicant will use noise damping practices during construction to minimize the impact on surrounding properties, and all mechanical construction equipment will be maintained in good working order to minimize noise levels. See section O for further discussion of Noise impacts.

C.5 Comment: Does the project need to be so large? If so, is this tiny hamlet an

appropriate place to build it? What of the potentially long-term, irreversible negative


impacts on residents living in such quarters to its location (Russell and Monica Damsky, memo dated December 6, 2006)?

C.5 Response: Regarding the project’s size, see Response C.3. The Applicant believes

that the present location is the appropriate place for its proposed project. Because of the quiet nature of the activities and the inherent respect for the setting by the owners and occupants of the Hermitage over time, the Applicant believes that the interests of the project proponents and the neighboring residents of Cragsmoor are entirely congruent. The Dharmakaya project proponents chose this site because of the qualities of the Cragsmoor hamlet, and believe that the Hermitage will enhance the character of the hamlet. The project proponents also believe that their project is more compatible with the neighborhood than a conventional subdivision development. Regarding potential negative impacts to surrounding residents, see Responses A.1, A.3, A.4, A.10, A.11, A.16 and A.24.

C6 Comment: There is a real possibility of a large corporate campus, not just a retreat

(Ted Horn, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 19, 2006). C.6 Response: First, corporate office complexes are not a permitted use in this zoning

district. Second, it is the Applicant’s opinion that there is virtually no likelihood that this site would be deemed desirable as a corporate office or research and development site because of its remote location from highway access. Moreover, the layout and design of the buildings, including the meditation center, is inappropriate for corporate office purposes. The largest building on the site is now 16,500 square feet in size (reduced from 18,500 square feet in the DEIS). This is much smaller than the usual corporate office building. In general, developers of corporate office buildings in the greater New York City metropolitan area seek a building area of 20,000 to 30,000 square feet per floor, with buildings typically encompassing several floors. Therefore, none of the buildings on the project site would be readily adaptable for use as a corporate office. See Responses A.16 and A.30.

C.7 Comment: We are concerned that the intensive use of the site mostly as the result of

the construction of more than 75,000 square feet of space in seventeen buildings, with traffic brought by significant periodic visitation and significant water and septic use, will threaten the current balance of the area (Sally Matz, President of Cragsmoor Historical Society, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.7 Response: As discussed throughout this FEIS, Dharmakaya’s purpose is to provide a

place for retreatants to immerse themselves in quiet contemplation and meditation, with the most serious students participating in the three-year retreat. See Response A22. The existing natural environment of Cragsmoor is a key factor in the atmosphere needed for the Hermitage, and preserving the quality of that environment is a major element of its mission. This proposed use is a much less intensive use than a conventional as-of-right residential subdivision, which would result in significantly more impacts relating to traffic, water and sewer use and community character. See Responses A.1., A.3, A.4, A.9 and A.16. In addition, the Applicant has substantially reduced the size and intensity of its proposed use. The total size of the proposed project is now 67,457 square feet, a reduction from the


initial size (as described in the DEIS) of 78,246 square feet. See Response C.3 and Chapter II for a full discussion of these site plan modifications.

C.8 Comment: Are the three detention ponds and two water quality basins for use in

case of fire, and, if so, are they constructed to contain appropriate water levels at all times, or are they constructed so that in dry/drought months the ponds will be vastly reduced or completely dry and useless to the Fire Department (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006)?

C.8 Response: The intent of the detention ponds are for stormwater mitigation and

reduction of peak flows. They are not intended for use as fire ponds. A separate underground storage tank has been proposed to supply water for fire fighting. See Response A.32.

C.9 Comment: The Applicant indicates the intention to celebrate eight individual

holidays scattered throughout the year. It is important that the number never increase because of negative visual, traffic, sewerage and water-use impact (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.9 Response: The Applicant has agreed to limit the times of visitation to the eight times

per year which are significant dates on the Buddhist calendar. It should be noted that the activities planned for these days are teaching activities. The activities will not be noisy or involve loud music or celebration through noise-making activity. While the number of people on the site would increase on these days by approximately 143 people, the total site population on these days would still be approximately 228 people, which is not an overly intense population for a 91-acre site. This population is less than the visitation experienced in the area for Cragsmoor Day or other celebrations at Sam’s Point and other scenic attractions. The Applicant does not believe that the environmental impacts on these visitation days are significant, considering the size of the site, the nature of the visitations, the accommodations on the site for parking and the nature of the area. Conditions relating to maximum population are expected to be among the conditions of the special permit and/or site plan approvals.

C.10 Comment: As the Conservancy sees it, the Cragsmoor community is particularly

concerned about the size of the project and the possibility of more development in the future, and the Conservancy shares these concerns. The development appears to be vastly larger and grander than necessary to support the current announced use. For example, the “teacher’s house,” which is said to be the home for just two persons, is almost 5,000 square feet in size. This would make it the grandest house in Cragsmoor by a huge margin- just for two people. This immense size is not only unnecessary but tends to support a suspicion that the occupancy of this building will grow exponentially in future years, belying any current statements about limited usage. And the same could be said about the other buildings (Jeffrey Slade, The Cragsmoor Conservancy, President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.10 Response: First, it is noted that many of the buildings have been reduced in size,

including an approximately 20 percent reduction in the size of the teacher's house. More importantly, the Applicant has expressed its commitment to the program it has


proposed and also expressed its willingness to have the maximum occupancy and use set forth as conditions in the special permit and site plan approvals. These commitments are reinforced by the fact that occupancy and use cannot exceed the parameters studied within this environmental impact statement. The Applicant is bound by its special permit application and the EIS. The Planning Board will only approve what is justified based upon the review.

As a center of worship and quiet meditation, spacious facilities both within the

common buildings and without – the natural beauty of a 91-acre woodland – are conducive to the very purpose of the project. A spacious and natural environment contributes to a spacious and loving state of mind during meditation. This is a center of worship, meditation and repose. Cramped facilities are not conducive to the very purpose of the project. It is inappropriate to oppose an acceptable use based on speculation about potential future violations, when there is no factual basis upon which to determine that any such violation will occur. The larger facilities about which fear has been expressed (e.g. “corporate campus,” “corporate America”) are not even permitted in the zoning district. As noted elsewhere in this FEIS, the conditions on maximum occupancy will be enforced by the Town. In addition, the public will have continued opportunities for input as the subsequent site plan applications are reviewed. No activities of any greater intensity or size than those approved in the present review process can be placed on the site without a further application process, which would entail revisiting the SEQRA process. Both these steps (site plan review and SEQRA) would involve a further public review process. See Responses A.10, A.16 and C.3. For a discussion of the need for the size and number of buildings as described in this FEIS, see Response C.27.

C.11 Comment: There are concerns that the usage of the site will grow well beyond what

is currently proposed, both through increased usage of the current buildings and perhaps through increased development on the site (Jeffrey Slade, President, The Cragsmoor Conservancy, memo dated December 21, 2006).

C.11 Response: See Responses A.10, A.16 and C10. C.12 Comment: The only full scale drawings found in the binder were the Erosion and

Sediment Control Plans. Very little information with regard to other associated necessary plan details has been provided. The currently submitted DEIS plans are too general and do not provide the minimum information necessary to allow a proper determination of the environmental impacts associated with this project (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

C.12 Response: Appendix F of the DEIS that was distributed to all involved or interested

agencies contained not only “Erosion and Sediment Control” plans, but also “Layout and Utility” and “Grading and Drainage” plans, each of which was prepared to a scale of 1 inch = 80 feet. These drawings were prepared at a scale that exceeds the one the commenter has requested of 1 inch = 100 feet. Additional copies of the DEIS were available for review at the Town Hall and the libraries. See Response A.14.


C.13 Comment: I dread the long-term project including the cutting down of 30 acres of forest in four phases of development over 10 years (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006).

C.13 Response: The development of this project also involves the preservation of

approximately 60 acres of open space, the imposition of restrictions preserving buffers around the perimeter and the allocation of this site to an extremely quiet use. See Responses A.1., A.9, A.10, A.11, A. 15, A.16, C.4 and C.10, among others.

C.14 Comment: Cerniglia Architecture and Planning is recorded in the B scoping

transcripts most emphatically correcting Lucy Dart saying there were no 17,000-square-foot buildings in the project. Apparently, the architecture firm is somehow unaware of the 18,500-square-foot building mentioned in project C correspondence (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

C.14 Response: The comment in the November 30, 2005, public scoping session

transcript, stating that there were no 17,000-square-foot buildings in the project, was made in error. However, that error was fully corrected in the DEIS, and there has been a full opportunity to comment on the size of the buildings. As noted elsewhere, this largest building on the site is set deep into the site, with ample setbacks and screening from views from other properties. As further noted, site plan modifications made in response to public concerns since completion of the DEIS will reduce the size of the Bodhisattva Dharma Center from 18,500 square feet to 16,500 square feet, a decrease of approximately 11%. Also please refer to Responses A.16 and C.3.

C.15 Comment: Last December several petitions were submitted to the Planning Board

signed by 92 town residents complaining about the sheer size of this project. Since then the plan as described in the DEIS is even larger (William Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 25, 2006).

C.15 Response: The original plan included fewer buildings (14) of much larger scale and

size. The succeeding plan increased the number of buildings (18) in order to reduce the scale and size of many of these buildings to create building sizes and profiles which keep more in character with the scale and size of existing buildings within the Cragsmoor Historic District. Throughout this process, the project program, including the total square footage, has remained consistent with original proposals (in the approximate range of 75,000 to 78,000 square feet). Any marginal increase in this area is not the result of increasing the project in terms of programs offered or occupants served. Rather, in an effort to decrease building size and scales by creating more buildings, inefficiencies result and additional space is required to accommodate more individual spaces where such spaces were once shared in common in a larger building (these spaces include facilities for building services, storage spaces, mechanical spaces, circulation spaces, toilet and shower facilities, etc.). As has been noted in other sections of the FEIS Chapter III (see Response C.3 for example) the Applicant has proposed substantial reductions in the project size and scope as part of the FEIS in response to public comments.


C.16 Comment: Pre-construction activities can be devastating on flora and fauna. The DEIS claims there will be minimum clearing, preservation of habitat, phasing of construction, erosion control and water-saving techniques. Are these claims substantiated with facts and sound analysis (James Barbour, Ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006)?

C.16 Response: The DEIS contained information on each of the items listed in the

comment. Furthermore, the Town of Wawarsing hired several experts to review the DEIS, and their comments form part of the record and are responded to in this FEIS (See Response A.17). The Planning Board's SEQRA Findings in this regard will be enforced by conditions of the special permit and site plan approval.

C.17 Comment: The project is far too large and inappropriate for the site, and will have

far too great an impact on the environment to allow for approval. The project will damage the quality of life and ecological resources of Cragsmoor in direct relation to its scale (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

C.17 Response: See Responses A.1, A.9, A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.3. C.18 Comment: There is no control over the likely expansion of the project far beyond the

current excessive scope, exacerbating all of the prospective impact to the surrounding community (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

C.18 Response: See Responses A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.10. C.19 Comment: I request the Town of Wawarsing officials question how the

Dharmakayas will address future expansion even though they stated in the DEIS that there will be no requirements for such. It is hard for me to believe that a World Center could be built at this time and know they will not have a need to expand in the future (Dolores Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

C.19 Response: See Responses A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.10. C.20 Comment: I am truly afraid that a development on the scale of the Dharmakaya

would overwhelm tiny Cragsmoor with its needs, and our lovely community would be unable to withstand the onslaught (Mary Kroul McAlpin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

C.20 Response: See Responses A.1, A.9, A.10, A.11, A.16 and C.3. C.21 Comment: I’d just like to take a minute of your time to explain the general feelings

of the Cragsmoor residents about this project. In short, it’s just too big and not in keeping with the residential and historical nature of our hamlet (Jim McKinney, Cragsmoor Association, President, at public hearing November 30, 2006).


C.21 Response: In response to public concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed buildings on the Cragsmoor Historic District, the Applicant has relocated the Teacher’s House to the southwest, further into the interior of the project site, from its currently proposed location just off of Old Inn Road. This relocation will ensure the preservation of the viewshed from Old Inn Road down the former golf course fairway, and the building will sit approximately 30 feet lower relative to Old Inn Road. In addition, the Teacher’s House will be moved approximately 225 feet to the southeast from the neighboring residence, eliminating the need for the curb cut off of Old Inn Road previously proposed to provide access the Teacher’s House;. While both the Teacher’s House and Guest Teacher’s House will remain within the Cragsmoor Historic District, the relocation of the Teacher’s House will ensure that neither structure will be visible from off-site. See Response C.3.

As to other issues relating to size and potential future uses, see Responses A.9, A.10,

A.11, A.16 and C.10. C.22 Comment: Imagine what a corporate campus sized facility at 78,000 square feet

could become. It would swallow up all of Cragsmoor, 470 odd residents. Our concern is the potential to vastly overwhelm our small community with this huge facility which could serve a vast number of people. The facility needs to be smaller (Jim McKinney, Cragsmoor Association, President, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

C.22 Response: See Responses A.9, A.10, A.11, A.16, A.30, C.3, C.6 and C.10. C.23 Comment: There is no indication in the EIS of the potential for growth of this site

(David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

C.23 Response: In keeping with the requirements of SEQRA, the DEIS was prepared to

address the “whole action,” including the ultimate planned development for the site. The Applicant does not foresee any future growth of the site beyond the maximums studied in the DEIS. The Applicant further believes that the speculation that this site will become a “corporate office complex” or some other large-scale institutional use in the future is not based on factual evidence, market trends or zoning. Although there is no reasonable basis for forecasting further expansion or change in use, it is also true that even in the unlikely and unforeseen event that any change was proposed by anyone at any point in the future, it would be subject to a zoning review and a SEQRA review, with opportunity for public comment. See Responses A.10, A.11, A.16, A.30, C.6 and C.10.

C.24 Comment: The proposed development is, we believe, a compatible use for the land

in concept, but we are concerned that the intense use of the site, mostly as a result of traffic brought by significant periodic visitation and by significant water and septic requirements threatens that balance. The society asks the Board to protect the resources and community character by asking the Applicant to reduce the scale of the project as a matter of buildings, roadways, parking lots and landscape modifications desired are out of balance with the surrounding community (Sally Matz, President, Cragsmoor Historical Society, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).


C.24 Response: As discussed earlier, the preservation of Cragsmoor’s natural

environment is a major element of the Hermitage’s mission, given its purpose of providing a place of quiet and contemplation. The proposed use is much less intensive than a conventional as-of-right residential subdivision, which would result in significantly greater impacts pertaining to traffic, water and sewer use and community character. See Responses A.1, A.3, A.4, A.9, A.16 and C.7. Moreover, the Applicant has significantly reduced the size and intensity of its proposed use. Site plan modifications call for a reduction in total project size from 78,246 square feet to 67.457 square feet, due to a decrease in the size and number of buildings and in the number of parking spaces. The modifications result in less total site disturbance and thus the preservation or more open space. See Response C.3 and Chapter II for a full discussion of these revisions to the original site plan. In addition, the Applicant has proposed a permanent buffer of 100 to 200 feet around approximately 77 percent of the perimeter of its property, covering approximately 29 percent of its property. See Responses A.10 and A.11.

C.25 Comment: At the moment many of us feel that we may be at the brink of

overstepping our limits. That is why we’re concerned about this building project, which is by far the largest that would have been proposed for this hamlet (Maureen Radl, VP, Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP, Friends of the Shawangunks, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

C.25 Response: See Responses A.1, A.3, A.4, A.9, A.10, A.11, A.16, C.3, C.7 and C.24. C.26 Comment: The combined number of residents and the staff who will stay at the

center for long and short-term retreats is quite large in proportion to the number of people who reside in this hamlet, without even considering the number of people who will also be present on festival days and remain for those weekends. These factors still raise serious concerns regarding the overall scale of the project, occupancy load, water consumption and runoff, sewage, traffic, parking, fire protection, land conservation, viewshed impacts, loss of tax revenue and impact on the Cragsmoor Historic District (Maureen Radl, VP, Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP, Friends of the Shawangunks, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

C.26 Response: The concerns of neighbors about this project are understandable, since

the maximum potential occupancy of the project (85 people) as compared with the present population of Cragsmoor (470 people) shows that it is a large project relative to the total size of the population. Nonetheless, this is a very large site (91 acres), as compared with many of the lots in the Cragsmoor area. Since the overall size of the Cragsmoor hamlet is approximately 2,816 acres, this project, particularly considering the nature of the use and the incorporation of natural buffers, will not change the overall character of the area. The primary purpose of the use is in the nature of quiet worship and meditation, with the most serious students participating in a three-year religious meditation retreat. The use is not noisy or “high-profile” in any way. Because of the concerns about the project, even considering its quiet nature, the Planning Board required preparation of a full DEIS. Various sections of the DEIS and FEIS address the specific impacts raised in the comment. As to various aspects of the operation, see Sections A and C of this FEIS. As to water impacts, see


Sections H, I and J. As to sewer impacts, see Section G. As to traffic impacts, see Section K. As discussed above, the Applicant has made numerous substantive modifications to the project as described in the DEIS, in response to public comments (see Chapter II of this FEIS). Among other effects, the changes would result in a net reduction of total parking spaces on the project site, of 33, from 112 spaces to 79, or approximately 29 percent. See Response C.3. In addition, it should be noted that the potential day-to-day population of 85 people represents the maximum potential number of people on-site (with the exception of special event days held only up to eight times per year). In general, the number of people on-site on a day-to-day basis will be less than 85, and will average 40 to 50 people, resulting in less potential impact.

C.27 Comment: I recommend reducing the overall size of the project by 40 to 50 percent

(Maureen Radl, VP, Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP, Friends of the Shawangunks, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

C.27 Response: As discussed, the Applicant has made substantive changes to the site plan

that will reduce the overall footprint of the proposed project from 78,246 square feet to 67,557 square feet, a decrease of approximately 14 percent. See Response C.3 and Chapter II. Any further reductions to the project size were not possible without compromising too severely the goals and purpose of the Hermitage. It is important to note that a relatively small percentage of the overall building space in the planned Hermitage is devoted strictly to living areas (the Teacher’s House, guest teacher’s house and Sangha Residences, totaling 11,921 square feet, or approximately 18 percent of the total building space). The majority of the space relates to the actual worship and meditation areas, together with necessary teaching space for those learning the methods of worship in the Buddhist tradition. The Hermitage discipline requires yoga spaces and meditation spaces. By definition, this meditation requires quiet and solitude, meaning separation from other people. The teachers require their own living space and also have individual practice/shrine areas and other support spaces. The teaching requires solitude and separation of people. This naturally creates extra space, to accommodate individual areas for meditation and yoga. There is also the support space for those at the Hermitage, including eating spaces. Finally learning and practice go hand in hand: Quiet study areas and libraries of Buddhist materials are a fundamental part of the program. The study and methods of practice have been developed over centuries, and the size of facilities for the practice has been well researched.

C.28 Comment: Speaking on the potential development, in the DEIS they cited several

other sites that were similar Buddhist centers of worship. And I looked into these centers and I found a common thread, they were all the tip of the iceberg. They are continuing to build out multimillion dollar projects annually. And the integrity of the communities that they are based in have been completely disturbed by this (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

C.28 Response: See Responses A.10, A.11, A.16, A.22 and C.10. As discussed above,

the Buddhist centers referenced were chosen as examples of places of Buddhist worship that have been successfully integrated into other communities, not as direct comparisons to the projected size, scale and use of the proposed Hermitage. The


primary difference to note between the proposed Hermitage and these other centers is that the Hermitage will be used exclusively for meditation, study and retreat, with serious students participating in the traditional three-year retreat. Retreats of such intensity and duration are not offered at any other center in the U. S. of which the Applicant is aware. This sole purpose of Dharmakaya, as a center of worship and meditation, similar to a small religious community, contrasts with the other centers’ purpose as program centers offering a wide range of activities.

C.29 Comment: We can accept the possibility of a real scaled-down version of this, but

the size as it stands now I think is much too large (Dick Peters, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

C.29 Response: See Response C.3 and Chapter II. C.30 Comment: I think the Dharmakaya looking at the spirituality of the mountain is

great, and if they could scale down their facility, that would certainly be worthwhile (Catherine Muldoon, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

C.30 Response: See Response C.3. C.31 Comment: A nice scaled-down project is something that is greatly needed. Keeping

in scale with the community is of greater importance (Karen Grace, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

C.31 Response: See Response C.3. C.32 Comment: It seems to me that they are cramming it down our throat as a

community. And that’s a pretty rough way of putting it, but we’ve been back and forth at every meeting. The level has increased, the potential for further development, rather than subsided in some sort of reconciliation to us (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

C.32 Response: As discussed above (see Response A.24), Dharmakaya has conducted

extensive outreach efforts in the Cragsmoor community throughout the planning process for the proposed Hermitage. In direct response to public concerns about the project’s size and scale, the Applicant has made a number of substantive changes to the site plan. See Response C.3.

D. Land Use and Zoning D.1 Comment: What about the people who have homes that abut this land (Harry

McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)? D.1 Response: The project has been planned to fit in with the community. The Applicant

now proposes significant permanent buffers around approximately 77 percent of the perimeter, covering approximately 29 percent of the land, to further screen and distance residents from the project, and vice versa. Additionally, the size of the project has been reduced. See Responses A.4, A.10 and A.11 and Chapter II.


D.2 Comment: Wawarsing’s Residential/Conservation-3A zone is essentially residential,

but allows for houses of worship with a special use permit. We would ask whether a residential compound, particularly of the scale proposed, is what is contemplated or allowed by this zoning (Heidi Wagner, The Nature Conservancy, Preserve Manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

D.2 Response: Because of concerns about the potential impacts of this project on the

community, and because of SEQRA’s low threshold for requiring a DEIS, the Planning Board required a full DEIS/FEIS process, which will inform its decision-making process on the application for a special permit and site plan approval. As set forth in the DEIS, the Applicant believes that the proposed project qualifies for the issuance of a special permit as a house of worship in conformance with the R/C-3A zoning regulations and that the nature of the project and the proposed mitigation of any potential impacts supports the adoption of affirmative SEQRA Findings. Only a relatively small percentage of the overall building space is devoted to living areas. Since the primary function and use of the property is worship, the majority of the space relates to the actual worship and meditation areas, together with necessary teaching space for those learning the methods of worship in the Buddhist tradition. The discipline of worship in the Buddhist tradition requires yoga spaces and meditation spaces. Meditation requires quiet and solitude, meaning separation from other people. Learning and practice go hand in hand. Quiet study areas and libraries of Buddhist materials are a fundamental part of the program. The study and methods of practice proposed at Dharmakaya are based on worship in the Buddhist tradition as developed over centuries. The DEIS includes an analysis of the impacts of the project as compared to the impacts of a single-family development permitted as-of-right in the zoning district. The analysis supports the conclusion that the proposed use has lesser impacts than the single-family use, and is more desirable in view of its greater setbacks, greater preservation of large areas of contiguous open space and the fundamentally quiet nature of the proposed use. In this FEIS, the Applicant proposes to reduce the size of the use, and enlarge the proposed areas of permanent buffer around the use. The proposed use is quiet in nature and preserves significant buffers along surrounding roadways, which benefits surrounding landowners.

Dharmakaya is also in conformance with County Open Space policies. Since the

publication of the DEIS, Ulster County has released a full draft of the proposed update to the Open Space and Parks Plan, a draft of which was previously considered in the DEIS. The full draft provides greater detail than the previous draft. However, the full draft does not contain significant changes, and the proposed project is congruent with the Open Space and Parks Plan. As a policy document, the draft plan does not provide specific recommendations for individual parcels, including the project site. However, because the policy recommendations have not changed, the project remains in compliance with the overall policy intent of the draft plan.

D.3 Comment: The project violates the Town of Wawarsing zoning law. It does not

comply with the most basic requirement of zoning: compliance with the uses mandated for the specified zone. The site is in the R/C-3A district, which is


essentially a single-family residential-conservation zone. A variety of other uses are allowed in the zone with a special use permit. The proposed retreat complex is not a house of worship and the DEIS makes no claim that the proposed use complies with the zoning use specification. The Applicant has not applied for either a use variance or a zoning change to permit its project (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

D.3 Response: Both the DEIS and the FEIS confirm that the project qualifies for the

issuance of a special permit in the R/C-3A zoning district. See Response D.2. D.4 Comment: This is not a house of worship as contemplated in the zoning code. This

is a sprawling complex. It’s more like a corporate campus or sprawling multi-family housing complex than it is a house of worship (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

D.4 Response: See Responses C.6, C.10 and D.2. D.5 Comment: Wawarsing Residential Conservation-3A zone is essentially residential

but allows houses of worship with a special use permit. We would ask whether a residential compound particularly of the scale proposed is what is contemplated or allowed by zoning (Heidi Wagner, Preserve manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

D.5 Response: See Response D.2. E. Community Character/Visual Resources E.1 Comment: Please provide building elevations, visual simulations and section profile

drawings for the Bear Cliff House location, the Bear Hill location and the two historic properties adjacent to the building site on Old Inn Road. Please include the proposed complex from the selected viewpoints (Kenneth Markunas, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator, memo dated November 29, 2006).

E.1 Response: A computer-generated visual simulation based on USGS topography

mapping has been prepared and is included below with accompanying maps and photographs as follows: Figure III.E-1: Map Indicating Photographic and Simulation View Directions From Bear Hill, Figure III.E-2: Panoramic Photograph from Bear Hill, Figure III.E-3: View Simulation from Bear Hill in Leaf-On conditions and Figure III.E-4: View Simulation from Bear Hill in Leaf-Off Conditions.

The photographs have been taken during spring leaf-off conditions, and the

simulation has been prepared to show the identical leaf-off conditions. A second simulation is included showing leaf-on conditions as well. The simulations encompass the entire view, as shown in the panoramic photograph. The Bear Cliff House (which was not specifically part of the viewshed analysis called for by the adopted Scoping Document) shown in the middle right of Figure III.E-2 sits 130 feet below (at approximately 1,820 feet elevation) the summit elevation of Bear Hill (at


elevation 1,950 feet). Hence, the simulation was prepared from Bear Hill because this location views the project from the same direction as does the east side elevation of the Bear Cliff House, but from a much higher elevation from which a less obstructed view of the proposed hermitage project is obtained. However, two viewshed profiles have been prepared from the Bear Cliff House to illustrate the effects of its much lower grade elevation. Figure III.E-5 (see also the full-size 24” x 36” drawing included in Appendix C) indicates the profile from Bear Cliff House to the largest building of the Milarepa Center (Building C), which sits at grade elevation 1,790 feet; Figure III.E-6 (see also the full-size 24” x 36” drawing included in Appendix C) indicates the profile from the Bear Cliff House to the Bodhisattva Dharma Center, which sits at grade elevation 1,720 feet. With a less severe grade elevation change over distances of 1,300 feet to Building C of the Milarepa Center and over 2,300 feet to the Dharma Center, these profiles indicate that existing tree cover will provide substantial obstruction to views of either of the two buildings from the Bear Cliff House, even in leaf-off conditions. Regarding building design elevations, please refer to Figures IV.K-13, IV.K-14, IV.K-15 and IV.K-16 of the DEIS. As mentioned in the DEIS, these elevations indicate the design character, scale and materials that will become the architectural theme repeated throughout the project. Also, please find the following figures, which show conceptual building design elevations for the remaining Milarepa Center buildings as follows: Figure III.E-7: Building A; Figure III.E-8: Buildings B and B1; and Figure III.E-9: Buildings D and D1. Full-scale drawings of these figures are found in Appendix C. The Milarepa Center will be the first construction phase of the proposed project, and thus these elevations have been prepared as part of the first phase of design studies. Figures III.E-10 and III.E-11, Milarepa Site Landscape Plan at time of planting and seven-year growth, have been included to illustrate the extensive buffer landscaping proposed. Large-scale, full-size drawings are in Appendix B for ease of review. The first plan indicates to scale the initial size, location, type and planting density of the proposed landscape plan. The drawing indicates the same landscape plan shown to scale at seven years from planting. This, along with the existing tree and brush cover, will provide a substantial visual barrier between Old Inn Road and the Milarepa Center. (For schematic landscape plans of the entire site, please see Appendix B). Regarding views from the adjacent historical buildings off Old Inn Road, please see Figure III.E-12: Photograph From Beveridge Cottage Looking Toward the Milarepa Center Site. The photograph indicates the extensive existing tree screening even with leaf-off. The view of the Milarepa Center site from the Gardiner Cottage is further obscured by additional tree screening and is an additional 600 feet away.

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-1: MAP SHOWING BEAR HILL PHOTOGRAHPIC AND SIMULATION VIEW LOCATION AND DIRECTION

WAWARSING, NY SOURCE: CERNIGLIA ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, PC, 2007

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-2: PANORAMIC PHOTOGRAPH FROM BEAR HILL


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-3: BEAR HILL VIEW SIMULATION - LEAF-ON


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-4: BEAR HILL VIEW SIMULATION - LEAF-OFF


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-5: SECTION PROFILE FROM BEAR CLIFF HOUSE TO BUILDING C, MILAREPA CENTER


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-6: SECTION PROFILE FROM BEAR CLIFF HOUSE TO THE BODHISATTVA DHARMA CENTER


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-7: ELEVATIONS BUILDING A, MILAREPA CENTER


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-8: ELEVATIONS BUILDINGS B AND B1, MILAREPA CENTER


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-9: ELEVATIONS BUILDINGS D AND D1, MILAREPA CENTER


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-10: MILAREPA SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN - TIME OF PLANTING


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-11: MILAREPA SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN - SEVEN YEAR GROWTH


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-12: PHOTOGRAPHIC VIEW FROM BEVERIDGE COTTAGE LOOKING TOWARD THE MILAREPA CENTER



Regarding views of the Teacher’s House from both Gardiner and Beveridge Cottages, with the relocation of the Teacher’s House as described in Chapter II of this FEIS, this adjacent view has been eliminated. As described in Chapter II, in response to public comment, the Teacher’s House has been moved further into the site and out of the former golf course fairway viewshed (See Figure II-1 Revised Site Plan, and Response E.3 below).

E.2 Comment: The generation of traffic, particularly during the days of peak use of the site, will clearly transform the rural nature of the area into a more crowded, bustling, disruptive and dangerous environment. While these considerations are of course subjective, the Board has a responsibility to identify the aesthetic resources to be compromised, to mitigate the impact to the extent practicable (David Porter, consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

E.2 Response: The retreatants will have little, if any, impact on the hamlet of Cragsmoor. Retreatants will arrive to the Hermitage and will remain there throughout the duration of their stay. The same pattern of traffic will apply to the few days per year when additional guests are received. The proposed access entrance to the Hermitage (from Cragsmoor Road) is well before entering into the hamlet proper of Cragsmoor. Hence, Hermitage traffic will not impact the hamlet proper as do visitors to Sam’s Point or those attending weekend wedding ceremonies at the Stone Church throughout the late spring, summer and early fall months. In addition, the annual Cragsmoor Day event held during the summer attracts hundreds of visitors to the Cragsmoor area. Furthermore, an as-of-right use of this property as a residential subdivision would generate more traffic than will the Hermitage use. It is not expected that any traffic relating to Dharmakaya will create a dangerous or disruptive environment. Please also refer to responses under Section K, Traffic, within this FEIS, and to Section IV.H of the DEIS for a complete discussion of traffic.

Regarding any potential compromise to aesthetic resources, please refer to Section IV.B of the DEIS, as well as responses within this section of the FEIS. Impacts have been identified in both the DEIS and during the public comment period and have been addressed through a combination of mitigation measures as prescribed by the DEC Program Policy (see DEIS Appendix N) including screening, relocation, low profile and downsizing (see Response E.1 above). Aesthetic impact as defined on Page 9 of the DEC Program Policy clearly indicates that “Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived beauty of a place or structure. Mere visibility, even startling visibility of a project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision making. Instead a project, by virtue of its visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce the public’s enjoyment of and/or appreciation of the appearance of an inventoried resource.”

E.3 Comment: The proposed Teacher’s House is presently shown in the site plan to be

sited in historic open space within the viewshed of the former Cragsmoor Inn and in close proximity to the Beveridge and Gardiner Cottages. The DEIS acknowledges that the proposed building is in the Historic District, but makes no case as to why the building could be sited elsewhere so the open views could be protected, and the privacy and setting of the two historic residences could be maintained. The DEIS


does not acknowledge the adverse impact and thus is in error. (Sally Matz, Cragsmoor Historical Society President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

E.3 Response: As illustrated by Figure II-1: Revised Site Plan, the proposed site of the

Teacher’s House has been relocated further into the project site away from Old Inn Road, the former golf course fairway view shed and the historic residences. The proposed new Teacher’s House site will sit over 200 feet from Old Inn Road at a grade elevation of 30 feet below the road and off to the side of the viewshed. The original Cragsmoor Inn golf course fairway view shed will be maintained. Furthermore, the Teacher’s House will not be in close proximity to either of the historic residences (the Beveridge and Gardiner Cottages). The proposed Teacher’s House has also been downsized from 4,973 square feet to 3,900 square feet.

E.4 Comment: The scale of this project will result in a major change of character of the

view from the Bear Hill Preserve. Please provide studies that will indicate the impact of the fully built-out campus on views from Bear Hill, all of which are publicly accessible (Sally Matz, Cragsmoor Historical Society President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

E.4 Response: See Response E.1 regarding preparation of viewshed analysis and view

simulation from the Bear Hill Preserve. Please also refer to FEIS Chapter II, Changes to the Proposed Action, summarizing project changes including building relocations and downsizing.

E.5 Comment: The DEIS neglected, and described too narrowly, the visual impact

looking SE from Bear Hill. Be reminded that the leaves are off trees in Cragsmoor for eight months. I recommend that the Planning Board require that the building of Phase I and Phase III be constructed further down slope to mitigate visual sight lines from Old Inn Road homes near Bear Hill (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

E.5 Response: See Response E.1 and E.7. Each of these responses discuss and describe

the proposed new and existing natural green buffers which will obscure views of Phase I. Response E.7 further describes the careful planning of the site so as to create the least impact to the existing topography. This careful planning of location of site elements also included selection of surface areas suitable for underground septic systems and drainage facilities such as detention basins, whose construction is limited to areas with slopes of 15 percent or less. Pushing construction further into the site would result in greater impacts to the existing land forms and would require construction to occur on steeper slopes than is presently proposed.

E.6 Comment: The project will be sited on the top of a prominent mountain ridge,

creating the visibility of the project from many surrounding viewpoints. We have noted several off-site viewpoint locations that may be forced to tolerate an adverse visual impact to the community’s wooded mountainside setting as a result of the proposed project (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).


E.6 Response: See Response E.1 and E.12, below. As mentioned in Response E.1, the largest proposed building (the Bodhisattva Dharma Center) will sit at grade elevation 1,720 feet, approximately 230 feet below the summit elevation of Bear Hill. Although portions of the hermitage buildings will be visible from Bear Hill (see Fig. III.E-5), per DEC Program Policy and the definition of Aesthetic Impact (see Response E.2 above), such view will not be negatively impacted, because of a number of factors including but not limited to: 1) proposed new green buffers and maintenance of existing natural green buffers; 2) the predominant low single-story profile of most building massings; 3) the cluster development approach to the site’s planning which provides for the grouping of buildings into centers, preserving substantial areas of the property in their natural state; 4) as a result of factor 2 and 3 as mentioned above, and given the 91-acre size of the property, the proposed buildings are in scale with the property size and do not appear ‘over built’ (see Fig. III.E-14); and 5) utilization of building materials, finishes, colors and design characteristics which blend with the existing natural environment.

E.7 Comment: The project will be highly visible from the Old Inn Road. The proposed

buildings may be in stark contrast to this surrounding historic community setting. Attention must be given to blending the project into the existing landform which is by no means apparent in the presently proposed site grading design (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

E.7 Response: Views from Old Inn Road have been limited in several respects. See

Responses E.1 and E.3. With the proposed relocation of the Teacher’s House, only portions of the Milarepa Center (not the entire project) will be visible from Old Inn Road, i.e., only those portions of the buildings not fully screened by existing and new trees and landscaping. Hence, a stark contrast to the surrounding historic community will not occur. All proposed siting of buildings project-wide has been carefully considered so as not to create undue disturbance to the existing landscape. Therefore, the buildings do blend into the existing land form. Please refer to Figure III.E-9: Milarepa Site Landscape Plan. The Milarepa Center has been designed and sited to step down the natural grade slopes. Thus, proposed siting of buildings A, B and B1 step down the natural terrain and will be obscured by this terrain as well as by Building C from Old Inn Road. Furthermore, the Milarepa Center is designed as a “quad,” surrounded by buildings, which will obscure the view of retreatants from Old Inn Road (and vice versa). This type of planning for building siting and configuration will be carried out for all buildings on the site to minimize visibility. In addition, as mentioned in Chapter II of this FEIS, the Applicant is proposing a 100-foot-wide buffer along Old Inn Road, which will provide additional screening and distancing (See Figure II-4). See Responses A.10 and A.11.

E.8 Comment: The proposed entrance road, Welcome Center and a large detention

pond yield a combination of building structures, pavement and cleared stormwater facility areas that will be in sharp contrast to the existing wooded mountainside slopes and may be considered an adverse visual impact. Additional landscaping, pond relocation and minimizing site grading is warranted to further mitigate this significant impact (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).


E.8 Response: Please refer to FEIS Chapter II, Changes to the Proposed Action, and to

Figure II-1: Revised Site Plan. See also Figure III-7: Landscape Buffer Area Plan of the DEIS, as well as the full sheet-sized version included in Appendix B. The Welcome House has been downsized from 2,500 square feet to 800 square feet and has been relocated further back into the site (approximately 280 feet from Cragsmoor Road) and within the previously proposed parking area. The required disturbance and visibility associated with the previous location has been eliminated. In addition, new landscape buffer plantings have been proposed where shown on Figure III-7 of the DEIS along Cragsmoor Road and at the proposed parking lot and stormwater pond to supplement the existing vegetation within the proposed buffer. .The Applicant’s proposed buffer areas (see Chapter II and Figure II-4 of this FEIS) will assure continuation of large set-back areas to buildings, and will generally protect the existing vegetative screening within the buffer. Although a portion of the disturbed area of a proposed stormwater pond at the northern portion of the site is located partially within the proposed 100-foot buffer along Cragsmoor Road (dictated by design considerations), there is still not a significant impact to views from the roadway. A buffer of approximately 65 feet remains and will maintain existing vegetation and trees, along with providing new proposed buffer landscaping (see Figure III-7 of the DEIS). In addition, the closest building (the Common House) is approximately 500 feet from Cragsmoor Road at that point. Existing landscaping will be supplemented by the proposed new landscape screen plantings (see Figure II-4). The buffer areas will provide additional screening of any of the structures within the site from public roadways and assurance that such areas will remain free from construction of substantial above-ground structures in the future.

E.9 Comment: The trees shown in the DEIS simulation are 100 feet tall; however, the

site photos depict an average tree height of what appears to be less than 50 feet. The Visual Assessment profile should be revised to show an accurate representation of the visual sight line. Also note that the scale of all sight profiles as presented in the DEIS Visual Assessment are of such a small scale that the information presented is difficult to evaluate (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

E.9 Response: The comment does not refer to a specific section profile. Upon further

review of the DEIS section profiles, it appears that the commenter refers to section profiles for the Teacher’s House from Lake Maratanza (Figure IV.B-22) and for the Bodhisattva Dharma Center from Lake Maratanza (Figure IV.B-26). Tree growth size has been shown at a height of 70 feet, which would represent the average growth height observed on the project site and in the adjacent surrounding forest. As part of the project modification proposed in this FEIS, the Teacher’s House is proposed to be relocated to a lower elevation (see Response E.1), which will provide greater screening by existing as well as proposed new landscape plantings. The scale of the section profiles has been selected based on the tremendous distance separations between the project site buildings and viewpoints illustrated in the section profiles (more than two miles).


E.10 Comment: The Applicant is proposing a height of 52 feet for the domed Bodhisattva Dharma Temple. The building will be sited on the most prominent portion of the site. It is strongly recommended that a Balloon Test be conducted to determine the structure’s realistic visual impact (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

E.10 Response: See Response E.1. As mentioned, the Bodhisattva Dharma Center is sited

at grade elevation 1,720 feet, more than 230 feet below the summit of Bear Hill, and more than 100 feet below the highest grade point on the project site. It will be sited in the middle of the project site, providing maximum vegetative screening to all perimeter property boundaries. Further, with existing and proposed new tree cover, much of the building height will be screened. The main building height is proposed at 35 feet. Only the rounded dome section rises above the main roof for an additional 17 feet. The zoning law section 112-12 C exempts church spires and domes from otherwise applicable height regulations. With the dome’s rounded geometry, its visibility will present a softer appearance. Please refer to Figures III.E-3 and III.E-4 for Bear Hill view simulations, and Figures III.E-14 and III.E-15 for Long Path view simulations, to observe the simulated visual impact of the dome from each of these views. Given the conditions described above in conjunction with the view simulations prepared as a response to public comment, a balloon test appears to be unnecessary, and will not add any more information that could not be obtained from the above referenced responses.

E.11 Comment: When traveling northerly on State Route 52 approximately ½ mile south

of the intersection with Cragsmoor Road, the project will be highly visible. At the minimum, the Applicant should provide an accurate visual simulation of the proposed project from this viewshed location (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

E.11 Response: The referenced view from Route 52 was observed with leaf-off vegetative

conditions on April 28, 2007. It was confirmed by a field observation that none of the proposed project construction will be visible. This is due to the extreme grade elevation drop Route 52 experiences as it heads south. The grade elevation at the location of Route 52 that the commenter referenced is approximately 300 feet below the grade elevation of the Bodhisattva Dharma Center. It is apparent upon visual inspection that this topography drop, coupled with the existing tree screening, eliminates any views of the proposed project construction.

E.12 Comment: Viewshed analyses performed by the Cragsmoor Association show that

views from the Long Path would be seriously compromised, and instead of the unspoiled views that hikers enjoy how they would look at a mountain side scarred by buildings (Jakob Franke, Eric Meyer, Gary Haugland, Malcolm Spector, Andy Garrison, members of the Long Path South committee of the New York/New Jersey Trail Conference, memo dated December 22, 2006).

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-13: MAP SHOWING LONG PATH SIMULATION VIEW LOCATION AND DIRECTION


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-14: LONG PATH SIMULATION - LEAF-ON


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-15: LONG PATH SIMULATION - LEAF-OFF



E.12 Response: Please see above Figure III.E-13: Map Indicating Simulation View Direction from Long Path, and Figures III.E-14 and III.E-15 for Long Path view simulations in both leaf-on and leaf-off conditions. These simulations have been prepared based on USGS topography mapping using an accepted 3D visualization computer program, and accurately indicate the view from Long Path in comparison to the view prepared by the Cragsmoor Association. The simulations verify and confirm all the factors as listed in Response E.6 and support the Applicant’s conclusion that the project as viewed from Long Path will not present any negative aesthetic impact to this viewshed. While the visual simulations show that some of the proposed buildings will be visible from the Long Path, it is the Applicant’s opinion that there is no significant adverse impact on these views. As stated in the DEC guidelines for determination of aesthetic impacts, “mere visibility, even startling visibility of a project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision-making” (see Response E.2 for DEC Guidelines for determination, and Response E.6). Here, the visibility is certainly not startling. As is clearly indicated by the leaf-on simulation, the proposed Hermitage buildings will be substantially obscured during such spring, summer and fall seasonal conditions. During the winter season, the leaf-off simulation still shows a substantial amount of screening. The buildings appear in a spread-out configuration, providing spatially quiet visual separations between buildings. The Long Path trail is approximately one mile from the proposed Hermitage site. Hence, the buildings appear small in size from this distance, in appropriate scale and harmony with the surrounding landscape and with other visible structures with in the view shed. In reference to the DEC Guidelines, the simulations support the conclusion that the construction of the proposed Hermitage will present no adverse impact to the Long Path view shed.

E.13 Comment: The visual impact analysis for the Hermitage DEIS failed to conduct a

hard look at those impacts as required by the SEQRA. For a large-scale project, the Applicant should have conducted a more comprehensive analysis than the minimal number of line-of-sight profiles in the DEIS. The Cragsmoor Association conducted a field reconnaissance analysis that revealed two regionally significant recreational recourses from which there are at least three vantage points of local and statewide significance unaddressed in the DEIS (lower portion of Long Path and Bear Hill Nature Preserve) (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

E.13 Response: The visual impact analysis was conducted strictly according to the DEC

Program Policy regarding “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (see Appendix N of the DEIS). The scope of the analysis was determined by the Scoping Document, which was reviewed publicly and adopted by the Planning Board in conformance with the requirements of the SEQRA review process. Following public comment on the DEIS, the Applicant has prepared further analysis regarding Bear Hill and Long Path (see Responses E.1 and E.12).

E.14 Comment: The two-dimensional DEIS representation of the project buildings as

viewed from the Long Path/Shawangunk Ridge Trail is imprecise since the DEIS does not contain an as-built project rendition depicting the vertical components of landscape topography, three-dimensional buildings and vegetation remaining after site clearing. Similarly, it is important to document the visual impacts associated with


the removal of large areas of forest cover, as needed for project development (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

E.14 Response: Please refer to Responses E.1, E.6 and E.12 for further analysis of Bear

Hill and Long Path. These responses reference Figures III.E-3, III.E-4, III.E-14 and III.E-15, which now illustrate in three-dimensional form renditions depicting the vertical components of landscape topography, three-dimensional buildings and vegetation remaining after site clearing and full project construction. A full discussion and conclusion regarding impacts is presented as part of the responses referenced above.

E.15 Comment: A visual impact analysis conducted from the proposed dome of the

Hermitage Center demonstrated that scenic vistas of the Mahamudra Hermitage may be present from elevated vantage points from open space lands situated to the northeast, north, northwest and southwest. Public and private monies were specifically used to purchase and protect scenic vistas of local and statewide significance. The DEIS does not address this adverse visual impact of the protection of public and private investments made to protect the visual integrity of the Cragsmoor community and surrounding lands (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

E.15 Response: The visual analysis has been prepared in keeping with recognition of the

valuable visual resources in the area. Please refer to the above responses, in particular Responses E.1, E.2, E.3, E.6, E.7, E.8 and E.12.

E.16 Comment: As clearly demonstrated in visual renditions (Figures 8 & 9), construction

of the proposed Hermitage project would have both a significant visual impact and would not be in keeping with existing community character. Both the buildings and the cleared areas would stand out as being of a very different character from the surrounding community of rural residential houses spaced amidst a well treed countryside (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

E.16 Response: It is assumed that the commenter is referring to the view simulations as

prepared by HydroQuest, which are designated as Figure 8 (View looking Southeast from the Bear Hill Nature Preserve) and Figure 9 (View looking Northeast from the Long Path). Please refer to Response E.1 and Figures III.E-1 through III.E-6. Please also refer to Response E.12 and Figures III.E-13, III.E-14 and III.E-15, Long Path View Simulations As mentioned above, the Applicant’s simulations accurately represent the view from Long Path and Bear Hill in comparison to the views referenced above as Figure 8 and Figure 9 as prepared by HydroQuest and the Cragsmoor Association. In a side-by-side comparison of the Bear Hill viewshed simulations, the HydroQuest simulation has used representations of buildings which are out-of-scale and exaggerate the building size. Moreover, they use “block” style buildings, which also exaggerate size since they do not account for the softer effect of pitched roofs and the Bodhisattva Dharma Center’s gentle dome. Additionally, the Hydroquest simulations omit vegetative buffering around each building well in


front (in the foreground) of each building to enable exaggerated views of the buildings.

The Applicant’s Bear Hill viewshed simulation indicates a more accurate rendition of

the effect of new and existing vegetative buffers (see Fig. III-7, Landscaping Buffer Area Plan in the DEIS, and Figure III.E-10 Milarepa Site Landscaping Plan in the FEIS), and more accurately indicates proper building site locations as well as accurate building scale and massing. The Applicant submits that the viewshed analysis establishes no negative aesthetic impact is present (see Responses E.1, E.6, E.12 and E.14). The Applicant believes that neither the buildings nor the cleared areas “stand out” in a negative way, and neither appears as a very different character from the surrounding community. The commenter’s reference to a well-treed countryside does not fit the Old Inn Road landscape. The primary reason for this less vegetated condition was the historic Inn and golf course that previously occupied the Old Inn Road area and part of the Applicant’s property.

A similar comparison of the HydroQuest viewshed simulation from Long Path would

indicate the same comments as discussed above regarding the Bear Hill simulation. The Applicant believes its simulation from Long Path more accurately depicts the true size, scale and massing of the visible building and the vegetative buffers, and further confirms that there is no negative aesthetic impact.

E.17 Comment: The DEIS is also wholly deficient in the information relating to the

mitigation of the impacts of the proposed project on the views from the Long Path/Shawangunk Ridge Trail and Bear Hill sites. This not only results from the failure to assess the project’s infringement on the views, but also from the lack of any visual rendering of the project itself. Design, architecture, vegetation and foliage, lighting and other visual project features are described only in the most general terms or not at all. This is a fundamental failure of a DEIS for a project in such a highly visible area amidst world-class scenic views (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

E.17 Response: As mentioned above, the viewshed analysis was prepared according to

the DEC Program Policy contained in the DEIS Appendix N. The view locations were prepared in conformance with the locations designated in the adopted Scoping Document. Additional viewshed analysis has been prepared in response to public comments (see Responses E.1 and E.12). The project’s design and architecture are described in the DEIS and further described as referenced under Response E.1. Proposed architectural design drawings and landscaping plans have been provided for review as part of the DEIS, and in response to public comment as part of the FEIS.

E.18 Comment: We request that the lead agency require the Applicant to conduct a full

and comprehensive visual impact analysis as part of an FEIS. This analysis should increase a thorough digital viewshed assessment of all significant sources within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project site and a complete discussion of all potential adverse effects as contemplated in NYS DEC’s Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts guidance (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).


E.18 Response: As previously stated, a full and comprehensive visual impact analysis was

conducted in conformance with the requirements of the adopted Scoping Document and the DEC Program policy. In addition, the Applicant has responded to all public comment regarding viewshed analysis as provided above, and in particular as provided in Responses E.1 and E.12. Hence, the Applicant has responded to identified viewpoints in the adopted Scoping Document and DEIS public comments.

E.19 Comment: The document stating that the view would not be affected was proved

wrong by an expert. Again, one wonders what the credentials of their expert are and if they actually visited the site (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

E.19 Response: The commenter may be referring to the view from Bear Hill. The adopted

Scoping Document called for analysis from all public viewing areas. The DEIS notes that there were signs which indicated that hikers not leave the trail and climb on the rocks, and that in order to view the project site the signs would need to be ignored. Hence, the preparer concluded that there was no impact from the public viewing areas. In response to comments on the DEIS, further visual analysis was undertaken as discussed in section E. As relates to the analysis conducted regarding the Bear Hill Preserve, see Response E.1.

E.20 Comment: The Applicants propose a major development directly adjacent to and in

conflict with two invaluable cultural resources atop the Shawangunk Ridge: the views from the ridge to the valley below and vice-versa as well as the unique hamlet it would abut (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

E.20 Response: See Responses E.1, E.3, E.6 and E.12. The commenter appears to be

referring to the views from Long Path to the project site and vice versa. The above referenced responses pertain to this question. Please note that the DEIS also evaluated other viewsheds in compliance with the adopted scoping document. Regarding the proposed project’s relationship to the community character of the Cragsmoor hamlet in terms of traffic, views or population, see also Responses A.1, A.9, A.16, C.3, C.5, C.7, C.9, C.10, C.13, C.15, C.21, C.26, E.2, E.16, E.21, K.15, P.2 and Q.1. For a discussion of the Applicant’s modifications to the proposed project reducing occupancy, number of buildings, square footage and parking, as well as the Applicant’s proposed buffer areas, see Chapter II.

E.21 Comment: The proposed project is utterly out of scale with the district, a portion of

which it physically includes. In contrast, a campus-sized, 78,000-square-foot complex with one building of 17,000 square feet would clearly dwarf the structures and streetscape of Cragsmoor as it exists today (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

E.21 Response: See Responses A.1, A.9, A.16, C.3, C.5, C.7, C.10, C.13, C.15, C.21,

C.26, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.6, E.7, E.8, E.10, E.12, E.16, K.15, P.2 and Q.1. In summary, the project has been down-sized, and additional perimeter buffer protections have been proposed. The Bodhisattva Dharma Center (the largest


proposed building now down-sized to 16,500 square feet) is proposed for location in the middle of the 91-acre site, and will not be visible from any adjacent properties. Further changes along Cragsmoor Road (see Response E.8) will provide a “streetscape” fully in conformance with the character of Cragsmoor Road and the community.

E.22 Comment: The DEIS does not identify, address or minimize the significant visual and

aesthetic concerns. First, it does not specify the critical vantage points of local and regional significance as it fails to even identify the Long Path/Shawangunk Ridge Trail and Bear Hill. This is an egregious omission given the regional and statewide importance of these areas (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

E.22 Response: Regarding Bear Hill, please refer to Response E.19. Regarding Long Path,

the Scoping Document did not include Long Path, but, following public comment regarding the DEIS, the Applicant, in a spirit of cooperation, has provided further analysis of Bear Hill and analysis of Long Path. See Response E.12 on Long Path. Regarding specification on appearance of the numerous buildings, please refer to Response E.1.

E.23 Comment: The DEIS fails to accurately consider the impacts from Old Inn Road and

the various vantages on Cragsmoor Road because it does not take into account the removal of vegetation associated with site development (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

E.23 Response: See Responses E.7 and E.8. E.24 Comment: Will the Dharmakaya be flying such flags or decorations at their site? I

see no mention of it in the DEIS document (Dolores Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

E.24 Response: There may be prayer flags located on site; however, if used, these flags

will be small decorations within the site (not in the buffer areas) that will not create significant adverse visual impacts on surrounding properties.

E.25 Comment: Since the Dome may be seen from many of the scenic locations in and

about Cragsmoor as well as the Shawangunk Ridge, I respectfully request the Planning Board look into what the actual dome will look like. It is critical that the architecture of the project blend in with the community (Dolores Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

E.25 Response: Please refer to Response E.10. Please also refer below to Figure III.E-16:

Bodhisattva Dharma Center View Showing the Proposed Dome, as well as Figures III.E-3, III.E-4, III.E-14 and III.E-15.

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.E-16: VIEW OF THE BODHISATTVA DHARMA CENTER SHOWING THE PROPOSED DOME



E.26 Comment: The EIS completely ignores the viewshed impact on Bear Hill. They basically tell people not to scramble off the path in order to get to the vantage point, which is a world-class vantage point. Because of this, they have completely ignored this singular critical asset to this community, which in many ways defines at least one aspect of what it is like to live in Cragsmoor (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

E.26 Response: See Responses E.1 and E.19. E.27 Comment: I recommend that the Applicant avoid disrupting the viewshed from the

east side of the Bear Hill Preserve that looks down upon the area designated for the Guru’s house. It should remain a historic district (Maureen Radl, VP Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP Friends of the Shawangunks, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

E.27 Response: See Response E.3. E.28 Comment: And I did see that there has not been an adequate visual impact study

from Bear Hill. What will the eastern view be once that corporate headquarters is built (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

E.28 Response: See Responses E.1 and E.19. As to the "corporate headquarters

comments, see Responses A.19, A.30, C.6 and C.10. E.29 Comment: They are obviously now planning to build a community within a

community but not a part of the community. And to my way of thinking that is so antithetical to everything Cragsmoor is (Phil Sergenic, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

E.29 Response: The programs and teachings given will require retreatants to become and

remain somewhat isolated both individually and collectively during their stay at the Hermitage. This is especially true for the three-year retreatants whose time at the retreat will include a one-year preparation and one-year exiting program, for a total five-year commitment.

E.30 Comment: The DEIS neglected and described far too narrowly the visual impact

southeast from Bear Hill. A supplemental DEIS should be required (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

E.30 Response: See Responses E.1 and E.19. Based on public comment regarding the

DEIS, additional viewshed studies have been prepared. There is no need for a supplemental DEIS.

F. Flora and Fauna F.1 Comment: One can not place any confidence in the work of the so-called experts

who were totally debunked for example by Spider Barbour’s assessment of their


inclusion in the DEIS of rare plants found solely in Australia (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

F.1 Response: The plant about which Mr. Barbour made much in his presentation is in

fact a yellow water buttercup and not a rare plant in New York State. The plant is native to the eastern United States. The genus and species, however, were incorrectly stated in the DEIS because of a clerical error. The correct genus and species is Ranunculus flabellaris. (The DEIS contained an inaccurate reference to Hibbertia hypericoides).

F.2 Comment: Mr. James (Spider) Barbour, a biologist, pointed out the inclusion of rare

plants not even found elsewhere on this continent were indeed described in the DEIS as being on the subject property owned by the Dharmakaya (William Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 25, 2006).

F.2 Response: See Response F.1. F.3 Comment: Background research and on-site surveys for the DEIS are minimal and

grossly inadequate. The research does not come close to satisfying the minimal standards under SEQRA. This alone means the DEIS cannot be considered complete and accurate (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

F.3 Response: The Natural Resources Survey completed for the site was a complete

evaluation of the property to determine whether species of special concern, or threatened and endangered species, or potential habitat for such species, exist on the property. The evaluations were completed during the appropriate seasons Common species were also catalogued on the site. Breeding birds, herptiles, plants and other vegetation were also observed and documented on the site. Specifically, the Mountain Spleenwort was intensively searched for on the site, since according to the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program, it is known to be in the vicinity of the site. During the survey period, three species of special concern were observed on the property: eastern box turtle, eastern hognose snake and common raven, as noted in the Natural Resources Survey. See also Response F.4.

F.4 Comment: Ecological Solutions conducted their field survey in two time periods: 22

August – 6 September 2005 and February – 12 June 2006. The period from 13 June through 21 August is missing, no one surveyed the site in midsummer. This means that any species active only or mainly in that missing time space would likely not have been detected. This crucial time gap must be readdressed by new surveys of the site to find species that almost certainly were missed in the 05-06 surveys (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

F.4 Response: Additional field surveys were conducted on July 24, 2007, and August 8,

2007. During these additional field surveys, no additional species of special concern or threatened, endangered, or rare species were observed (See report in Appendix K). Furthermore, herptiles are active from March through June and are generally not seen during the mid-summer period because of the risk of becoming desiccated.


Breeding birds are generally most active from April through June. Flowering plants are recognizable from mid-April through September. See Response F.3.

F.5 Comment: The rare species inquiry for the Mahamudra site resulted in records for

three species: bog turtle, Indiana bat and mountain spleenwort. This low number of hits is astonishing and dead wrong. The Shawangunks are home to at least 20 state-rare plants and 15 state-rare animals. How could these stars of biological rarity not come up in a routine data search (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006)?

F.5 Response: The NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program correspondence, which is a State

database search for the project site and vicinity, indicated that the only rare plant observed on or in the vicinity of the site was Mountain Spleenwort. Bog turtles and Indiana bats are federally listed species, and potential for these species was also reviewed during the Natural Resources Survey.

F.6 Comment: There are six rare plants in the NYNHP database recorded at Sam’s

Point. Of these six species, mountain spleenwort is the only rare plant mentioned in the DEIS, yet there is no account of a search for it, or an analysis of potential habitat on site. There is no discussion of rock outcrops as significant habitats, and apparently no search for rare rock plants (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

F.6 Response: The NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program correspondence for this property

indicates that Mountain Spleenwort was observed in the vicinity of or on the site. Please refer to the correspondence in Appendix E. The Natural Resources survey in the DEIS includes information pertaining to a search for this species on the site as well as other New York State listed species, which would include rare rock plants. The proposed development area on the property does not posses the habitat characteristics favorable to the Mountain Spleenwort.

F.7 Comment: The general plant list for the site is sketchy, with poor identifications and

outright mistakes. There is poor reporting of significant genera. Whether failures of the DEIS to address locally occurring rare plants reflects poor survey work, poor botanical skills or insufficient time spent on the site is unclear. It is a great inadequacy of this survey and needs to be corrected with additional thorough and high-quality survey work (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

F.7 Response: See Response F.3. In addition, according to the NYSDEC, the Protected

Native Plants Program was created in 1989 as a result of the adoption of the protected native plants regulation (6 NYCRR 193.3). This regulation established four lists of protected plants:

• endangered • threatened • rare


• exploitably vulnerable

It is a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law §9-1503 to collect or destroy listed plants without the permission of the landowner. The regulation gives landowners additional rights to prosecute people who collect plants without permission.

No permission was sought from Dharmakaya to collect any endangered, threatened, or rare plants and none were observed by Ecological Solutions, LLC during the field surveys. In addition, if any plant with such designation stated above was observed on the site, the property owner (Dharmakaya), as well as the NYSDEC – Natural Heritage Program would have been immediately notified in compliance with Ecological Solutions’ New York State Fish and Wildlife License for Endangered/Threatened Species.

F.8 Comment: How was the identification obtained on the yellow buttercup, a native of Australia (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006)?

F.8 Response: See Response F.1. F.9 Comment: A conservation easement may in fact be warranted to protect flora and

fauna, but the DEIS provides no basis for assessing the need for such an easement (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

F.9 Response: The site has been examined from August 22-September 6, 2005;

February-June 12, 2006; July 24, 2007, and August 8, 2007. This analysis covered all seasons of the year. Additionally, an analysis was done to assess habitat for Timber Rattlesnakes (See Response F.14). The examination did not disclose any basis for requiring conservation easements or covenants and restrictions to protect flora or fauna. Nonetheless, the Applicant is proposing certain greenspace buffers as part of the reduced-size project, as noted in Chapter II and Response A.10.

F.10 Comment: The DEIS under-reports the biological resources of the site because the

survey on which the information is based did not cover the whole growing season, resulting in the remarkable lack of species reported. Supplemental studies are necessary to obtain reliable information (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

F.10 Response: See Responses F.3, F.4 and F.9. Although there were no threatened or

endangered species or potential habitat observed on the site which would warrant additional review of the property beyond the analysis completed for the DEIS, two additional site visits were conducted on July 24, 2007, and August 8, 2007. During all of these visits, careful attention was paid to looking for rare, threatened or endangered species and potential habitat for such species. During all of the field work on the property, only the species of special concern documented in the DEIS were observed. Observations of these species were forwarded to the NYSDEC


Natural Heritage Program. No potential habitat was observed on the site for any State or Federally listed threatened or endangered species.

F.11 Comment: The EIS only identified three rare species on the site. And this is just an

astonishing result, given the fact that we are here, the southern tip of the Shawangunks, which is essentially a center of rare and endangered species and habitats (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

F.11 Response: There were three species of special concern observed on the site. See

Response F.5. F.12 Comment: What’s wrong with the ecological surveys? One that they didn’t cover the

entire growing season, in fact, left out the large middle of the growing season from mid-June to late August, which in a high, cold place like the Shawangunk Ridge is the most important part of the growing season. So that’s the part you really need to look at to find all the species, to find especially the rare species (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

F.12 Response: See Responses F.3, F.4 and F.10. F.13 Comment: The other problem is that the requirement of SEQR that you send a

request to the DEC and the New York Natural Heritage Program for the records of rare species on their listing or to evaluate which species are likely to occur there was, I don’t know what went wrong, but I’ve seen this before, they come back with three species. And really, if you look at the Shawangunks and what you might expect to find on this site, up on the ridge, you’ll find at least 20 state-rare plants and 15 state-rare animal species that they should have known about for sure. And they should have done as assessment in terms of the site’s conditions and resources as to the likelihood of any of these species occurring there. And they especially missed the ones that are pretty much exclusive to the Sam’s Point part of the ridge (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

F.13 Response: See Responses F.3, F.4 and F.10. All of the species observed on the site

were identified and included in the Natural Resources Survey. A search was completed for species of special concern, threatened and endangered species that occur in New York State as listed by the NYSDEC.

F.14 Comment: Another really important species, this is a species that DEC pays an awful

lot of attention to, takes very seriously, that’s the timber rattlesnake. The Shawangunks have quite a lot of timber rattlesnake dens, including one that’s two and a half miles from this site. Bear Hill has never ever, ever been searched for rattlesnake dens. And it has all the characteristics, south and southwest facing slopes, the steep slopes with the rocks, these are the conditions that are really perfect for rattlesnake dense. It is quite likely there could be a rattlesnake den on Bear Hill (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, at public hearing November 30, 2006).


F.14 Response: The NYSDEC has screened this property and did not request that a

Timber Rattlesnake Habitat Assessment be completed. However, in response to this concern, the Applicant retained an expert in conducting rattlesnake habitat assessments, Kathy Michell. Ms Michell, who is licensed by NYSDEC, Region 3 for rattlesnake assessments, conducted a study of the project site on May 2, 2007, and determined that there were no potential rattlesnake denning or associated basking habitat on the property and stated “it is highly unlikely that timber rattlesnakes use this property” (see report in Appendix F).

F.15 Comment: This is an example of really inadequate identification of species is when

you find a species list where things are identified only to genus. The case of sedges, the main genus of sedge is karex. This survey only identified one species of karex and I can guarantee there are a dozen at least (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and The Nature Conservancy, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

F.15 Response: The Natural Resources Survey sought to identify as many species on the

site as possible. Particular attention was paid to habitat cover types. A hard look was completed, and only one species of karex was found on the property.

F.16 Comment: Can the wildlife be studied? As Spider Barbour has suggested, it has not

been studied appropriately (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006.

F.16 Response: Wildlife was observed on the property, identified and catalogued as set

forth in the DEIS and during two additional field visits on July 24, 2007, and August 8, 2007. No threatened or endangered species or potential habitat for such species (i.e., limestone fen) was observed in the various investigations on the site . See also Response F.14.

G. Topography, Steep Slopes, Soils and Sanitary Sewage Disposal G.1 Comment: Will it [my well] become polluted with the runoff of their [Dharmakaya

Inc.’s] septic waste products because my home, our homes, are downhill of that property (Harry McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

G.1 Response: No, the septic systems will be designed in accordance with the New York

State Section 201(1)(l) of the Public Health Law, Appendix 75-A, Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems. These regulations were designed to ensure the proper treatment of sanitary sewage through the use of subsurface systems. Appendix 75-A became effective on December 1, 1990, and provided for higher standards of design for SSDSs. This new design standard would exceed the criteria used for the design of the SSDSs on many of the properties within the Cragsmoor area that were constructed prior to 1990.


According to the Environmental Protection Agency, one-fourth of U.S. homes use septic systems. Furthermore, the EPA states, “When septic systems are properly designed, constructed, and maintained, they effectively reduce or eliminate most human health or environmental threats posed by pollutants in household wastewater.”1 Mound systems as are proposed at the Dharmakaya site are acceptable to the NYSDOH and were developed to address three natural conditions: (1) slow or fast permeable soils, (2) shallow soil cover over creviced or porous bedrock, or (3) a high water table. A site may exhibit one or more of these conditions, and thus a mound system is used to create acceptable soil conditions. In the case of the Dharmakaya site, mound systems were selected due to the depth to the seasonally high ground water table.

There are three main components to a mound system: (1) a septic tank, (2) a pump chamber, and (3) the elevated mound. A septic tank is standard with any SSDS, and its purpose is to pretreat the sewage and settle out solids. The pump chamber has two main functions. One is to pump the effluent from the septic tank to the top of the mound, and the second to distribute the effluent in a manner that “doses” the system. Dosing is the pumping of the effluent into the distribution system in controlled, low-pressure doses so that uniform distribution is achieved throughout the bed of the mound. The mound itself is drainfield that is raised above the natural soil surface. The mound is composed of a sand fill that has a gravel-filled bed and a network of small diameter distribution pipes. From the pump chamber, effluent is pumped to the distribution pipes where the effluent comes out through small holes and trickles downward through the gravel bed and into the sand. Treatment occurs as the effluent moves through the sand and returns to the natural soil.

G.2 Comment: The impact on the sewage created by an additional 100+ people daily

represents a 20-25% increase in wastewater re-entering the ecosystem since there are approximately 450 current residents (Russell and Monica Damsky, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 4, 2006).

G.2 Response: Comment noted. See Response G.1. Furthermore, the project has been

reduced to 85 full-time residents. This represents less than an 18 percent increase in population. The project will also incorporate many water saving devices and measures aimed at reducing sewage flows that typically are not found in older houses such as those in the Cragsmoor community. This would further reduce the sewage generated by the proposed action.

G.3 Comment: Can the environmental studies unequivocally predict that our

water/septic environment won’t be irrevocably damaged by this sudden and considerably increased strain on it (Russell and Monica Damsky, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 4, 2006)?

G.3 Response: The proposed project will not place undue strain upon the land in terms

of water and sewer. Response G.1 describes the situation relating to the septic systems. Section H describes the situation relating to the water system.

1 “A Homeowner’s Guide to Septic Systems”, EPA-832-B-02-005, December 2002.


G.4 Comment: The concerns of the property owners at lower elevations with storm water runoff and septic should be addressed by requiring a revised DEIS to include a sewer treatment plant with enough capacity to treat current proposed 250 people, as well as future increases of population as additional phases of construction are completed (Ted Horn, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 19, 2006).

G.4 Response: Under the revised proposal, a maximum of 85 people will live on site and

an additional 143 single-day visitors, up to eight times a year, on special holidays. This represents the population at full build-out and there will be no increase in future phases. A central sewage treatment plant is not required.

The stormwater system has been designed in accordance with the NYSDEC, Phase II Stormwater Regulations, and provides ample protection for stormwater quantity and quality impacts, as well as control of erosion and sediment both pre- and post-development. As presented in Table III.J-1 (Response J.1), the post-development peak runoff rates will be less than those of pre-development, thus mitigating any stormwater impacts from the proposed project.

G.5 Comment: The Board should also consider the owner to be liable for loss of water

and sewage seeping onto adjacent properties for a minimum of 5 years (Ted Horn, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 19, 2006).

G.5 Response: The purpose of the SEQRA process is to fully analyze the potential

environmental impacts of proposed projects. The potential impacts of this projects are fully examined in Section IV of the DEIS and Chapter III of this FEIS. Ultimately, the Planning Board will have to make affirmative SEQRA findings before it can approve the special permit or any site plans. Established principles of law establish the circumstances in which landowners are liable to neighboring properties relating to stormwater and sewage impacts. These principles of law would be administered by the court system and not the Planning Board. It is expected that the Planning Board will require certain wells to be monitored for a two-year period, based upon recommendations of a Town consultant. See generally Section H, specifically Responses H.12, H.15, H.16, H.22, H.24, H.30 and H.52.

G.6 Comment: Sanitary treatment design lacks any significant detail. It is unclear which

buildings discharge to which SSDS, whether it will be gravity flow or pump stations will be required. Additional detail is essential to determine whether the design is feasible from an engineering perspective as well as the environmental impacts that may be associated with its construction (David Clouser, Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

G.6 Response: The EIS materials form a sufficient basis to analyze the potential

environmental impacts of the septic systems and to assess engineering feasibility, even in the absence of detailed design. The systems serving the Bodhisattva Dharma, Naropa Meditation, and Milarepa Centers will be gravity systems. The balance of the systems will require pumps. Appendix E of the DEIS contained the soils information that was used to design the SSDSs and Table IV.D-2 of the DEIS provided the design flows. The proposed mound systems will follow the standard


design and configuration prescribed by New York State and the Ulster County Health Department. In addition, the results from the mounding analysis undertaken by the Applicant’s hydrogeologist (see Appendix L) indicated that the proposed effluent disposal systems are feasible (from a hydrogeologic standpoint) when the appropriate design practices are incorporated in the proposed disposal systems.

G.7 Comment: It is assumed that the Welcome Center located near the entrance will

have bathrooms. However, no sanitary treatment is shown in this area (David Clouser, Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

G.7 Response: The Welcome Center will have a bathroom. The area for the SSDS is

north of the new building location. G.8 Comment: Please discuss construction methods on steeply sloped areas in the DEIS

as construction on steep slopes 15% or greater can cause significant erosion, slope stability and drainage issues and requires a specialized form of construction. Also please identify which wooded areas will be preserved within the development (David Clouser, Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

G.8 Response: The Erosion and Sediment Control Plans in Appendix F of the DEIS

contained details and notes specifying erosion and sediment control practices for the project. Soil stabilization methods, as noted, shall be in accordance with the NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (August 2005). Practices in this manual that deal specifically with construction on steep slopes shall be strictly adhered to. A pre-construction meeting will be held with the Town Engineer, Contractor and Applicant’s Engineer to review all construction practices, particularly as they relate to steep slopes. Additionally, during construction all erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected as required by the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, which specifies the frequency, content and documentation requirements for such inspections.

In general, all limits of disturbance lines will be delineated and fenced to help retain

natural buffer areas on the site. Disturbance of any portion of the site will be kept to a minimum, at no time exceeding 5 acres of unstabilized, disturbed area. Erosion and sediment control measures will be installed at the onset of work, and in areas of steep slopes will be fortified with items such as double rows of silt fencing, soil stabilization matting and other drainage control measures. Temporary and final stabilization methods such as seeding will be completed as soon as is practical. Finally, all steep slopes will be stabilized before the end of the construction season.

It is estimated that approximately 12 acres, or 38 percent of the total area of disturbance, is a 15 percent or greater slope.

Table III.G-1 provides a breakdown of the disturbance by land coverage types, and

the limits of disturbance lines are shown on the revised plans in Appendix B:


Table III.G-1: Disturbance by Cover Types NO. COVER TYPE AREA OF DISTURBANCE

(Acres) PERCENT (%) OF TOTAL PARCEL

AREA

1 Wetland/Watercourse 0.00 0.00%

2 Mature Forest 16.82 18.57%

3 Young Woods 9.35 10.32%

4 Upland Meadow 4.21 4.65%

TOTAL 30.38 33.54%

As discussed in Chapter II and in various responses throughout this chapter, the

Applicant is proposing to create buffers around 77 percent of its perimeter, covering approximately 29 percent of its land. The purpose of the buffer area is to provide landscaped buffer areas which generally limit placement of facilities above ground level within the buffer area and provide reasonable amounts of natural screening along areas viewed from public and private roadways. Dharmakaya would have certain limited reserved rights within the buffer areas, including the right to place walking and meditation trails and religious statuary; to selectively prune vegetation; and to remove dead or diseased trees. Dharmakaya would also, upon approval by the Planning Board and in the manner shown on approved site plans, be allowed to place structures and facilities within the buffer areas, including access drives, entrance lighting and directional signage; water and stormwater facilities; septic and other underground utilities; and such other structures and facilities as the Planning Board may deem appropriate in support of the use of the property and consistent with the function of the buffer areas.

G.9 Comment: It is strongly recommended that the Applicant and/or Town Planning

Board employ a qualified hydrogeologist to conduct a “Mounding Analysis” to determine the extent of this adverse groundwater mounding condition and its potential effects on the proposed treatment system and subsequent potential for periods of groundwater contamination (David Clouser, Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

G.9 Response: LBG completed a mounding analysis (see Appendix L) to provide a

conservative estimate of the potential groundwater mound resulting from the discharge of effluent into the soil through leaching systems. The evaluation was based upon a review of published geologic and hydrogeologic data, existing test boring data and data from a subsurface investigation conducted by LBG in September 2007. The subsurface investigation included the installation of seven test borings/wells, sieve analysis and the completion of an in-situ permeability test. Following the subsurface investigation, a two-dimensional computer model was developed to evaluate if the soils could accept the design flow rate (8,705 gpd) without excessive mounding into the leaching system or potential breakout of the side slopes of the proposed fill-type septic systems. The model was also used to ensure that there would be sufficient time for full die-off of pathogenic bacteria prior to reaching any downgradient sensitive receptors, including property boundaries, potable wells, surface-water bodies or points of effluent breakout. The results for the modeling analysis indicate that the soils in the proposed fill-type septic disposal


systems should be able to accept the design flow without excessive mounding provided the final system design incorporates curtain drains upgradient of the proposed systems. Such curtain drains will be an integral part of the Applicant's design of the systems. The analysis also indicated that potential sensitive receptors are at sufficient distances for the proposed disposal systems to allow for full die-off of pathogenic bacteria. See Response G.10.

G.10 Comment: The fill-type design of the septic systems does not address the problem of

extremely low permeability of the local hydric soils and the likelihood of septic leakage or breakthrough to the surface at downgradient locations (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

G.10 Response: The use of fill-type SSDSs (septics) is acceptable for the conditions that

exist at the Dharmakaya property, which include higher water tables and percolation rates that are less than 120 minutes per inch. As noted in Response G.17, none of the soils within the areas of disturbance for the project are classified as hydric soils by the USDA SCS “Soil Survey of Ulster County, New York.” In accordance with conventional engineering practice, curtain drains will be incorporated into the system design as appropriate to avoid septic seepage where high groundwater is a concern. In addition, results from the mounding analysis completed by the Applicant’s hydrogeologist indicated that the soils in the proposed effluent disposal areas should be able to accept the design flow without excessive mounding and seepage related issues provided the final system design incorporates the appropriate fill and curtain drains (see Appendix L). Such design elements will be an integral part of the Applicant's systems.

G.11 Comment: Why does the first sentence state that the site is just east of the

Shawangunk region when it is obviously located on the Shawangunk Ridge? Topographic maps of the area show the site lies within the Shawangunk Mountains. Has the author ever visited the site (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

G.11 Response: The comment is noted, and the first sentence has been revised to read,

“The site is located in the Hudson Lowland area in an unnamed region of the Valley and Ridge province along the west edge of the Shawangunk region.”

G.12 Comment: Does the author believe the site lies on the Hudson Lowland? What river

is the Lowland named for? What is the elevation of that river’s surface at the nearest point to this project site? What is the elevation of this site (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

G.12 Response: As shown on the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation

Service (USDA SCS) “Soil Survey of Ulster County, New York,” Figure 1. – Physiography, bedrock geology, and major drainage systems of Ulster County, the site is within the Valley and Ridge Province of the Hudson Lowland area, named after the Hudson River. The elevation of the Hudson River is approximately 10 feet. The site’s elevations vary between elevation 1,535 and 1,831 feet.


G.13 Comment: Does the author think the project area has been folded and faulted once

or twice by geologic forces? How was it determined that Ordovician deep water sedimentary rocks underlie the western part of the site and Silurian near shore shallow water and beach sedimentary rocks underlie the eastern part of the site (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

G.13 Response: Figure 1 of the USDA SCS “Soil Survey of Ulster County, New York,”

shows the site lying in area 3 of the Valley and Ridge Province of the Hudson Lowland, which is described as “Unnamed region – twice folded Ordovician sandstones, shales and siltstones.” The “Geologic Map of New York, 1970, Reprinted 1995, Lower Hudson Sheet,” (Fisher, Isachsen, and Rickard, 1970) is the source material used to discern that that the Austin Glen Formation underlies the eastern portion of the study area and the Bloomsburg underlies the western portion of the study area.

G.14 Comment: What is the depth from land surface to top of bedrock? What type of

sediments were encountered from land surface to top of bedrock? What types of bedrock were encountered at what depths during drilling? Please provide a detailed well log for each of the two wells (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

G.14 Response: The well logs for the two wells drilled on-site are attached in Appendix G.

Based on the well log information, in one well (DEC #U4492), shale was encountered at 91 feet and continued to the end of the drilling (450 feet). In the second well (DEC #U4493), rock was encountered at 150 feet and continued until the end of drilling at 340 feet. The Archeological survey reported that there are several locations of exposed surface rock, either in the form of bedrock outcrops or ledges. The outcrops were only slightly visible, or were level with the ground surface. The material above the rock as described in the well logs is broken up lime stone. Above that, the soils consisted of a sandy, clayey loam.

G.15 Comment: Referring to the sentence on page 2 at the end of the first paragraph:

The formation was reworked by wave action along the shores of a sea on the west side of the mountain and formed into hard rock. What mountain is that statement referring to? Where is that mountain now (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

G.15 Response: The text refers to the Shawangunk Mountains, and not to a particular

mountain. G.16 Comment: Table IV.D-2 Sanitary Sewage Flows provides a list of buildings and

water needs based on visitors, employees and occupancy. The sum of the third column is 12,920 gallons per minute which when divided by 1,440 minutes in one day is 9 gallons per minute, not 7. Why is double occupancy not considered? What size are the bedrooms? If double occupancy is considered, daily water demand


would be 18 gallons per minute (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

G.16 Response: The computation of the sanitary sewage flows were done on a building

complex-by-building complex basis. For each location, the flows were calculated using actual building occupancy and usage rates (see Response C.27 for further information). Water usage computations in the DEIS were done taking into consideration that the entire site will be served by a centralized water supply and distribution system. This meant that the usage rates were developed assuming 107 full-time residents and 143 additional day visitors on the up to eight days per year. The basis of computing the water demand using a total maximum population figure is valid for a central well and water distribution system. The sewage flow computations, because they were done on a building complex-by-building complex basis, would naturally result in a higher flow volume when all the individual systems are added together, since there is an inherent duplication of per capita count when doing a computation in this manner. For example, a practitioner staying at the Milarepa Center would have 75 gpd of sewage attributed to them for daily use as an overnight resident. They may also be participating in a teaching at the Bodhisattva Dharma Center, where they would also be “counted” as a sewage flow at 10 gpd. If they also take meals at the Common House, another 50 gpd would be used to account for sewage flows there. Thus, in this scenario the same person would "counted" three times, rather than only once. This is part of the conservative analysis that has been performed in assessing impacts.

The water usage rates and sanitary flows have been recalculated using the revised maximum full time resident population of 85 persons. See Response H.18. The comment suggests that Dharmakaya will employ double occupancy, rather than the single occupancy represented in the application, effectively doubling its population. The comment therefore suggests that calculations of water/sewage demand should double the proposed population (based on the claimed double occupancy), thereby doubling usage and impact. There is no realistic basis for such recalculation. The Applicant has no intention of doubling its occupancy, and there are safeguards and enforcement mechanisms to assure against such double occupancy. At all times during this project review, the applicant has represented that the project will have an occupancy ceiling of 85 full-time occupants, with the possibility of an additional 143 single-day visitors on the special teaching days which occur only six to eight times a year. The Applicant expects the Planning Board to specifically impose these occupancy ceilings as a condition of any special permit or site plan approval issued by the Planning Board. Double occupancy would clearly violate these occupancy limits. Abuse of these occupancy limits would be a violation of the site plan and special permit approvals and zoning laws, and subject to enforcement. Moreover, double occupancy is contrary to the spirit of Buddhist practice, which emphasizes the importance of individual, solitary meditation practice in the Buddhist religion. Private rooms are essential for the practice, in conformance with the tradition of Buddhist worship.


For all of the above reasons, the water studies which have been provided are correct. All water analysis has been based on the actual proposed population: 85 full-time occupants, with the possibility of an additional 143 single-day visitors on the special teaching days which occur only six to eight times a year. The use of 7 gpm (now reduced to 6 gpm based on the reductions in the size of the project) is appropriate for the study and analysis. (See Water section for further discussion). Similarly, the SSDSs serving each building will be adequately sized for the building's use.

G.17 Comment: Hydric soils are found on the site, meaning they are prone to wetness,

poor drainage, slow permeability, seeps and seasonal standing water. In winter, water seeps will occur and freeze on sidewalks and driveways. The freeze-thaw phenomena can raise havoc with foundations and other structures (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

G.17 Response: The soils found on the site that are within the area of disturbance are

Bath gravelly silt loam (BgC), Bath and Mardin very stony soil (BRC), and Volusia very stony soil (VSB), none of which are not classified as hydric soils (Natural Resources Conservation Web Soil Survey). As listed in Table 7 of the USDA SCS “Soil Survey of Ulster County, New York,” the limitations of these soils for the construction of dwellings, roads, and paved areas are moderate and can be overcome or minimized by careful planning and design. Additionally, Table 16 of the same document lists the frost action as moderate, again a property that can be overcome with careful planning and design. The building foundations and other structures will be designed based on existing soil and groundwater conditions to counter the freeze-thaw action using standard engineering and architectural practices that specifically address these conditions.

G.18 Comment: If the underlying undisturbed soil has slow permeability and the overlying

gravel has fast permeability, what is to prevent seepage of sewage effluent out onto the ground surface at the downhill edge of the fill system (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

G.18 Response: As stated in response G.10, fill-type SSDSs are permitted in areas with

slow permeability. Public Health Law, Appendix 75-A specifies that mound (fill) systems are allowed in areas where the “percolation rate of the naturally occurring soil shall be faster than 120 minutes/inch.” In the case of the Dharmakaya site, the slowest percolation rate encountered was 22 minutes per inch and in general was 15 minutes per inch or less. Furthermore, mounding analysis results indicate that the soils in the disposal areas should be able to accept the design flow without excess mounding or seepage provided the final system design incorporates curtain drains. Such drains will be incorporated as integral design elements of the Applicant's systems.

G.19 Comment: The DEIS does not contain sufficient analysis to assure the safety of these

septic discharges. There is no review of the potential for groundwater mounding on the site. Nor is there specification of the septic treatment area for the Welcome


Center, or the design of the system transferring the septic wastes from the various buildings to the treatment areas. It does not appear that the soils can appropriately assimilate such wastes (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

G.19 Response: Responses G.6 and G.7 address the comment regarding the septic

system for the Welcome Center and the transfer of wastes from the various buildings to the systems. Additionally, this information is shown on the plans included in Appendix B. As discussed in Responses G.9, G.10 and G.18, the SSDSs are an appropriate system for the soil conditions on the Dharmakaya site. In addition, mounding analysis results indicate that the soils in the disposal areas should be able to accept the design flow (provided the final system design incorporates curtain drains) and that potential sensitive receptors are at sufficient distances to allow for full die-off of potentially dangerous pathogenic bacteria. The proper design elements will be incorporated as integral aspects of the design. The LBG study concluded that the potential sensitive receptors are at sufficient distances for the proposed disposal systems to allow for full die-off of pathogenic bacteria. See Response G9.

G.20 Comment: There is a general lack of information on temporary sediment

traps/basins. These must be clearly indicated on the site plans and be included in the construction sequence. It must be demonstrated that their proposed traps/basins are able to hold 300 cubic feet per acre drained. A table should be included indicating the traps/basins and their contributory drainage area. Details of each type of temporary trap/basin must be included on the site plan in accordance with those found in NY Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

G.20 Response: Comment noted. These items will be included the final site plans as they

may be approved by the Board. The DEIS analysis of erosion and sediment control established that potential impacts could be avoided with conventional engineering methods, which will be incorporated as integral elements of the Applicant's design.

G.21 Comment: Where check dams are required, they are generally spaced every 2 feet

on the contour. It doesn’t appear that enough check dams are planned considering the steep gradient on the entire site (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

G.21 Response: The plans included in the DEIS were developed to the overall plans for

erosion and sediment control to assure that potential impacts could be addressed with conventional engineering methods. Detailed engineering plans will be developed for each phase of the project during site plan review by the Planning Board. The symbol on the erosion and sediment control plans was shown to indicate the intent of the design to use check dams, and thus the exact placement for each one was not shown. The detail provided on drawing 3 of 4 did specify the maximum spacing, and a note will be added to the plan view stating that check dams will be spaced in full compliance with the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and


Sediment Control. (i.e. the elevations of the crest of the downstream dam is at the same elevation of the toe of the upstream dam).

G.22 Comment: The plan must include one of the two de-watering devices outlined in the

NY Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. This detail must be included in the site plans and the construction sequence (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

G.22 Response: Comment noted. See Response G.21. These items will be included in the

final site plans as they may be approved by the Board. G.23 Comment: It is unclear how sediment and erosion controls and post construction

runoff is being treated along the down gradient of roadways, especially where there are retaining walls (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

G.23 Response: See Response G.21. Swales will be added at the top of all walls in the

post-construction condition to divert stormwater. Swales/ditches shall also be installed along the toe of slopes to control runoff. As necessary, temporary swales and other erosion control measures such as silt fences and haybales will be used for control during construction activities.

G.24 Comment: Stormwater conveyance systems, both pre- and post-construction, must

be clearly identified on the site plan and the plan must also indicate appropriate stabilization early in the construction sequence (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).


final site plans. G.25 Comment: A detail of the proposed inlet protection must be included on the site

plans (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).


final site plans. G.26 Comment: Any slope 3.1 or greater must have a rolled matting for stabilization, and

this must be clearly indicated on the site plan and the installation be included early on in the construction sequencing (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).


final site plans. G.27 Comment: Appendix E and Appendix H both provide details on the soil tests done.

However, nowhere in the DEIS is the location of these test holes provided. The location of the test holes will be required for the DEC State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application for the wastewater system. The locations of


the tests may also be needed for the review of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan since the data indicates a number of locations have groundwater 4-7 feet below current grade. The Applicant must address any possible interaction between proposed stormwater management features and groundwater (Rebecca Crist, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated February 2, 2007).

G.27 Response: The soil test locations have been included on full scale drawings in

Appendix B of this FEIS. Test pits were dug in the area of Detention Basin No. 2 and adjacent to Detention Basin No. 1, and in other areas throughout the site. A total of 59 test pits were dug. Of these, 52 were 7 feet deep, six were between 5 and 6 feet deep and one was 38 inches deep. In 35 of the test pits, no water was encountered. Where water was found, only three test pits encountered water at less then 5 feet of depth. Two of these test pits were located close to Old Inn Road and one near the proposed Milarepa Center, not in the vicinity of any of the proposed detention basins. The test pits dug in the vicinity of Detention Basin #2 were 7 feet deep, and no water was encountered. These conditions would be reflective of the areas of all three detention basin areas. The bottoms of the three detention basins are proposed to be approximately one foot below the existing grade; therefore it is expected that groundwater will be 5 to 6 feet below the bottom of the basins. It is intended to maintain the required 2-foot minimum separation between stormwater and groundwater. If any subsequent testing shows higher groundwater levels, then the basins’ layout and depth will be modified to maintain the 2-foot separation.

G.28 Comment: No indication is given that the Ulster County Health Department has yet

reviewed the sanitary systems proposed. The design flow for each system is given, but there is no indication that a flow confirmation has been given by the Health Department. There is no discussion of the proposed means of waste disposal for 143 additional day visitors anticipated on the site during the eight special holidays discussed on page III-13 (Rebecca Crist, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated February 2, 2007).

G.28 Response: The Ulster County Health Department has conducted initial review, and it

did review and approve of the areas to be tested for the proposed SSDSs. The DEIS does discuss waste disposal for the 143 additional day visitors anticipated during the eight special holidays. These flows were included in the sewage flow computations for the Bodhisattva Dharma Center, as shown in Table IV.D-2 of the DEIS.

G.29 Comment: The DEC has not yet received any application from Dharmakaya for the

necessary sanitary SPDES permit for the wastewater system (Rebecca Crist, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated February 2, 2007).

G.29 Response: Comment noted. It is acknowledged that such a permit is required.


H. Hydrogeology, Groundwater Resources and Water Supply H.1 Comment: Please change the proposed 4 inch water mains to a minimum 6-inch

water main (Cragsmoor Fire District Board of Commissioners, memo dated November 15, 2006).

H.1 Response: The water mains serving the hydrants and sprinkler systems have been

increased to 6 inches. H.2 Comment: Please install hydrants at a maximum of 1,000 feet apart (Cragsmoor

Fire District Board of Commissioners, memo dated November 15, 2006). H.2 Response: Hydrants have been added and are spaced at 1,000 feet maximum. H.3 Comment: What will happen to MY well (Harry McCombs, Cragsmoor resident,

memo dated November 25, 2006)? H.3 Response: The Applicant had a study and report prepared by a professional

engineering firm specializing in hydrogeology, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. (LBG) that evaluated potential impacts to neighboring wells, by monitoring the water level in 10 homeowner wells surrounding the site during pumping of test wells on the Dharmakaya property. Well 1 was pumped at seven times the anticipated demand for a 72-hour period. Well 2 was pumped at more than three times the anticipated demand for 24 hours continuously. Both wells were tested after a prolonged period of low precipitation from May through September 2005. The Town also hired an independent professional engineering firm, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., to review LBG’s report and those prepared by the Cragsmoor Association’s consultants. The tests conducted by LBG were intended to exaggerate the impact of the Dharmakaya wells on the aquifer, to provide an extremely conservative assessment of the safe yield of Wells 1 and 2. After the testing, LBG concluded that the data indicated that Dharmakaya's groundwater withdrawals, estimated at 10,200 gpd or 7 gpm from on-site wells, will not likely impact off-site wells. The location of the 10 wells tested is shown in Appendix G of the DEIS. The only tested wells that showed measurable impacts from the pumping tests were those at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road. These were the off-site wells closest to the site. The wells further away showed no measurable impact, even from pumping which far exceeded the actual proposed pumping rates on the Dharmakaya property. Reference is made to the full water report of LBG, which is located in Appendix G in the DEIS; to the review report prepared by the Town's Hydrogeologist, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. dated May 15, 2007, which appears in Appendix D of the FEIS; and a further informational letter from LBG dated June 18, 2007, which also appears in Appendix D. See also the remaining responses in this Section H. For all the reasons set forth herein in the FEIS, there is no likely impact of the project on the subject well.

H.4 Comment: Please advise on the added use to the “already stressed supply” of the

water aquifer if Dharmakaya will draw another 8-10 thousand gallons (Harry McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006).


H.4 Response: The Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. (LBG), conducted extensive testing of the wells on the Dharmakaya site and monitored neighboring wells to determine potential impacts and concluded that Dharmakaya's proposed use of groundwater wells will not likely impact offsite wells (see the full report in Appendix G of the DEIS). Based on the results of this testing program, LBG noted:

… that the offsite wells at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road were the only wells that showed discernible drawdown interference effects from pumping of the onsite wells. The impact observed in these wells was caused by the pumping of Wells 1 and 2; however, the amount of impact will be reduced under normal pumping operation. The amount of impact was greater during these tests for several reasons; Well 1 was pumped at seven times the anticipated demand for a 72-hour duration; Well 2 was pumped at more than three times the anticipated demand for 24 hours continuously; and both wells were tested after a prolonged period of low precipitation from May through September. These tests were designed to exaggerate the impact to the aquifer and provide extremely conservative assessments of the safe yield of Wells 1 and 2. Under normal use and operation, neither well will be pumped at rates as high as they were tested, or for such prolonged periods. The data indicate that the ground-water withdrawals of 10,200 gpd or 7 gpm from onsite wells will not likely impact offsite wells.2

The Town hired an independent consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., to review the Applicant’s proposed water use and LBG’s analysis of potential impacts that may result from that use. Malcolm Pirnie also reviewed the data and reports prepared by the Cragsmoor Association consultants (see Appendix D of the FEIS). Malcolm Pirnie’s final conclusion was:

The applicant provided calculations that show there is sufficient on-site recharge to meet the demand of the proposed development. The applicant conducted aquifer tests at approximately three and seven times the daily demand of the proposed development. The results show the water supply system should be capable of meeting the demand of the proposed development. The applicant monitored the water level in 10 homeowner wells surrounding the site. The results show measured drawdown in two homeowner wells (49 and 71 Old Inn Road) as a result of pumping. Even though there seems to be enough on-site recharge, the water level in the two homeowner wells (49 and 71 Old Inn Road) should be monitored given lack of full recovery during the aquifer test. The

2 Linton, Andrew M. and Kenneth Taylor, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. Water-Supply Testing, Proposed Mahamudra Buddhist Hermitage, Cragsmoor, New York. June 2006. Page 16.


aquifer tests were conducted in accordance with the NYSDOH regulations.3

Malcolm Pirnie requested some minor additional information, but did not require any additional testing. The additional information is contained in Appendix D in a letter dated June 18, 2007, from Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., the Applicant’s hydrogeological consultant. With respect to the monitoring of the two homeowners’ wells, located at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road, the Applicant had stated in the DEIS that it would test monitor the wells for these houses, subject to appropriate consent by the property owners, for the two-year period following full build-out of the Hermitage. This FEIS more fully sets forth the monitoring program. The program has been designed to allow the reviewer to differentiate between drawdown caused by the homeowners' own use of these two wells and any potential drawdown on those wells caused by pumping the Dharmakaya wells. The monitoring plan also allows for determination of any long term or seasonal trends.

Time period: Monitoring of the two wells shall begin at least 3 months prior to placing Dharmakaya wells 1 and 2 into service. The purpose of this pre-project operation monitoring is to obtain initial baseline water-level measurements of these off-site wells. The monitoring will continue from this point until 2 years after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the last building in the Dharmakaya project. The proposed program will include:

1. Monitoring will consist of water-level measurements made with a sterile electronic drop line. Where wells can be properly sealed, electronic monitoring may be used.

2. Daily (weekday) records of metered water production from Wells 1 and 2.

3. Monthly records of the water levels in Wells 1 and 2.

4. Monthly water-level monitoring of the selected two offsite wells.

5. Monthly precipitation data.

6. The Applicant’s hydrogeologist will assemble the above data relating to on-site production wells and off-site well monitoring into a quarterly, cumulative report to be submitted to the official or agency designated by the Planning Board in its SEQRA Findings. Each Quarterly Cumulative Report shall include a record of the measurements, a graph of the measurements, and any appropriate text explaining the data. The graphs shall be updated each quarter, so that they will include all of the data collected from the baseline to the most recently collected data for each well. Copies of the reports shall also

3 St. Germain, Daniel J., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 6.


be sent to the property owners of the monitored off-site wells. Unless otherwise directed by the designated official or agency, the quarterly reports will be submitted within 30 days of the end of each quarter.

H.5 Comment: What will happen to our well (June McCombs, Cragsmoor resident,

memo dated November 25, 2006)? H.5 Response: See Responses H.3 and H.4. H.6 Comment: Please advise on the added use to the “already stressed supply” of the

water aquifer if Dharmakaya will draw another 8-10 thousand gallons (June McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006).

H.6 Response: See Response H.4. H.7 Comment: What will happen to our well (Scott McCombs, Cragsmoor resident,

memo dated November 25, 2006)? H.7 Response: See Responses H.3 and H.4. H.8 Comment: Please advise on the added use to the “already stressed supply” of the

water aquifer if Dharmakaya will draw another 8-10 thousand gallons (Scott McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006).

H.8 Response: See Response H.4. H.9 Comment: Please include Figure 2 Probability Distribution of Annual Precipitation

and Figure 3 2005 Precipitation Data in the LBG report (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated November 27, 2006).

H.9 Response: The requested figures were sent to the commenter on November 28,

2007, and the Town Planning Board and town engineer, Lanc & Tully, and to all involved and interested agencies, on the same date. The figures are included as Figures III.H-1 and III.H-2, below.

H.10 Comment: The negative impact of the water usage of this center, some 8,000-

10,000 gallons per day, will play havoc with the available water supply of this portion of the ridge (Russell and Monica Damsky, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 4, 2006).

H.10 Response: As noted in Response H.4, the Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG,

after analyzing the water supply for the proposed project, concluded that “ground-water withdrawals of 10,200 gpd or 7 gpm from onsite wells will not likely impact offsite wells.”4 LBG’s report, as well as those prepared by the Cragsmoor Association’s consultants, was reviewed by an independent hydrogeologist hired by the town, Malcolm Pirnie (See Appendix D). See Responses H.3 and H.4.

4 Linton and Taylor. June 2006 report, Page 16.

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.H-1: PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL

PRECIPITATION (FIGURE 2 OF LBG WATER SUPPLY TESTING REPORT - DEIS)

WAWARSING, NY SOURCE: LEGGETTE, BRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC., 2007

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.H-2: 2005 PRECIPITATION DATA (FIGURE 2 OF LBGWATER SUPPLY TESTING REPORT - DEIS)



H.11 Comment: Can the environmental studies unequivocally predict that our water/septic environment won’t be irrevocably damaged by this sudden and considerably increased strain on it (Russell and Monica Damsky, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 4, 2006)?

H.11 Response: As discussed in Response G.1, the septic systems will be designed in

accordance with the New York State Section 201(1)(l) of the Public Health Law, Appendix 75-A, Wastewater Treatment Standards-Individual Household Systems. The regulations are designed to ensure proper treatment of sanitary sewage through the use of subsurface systems. Impacts of the water system on the area are discussed in Responses H.3, H.4 and H.10, and reports to which they refer.

H.12 Comment: Perhaps the most critical issue for the 100+ homeowners who live above

this site is water. Test results already in place indicate that the site may not be able to produce enough water on a consistent basis even for their own needs (Dianne Wiebe, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 4, 2006).

H.12 Response: The Applicant’s well testing program monitored the effects of the

drawdown tests on four properties located north of the site, which would be representative of the 100+ homeowners who live above the site. Drawdown impacts were observed during the 24-hour pumping test on Well 2 on the two northern offsite wells at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road, the wells located closest to the Applicant’s property. No impacts were observed at the other wells. LBG further analyzed the impacts on these two wells and concluded “it is unlikely that either of these offsite wells would be impacted by the normal use of the onsite production wells (Wells 1 and 2).” To ensure this, it was recommended that these wells be monitored for a two-year period following the full build-out of the project.

This concern was commented on by the town’s independent hydrogeological consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (see letter in Appendix D). They wrote,

The applicant monitored four homes to the north and two exhibited measurable impacts as a result of the aquifer test(s). The NYSDOH requires an applicant to monitor 6-10 homes surrounding the site and the Applicant monitored the water level in 10 homes. It would be impracticable for an applicant to monitor all of the homes in the area. The four homes monitored seem to be representative of the homes in the area. Based on the data collected by the Applicant, it is reasonable to conclude that pumping effects would decrease with distance from the pumping wells and any wells further away would receive less impact than the four monitored.5

Based on Malcolm Pirnie’s comment, as well as the conclusion of the Applicant’s professional, there should be no impacts on the wells in the hamlet. See also Responses H.3, H.4, and reports to which these responses refer.

5 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 5.


H.13 Comment: Allowing a project of this size, when it is obvious that water resources are limited (even in times of record rainfall), could be ruinous to the property owners whose homes have existed for a hundred years or more (Dianne Wiebe, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 4, 2006).

H.13 Response: As noted in Response H.4, the applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG,

after analyzing the water supply for the proposed project, concluded that “ground-water withdrawals of 10,200 gpd or 7 gpm from onsite wells will not likely impact offsite wells.”6 See Responses H.3, H.4, H.12, and reports to which these responses refer.

H.14 Comment: The DEIS did not address the wells and aquifer to the North and higher

elevations of the hamlet that also contains the larger population of the area. The probable increase of 50% of existing population will adversely effect the limited supply of water, with a possibility of land owners to have to drill wells deeper to maintain water at great expense (Ted Horn, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 19, 2006).

H.14 Response: The study conducted by the Applicant’s consultant, LBG, did monitor four

wells that were located north and at a higher elevation than Dharmakaya’s wells. After analyzing the test results LBG concluded “it is unlikely that either of these offsite wells [north of the project] would be impacted by the normal use of the onsite production wells (Wells 1 and 2).”7 The town’s consultant, Malcolm Pirnie also addressed this concern and stated in their report, “The four homes monitored [to the north] seem to be representative of the homes in the area. Based on the data collected by the applicant, it is reasonable to conclude that pumping effects would decrease with distance from the pumping wells and any wells further away would receive less impact than the four monitored.”8 See Responses H.3, H.4, H.12, and reports to which those responses refer.

It is also noted that the modified proposal will only have 85 full-time residents, less than an 18 percent increase in population of the Cragsmoor hamlet, far less than the 50 percent stated by the commenter.

H.15 Comment: The Board should also consider the owner to be liable for loss of water

and sewage seeping onto adjacent properties for a minimum of 5 years (Ted Horn, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 19, 2006).

H.15 Response: The purpose of the SEQRA process is to fully analyze the potential

environmental impacts of proposed projects. The potential impacts of this project are fully examined in sections IV.D and IV.E of the DEIS, and III.G and III.H of the FEIS. Ultimately, the Planning Board will have to make affirmative SEQRA findings before it can approve the special permit or any site plans. Established principles of law establish the circumstances in which landowners are liable to neighboring properties relating to water and sewage impacts. These principles of law would be

6 Linton and Taylor. June 2006 report, Page 16. 7 Linton and Taylor. June 2006 report, Page 15. 8 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 5.


administered by the court system and not the Planning Board. Nonetheless, the issues relating to potential water and sewer impacts are thoroughly examined in the EIS documents. The only continued monitoring deemed to be appropriate relates to the wells at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road. See Response H.22.

H.16 Comment: Consider global warming’s potential effect on the future years:

unpredictable weather, severe drought, less or even no life-sustaining water for all of us who own homes in Cragsmoor. I recommend to the Board that it require an escrow account or bond for the reparation (in perpetuity) of any and all existing wells that run dry as a result of the project (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

H.16 Response: The water analysis has been conducted under very conservative

principles. The State Health Department requires applicants to develop twice the daily demand with best well out of service. This provides conservatism both as to demand and supply. As Malcolm Pirnie has noted in its report, the Applicant in this case showed that they could develop seven times the daily demand with best well out of service. This represents a supply that should be able to meet daily demand under any future conditions.

Furthermore, the water testing was done under drought conditions. See Response

H.25. As an additional conservative precaution, a monitoring program for wells at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road will be established for a two-year period following full build-out of the Hermitage. See Response H-4 and H-22.

As discussed throughout the DEIS and FEIS, the project would result in significantly less development intensity than an as-of-right residential development, and would generate substantially fewer auto trips than the as-of-right alternative, resulting in lower emissions.

H.17 Comment: Water supply is another big concern. Too much water on the top but not

enough in the ground is often what residents say about the properties along Cragsmoor Road. My property is south and downhill from the proposed project. Three wells have been dug here since 1946. Who will pay if my current well goes dry (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006)?

H.17 Response: During the Applicant’s testing program to analyze potential impacts due

to Dharmakaya’s water system, three wells that are located south and downhill from the property were monitored. Two of these wells, 278 Clark Road and 146 Cragsmoor Road, are deeper wells with a water level below the top of the well casing (btoc) of just over 200 feet. The third well, 19 Cragsmoor Road, however, can be considered a shallow well with a btoc of about 22 feet. None of these three wells experienced any impacts during the drawdown pump test of the Dharmakaya’s wells, and the Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG, did not recommend any further testing or monitoring of wells in this area. Furthermore, in their June 18, 2007, letter to the Town Planning Board (see Appendix D), LBG stated “… the fact that any potential impact would diminish with distance and that no impact was observed in the deep bedrock wells located on Clarks Road and


Cragsmoor Road (located over 1,200 feet away), suggests that the onsite wells will not impact shallow wells downgradient of the site.”9

This concern was analyzed by the town’s independent hydrogeological consultant,

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. They stated the following:

A concern was raised about the potential effect this water supply could have on any shallow wells on Clarks Road and Cragsmoor Road. It was implied that these wells are shallow. The applicant conducted a 72-hour aquifer test on a deep bedrock well at approximately seven times the average daily demand and did not measure an impact in the bedrock wells at 278 Clarks Road, 146 Cragsmoor Road, and 244 Cragsmoor Road, all of which are between the Hermitage site and the homeowner well in question. Any potential for water level drawdown would be less the further the home is located away from the site. Any potential impact would diminish with distance.10

For a discussion regarding liability, see Response H.15.

H.18 Comment: The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient

groundwater resources available to provide water for both the proposed project, as well as for existing and future residential usage nearby. The Applicant’s stated project water demand is 75 gallons per day per person or a total of 10,200 (7 gallons per minute). It is stated in the DEIS that the NYSDOH guideline requires that double the daily demand be available for new community water supplies. Thus, the Applicant was required to document that they have a water supply capable of continuously providing 14 gallons per minute (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

H.18 Response: The water supply meets all applicable NYSDOH standards. The

Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG, conducted an extensive testing and analysis of the wells for the Dharmakaya project. They found that “the data from the pumping tests indicate that Wells 1 and 2 can be pumped independently at rates up to 50 and 25 gpm or approximately 72,000 gpd and 36,000 gpd respectively. Well 1 will serve as the main production well, and Well 2 as a backup well. Well 1 is capable of producing seven and Well 2 greater than three times the anticipated average water demand of the project,” both of which exceed 14 gpm. Additionally, LBG concluded that “The data indicate that the ground-water withdrawals of 10,200 gpd or 7 gpm from onsite wells will not likely impact offsite wells.”11

The water demand rates have been revised from 10,200 gpd to 8,520 gpd to reflect the proposed reduction in size of the project and the concomitant reduction in population proposed for the development. The required water supply rate for the reduced project is computed as follows:

9 Taylor, Kenneth, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc. Letter dated June 18, 2007. Page 5. 10 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 5. 11 Linton and Taylor. June 2006 report, Pages 15-16.


Table III.H-1: Proposed Water Supply Rate

No. of People

Daily Water Use(gal/day)

Total Daily Use

(gal)

Full-Time Residents: 85 75 6,375 Special Event Participants: 143 15 2,145 Total 228 8,520 Total in Gal/Min. 5.9 NYSDOH required @ 2 times Daily Demand (gpm) 12

The report of the Applicant's expert was reviewed by the Town’s independent hydrogeological consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., (see letter in Appendix D). Malcolm Pirnie stated in their review that the “aquifer tests were conducted in accordance with the NYSDOH [New York State Department of Health] regulations (NYSDOH Sanitary Code, Part 5, Subpart 5-1, Appendix 5-B). These test results show that either well would be capable of meeting the demands of the development.”12 Since the demand will actually decrease with the reduction in size of the proposed project, this statement should remain valid.

H.19 Comment: For the protection of both the Applicant and nearby residents whose wells are hydrologically connected to both Hermitage wells, it is essential that the proposed water supply be capable of sustaining the mandated yield of 14 gallons per minute over the long-term. Obviously, if project demand were to mine the groundwater resource, both the Hermitage and hydrologically connected homeowners would be in jeopardy. It is important to fully characterize the bedrock. The Applicant has not provided a comprehensive hydrogeologic assessment (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

H.19 Response: Hydrologic connectivity of wells would typically arise from groundwater

flows in the area. The Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG, has prepared an analysis and map of the groundwater flows in the project area, which is situated in bedrock aquifers (See Appendix D and Figure III.H-3, below). In preparing this figure LBG explained “…ground-water flow in bedrock aquifers is strongly influenced by fractures in the rock formation.” Further on in their letter, LBG explained that “…ground-water flow in bedrock aquifers is strongly influenced by fractures in the rock formation. Consequently, the conventional well-flow equations, developed for isotropic homogeneous aquifers of infinite areal extent, do not adequately describe the flow in fractured rock, except in rare instances where the fracture density is great enough that the system acts as a porous-media aquifer. This expectation is not the case in the study area.” Based on the bedrock nature of the aquifer and information from the well monitoring, LBG concluded that “ground water in the area flows from north to southeast (generally mimicking the surface topography).”13 See Response H.18, and full reports in Appendix D.

12 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 2. 13 Taylor. Letter dated June 18, 2007. Pages 2, 3.

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.H-3: GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AND CONTOUR MAP (FIGURE 3 FROM LBG LETTER)


11440.8

Well 11690.9

Well 21670.7

5892.5

91201.6

41510.8

101586.4

81763.5

71744.4 2

1566.9

31715.4

6830.6

GROUND-WATER ELEVATION CONTOUR MAP


H.20 Comment: The Applicant’s statement that Well 1 can be pumped at 50 gallons per minute, while true, does not accurately represent the situation. This is not the well’s true yield because this discharge cannot be maintained indefinitely. If the Hermitage project required a continuous yield of 50 gallons per minute, the project could not be supported with the groundwater that is available. The actual safe yield that can be continuously and safely withdrawn from the Hermitage aquifer has not been determined. Please refer to HydroQuest Figure 1 (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

H.20 Response: The Applicant’s expert hydrogeologist, LBG, noted in its analysis of the

groundwater supply, “the data from the individual pumping tests indicate Well 1 and Well 2 can be pumped at rates up to 50 gpm and 25 gpm or about 72,000 gpd (gallons per day) and 36,000 gpd respectively.”14 The town’s independent hydrogeological expert, Malcolm Pirnie, reviewed the study and its findings, as well as reports prepared by the Cragsmoor Association’s consultants. Malcolm Pirnie studied the concern of whether the safe yield of the wells was achieved. They stated:

Concern has been raised that the applicant has not determined the “safe yield” because the water level in the pumping well continued to decline through the duration of the test. A reviewer raised the concern that the “Safe yield would be any pumping rate below or equal to the rate in gpm at equilibrium.” This statement is inaccurate. The water level in many wells that are installed in expansive aquifers where water is drawn entirely from storage continues to decline for decades without any adverse affects (definition of safe yield) and these aquifers are capable of supplying potable water to communities for long periods of time. This is why the NYSDOH regulations allow for some drawdown to continue through the duration of the aquifer test and some drawdown is built into the NYSDOH definition of stabilization.15

The site's proposed usage of water has been reduced, because of a decrease in size, from 10,200 gpd to 8, 520 gpd. See Responses H.3, H.4, H.12 and Appendix D.

H.21 Comment: Because of the aquifer’s elevationally high position, it is likely that at

some point the aquifer may reach a recharge boundary or end, beyond which little additional groundwater will be available. This situation is likely to be exacerbated by limited groundwater recharge through relatively impermeable, clay-rich, surficial soils. The Applicant did not determine the aerial or vertical extent of the aquifer they plan to exploit. Please refer to HydroQuest Figures 2 & 3 (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

14 Linton and Taylor. June 2006 report, Page 16. 15 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 4.


H.21 Response: Figure III.H-4, below, shows the property boundary and the estimated upland watershed area that provides recharge to the property. The dimensions and locations of source-water or recharge areas for bedrock wells are greatly affected by fracture geometry, orientation and density. This is true for both the aerial and vertical limits of the aquifer, which at the Dharmakaya site and the surrounding area is a bedrock aquifer, a fracture dependent aquifer.

These factors make it impossible to accurately delineate recharge areas, even in

situations where the general fracture patterns are reasonably understood. Because of these difficulties, it is accepted methodology to treat recharge areas for an individual well as tending to mimic the land surface topography. This is a reasonable approach on a regional scale or where fracture density is great enough that the system acts as a porous-media aquifer. However, on a local scale (as in the case of the Hermitage wells, see Figure 1 in Appendix G of the DEIS) where fractures cross topographic divides, the inherent assumptions in the accepted methodology could produce results that are not technically defensible. Therefore, definitive recharge areas for the Hermitage wells have not been delineated.

H.22 Comment: Figure 4 depicts a semilog plot of the 16 foot drop in water level in a

homeowner well at 71 Old Inn Road that occurred as Hermitage Well 1 was being pumped at 50 gallons per minute. The plot documents that this well is hydrologically connected to the same aquifer as Hermitage Well 1. It also serves to raise the question as to whether other area homeowner wells will be impacted from long-term aquifer pumping associated with the proposed Hermitage project (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

H.22 Response: In its analysis of the water supply, the Applicant’s expert, LBG, concluded,

“it is unlikely that either of these offsite wells [49 & 71 Old Inn Road] would be impacted by the normal use of the onsite production wells (Wells 1 and 2).”16 In the June 18, 2007, letter (See Appendix D), LBG further stated:

Results from the aquifer test showed that only two of the ten

offsite wells (49 and 71 Old Inn Road) monitored during the aquifer tests showed discernable drawdown interference effects from pumping of the onsite wells. Figure 1 [Figure III.H-5] shows that the wells monitored at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road were located approximately 840 feet and 500 feet to the north and east, respectively, of Well 2 (the nearest onsite production well). However, because of the fractured nature of bedrock systems, it cannot be concluded that the area of influence would be radial in nature or that wells completed in close proximity to the impacted wells would also be impacted.


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.H-4: UPLAND WATERSHED & RECHARGE AREA (FIGURE 2 FROM LBG LETTER)


O \DWG\M h d B ddhi H \Fi 2 d L 1 /1/200 2 0 30 PM A b PDFW i

Well 1

Well 2

5

6

9

4

10

8

7 2

3

1

ESTIMATED UPLAND WATERSHED AREA

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.H-5: WELL LOCATION MAP (FIGURE 1 FROM LBG LETTER)


1

Well 1

Well 2

5

6

9

4

8

2

3

710

WELL LOCATION MAP


For example, no discernable interference effects were observed in the well located at 95 Old Inn Road during the Well 2 aquifer test, even though it is located closer to Well 2 than a well (49 Old Inn Road) impacted by pumping during the test.…The use of aquifer parameters to anticipate interference of the wells completed in bedrock, as proposed, is not technically appropriate.17

The town’s independent expert, Malcolm Pirnie, addressed this concern, stating,

“The results show measured drawdown in two homeowner wells (49 and 71 Old Inn Road) as a result of pumping. Even though there seems to be enough on-site recharge, the water level in the two homeowner wells (49 and 71 Old Inn Road) should be monitored given lack of full recovery during the aquifer test.”18 The Applicant had stated in the DEIS that it would test the wells for these houses for the two-year period following full build-out of the Hermitage. A description of the proposed monitoring program is contained in Response H.4. See also Responses H.3 and H.12.

H.23 Comment: Aquifer transmissivity (T) is a scientifically determined measure of the rate

at which water is naturally transmitted through an aquifer. The range of low values of T calculated and provided by HydroQuest indicate that there is very real concern that the Hermitage aquifer may not be capable of sustaining a project of the size proposed (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

H.23 Response: The Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG, addressed the use of

aquifer parameters to predict areas of influence and impacts in bedrock aquifers as is the case in this project in their letter dated June 18, 2007 (See Appendix D). Due to the fracture nature of bedrock, the use of aquifer parameters can produce erroneous results that are not technically defensible. LBG did, however, examine the recharge potential of the aquifer that the Applicant’s wells are located in using other methods. LBG estimated the recharge area using a projected average daily demand based on the revised Hermitage population. They estimated the area required to recharge the aquifer for water used by the Hermitage to be 16 acres (less than 18 percent of the entire parcel). They concluded that “the recharge potential to the property significantly exceeds the estimated project demand.”19 See also Responses H.4, H.12, H.14, and reports referred to therein.

17 Taylor. Letter dated June 18, 2007. Page 3. 18 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 6. 19 Taylor. Letter dated June 18, 2007. Page 6.


H.24 Comment: The Applicant has offered to conduct groundwater monitoring for two years following completion of project construction. This is unreasonable. I recommend that the Planning Board require the Applicant to conduct a constant-rate, long-term (i.e. 60-day), drawdown test at the NYSDOH guideline requirement of double the daily demand using Hermitage Well 1 as the test production well (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

H.24 Response: The well tests and monitoring program conducted at the Dharmakaya site

by the Applicant were done in accordance with NYSDOH guidelines and requirements. The results of those tests showed there was minimal influence on two of the monitored wells and no influence on the other eight. The level of observed impact does not warrant additional testing. The town’s independent hydrogeological consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., reviewed the testing program and report prepared by LBG and stated, “The aquifer tests were conducted in accordance with the NYSDOH regulations.”20 Since NYSDOH is the approving authority for new well water systems such as the one proposed for the Dharmakaya site, no further testing is required. Furthermore, Malcolm Pirnie did not recommend that additional tests be conducted and also recommended only a two-year monitoring period.

H.25 Comment: Documents state that the water testing was done during a time of

drought. In fact, during the meeting where they told us they were about to begin testing, I objected to the timing because of the incredible amount of rain that we had been getting. There was a drought several years previously which would have been an excellent year to test as our water began to have sulfur in it that year. Local wisdom has it that the local Inn on the property ran out of water regularly when people were a lot less fastidious about hygiene and there were less houses around it both above and below (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

H.25 Response: The drought conditions were documented in LBG’s study (Appendix G of

the DEIS) in that “the five months prior to the test were 9.24 inches below the 35 year average”21 and Figure 3 of their report, which has been included in this FEIS as Figure III.H-2. LBG, at the request of the town’s hydrogeologist, Malcolm Pirnie, expanded upon the discussion of drought conditions in their initial report. In LBG’s June 18, 2007, letter, (See Appendix D) in their discussion on the effects of drought conditions on the water supply, they concluded “That Wells 1 and 2 should be able to withdraw the average daily demand of 5.9 gpm during drought conditions.”22

This concern was also analyzed by the Town’s independent hydrogeological

consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (see Appendix D of this FEIS). They stated the following:

A concern was raised about whether this aquifer test(s) was conducted under optimum weather conditions. The applicant

20 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 6. 21 Linton and Taylor. June 2006 report, Page 10. 22 Taylor. Letter dated June 18, 2007. Page 6.


presented data to show the precipitation for the preceding 12 months from the Mohonk Lake Gage Station. The data provided by the applicant shows that the Mohonk Lake Gage Station received roughly 18 inches of precipitation in October, roughly 2 inches of precipitation in September, roughly 2.2 inches of precipitation in August, roughly 4 inches of precipitation in July and roughly 2.4 inches of precipitation in June 2005. There is insufficient information to determine if the site received the same precipitation as the Mohonk Lake Gage Station.

The NYSDOH adopted the concept of requiring applicants to develop twice the daily demand with the best well out of service to protect the water users from two issues. First, water supplies are tested with the best well out of service to simulate the worst operations case, where the highest yielding well required maintenance. Second, safer supplies are tested at twice the daily demand to take into consideration any future droughts. In this case, the applicant showed that they could develop seven times the daily demand with the best well out of service. Given that the applicant conducted the test at a rate that is seven times the daily demand, the water supply system should be able to meet the daily demand during a drought.23

H.26 Comment: It was I believe Cragsmoor Association expert Spider Barbour who

pointed out that the time of year of their water testing was not properly done for accurate and complete information. One would think their expert would know that (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

H.26 Response: James (Spider) Barbour did not comment on the time of year that the

water system tests were conducted. His comments had to do with the natural resources study. See Response F.12.

H.27 Comment: I have grave concern for the water supply available to the Cragsmoor

residents. While hydrology tests described in the DEIS come to the conclusion that the project will have no impact on the rest of the community, I strongly disagree. Many property owners have been forced to drill more than one new well on their property (William Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 25, 2006).

H.27 Response: As explained in Responses H.3, H.4, H.12, H.18 and other responses in

this section, there should be adequate water supply available without impacting off-site wells.

H.28 Comment: The hydrologist [sic] hired by the Cragsmoor Association disagreed with

the results described in the DEIS. If indeed these tests presented in the DEIS were inaccurate and there are future problems with water availability for Cragsmoor residents, who will pay for drilling their new wells? What if even drilling new wells



will not provide adequate water, who will the resident turn to for compensation through legal means? Will the town of Wawarsing be responsible because they allowed this project to go forward knowing that the accuracy of hydrology [sic] statements in the DEIS could be questionable and that the water supply on the ridge is very critical? Would it be possible to require a bond be posted by the Dharmakaya to cover such events should they occur in the future (William Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 25, 2006)?

H.28 Response: See Responses A.35, G.5, H.3, H.4 and H.15. H.29 Comment: When double occupancy is considered, the daily water demand is about

18 gallons per minute. By preparing the document with the wrong numbers, the target pumping rates and all comments related to daily usage are incorrect (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.29 Response: See Responses H.4 and H.18. The comment suggests that Dharmakaya

will employ double occupancy, rather than the single occupancy represented in the application, effectively doubling its population. The comment therefore suggests that calculations of water usage should double the proposed population (based on the claimed double occupancy), effectively doubling usage and impact. There is no realistic basis for such recalculation. The Applicant has no intention of doubling its occupancy, and there are safeguards and enforcement mechanisms to assure against such double occupancy. At all times during this project review, the Applicant has represented that the project will have an occupancy ceiling of 85 full-time occupants, with the possibility of an additional 143 single-day visitors on the special teaching days which occur only six to eight times a year. The Applicant expects the Planning Board to specifically impose these occupancy ceilings as a condition of any special permit or site plan approval issued by the Planning Board. Double occupancy would clearly violate these occupancy limits. A violation of these occupancy limits would be a violation of the site plan and special permit approvals and subject to enforcement. It would also be a violation of the zoning law and subject to criminal prosecution.

Moreover, double occupancy is contrary to the spirit of Buddhist practice, which emphasizes the importance of individual, solitary meditation practice in the Buddhist religion. Private rooms are essential for the practice, in conformance with the tradition of Buddhist worship. For all the above reasons, the water studies which have been provided are correct. All water analysis has been based on the actual proposed population: 85 full-time occupants, with the possibility of an additional 143 single-day visitors on the special teaching days which occur only six to eight times a year. The use of 7 gpm (now reduced to 6 gpm based on the reductions in the size of the project) is appropriate for the study and analysis.

H.30 Comment: Given what is now known about the aquifer and test results, additional

pumping tests are required to try to ascertain if the wells can provide 18 gallons per minute with stabilized drawdown and assess the extent of upgradient and


downgradient impact on neighboring wells (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.30 Response: The Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG, did analyze the impacts of

Dharmakaya’s wells both upgradient and downgradient of the project site. Ten wells were tested, which falls within the NYSDOH requirement of monitoring six to ten wells surrounding the site. Four of these wells were upgradient of the project, and the remaining six downgradient. With the exception of some minor influence on two upgradient wells that are within close proximity to the site, there were no impacts. The Applicant will monitor the two impacted wells for a two-year period after the completion of full build out. The tests were conducted within the NYSDOH guidelines and no further testing was recommended by LBG. See Responses H.14 and H.17. The town’s independent hydrogeological consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., reviewed the Applicant’s water system testing and did not recommend any further testing. See the report in Appendix D of this FEIS.

H.31 Comment: Aquifer conditions are not good (See figures 2, 3, 4, and 6). It is not an

optimal situation and is tenuous at best. The Applicant has not shown that the wells can sustain a pumping rate of 7 gallons per minute, let alone 18 gallons per minute. Pumping Well 2 at 24 gallons per minute did not show stabilized drawdown, so it may be that the aquifer cannot sustain 18 gallons per minute (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.31 Response: The Applicant’s expert hydrogeologist, LBG, concluded that “The data

from the pumping tests indicate that Wells 1 and 2 can be pumped independently at rates up to 50 and 25 gpm or approximately 72,000 gpd and 36,000 gpd respectively. Well 1 will serve as the main production well, and Well 2 as a backup well. Well 1 is capable of producing seven and Well 2 greater than three times the anticipated average water demand of the project.”24 Furthermore, Well 2’s water level did stabilize in that during the last six hours of the pump test the water-level decline was only 0.88 feet, which falls within the NYSDOH guideline of 0.5 feet per 100 feet of water in the well (more than 1.5 feet for each well).

This concern was also commented on by the town’s independent hydrogeological

consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. They stated the following:

The NYSDOH regulations require an applicant for a new community water system to test the water supply at twice the daily demand, which in this case would be 14 gpm, with the best well out of service. The NYSDOH also requires a minimum of two water sources. The applicant installed two water supply wells to a depth of 405 feet below ground surface (bgs). The preliminary yield of each well was estimated to be 80 gpm. The applicant tested the



adequacy of the water supply by conducting a 72-hour aquifer test on Well No. 1 at approximately seven times the average daily demand or 50 gpm and a 24-hour aquifer test on Well No. 2 at more than three times the average daily demand or 25 gpm. The results of the aquifer test conducted on Well No. 1 show that the water level in the well drew down 28.69 feet after pumping the well at 50 gpm for 72 hours. The results also show that the water level drew down 0.5 feet during the last six hours of the test showing that the applicant met the requirement for a stabilized water level as defined by the NYSDOH (0.5 feet of drawdown for 100 feet of water in the well). The results of the aquifer test conducted on Well No. 2 show that the water level in the well drew down 12.43 feet after pumping the well at 25 gpm for 24 hours. The results also show that the water level drew down 0.88 feet during the last six hours of the test showing that the applicant met the requirement for a stabilized water level as defined by the NYSDOH. These aquifer tests were conducted in accordance with NYSDOH regulations (NYSDOH Sanitary Code, Part 5, Subpart 5- 1, Appendix 5-B). These test results show that either well would be capable of meeting the demands of the proposed development.25

H.32 Comment: The pumps in the Hermitage wells were placed below the elevation of

the downgradient wells and have the potential to intercept recharge of those wells. Also in a downgradient location, the well at 278 Clark Road did not recover to pretest static levels after the pumping tests. Incomplete recovery indicates that the Hermitage pumping wells were interrupting downgradient flow in the aquifer and reducing natural recharge to downgradient wells (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.32 Response: LBG’s analysis did not show any impacts on the well at 278 Clark Road.

See Response H.17 for a discussion on the down gradient wells. The town’s independent hydrogeological consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., also stated the following:

A concern was raised about the potential effect this water supply could have on any shallow wells on Clarks Road and Cragsmoor Road. It was implied that these wells are shallow. The applicant conducted a 72-hour aquifer test on a deep bedrock well at approximately seven times the average daily demand and did not measure an impact in the bedrock wells at 278 Clarks Road, 146 Cragsmoor Road, and 244 Cragsmoor Road, all of which are between the Hermitage site and the homeowner well in question. Any potential for water level drawdown would be less the further the home is located away from the site. Any potential impact would diminish with distance.26

25 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 2. 26 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 5.


H.33 Comment: The Applicant’s consultant discusses in terms of the balance between

withdrawal of groundwater by pumping and recharge by infiltration of annual precipitation on the property. However, the huge cone of depression indicates that the water is actually coming from areas some distance beyond the Hermitage property boundaries. A map of recharge area as requested in the public scoping comments was not drawn to show that the water is coming to the pumping wells predominantly from the upgradient areas of under upper Cragsmoor (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.33 Response: Further discussion on the nature of the recharge is in Response H.21 and

Figure III.H-4 shows the requested estimated recharge area. H.34 Comment: The proposed design is likely to result in septic breakthrough or leakage

on the surface downhill from the fill-type septic systems. Given these circumstances, the recharge of groundwater to the project’s wells is most unlikely. There may be some downgradient recharge, but most likely additional surface runoff will plague the downhill neighbors who already report standing water on their lands due to poor drainage (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.34 Response: As discussed in response G.9, the results for the mounding analysis

indicated that the soils should be able to accept the design flow without excess mounding provided curtain drains are incorporated into the final design. Such curtain drains will be incorporated as integral design elements. In addition, LBG provided further analysis and discussion on the aquifer recharge in their letter dated June 19, 2007 (see Appendix D). In analyzing the recharge of rates under normal pumping operations, LBG said:

This analysis shows that the recharge potential to the property significantly exceeds the estimated project demand. Based on this result, it is concluded that there would be no discernable impact to the shallow wells downgradient of the Hermitage site resulting from normal use and operation of the bedrock wells even if on-site recharge of wastewater is not included in the recharge analysis. If the on-site recharge of wastewater were include in the analysis (assuming 15 percent consumptive use), the total consumptive use (or water lost from the ground water system) would be approximately 0.9 gpm, resulting in a recharge area of approximately 2.5 acres or (approximately 3 percent of the parcel).27

H.35 Comment: The consultant’s estimate of 24.9 gallons per minute of recharge during

a drought year is dangerously close to the 18 gallons per minute recalculated for project demand. Especially with the 24-hour pumping test demonstrating that Well 2 is unable to sustain uniform drawdown when pumping at 24 gallons per minute

27 Taylor. Letter dated June 18, 2007. Page 6.


after a record month of rainfall (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.35 Response: As stated in Response H.18, the daily demand for water usage for the

changed proposed action is 6 gpm with a NYSDOH requirement for testing of twice that, or 12 gpm. The daily demand is less than one-quarter, and the NYSDOH required test demand less than half, of the estimate recharge rate of 24.9 gpm during a drought year. Furthermore, as discussed in Responses H.25 and H.31, the time of year of the testing was satisfactory, and a stabilized drawdown was achieved.

H.36 Comment: The amount of drawdown detected in the two wells on Old Inn Road is

an indication of low transmissivity and storativity. In fact the values for transmissivity and storativity indicate that neither Well 1 nor Well 2 has the capacity to produce an adequate water supply for the proposed project (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.36 Response: See Response H.4, regarding the adequacy of the proposed water supply.

Furthermore, as discussed in response H.23, due to the nature of the bedrock aquifers, such as the one the Dharmakaya wells are located in, the use of aquifer parameters (generated from the analytical equations) can produce results that are not technically defensible, therefore other acceptable methods of evaluating the aquifer’s capability of meeting the project’s demand have been utilized. See also Responses H.12, H.14, H.18 and H.25, and the reports referenced therein.

H.37 Comment: The Applicant’s consultant shows the predicted drawdown on the graph

with a straight line extrapolation out to 180 days on the log scale. The same data with enlargement is shown in Figures 11 and 12. The curve shows that the data is not a straight line but forms a curve, which can’t be approximated by a straight line and therefore can’t be predicted by a straight line (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.37 Response: The Jacob Straight Line analysis, which was appropriately used for the

drawdown computations, is based on a straight line, logarithmic extrapolation. The fact that relationship between drawdown and distance is a logarithmic relationship means that you will not always get an exact straight line. This straight line extrapolation is an approximation, which is appropriate and acceptable methodology for analysis.

Malcolm Pirnie also commented on these graphs and stated:

The applicant plotted the water levels measured in the wells at 49 and 71 Old Mill Road on semi-logarithmic paper to extrapolate the long-term trend of the water level decline as a result of pumping Well No. 2 at 25 gpm for 24 hours. The results show that the water level in the well at 49 Old Inn Road would decline 10.4 feet and the water level in the well at 71 Old Inn Road would decline 13.5


feet after pumping Well No. 2 at 25 gpm for 180 days. These data show that even if the applicant pumped Well No. 2 at a rate that was three times the demand of the proposed development, there would be from 10.4 to 13.5 feet of drawdown in these two wells.28

H.38 Comment: As questioned in the discussion section IV.D, how was it determined that

the Ordovician Austin Glen Formation underlies the western half of the site and the Silurian Bloomsburg Formation underlies the eastern half (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

H.38 Response: The “Geologic Map of New York, 1970, Reprinted 1995, Lower Hudson

Sheet”, (Fisher, Isachsen, and Rickard, 1970) is the source material used to develop figure. The statement in the DEIS should have stated that the Austin Glen Formation underlies the eastern portion of the study area, and the Bloomsburg underlies the western portion of the study area.

H.39 Comment: What is the source of the false statement that the Austin Glen Formation

is characterized by black shales (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

H.39 Response: The Austin Glen Formation is comprised of graywacke, shale (Fisher,

Isachsen, and Rickard, 1970). This formation is typically dark gray. H.40 Comment: What is the source of the statement: The fractures exhibited in the fine-

grained bedrock units are few and mostly closed fractures (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

H.40 Response: This general statement is typical of bedrock well and had been applied to

the Austin Glen Formation. H.41 Comment: Referring to the Austin Glen Formation, what is the source of the

statement that the unit exhibits low to moderate primary permeability based on the porosity of the bedrock units and secondary permeability caused by the presence of interconnected fractures can be low to moderate? What is the porosity of the Austin Glen Formation? What is the source and porosity of the Bloomsburg Formation (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

H.41 Response: See Response H.39. H.42 Comment: What is the source of typical well yields of 25 to 100 and 25 to 150

gallons per minute (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?



H.42 Response: The estimated yields are based on LBG’s experience drilling in the Bloomsburg and Austin Glen Formations and yield data presented in “Orange County, New York Ground-Water Resources Study, Bedrock Aquifers” (LBG, 1995).

H.43 Comment: For unknown reasons, Figure 2 and 3 were not included in printed or

web copies of Appendix G. The absence of those figures renders the DEIS incomplete (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.43 Response: These figures were available from other sources during the DEIS review

process. Furthermore, a copy of both figures was sent to the commenter as soon as she requested it, on November 28, 2006, and copies of the figures were also sent to the Planning Board and Town Engineer on November 28, 2006, and to all involved and interested agencies on the same day. They were thus available prior to the hearing and well in advance of the end of the comment period. The figures have been included in this FEIS as Figures III.H-1 and III.H-2. Figure 2 provided a graphic representation of the annual precipitation between 1971 and 2005 at the Mohonk Lake Gage Station versus the probability that the annual precipitation is equal to or less than that given amount. This figure provided a graphical support of the amount of precipitation that would represent a one-year-in-30 drought used by LBG to assess drought considerations. Figure 3 provided a graphical representation of inches of rain per month for 2005 versus the 1971 to 2005 average monthly rainfall amounts at the Mohonk Lake Gage Station. This figure provided a visual representation of the fact that the rainfall for the five months prior to the well tests was 9.35 inches below the 35 year average. In each instance the data represented by the figures was presented accurately in the text of LBG’s report. The absence of the figures would not have changed the conclusions reached by LBG; they simply provided a graphical presentation of the data used.

H.44 Comment: In the introductory section of the Water Supply Report (Appendix G, page

2), there are two errors. There is no Shawangunk River; it is the Shawangunk Kill. There is a statement: Bedrock is exposed surficially throughout this site. I do not recall seeing any bedrock outcrops on the site (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.44 Response: Comment noted regarding the Shawangunk Kill. With respect to rock

outcrops, the commenter may not have walked the entire site. As noted in the archeological survey in the DIES, Appendix K, there are several locations of exposed surface rock, either in the form of bedrock outcrops or ledges. The outcrops were only slightly visible, or were level with the ground surface.

H.45 Comment: The water supply report does not include the driller’s logs of depth of

overburden or top of bedrock, and depth with associated types of bedrock in the two pumping wells. In Ulster County, building projects are required to have a driller’s logs on file with the Department of Health, Division of Sanitation, before a certificate of occupancy is issued (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).


H.45 Response: The well driller logs have been included in Appendix G. H.46 Comment: In a discussion of the pumping test program (Appendix G, page 8), a

statement is made: The discharge from Wells 1 and 2 was diverted through a 3-inch fire hose to a drainage basin on the eastern portion of the property. Why does the map show it on the western side of the property (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

H.46 Response: The commenter is correct; the text should have stated the western portion

of the property. Additionally, Figure III.H-5 shows the location of the discharge points.

H.47 Comment: In a discussion of the pumping test program (Appendix G, page 8), a

statement is made: At no point during the test was the discharge water recharging the aquifer. A public request for a discussion of recirculation during the tests was made in the scoping process. However, the report provides no evidence to support the statement that the discharge water was not recharging the aquifer (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.47 Response: The discharge water from Well 1 and Well 2 was diverted through a 3-

inch fire hose to a drainage basin on the western portion of the property. The well discharge locations were presented on Figure 1 of the report titled “Water-Supply Testing, Proposed Mahamudra Buddhist Hermitage, Cragsmoor, New York.” Discharge for Well 2 was directed to the northern location and discharge for Well 1 was directed to the southern location. These locations were agreed upon by LBG and Ms. Beinkafner prior to the initiation of the aquifer tests.

H.48 Comment: In a discussion of the 24-hour test of Well 2 (Appendix G, page 10), two

statements are made about recovery and precipitation. With respect to Well 2: The slow recovery was caused by a lack of precipitation from late spring to early fall (May-September). However, elsewhere in the report Figure 3 presents a graph showing that precipitation for October 2005 was a record at 18 inches. If record rainfall occurred in October, how could lower rates from May to September affect the recovery rate? Also, after such voluminous rainfall, one would expect the aquifer to have a high water table and optimum recharge conditions (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.48 Response: See Response H.25. H.49 Comment: The proposers of this project and the technical reviewers should be

looking for a safe yield or optimal yield in terms of pumping rate. Neither of the two pumping tests reached such conditions of equilibrium because they were pumping at a rate too high (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).


H.49 Response: As noted in Response H.31, NYSDOH will consider a well as having stabilized when during the last six hours of the pump test the water-level decline of 0.5 feet per 100 feet of water in the well is achieved. In the case of Dharmakaya’s wells, this would represent more than 1.5 feet. Well 1’s water level only dropped 0.5 feet during the last six hours, and Well 2’s water level 0.88 feet. This stabilization was achieved at pumping at rates that were higher than they will be once the Hermitage is operational. It can therefore be concluded that these lower rates would be within the safe yield rates for each well. Additional discussion regarding safe yield is contained in Response H.20.

H.50 Comment: The testing has demonstrated that in an emergency, the production wells

could provide copious amounts of water in a short period of time by pumping at 50 gallons per minute. However, pumping at that rate can not be sustained without detriment of the community aquifer (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.50 Response: The Applicant has no need to pump at 50 gpm, and will not do so. There

will be storage on-site to meet both the domestic demands as prescribed by the NYSDOH and the fire flow demands as requested by the Cragsmoor Fire Department and as required by the NYS Fire Code. Furthermore, the pumps that will be ultimately placed in the wells to serve the development will be smaller in size and incapable of pumping 50 gpm.

H.51 Comment: It is absolutely critical for the Applicant to provide evidence that the wells

are capable of producing an adequate supply for the project without dewatering the aquifer and rendering upgradient and downgradient wells dry. Additional 72-hour pumping tests at 18 gallons per minute with stabilized drawdown in each well is necessary. A serious graphic and numerical analysis of the data is required to prove that the water supply is adequate (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.51 Response: As described in Responses H.4, H.30, H.31 and H.49, Dharmakaya’s

wells are capable of supplying water for the project without dewatering the aquifer. Furthermore, neither the Applicant’s expert, LBG, nor the town’s independent expert, Malcolm Pirnie, saw the need to conduct any further tests of the wells.

H.52 Comment: Long-term adverse effects that are not included in the DEIS include:

withdrawal of 18 gallons per minute from local aquifers serving the community, withdrawal of 18 gallons per minute from a local aquifer with limited recharge, upgradient- lowering the water table in the bedrock aquifer over a large area where each home draws from the aquifer, downgradient- interrupting the recharge of downgradient unconsolidated aquifers supplying homes along Cragsmoor Road, Route 52 and Clark Road, changing runoff rates to wetlands, creating sewage seepage points at the toe of septic fields and changing the viewshed from Route 52, Cragsmoor Road and Bear Hill A back of the envelope calculation reveals that approximately 300 truckloads of bank run gravel will be needed for the construction of fill-type septic systems. What other resources will be brought to the site? How many truckloads will be needed? How many trucks per day will be coming to the site during each phase of construction? A numeric estimate of heavy truck traffic is


needed to characterize the impact on the community and environment (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.52 Response: As described in various responses in this section, the Applicant’s

hydrogeologist, LBG, had thoroughly studied the proposed water use and its impact on the aquifer and neighboring wells. The study found that only the two wells closest to the development showed any impact, however it was minimal and the applicant has committed to monitoring these wells for two years after the complete build out of the project. The study and well tests also concluded that there is adequate water available for the Dharmakaya Hermitage. The town retained its own independent expert in hydrogeology, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., to review the applicant’s study as wells as those prepared by consultants hired by the Cragsmoor Association. Malcolm Pirnie’s report can be found in Appendix D. More detailed discussions of issues raised in this comment regarding the proposed water system can be found in Responses H.3, H.4, H.12, H.14, H.17, H.30, H.31, H.34 and H.49, and in the reports to which those responses refer.

With respect to the change in runoff to the wetlands, as stated in Response I.6, the

construction will not create any change in runoff to any of the wetland areas. The contributory areas to the wetlands themselves are not changing in the post-construction condition.

A discussion of septics and their potential for seepage can be found in Responses G.10 and G.18.

Additional studies have been completed of the viewsheds for the project and we

have found that there is no negative impact on the viewsheds due to the proposed action. A detailed description of the additional viewshed analyses can be found in Responses E.1, E.8, E.11, E.12 and E.21.

The effect of truck traffic during construction has been described in Response K.13.

The analysis shows that on a temporary basis, while a particular SSDS is being constructed, approximately one truck per hour will be accessing the site for the delivery of the material needed for the fill. The duration of the deliveries will vary based on the size of the SSDS mound, with the construction of the Common House system being the largest and an estimated construction duration of four weeks.

H.53 Comment: The pumping test results were misinterpreted in favor of the Applicant

with total disregard for the health of the Cragsmoor public, who draw their daily water from the same bedrock aquifer (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences (consultant to Cragsmoor Association), memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.53 Response: The Applicant’s hydrogeological expert, LBG, conducted extensive testing

of the wells on the Dharmakaya site and monitored neighboring wells to determine potential impacts. Based on the results of this testing program, LBG concluded both wells are capable of producing water at rates several time the anticipated average water demand of the project. They also found that the tests run on the wells were


“designed to exaggerate the impact to the aquifer and provide extremely conservative assessments of the safe yield of Wells 1 and 2. Under normal use and operation, neither well will be pumped at rates as high as they were tested, or for such prolonged periods. The data indicate that the ground-water withdrawals of 10,200 gpd or 7 gpm from onsite wells will not likely impact offsite wells.”29 It is noted that the demand for water has been reduced because of the reduction in size of the project from 10,200 gpd to 8,520 gpd. See also previous responses in this section.

The Town retained an independent professional engineering firm with an expertise in hydrogeology, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., to review both LBG’s water supply study and those presented by the Cragsmoor Association’s two consultants. Malcolm Pirnie’s letter can be found in Appendix D.

H.54 Comment: The DEIS cites sub-average total rain fall in the previous months prior to testing the wells on site that was responsible for poor test well water recovery- this is a clear misrepresentation of the facts- our hydrologist [sic] pointed out examples of extreme and unusually large amounts of precipitation during the months previous to the testing date. The fact that Appendix G of the DEIS points out that the vast majority (75-90%) of the site is overlain with soil that is generally not suitable for development of a community water supply and we are even considering this development at all is beyond belief to me. Specifically, the draft sites that 89.2% of the soils on site have limitations as to community water supply and septic absorption fields (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor resident, memo received December 26, 2006).

H.54 Response: As noted in Response H.25, “the five months prior to the [well] test were

9.24 inches below the 35-year average.” In their letter dated June 18, 2007, (see Appendix D), LBG concluded that “Wells 1 and 2 should be able to withdraw the average daily demand of 5.9 gpm during drought conditions.” As presented in Responses H.3 and H.4, the site is capable of meeting the demand of the project. It was noted that extensive tests were conducted to evaluate the capability of the wells to meet the project demands as well as determine what if any impacts would result from the Hermitage’s water use. During the tests, where Well 1 was pumped at seven times the anticipated demand for a 72-hour period, and Well 2 was pumped at more than three times the anticipated demand for 24 hours continuously, 10 homeowner wells surrounding the site were monitored. Based on the results of these tests, LBG concluded that the Hermitage’s water use will not likely impact off-site wells. The testing program, its results, and the report prepared by LBG were reviewed by an independent consultant hired by the Town, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Malcolm Pirnie’s letter can be found in Appendix D.

Soils characterized by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA SCS) as having certain limitations are nonetheless appropriate for water supply or septic use with careful planning and proper design. Moreover, USDA SCS soils classifications are somewhat generalized, and thus actual field tests of soil properties are conducted to determine appropriate design. Numerous soils tests were conducted throughout the site as a predicate to design of the proposed



systems. These site-specific tests (see Appendix E of the DEIS), confirm that systems of proper design can be situated on the site meeting all applicable regulatory guidelines, in accordance with the New York State Section 201(1)(l) of the Public Health Law, Appendix 75-A, Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems, and able to function effectively for their intended purpose. See section G regarding further analysis of sanitary sewage comments.

H.55 Comment: The DEIS fails to demonstrate sufficient groundwater to provide for both

the proposed project as well as neighboring residences. Instead of providing a full hydrogeologic assessment, the DEIS relies on unsupported and wrong conclusions regarding groundwater. Indeed, the information available indicates the potential for significant drawdown (David Gordon, Attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.55 Response: The Applicant has completed an extensive testing program and as

presented in Responses H.4, H.12, H.14, H.18, H.25, and the reports referred to therein, there is adequate water and there will not be significant drawdown.

H.56 Comment: The proven scant water supply from the Inn property during its years of

operation verifies a concern for the development of a Hermitage (Sally Matz, Cragsmoor Historical Society, President, memo dated December 26, 2006).

H.56 Response: See Responses H.4, H.12 and H.14. H.57 Comment: The hydrology [sic] of the project is critical especially with respect to the

size. The more water that this facility uses, the less water that is going to be available for the rest of Cragsmoor. And the hydrology is indicating that the water is going to be drawn down substantially (David Gordon, Attorney for Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.57 Response: As noted in Responses H.4 and H.18, there is adequate water for the

proposed use without any significant impacts on the neighboring wells. The average daily water demand has been reduced by the project reduction in size to 6 gpm. The proposed average daily water demand of 6 gpm is less that what would be required by an as of right subdivision of 10.4 gpm.

H.58 Comment: In regards to pumping wells 1 and 2. With well 1, after six days of

recovery, we still have three feet left we didn’t recover. Normally you pump for three days, you recover for three days and you’re back to zero. They were not in this case. The well discharge is exceeding the recharge nature to that well. That is really significant (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.58 Response: In LBG’s report “Water-Supply Testing Proposed Mahamudra Buddhist

Hermitage” contained in Appendix G of the DEIS, they noted that, “The water level [of Well 1] recovered to 30.65 feet. This is a recovery of 25.77 feet or 90 percent recovery. The recovery rate of the production well was slow due to the lack of precipitation in the 5 months prior to the test. The dry conditions from May through September reduced the available recharge to the aquifer, which required more time


to recover to static conditions after the pumping test.” The fact that the required recovery did not occur within 24-hours was commented on by the Town’s hydrogeologist, Malcolm Pirnie in their May 15, 2007, letter where they stated:

A concern has been raised about the fact that the aquifer did not recover to at least 90 percent of the drawdown within 24 hours during the recovery portion of the test, as per NYSDOH regulations (NYSDOH Sanitary Code, Part 5, Subpart 5-1, Appendix 5- B). The recovery data shows that the aquifer recovered to within 2.9 feet of the static water level after five days of recovery. The NYSDOH regulations say that if these (90 percent recovery in 24 hours) conditions are not met, the tested flow rate may not be sustainable for an extended period of time. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant stressed the aquifer at approximately seven times the daily demand for 72 hours and the on-site recharge greatly exceeds the seven gpm demand, the loss of storage should not affect the water system's ability to meet the seven gpm.30

H.59 Comment: When looking at the affects on neighboring wells, the well at 71 Old Inn

Road, 600 feet away from the pumping well, doesn’t recover after six days of recovery or 24 hours of recovery. This is a serious problem. This is really indicating that given time this well has the capability of draining a lot of the water out of the aquifer there (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.59 Response: The Applicant’s expert hydrogeologist, LBG, addressed the recovery of

the well at 71 Old Inn Road as well as the one at 49 Old Inn Road. Their conclusion was that the amount of impact on these wells will be reduced under normal pumping operation. The level of impact can be attributed to the high rate of pumping during the well tests and that the wells were tested after a prolonged period of low precipitation from May through September. In the opinion of LBG, under normal use and operation, the data indicate that the ground-water withdrawals of 10,200 gpd or 7 gpm from onsite wells will not likely impact offsite wells.

This concern was addressed by the Town’s independent hydrogeological consultant,

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. They stated that:

The applicant measured the water level in 10 neighboring domestic wells to determine if the proposed water supply would negatively impact existing homeowner wells. The applicant recorded the water levels in each well and differentiated between water level impacts from the homeowner's use and water level impacts as a result of pumping Well Nos. 1 & 2. The results show that only the water level in wells at 49 and 71 Old Inn Road declined as a result of pumping Well Nos. 1 & 2.



The applicant plotted the water levels measured in the wells at 49 and 71 Old Mill Road on semi-logarithmic paper to extrapolate the long-term trend of the water level decline as a result of pumping Well No. 2 at 25 gpm for 24 hours. The results show that the water level in the well at 49 Old Inn Road would decline 10.4 feet and the water level in the well at 71 Old Inn Road would decline 13.5 feet after pumping Well No. 2 at 25 gpm for 180 days. These data show that even if the applicant pumped Well No. 2 at a rate that was three times the demand of the proposed development, there would be from 10.4 to 13.5 feet of drawdown in these two wells. The table below [Table III.H-2] lists some relevant facts about the well at 49 Old Inn Road. The data in this table show that the well is 150 feet deep and that there is 76 feet of available drawdown in the well. Based on the data presented by the applicant, the water level in the well may be lowered by 10.3 feet if the applicant pumped Well No. 2 at 25 gpm for 180 days. Given that there is up to 76 feet of available drawdown in this well, this potential impact should not adversely affect the use of the well. However, we recommend that the applicant be required to measure the depth to the pump setting to confirm the adequacy of the available drawdown. The table below [Table III.H-2] also lists some relevant facts about the Well at 71 Old Inn Road. The data show the depth to water in the well was 21 feet bgs, but the depth to the pump setting and the depth of the well is unknown Based on the data presented by the applicant, the water level in the well may be affected by a 13.5 feet if the applicant pumped Well No. 2 at 25 gpm. Given that the pump setting and well depth are unknown, there are insufficient data to determine if this well would be negatively impacted. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant be required to obtain information on the pump setting and well depth to confirm the adequacy of the available drawdown. 31

Table III.H-2: Facts about Area Wells

Address

Depth to Water (feet below top of casing)

Well depth (feet below

top of casing)

Available Drawdown

(feet below top of casing)

Observed Water Level Drawdown

as a Result of Pumping Well

No. 2

180-Day Water Level

Drawdown as a Result of Pumping

49 Old Inn Road

74 150 76 2.62 10.4

71 Old Inn Road

21 Unknown Unknown 3.87 13.5



Notably, the reduction of the size of the project has reduced water demand as well, as noted throughout this section.

H.60 Comment: Referring to cross section, the well and the water table- The test, if we’re

pumping the well here we have a little bit of drawdown for this test. But this well, because it is 405 feet deep and at the time of pumping the well pump was actually at 350 feet. If you kept it there, theoretically, you could draw down the entire water table in this area (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.60 Response: As noted in Responses H.4, H.18 and other responses in this section,

there should be adequate water supply available without impacting off-site wells. H.61 Comment: The other thing that we don’t know anything about is what happens over

on the way downhill to Cragsmoor Road? All those houses have shallow wells. None of them were available for testing. So we don’t know what will happen if you continue to pump here, how you would effect the well’s down gradient (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.61 Response: As noted in Response H.17, several wells downhill to Cragsmoor Road,

including one shallow well, were tested and there were no impacts. H.62 Comment: The other point is this test was done under optimum conditions. What

happens if there is a drought? There just is not sufficient water there. The aquifer is very fragile (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.62 Response: See Response H.25, which discusses the timing of the tests and drought

conditions. H.63 Comment: The other thing is that as far as I know the septic system is down on the

lower side of the property, so the argument that oh, we are going to put the water back into the ground really isn’t going to be very helpful because they are going to be putting it down on this side of the property but pumping it out from underneath the center. It won’t have any recharge effect back in the hamlet (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.63 Response: As noted in Response H.34, LBG examined the recharge potential of the

property without considering the effects of the septic systems. LBG addressed this concern in their June 18, 2007, letter where they estimated the required size of the recharge area required for the Dharmakaya wells. Their analysis showed that a 16-acre area is required when one does not consider any recharge effects of the SSDSs. This represents approximately 18 percent of the total parcel. LBG went on further to state:


This analysis shows that the recharge potential to the property significantly exceeds the estimated project demand. Based on this result, it is concluded that there would be no discernable impact to the shallow wells downgradient of the Hermitage site resulting from normal use and operation of the bedrock wells even if on-site recharge of wastewater is not included in the recharge analysis. If the on-site recharge of wastewater were include in the analysis (assuming 15 percent consumptive use), the total consumptive use (or water lost from the ground water system) would be approximately 0.9 gpm, resulting in a recharge area of approximately 2.5 acres or (approximately 3 percent of the parcel).32

H.64 Comment: My well runs dry if I am not careful. If I’m not careful during the months of July, August and September, I don’t have water. I am profoundly concerned that this project is going to affect my water (Bernard Rock, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.64 Response: See Responses H.3 and H.4. H.65 Comment: Maybe they can bond or post a bond that would fix anybody’s well within

a reasonable distance of this project that goes dry as a result of this project (Dick Nolan, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.65 Response: See Response H.15. H.66 Comment: Can the wells below the site be studied? Mine was not dug up at the time

because I was on my way to work, and we discovered that it had to be dug out and I couldn’t get my boots and shovel it out. It’s the third well on my property, so water has been an issue in the past. And based on what our hydrologist has pointed out, there’s likely going to be a great impact on water (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.66 Response: See Responses H.4 and H.14. Four of the ten wells tested are located

below (down gradient) from the site. Additionally, the town’s independent hydrogeological consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., stated, “The NYSDOH requires an Applicant to monitor 6-10 homes surrounding the site and the Applicant monitored the water level in 10 homes. It would be impracticable for an applicant to monitor all of the homes in the area.”33

H.67 Comment: I own my house, and I really can’t afford at this point to have it rendered

worthless by the water supply being gone. And I want to go on record as saying that I think that one of the obligations of the Planning Board would be to really look closely at the water issue, to make certain that those of us who already live there, who already have investments, are protected from what could be a fiscal disaster for us (Diane Weave, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

32 Taylor. Letter dated June 18, 2007. Page 6. 33 St. Germain. Letter dated May 15, 2007. Page 5.


H.67 Response: The Planning Board has looked very closely at the water issue. See

Responses H.3 and H.4. H.68 Comment: I would like to also remind the Board that the Village of Ellenville also

gets their water from the top of the mountain. In case that wasn’t included in the water study (Barbara Hoff, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.68 Response: The Village of Ellenville water supply is from Lake Maratanza, over two

miles from the Hermitage wells and at an elevation of more than 500 feet higher. Due to the considerable horizontal and vertical distances between Lake Maratanza and the Hermitage wells and the fact that it is a lake, there was no need to include it in the Water Study. The proposed Hermitage wells will have no impact on Lake Maratanza and its water supply for the Village of Ellenville.

H.69 Comment: I would like to state and have it be clear that just because I get two feet

of water during rain and snow storms, there has been three wells on my property, because two went dry. That’s prior to any to any of this excess usage (Karen Grace, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

H.69 Response: See Responses H.3 and H.4. H.70 Comment: I would say with respect that you really need to hire a hydrogeologist

because an engineer is not a hydrogeologist (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006.

H.70 Response: The Applicant did hire a hydrogeologist. One of the consultants involved

in the preparation of the DEIS and this FEIS is Leggette, Brashears, & Graham, Inc. (LBG), the nation's first firm to provide specialized consulting services in the field of groundwater geology (hydrogeology). LBG has over 64 years of experience in the field of hydrogeology, and they were responsible for the analysis of the impacts of the proposed development on the ground water. The firm’s qualifications are discussed in Response A.18.

I. Surface Water and Wetland Resources I.1 Comment: Although only Federal jurisdictional wetlands are said to be on the site, it

is not certain if there are hydrological connections to state jurisdictional wetlands off-site. The DEIS asserts that no DEC wetland permit is required, but impacts to off-site wetland areas, including those potentially connected to on-site wetlands, were not addressed (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

I.1 Response: There is no indication of any hydrological connection to off-site wetland

areas. During the screening process of an application, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Department of Environmental


Permits determines whether jurisdictional wetlands must be verified on the property. This project was screened by the NYSDEC, and no additional wetland information, including wetland boundary validation, has been requested from that Agency.

I.2 Comment: The vegetational description of the hardwood swamp on this site is

generic with just a few key species recorded. Invasive plant species found on-site in any numbers should be identified, and the potential impacts assessed (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

I.2 Response: Typically, discussions of wetland types are limited to the dominant species

and overall characteristics of a wetland system. There are no significant numbers of invasive plants. The proposed project does not propose any disturbance of the hardwood swamp on this site.

I.3 Comment: Spring-breeding amphibians and their habitats are poorly documented.

There is a need to assess the loss of upland habitat, especially near breeding sites. The DEIS does not mention timber rattlesnake, another egregious omission in terms of natural resource documentation and impact assessment (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

I.3 Response: All of the habitats on the site were investigated during the spring of 2006.

All of the amphibian species located or suspected on the property are currently common in New York. The property provides year-round habitat for most of the species located. An important concept that the Applicant understands is that this property is one piece in the mosaic habitat required by herptiles and other wildlife. The property will continue to be “connected” to adjacent properties to the east via undeveloped forest area so that wildlife migratory routes remain. The NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program correspondence for the project does not include any listing for Timber Rattlesnake dens, basking or summer foraging habitat in proximity to the project site. In response to this concern however, the Applicant retained an expert in conducting rattlesnake habitat assessments, Kathy Michell. Ms Michell, who is licensed by NYSDEC, Region 3 for rattlesnake assessments, conducted a study of the project site and determined that there were no potential rattlesnake denning or associated basking habitat on the property, stating, “it is highly unlikely that timber rattlesnakes use this property” (see report in Appendix F).

I.4 Comment: The following surveys were not performed. And should be, for a site in a

globally unique ecosystem: breeding bird survey, breeding amphibian survey, rare plant survey, rare butterfly survey, rare dragonfly and damselfly survey, timber rattlesnake habitat assessment and survey and rare bryophyte (mosses, lichen and liverworts) survey (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

I.4 Response: The Natural Resources Survey completed for the site took a hard look for

species of special concern, threatened and endangered species during the appropriate seasons. Common species were also catalogued on the site. Breeding


birds, herptiles, plants and other vegetation were also observed and documented on the site. Although no special surveys were requested in the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program correspondence, the Applicant has had a timber rattlesnake habitat assessment done for the site. See Response I.3 and report in Appendix F. Our evaluation of the site did not reveal any other species or indicators of species that would require further special studies.

I.5 Comment: The DEIS claims that there will be no impacts on wetlands and no

wetland mitigation will be needed. This claim of the developer should be investigated independently with on-site inspections by agents of the regulatory agencies and independent experts on behalf of the town (James Barbour, ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006).

I.5 Response: A Federal wetland delineation was completed on the property by a

professional wetland delineator from Chas. Sells, Inc. The methodology used for this delineation consisted of the Routine Onsite Determination Method prescribed in the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual.34 The USACE does not require a Jurisdictional Determination for a project with no wetland impact. The Town has retained a number of consultants to assist it in its review of this proposed project.

I.6 Comment: Will construction increase or decrease runoff to wetland areas? What will

be the change in runoff volume (Katherin Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006)?

I.6 Response: The construction will not create any change in runoff to any of the

wetland areas. The contributory areas to the wetlands themselves are not changing in the post-construction condition.

J. Stormwater Management J.1 Comment: Looking at this map basically down here by discharge point D they

indicate a nominal increase in the runoff. And unless something will be done about adding more culverts or something, I mean I’ll have an indoor pool in my house (William Grace, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

J.1 Response: While the original plans analyzed in the DEIS did show a nominal

increase in runoff at discharge point D, the revised drainage design shows no increase in peak runoff for any design storm (1-, 10-, and 100-year) in any of the drainage basins. The summary of the pre- and post-development discharges are contained in the following table, below:

34 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," TR y-87-1, US Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.


Table III.J-1: Pre- and Post-Development Discharges Pre-Development Peak Runoff Rate

(cfs)

Post-Development Peak Runoff Rate

(cfs)

Drainage Basin

1-Year (CPv)

10-Year (QP)

100-Year (QF)

1-Year (CPv)

10-Year (QP)

100-Year (QF)

A, B, C 44.8 129.5 204.4 30.7 79.8 131.2D 47.4 139.1 221.1 30.7 79.8 131.2E 63.4 174.8 273.4 63.3 174.6 273.0A 19.5 56.0 88.5 15.0 43.2 68.2B 12.1 35.6 57.2 11.1 26.1 53.2C 14.0 40.0 63.5 7.4 20.8 32.6

J.2 Comment: The overall stormwater report is general in nature but appears in general

to satisfy all current NYS DEC water quality and stormwater regulations. The Applicant should provide complete designs and details for the individual stormwater facilities (dry swales, cisterns, outlet structures) to be constructed (John Lanc, Lanc & Tully Engineering and Surveying, P.C., Town Engineer, memo dated December 20, 2006).

J.2 Response: Comment noted. The stormwater report has been revised to reflect the

reduced impact layout and does contain more detailed information such as water quality computations and sizing for dry swale and dry wells (See Appendix H). The data in the EIS documents are of sufficient detail to assess, evaluate and appropriately determine mitigation for the impacts relating to stormwater. Final engineering design details for facilities will be included with the site plans as part of the Site Plan approval by the Town Planning Board. This would include calculations of appropriate sizing of outlet structures for detention basins, stormwater pipe capacity analyses and detailed design of erosion control phasing for the work to be performed in the particular construction phase proposed.

J.3 Comment: The erosion and sediment control plan should clearly label the limits of

each construction phase and ensure that not more than 5 acres of land will be disturbed at any one time (John Lanc, Lanc & Tully Engineering and Surveying, P.C., Town Engineer, memo dated December 20, 2006).

J.3 Response: The Applicant acknowledges the responsibility to limit disturbance to not

more than 5 acres of land. See response A.32. The Applicant also acknowledges the new stormwater regulations expected to go into effect in January 2008, and acknowledges that these, like other regulations, may be amended from time to time, and may impose further regulatory obligations on project design. The bulk of the disturbance will take place during Phase I of the project, the construction of Roads A and B, installation of the infrastructure and construction of the Milarepa Center. Work during this phase will be broken down into sub-phases so that the disturbance does not exceed 5 acres at any one time. The sub-phases will be as follows:

Sub-phase A: Construct Road A and portion of Lower Parking Lot included in

Phase I, install a temporary sedimentation pond in the vicinity of Detention Basin #2, and install other erosion control measures such as anti-tracking


devices, silt fences, temporary diversion swales, water bars. Total area of disturbance – 3.7 acres.

Sub-phase B: Construct Road B to intersection with Road D, install temporary sedimentation pond in the vicinity of Detention Basin #3, and install other erosion control measures such as silt fences, temporary diversion swales, water bars. Total area of disturbance – 4.1 acres.

Sub-phase C: Construct Milarepa Center Buildings, Road D, SSTS for Milarepa, and pathways. Total area of disturbance – 4.3 acres.

Sub-phase D: Construct Road B to its intersection with Old Inn Road, plus Road F, and install other erosion control measures such as silt fences, temporary diversion swales, water bars. Total area of disturbance – 3.0 acres.

During the construction of the road segments defined under each sub-phase, infrastructure improvements such as water supply, drainage, electric, telephone, and cable will be installed for that segment. At the completion of each sub-phase and prior to the start of the next sub-phase disturbed areas will be stabilized as required by NYSDEC with paving, plantings, etc. The Applicant is applying for special permit approval for the Dharmakaya project as a whole, and the SEQRA analysis has covered the entire project. However, the Applicant seeks site plan approval for Phase I only at this time. It is recognized that Site Plan approval must subsequently be granted for all subsequent phases prior to any construction in those phases. Subsequent phases have been initially established as described in the DEIS and listed below. In general, each phase will involve the construction of the individual building complexes or groupings of related building uses. These too will contain sub-phases so as to limit the disturbance to less than 5 acres at any one time. Phase IV will involve a total disturbance of more than 5 acres, but as is proposed for the Phase I work, the site plans will detail the staging of the work with sub-phases so as to limit the disturbance at any one time to less than 5 acres. The anticipated phases and the total disturbance associated with the construction of each is as follows: Phase II: Naropa Meditation Center, Road C, and SSDS: 3.7 acres Phase III: Teacher & Guest Teacher Houses, Sangha Residences

and Common House, and SSDS: 3.6 acres Phase IV: Bodhisattva Dharma Center, Balance of Lower

Parking Lot, Welcome Center & Detention Basin #1: 8.0 acres Construction of each of these phases and the individual building complex sites within each phase is independent of each other once Phase I is complete. The construction can take place in almost any order, and could also be further subdivided into smaller phases or subphases without adverse environmental effects. The only phase that is dependent on another is the construction of the balance of the lower parking lot and detention basin #1. Since these components of the site serve other buildings, these facilities should be constructed prior to or at the same time as the construction of the Bodhisattva Dharma Center.


Although the above has been proposed for the future construction phasing of the site, there is no environmental reason why changes to the sequence of the building construction cannot be made for any of the phases subsequent to Phase I.

J.4 Comment: The stormwater analysis should utilize the Type III rainfall distribution pattern (John Lanc, Lanc & Tully Engineering and Surveying, P.C., Town Engineer, memo dated December 20, 2006).

J.4 Response: According to Patrick Ferracane of the NYSDEC, a type II rainfall

distribution is appropriate for the site. We did, however, check the stormwater models using a type III rainfall and found that using the type II is more conservative. Therefore, we have maintained the use of the type II rainfall distribution in the revised Stormwater Management Plan.

J.5 Comment: The Applicant should elaborate on why the post-development analysis

points A, B and C have been hydraulically combined to discharge at outfall C. It should be clarified if the individual outfall points will still be evaluated for post-development along Cragsmoor Road (John Lanc, Lanc & Tully Engineering and Surveying, P.C., Town Engineer, memo dated December 20, 2006).

J.5 Response: Changes in the boundaries of drainage basins A, B, and C from pre- to

post-development meant that basins A and C decreased in area, while basin B increased. By hydraulically combining the basins, our intent was to show that at the point where the drainage basin was similar in size in the pre- and post-development condition, discharge point C, there was no net increase in runoff. In the revised stormwater computations, we have shown discharges rates not only for the hydraulically combined basins, but also for each of these points individually. In each scenario, the post-development discharge rates are less than the pre-development. See Response J.1 for a table of the flow rates.

J.6 Comment: Water quality calculations should be provided for the entire site to ensure

that the required volume will be provided within approved NYS DEC stormwater practices (John Lanc, Lanc & Tully Engineering and Surveying, P.C., Town Engineer, memo dated December 20, 2006).

J.6 Response: The revised Stormwater Management Plan (see Appendix H of this FEIS)

contains the water quality calculation for the entire site. J.7 Comment: The routing calculations for the proposed detention basins should be

provided within the PondPack analysis (John Lanc, Lanc & Tully Engineering and Surveying, P.C., Town Engineer, memo dated December 20, 2006).

J.7 Response: The revised Stormwater Management Plan contains the requested routing

calculations. J.8 Comment: This project requires a SPDES permit from the NYSDEC for stormwater

discharge as there are 36 acres of land disturbance proposed for this project. No design information is provided to support any effort to comply with the stormwater SPDES permit. From the available information within the DEIS, it is not possible to


verify whether any of the stormwater structures are properly sized or that adequate provisions for water quality treatment are being proposed (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

J.8 Response: The Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) (attached as Appendix H of

the DEIS) did contain information that supported compliance with NYSDEC’s Phase II Stormwater Regulations for a SPDES permit, and confirmed that adequate provisions for water quality treatment are being proposed. The SWMP has been modified to reflect the reduced impact of the revised layout and expanded to contain additional stormwater information and data. The revised SWMP is found in Appendix H of this FEIS. More detailed sizing computations for management of stormwater quality have also been included in the revised SWMP. Further design details will more appropriately be included in the site plan application to the Planning Board for site plan review.

J.9 Comment: The outlet and discharge method from each detention pond is not

identified in the DEIS, therefore, the destination and mitigation measures to control soil erosion caused by this stormwater discharge is also undetermined (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

J.9 Response: The EIS shows that there is adequate area to construct basins and to

properly mitigate stormwater impacts. The detailed design of the detention pond outlet and discharge method is an engineering matter that is appropriately addressed during site plan review.

J.10 Comment: Please discuss the potential for the site to increase the rate of stormwater

discharge to the existing drainage culvert that crosses under Cragsmoor Road. Please also discuss the site’s potential to increase stormwater discharge to the roadside swales along Cragsmoor Road, as well as any culverts located south of the property (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

J.10 Response: The post-development peak discharge rates at each of the existing

culverts that cross under Cragsmoor Road are less than the pre-development rates for each of the design storms. See Response J.1 for a table of the peak discharges. Since the peak rates in post-development are less than those of pre-development, there will be no increase in stormwater discharge to the roadside swales along Cragsmoor Road.

J.11 Comment: The unnamed stream located in the northeast corner of the property is

classified by the NYSDEC as a class B(T) stream, indicating that it may support a trout population. The NYSDEC requires specific measures for stormwater design to ensure the discharge from the site remains at a cool temperature to support the cold water trout habitat. This NYSDEC requirement is not accounted for in the stormwater design nor is it discussed in the DEIS (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).


J.11 Response: NYSDEC does look to reduce discharge temperatures for sites that drain

to cold water trout habitats; however they do not have any specific written guidelines. In general, detention ponds that have permanent pools do not promote cool water. At the Dharmakaya site, the detention basins will not contain permanent pools. To further help reduce temperature, measures such as plantings to create shaded areas for drainage facilities and running runoff through stone jackets will be incorporated into the site design documents.

J.12 Comment: We urge the Board to require a stormwater design that specifically

conforms with NYSDEC Stormwater SPDES Permit requirements as well as accepted engineering practices (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

J.12 Response: Comment noted. The design is required to conform to NYSDEC

Stormwater SPDES Permit requirements, and accepted engineering practices. J.13 Comment: The runoff and waste from the proposed large project are other

concerns. Currently surface water doesn’t drain sufficiently so that yards are muddy and some overflow with temporary lakes during wet periods. What impact will the large-scale buildings and the cut forest have on runoff and waste? I read in the DEIS that 91% of the proposed retreat’s land is not drainable (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006).

J.13 Response: The Stormwater Management Plan for the site provides for detention

basins and other facilities to reduce the peak stormwater runoff rates so that there is no net increase in flows post-development. As a result, the development should not create any additional flooding or ponding on neighboring properties. Furthermore, the DEIS does not state that 91% of the site is not drainable.

J.14 Comment: The small size of project area sub-basins may not provide sufficient water

quantity to assimilate contaminants during dry periods. It is common for Shawangunk ridge flank streams to seasonally dry up or to have very low flow. As a comparison to the Hermitage site area, the Applicant may wish to compare the site’s low flow hydrology to that studied by HydroQuest adjacent to the proposed Awosting Reserve Project, as the risk of adverse environmental impacts associated with low flow conditions could be serious (Paul Rubin, HydroQuest, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 24, 2006).

J.14 Response: The stormwater quality treatment at the Dharmakaya site will be handled

by a combination of plunge pools, water quality swales, forebays and a small wetland pond. These features were selected based on land use, physical feasibility, stormwater management capability and environmental factors. In particular, the water quality swales were selected based on the smaller drainage basins sizes and their requirement for lower flow velocities. Furthermore, water quality treatment in any of the systems selected for use at the Dharmakaya site do not depend upon the stream flows in the on-site or adjacent water courses.


J.15 Comment: The runoff from over 31 acres onto lower properties with clay terrain already suffering from standing pools of water is a very serious problem that needs much further study and a firm plan to ameliorate it (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

J.15 Response: See Responses J.1 and J.13. J.16 Comment: When considering the topology and water run off, the document dwells

on average rain fall and states it has provided adequate cisterns, catch basins etc. to handle these conditions. The Board must consider the fact that we frequently have very heavy rainstorms on this mountain. I hope that the Board will request proof that the occurrences of such torrential rain events are planned for and adequate facilities are in place (William Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 25, 2006).

J.16 Response: See Responses J.1, J.13 and J.17. J.17 Comment: Is stormwater volume calculated accurately? Are the impacts of

stormwater fully and accurately assessed? Are stormwater control measures sufficient to handle the maximum volume possible for the site (James Barbour, Ecological consultant hired by Cragsmoor Association and Nature Conservancy, memo received December 26, 2006)?

J.17 Response: The stormwater volumes were calculated by a Professional Engineer using

industry accepted methods and computer software. The town has also retained a Professional Engineer to review the stormwater management and measures to ensure they are accurate and will sufficiently mitigate any drainage impacts of the site.

J.18 Comment: What is the potential relationship among wetlands, septic systems, and

detention basins? Will any be sources of groundwater discharge? Or groundwater recharge? Please characterize and estimate flows for those conditions. Will surface or subsurface flow occur between any of these features? If so, please provide a map with flow directions and flow estimates (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

J.18 Response: Surficially the wetlands, SSDSs (septic systems), and the detention basins

all act independently and are not connected. Subsurface there would be a level of connectivity via the groundwater system that underlies the area. Each of these systems recharge in varying amounts into the groundwater system. Figure III.H-3, shows the general direction and flow of the groundwater, and its elevation. The groundwater flow is in a north to southeast direction and any recharge from the wetland, SSDSs, and detention basins will follow the same general flow lines. See also Responses H.19, H.21 and H.23.

J.19 Comment: The developer plans to clear 36 acres, the majority of which is wooded

and at slopes more than 15 percent. It is clear that such construction, and the post-construction use of the property, may significantly exacerbate runoff. The concern is


heightened by existing flooding problems on downstream properties and the discharge of most of the site’s drainage into a trout stream (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

J.19 Response: See Responses J.1, J.11 and J.13. It is also noted that the area of

proposed clearing has been reduced by 15 percent (or 5.23 acres) due to the reduction in size of the project. Over 87 percent of that reduction is in the wooded areas of the site. Approximately 38 percent of the disturbance with the reduced impact layout is in areas of slope of more than 15 percent. The EIS analysis shows that the methods used for the stormwater management system will ensure that storm drainage is properly addressed on the site, and that all discharges to streams are done in an environmentally sensitive manner.

J.20 Comment: I’ve been there for 22 years. I find that when we get rainfall, when we

get snow, my property gets two feet of water in its front yard that my neighbor’s child could drown in. Right above where I am is where this proposal is to land. If I already have runoff problems, my concern is with the vast building and vast population for that area. And as more population has occurred, I find more runoff problems where I get water in my basement that I did not get 22 years ago My question to the Board is how can anyone even consider such a vast project (Karen Grace, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006)?

J.20 Response: See Responses J.1 and J.13. J.21 Comment: Chapter 9 of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual is solely

intended for redevelopment purposes; therefore the proposed cisterns are unacceptable as treatment in new development projects. Another treatment method must be proposed rather than cisterns (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.21 Response: The initial treatment of stormwater quality at the buildings will be handled

through the use of infiltrators. Cisterns will be used for reuse of water as a sustainable development practice.

J.22 Comment: A page of the Site Plans should include clearly delineated total drainage

areas, and include the temporary traps/basins and long term stormwater measures in each catchment (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.22 Response: Comment noted. These items will be included the site plans. J.23 Comment: A profile detail of any proposed stormwater treatment method must be

included on the site plan. These must meet all the required elements outlined in NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual for each proposed measure. This would include dry wells, dry swales and extended detention ponds that are currently the proposed methods of treatment (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.23 Response: Comment noted. These items will be included the site plans.


J.24 Comment: The construction sequence must make it clear the contributory drainage

areas have to be stabilized prior to placing dry swales on the line (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.24 Response: Comment noted. These items will be included the site plans. J.25 Comment: Dry swales are appropriate for water quality treatment, but it is unclear

how water quantity is being addressed for these drainage areas (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.25 Response: Stormwater runoff is, in general, directed to the three proposed detention

basins located within the project limits. In certain drainage basins, however, changes in the subbasin configurations due to the proposed improvement create reductions in the basin areas, resulting in low peak flows. As shown in Table II.J-1 (Response J.1) for each of the design storms 1-Year (CPV) ,10-Year (QP),and 100-Year (QF), the post-development peak runoff rate is less than the pre-development rate.

J.26 Comment: It is unclear where the proposed dry wells will be installed. All infiltration

measures must have appropriate soil testing as outlined in Appendix D of the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.26 Response: Dry wells will be installed adjacent to buildings to treat roof and walkway

drainage. The dry wells will generally be used at building sites whose runoff does not contribute to the proposed detention basins. Any additional testing of soils necessary for the detailed design of infiltration systems will be included in the site plans as part of the Site Plan approval by the Town Planning Board.

J.27 Comment: All stormwater management ponds must have a slope not greater than

3:1. It is unclear if these ponds meet that criteria (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.27 Response: The side slopes of the stormwater management ponds do not exceed 3:1

as required. J.28 Comment: The entity responsible for maintenance on the stormwater management

features must be identified on the site plan. A maintenance schedule for each proposed stormwater measure must also be included on the site plan (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

J.28 Response: Comment noted. Dharmakaya will be responsible for maintenance of the

stormwater management features on the site plan. A maintenance schedule for each proposed stormwater measure will be included the site plans as part of the Site Plan approval by the Town Planning Board.


J.29 Comment: Neither the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, nor the phase description in Section VI-1, clearly indicates the sequence of construction or the location of most aspects of the proposed phases. Details of the construction sequence and phasing of the project are important components needed for the analysis of stormwater runoff (Rebecca Crist, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated February 2, 2007).

J.29 Response: See Response J.3, which explains the amount of disturbance and

construction sequencing for each of the anticipated phases for the project. Additionally, the response provides a breakdown of Phase I to limit the amount of disturbance at any one time to less than 5 acres. It is noted that Phase I will contain the most work, as it involves the construction of the main access road through the site, all on-site distribution systems for utilities and the Milarepa Center. Future phases would be completed on a building complex-by-building complex basis, which are generally not dependent upon each other. The site plans for all future phases will contain detailed erosion and sediment control plans with proper sequencing to limit disturbance to less than 5 acres at any one time.

J.30 Comment: Can the runoff be studied? I too have a very muddy yard for a great part

of the year. What will the effect of such a large campus be on the runoff to those of us on the southern slope (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006)?

J.30 Response: The runoff has been studied as presented in Chapter IV.G and Appendix

H of the DEIS. See Response J.1, which discusses why the proposed development will have no stormwater impacts on the surrounding area.

K. Traffic K.1 Comment: Please advise on the impact to the roads. We have narrow country roads

that are dangerous now from added traffic from the Sam’s Point Preserve…Will Dharmakaya be allowed new access roads on this parcel which can also be potentially dangerous (Harry McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

K.1 Response: The traffic impacts generated by the project are discussed in the traffic

section of the DEIS. The traffic analysis evaluated conditions on the roads most likely affected by project generated trips, which included intersections along NYS Route 52, NYS Route 209, South Gully Road, Cragsmoor Road, Hansburg Road, Clark Road and Old Inn Road. The counts were conducted in May 2006. Updated counts were conducted at the end of June in 2007 to coincide with Cragsmoor Day. Both sets of traffic counts include any vehicles traveling to and from Sam’s Point Preserve. The access to the Dharmakaya site will be through an entrance driveway to Cragsmoor Road. There is a secondary access, for emergency purposes only, to Old Inn Road. See also Response K.2 relating to accident data.

K.2 Comment: Please advise on the impact to the dangerous country roads when traffic

is added (June McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006).


K.2 Response: The project-generated impacts on traffic operations at the study area

intersections is provided in the DEIS. An evaluation of the latest three years of accident information reveals that there are no identifiable patterns or clusters of accidents that will be exacerbated by the additional traffic generated by this project. The results of this analysis are provided in this FEIS, Appendix I.

K.3 Comment: Please advise on the impact to the dangerous country roads when traffic

is added (Scott McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006). K.3 Response: See Response K.2. K.4 Comment: The DEIS has a number of methodological flaws which produce an

erroneous suggestion of “acceptable” traffic flows at the 209/52 intersection. It also neglects the impact of heavy truck and other traffic on the present special community character of the Cragsmoor hamlet (David Porter, consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.4 Response: The analysis of the NYS Route 52/209 intersection was based on counts

conducted in the field, which included vehicle classifications. The heavy vehicle percentages used in the traffic analysis are based on these counts. As to the potential truck traffic for construction activities for Dharmakaya, see Responses H.52, K.13, Q.1 and Q.2.

K.5 Comment: The major flow of visitors to the Cragsmoor area extends from June

through the fall foliage season, and traffic counts were carried out in May. Traffic analyses should be based on worst-case conditions and traffic volumes reported in the DEIS are improperly lower than they should be (David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.5 Response: Updated counts were conducted at the end of June in 2007 to coincide

with Cragsmoor Day. The attached graphs (See Figures III.K-1 to III.K-4) compare the June 2007 counts to the corresponding 2006 peak-hour volumes used in the DEIS traffic studies. As shown in both the Route 52 weekday and Route 52 Saturday charts, the peak-hour volumes used in the traffic study are nearly identical to the counts obtained in June 2007. The Cragsmoor Road weekday peak-hour counts are also in close agreement with the July 2007 updated counts. Only the Saturday peak hour counts on Cragsmoor Road taken in June 2007 are significantly higher than those used in the report. However, the sensitivity analysis performed for the FEIS shows that there is significant excess capacity on Cragsmoor Road to accommodate this increased traffic volume. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the volumes in the build conditions could be doubled and there would be no effect on the overall intersection service levels shown in the Draft EIS for all of the intersections studied with the exception of the one at Route 209/52, where an increase of approximately 30 percent of the build volumes would be required to affect this intersection’s overall LOS.

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-1: ROUTE 52 SATURDAY PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES

WAWARSING, NY SOURCE: CHAS. H. SELLS, INC.,. 2007

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-2: ROUTE 52 WEEKDAY PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES

WAWARSING, NY SOURCE: CHAS. H. SELLS, INC., 2007

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-3: CRAGSMOOR RD SATURDAY PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES


MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-4: CRAGSMOOR RD WEEKDAY PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES



K.6 Comment: An improper growth rate of .5% was used for future background traffic volumes, which produced a result of 2.5% instead of the 10% figure achieved by using a 2% growth figure (David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.6 Response: The growth rate used in the traffic study was based on Census data for

the Town of Wawarsing. As noted in Section IV.J of the DEIS, the population growth rate for the Town of Wawarsing from 1990 to 2000 was 4.4%, which is 0.36% per year (the Census data are provided in Appendix N of this FEIS). This value was rounded up slightly to 0.5%. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted at the study area intersections, and an increase of more than 30% of the traffic shown in the Build Condition would be required to affect any of the overall intersection service levels shown in the Draft EIS traffic tables.

K.7 Comment: An improper future traffic build-out year was used. The DEIS states that

site construction will extend through at least 2015, if not longer. Therefore, future background traffic estimates for the intersections should be based on volume growth for 10 years into the future, not the 5 year figure that was used (David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.7 Response: Increasing the traffic volumes to account for an additional five years of

growth would add around 10 to 20 cars at the study area intersections closest to the proposed site. These 10 to 20 cars will have no effect on the overall operating conditions and service levels at these intersections.

K.8 Comment: Estimated traffic volumes from other projects such as the large Yukiguni

Maritake mushroom plant and area casino development should be included in the present traffic analysis since it is certainly a reasonable probability that this traffic will be in place by the time the Mahamudra project is complete (David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.8 Response: Dharmakaya is a low-intensity use which generates low levels of traffic.

As discussed in Responses K.5 and K.6, a sensitivity analysis was conducted at the study area intersections and an increase of more than 30 percent of the traffic shown in the Build Condition would be required to affect any of the overall intersection service levels shown in the Draft EIS traffic tables. The Dharmakaya use has no connection with either the mushroom factory or any casino development; nor will it facilitate such development in any way. These other projects will not facilitate the Dharmakaya project, and the Dharmakaya project will not facilitate them.

The Applicant requested information from both the Town of Wawarsing and Ulster

County on any proposed site developments that would be in close proximity to the Dharmakaya location so that their traffic volumes could be included in the analysis. Both of these agencies said there were no proposed developments before them that would influence the Dharmakaya analysis. The mushroom factory received site plan approvals by the Town of Mamakating in 2007, after completion of a Full Environmental Impact statement. Project proponents have stated that they intend to


break ground in 2008, and that the factory will create 210 jobs. The mushroom factory has its main frontage on McDonald Road which connects to Route 209 close to Wurtsboro Airport, and thence to Route 17. The mushroom plant will be a minimum of 11 miles away from the Dharmakaya project, via a circuitous route over local roads. It is highly unlikely that traffic to and from the mushroom plant would have any impact on Cragsmoor or Dharmakaya, or that traffic from Dharmakaya would have any material effect on traffic to the mushroom plant. Any proposals for casino development in the region will have to conduct full environmental analysis of traffic expected from those facilities. It would be expected that the major impact of casino traffic would be on routes from major highways to and from the casinos, if and when sited. The impacts, if any, from these projects would be independent of any traffic impacts from Dharmakaya, and the low levels of traffic from Dharmakaya would not have any material traffic-enhancing or exacerbating impact on those other projects.

K.9 Comment: The combination of improper low-season traffic counts, improper growth

rate for future background traffic volumes, improper future traffic build-out year and failure to include cumulative background traffic will seriously underestimate the level of background traffic (David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.9 Response: See Responses K.5 and K.6. K.10 Comment: The DEIS traffic report contains flawed documentation which potentially

undermines analytical credibility. For example, comparisons of same time-frame scenario figures, such as 2011 No-Build AM (figure IV.H-5) with 2011 Build Weekday AM (Figure IV.H-12), shows that while background growth-rate (however inadequate) was accounted for in the several lane volumes indicated for critical intersections (209/52, 52/Cragsmoore Rd., 52/Stein Rd./Hansburg Rd.) in the 2011 no-build scenario, they are inexplicably absent in the 2011 build scenario, with the latter simply repeating the same lane volumes as in 2006 (figure IV.H-2). Similarly, there is no explanation for why Table IV.H-6 reports no-build background traffic delays for Saturday peak hours as substantially less in 2011 than in 2006 at the SB-left turn at the 209.52 intersection. This same apparent error is repeated in Table IV.H-9, thus suggesting that the level of service for that same lane in the 2011 build scenario will be at an acceptable level (higher than E or F) ((David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.10 Response: The corrected figures are attached as Figures III.K-5 through III.K-8,

below. The discrepancies are small, mostly 1 to 7 vehicles, and do not, in any event, have a significant effect on the Level of Service results or conclusions of the study.

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-5: CORRECTED STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011BUILD SECNARIO, WEEKDAY AM

WAWARSING, NY SOURCE: CHAS. H. SELLS, INC. 2007

Not to Scale

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-6: CORRECTED STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011BUILD SCENARIO, WEEKDAY PM


Not to Scale

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-7: CORRECTED STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011BUILD SCENARIO, WEEKEND RETREAT


Not to Scale

MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE FEIS FIGURE III.K-8: CORRECTED STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS: 2011BUILD SCENARIO, SATURDAY AM/SPECIAL EVENT


Not to Scale


K.11 Comment: Because of the various significant underestimates of no-build background traffic, the traffic volumes and lane delays at the 209/52 intersection should be indicated as substantially greater than those used in the DEIS traffic analysis. Without corrected input data, it is impossible to conclude that mitigation by traffic signal alterations at the 209/52 intersection will be adequate to prevent DOT-defined unacceptable “E” levels of service from newly appearing or persisting for both northbound and southbound traffic after project completion. Also, please advise if traffic signal alterations will only be carried out for “special event” or “weekend retreat” occasions (David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.11 Response: See Responses K.5 and K.6 for concerns regarding the estimate of the

no-build traffic volumes. The traffic signal timings suggested in the report could be implemented for both the weekend retreat and special event conditions as well as for normal operating conditions. The timings used at this location would be implemented by NYSDOT and would be subject to their approval. It should be noted that the signal modification not only serves as mitigation of a project generated impact, but also improves existing traffic issues at this main intersection in the Hamlet.

K.12 Comment: Please provide data to support the suggestion (IV.H-43) that alteration of

the traffic signal at the nearby intersection of Canal and Main Streets would significantly reduce peak hour congestion (David Porter, Consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

K.12 Response: Table IV.H-13 of the DEIS shows the level of service improvements

anticipated at the NYS Route 209/52 intersection resulting from the suggested signal timing improvements. Copies of the traffic analysis model outputs were included in Appendix M of the DEIS.

K.13 Comment: The increased truck activity in the surrounding area as a result of

importing gravel fill can be considered an impact on traffic, on the surrounding road system and very importantly on the surrounding community (David Clouser, David Clouser & Associates, engineering consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 22, 2006).

K.13 Response: The project has been designed so that there will be a balance of cuts and

fills for the roadway, drainage and building construction. Therefore, there will be no need to import material for the construction of those items. It will be necessary, however, to import the select material (“gravel fill”) that is to be used for the septic fill systems (SSDSs). The phasing as proposed has construction of the project taking place in four phases (See Response J.3). During each phase, the septic system(s) for the buildings in that phase would be constructed.

The construction of the SSDSs for the Common House, the largest system, will

require the most imported material, estimated to be approximately 4,800 cubic yards. Import of this material will require approximately 160 truck trips. The construction of the SSDSs fill system for the Common House is estimated to take approximately four weeks to complete. This would result in eight deliveries per day,


or an average of one per hour. This delivery schedule would hold true for the construction of the SSDSs for other building complexes, including the Sangha Residences, Teacher’s House and Guest Teacher’s House, which are all shown as taking place in Phase III. During that Phase, the installation of the SSDSs will be done as part of the construction of that particular building. The SSDS for the two Sangha Residences will involve approximately 2,400 cubic yards of material, and the Teacher’s and Guest Teacher’s Houses 1,500 cubic yards. Delivery of the material for these SSDSs would be comparable to that of the Common House, one truck per hour. For the Sangha Residences, deliveries would occur for about a two-week period, and for the Teacher’s and Guest Teacher’s Houses a one-week period. The addition of one truck per hour coming into and exiting the site would have no significant impact on the traffic in the area. This is particularly true when one considers that the minimal truck delivery traffic will take place prior to the full occupation of the site, and thus could be considered as creating a traffic impact similar to or less than those in the design year.

As described in Response J.3, Phase I will be the most intense phase, as it involves one of the major building complexes plus the construction of the basis road system and support infrastructure. In addition to the import of material for the SSDS for the Milarepa Center, there will also be traffic related to the delivery of construction materials and the commutation of construction workers to the site. This work will be taking place prior to occupancy of the site, so that traffic will only be generated by construction activities. As discussed in the Traffic Report in Appendix M of the DEIS, the majority of contractors departing from the site and the delivery of materials will occur during the off-site road network’s off-peak hours. Furthermore, the amount of traffic due to construction will not adversely impact the surrounding road system.

K.14 Comment: A back of the envelope calculation reveals that approximately 300

truckloads of bank run gravel will be needed for the construction of fill-type septic systems. What other resources will be brought to the site? How many truckloads will be needed? How many trucks per day will be coming to the site during each phase of construction? A numeric estimate of heavy truck traffic is needed to characterize the impact on the community and environment (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

K.14 Response: As noted in Response K.13, the site has been designed so as to have a

balance of cut and fills, with the exception of the delivery of the select fill for the SSDS mounds. Throughout the course of the construction, there will be deliveries of building materials; however they will be spread throughout the day and will generally happen between 8 AM and 3 PM, after the morning peak and prior to the afternoon peak hours.

K.15 Comment: The generation of traffic, particularly during the holidays, will clearly

transform the rural nature of the area in to a more crowded, bustling, disruptive and dangerous environment. The DEIS does not address this intrusion into the hamlet at all, but limits traffic analyses to levels of service, i.e. congestion (David Gordon, Attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).


K.15 Response: The comment makes a conclusory characterization that is not supported in the environmental documents. The proposed project is a low-intensity and quiet land use, which is virtually self-contained, and is the type of use which is appropriate for the rural area in which it is located. See generally, discussions in community character, particularly Responses E.2, E.4, E.8, E.16, E.20, E.21 and E.30. Also see Responses C.3, C.5, C.7, C.10, C.21, C.24 and D.2. Additionally, level of service traffic analyses are a valid method of studying the traffic-related impacts of a proposed project on the adjacent area. If the analyses show that there is no degradation in the level of service for the adjacent streets and intersections, then there should be no detrimental effects on the traffic in the area. The level-of-service analysis is also generally indicative of the nature of the intensity of the proposed action, and reflective of the scale of its impacts on an area. The information in the DEIS and FEIS does not support the conclusion made in the comment. The few days during the year (up to eight) when the facility will accept a maximum of 143 additional single-day visitors will not change the character of the use or the character of the neighborhood. Such visitation is not out of keeping with the area, which has a number of community and celebratory events throughout the year, including Cragsmoor Day festivities. Neither the number of visitors nor the number of visiting days is excessive, nor will it create a "dangerous environment." Visitors will be on the Dharmakaya property, and not elsewhere in Cragsmoor.

K.16 Comment: The DEIS fails to utilize proper methodology for review of traffic impact,

including deficiencies in both data and analyses. It improperly uses low season traffic counts, an outdated growth rate for measuring future background traffic and fails to include any cumulative traffic impacts in the future no-build background traffic volumes (David Gordon, Attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

K.16 Response: See Responses K.4, K.5 and K.6. K.17 Comment: Clark Road and Cragsmoor Road intersect on a curve. This is a

dangerous road already, with limited visibility and frequently speeding cars on Cragsmoor Road. A greater volume of traffic would exacerbate this. In addition, Cragsmoor Road is a secondary road which would not adapt easily to the amount of traffic resulting from a development of the proposed scale (Mary Kroul McAlpin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

K.17 Response: The current configuration of this intersection has limited sight distance

(150’ when AASHTO requires 305’) when approaching the intersection from Clark Road. The most recent three-year accident history shows no accident patterns or clusters on or near this curved intersection. The highest level of activity for this project will, at most, attract an additional 48 vehicles to the site. The 48 additional trips will have a minimal affect on the operating conditions of this intersection and will not create any significant queues or backups that would significantly change the existing traffic or safety conditions.

K.18 Comment: We are going to be submitting written statements indicating the

deficiencies in the traffic studies. They didn’t take the proper counts. They avoided the high season of traffic in Cragsmoor. They underestimated growth in the area


(David Gordon, Attorney for Cragsmoor Association, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

K.18 Response: See Responses K.4 and K.6. K.19 Comment: Temporary roads must be constructed in accordance with the standards

put forth in NY Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. All road stabilization must be included early in the construction sequence and be completed prior to lot development (Janet Swentusky, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, memo dated January 23, 2007).

K.19 Response: Comment noted. K.20 Comment: What I’m concerned mostly about is the traffic. We only have one road

into Cragsmoor. And are they going to bring buses in? What kind of traffic will this bring (Lucy Muller, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006)?

K.20 Response: The traffic generated by the project and the impacts of the project

generated trips is discussed in the DEIS. See also other responses in Section K. The project is a low-generator of traffic. Impacts on Cragsmoor are expected to be minimal, since any traffic going to Dharmakaya would turn off before reaching the hamlet of Cragsmoor.

K.21 Comment: The proposed road that they are going to go in to the left, say coming up

Cragsmoor Road and turning left there is on a curve. Unless there is a traffic light, which would be the first in Cragsmoor, I just can’t imagine how you would avoid an accident from the people coming down with not seeing the people turning left to go into the residences (Ruth Ditar, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

K.21 Response: The intersection of the Dharmakaya Driveway with Cragsmoor Road

would not satisfy the warrants for a traffic signal under The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). According to the most recent three years of accident reports for the area, there is no known accident pattern or cluster located on or near this curve. The additional trips generated by this project this will not significantly affect operating conditions at this intersection and will not create any significant queues or backups that would significantly change the existing traffic or safety conditions.

K.22 Comment: Will the residents of Cragsmoor be forced to use alternate roads being

South Gully and Vista Maria, considerably narrower and do not have painted lines and are treacherous roads? The potential for accidents is higher (Walter Meily, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

K.22 Response: The project will not restrict the use of any public roads, or force residents

of Cragsmoor to use any other roads.


L. Community Facilities L.1 Comment: The services of the Cragsmoor Fire Company will be provided at no cost,

but as the cost of maintaining the company is handled by taxes and donations from the community, the Commissioners “…appeal to their [Dharmakaya’s] sense of fair play” in regards to contributions to the Fire Company (Cragsmoor Fire District Board of Commissioners, memo dated November 15, 2006).

L.1 Response: The initial letter from the Cragsmoor Fire District (May 4, 2006, see

Appendix C of the DEIS) stated that the proposed Hermitage would have a financial impact on the district due to the increased calls resulting from the projected population increase and higher assessed value. The letter stated that the existing fire district population is approximately 775 people, and estimated that the proposed project would increase this population to 1,025 people, or approximately 24 percent. The District concluded that the annual budget would increase by the same proportion, i.e. the additional calls generated by the proposed project were estimated to potentially increase the fire district’s budget by 24 percent, or approximately $20,400.

The Applicant believes that the impact of the project on the budget will actually be substantially less than this, for several reasons. First, the fire district’s calculations were based on a maximum site occupancy of 250 people. This figure is far in excess of the actual estimated population of the site. Even as originally proposed, the proposed maximum day-to-day population was only 107 people, less than half of the figure used for evaluation. The 250 figure represented a peak reached only on 8 days out of 365. If the District had used the appropriate figure, the resulting population increase would have only been approximately 13.8 percent. The figure has now been reduced still further, since the Applicant has reduced the maximum daily occupancy to 85 people and the maximum occupancy on special event days to 228 people. Under the revised proposal, the day-to-day maximum population would result in an increase of about 11 percent to the existing Cragsmoor Fire District population, assuming maximum occupancy at all times. In reality, the population at most times may be expected to be under the maximum. In any event, the Applicant submits that the impacts of the increased population in an institutional setting such as the proposed Hermitage is substantially less than the impacts of that population in the context of conventional subdivision development. In its calculation of potential financial impacts, the fire district assumed that the impact of the Hermitage population would be the same as the population of a conventional single-family subdivision. In fact, the proposed Hermitage is a unique institutional use, and given the quiet nature of the use, it is the Applicant’s opinion that it would generally result in fewer calls to the fire district than would a traditional subdivision containing the same number of people.

Many factors support the conclusion that the Dharmakaya project would have far fewer impacts than a conventional residential project. Almost all proposed buildings (except the Teachers House, the Guest Teachers House, and the Welcome House) will be equipped with a sprinkler fire protection system in compliance with the requirements of the New York State Building Code and reference standard NFPH


13. The sprinkler systems will be supplied from water storage tanks buried below grade. Storage tanks will be provided as necessary to service the sprinkler systems for each building or building complex to be sprinklered. In addition, the Applicant has agreed to provide a network of fire hydrants at each building complex. The fire hydrant network is being provided as a backup for the sprinkler system at the request of the fire district, exceeding the requirements of the New York State Fire Code Section 508. The fire hydrant network will also obtain water supplies from the water storage tanks. The capacity for the water storage tanks will be as was previously discussed with the Fire District. The tank capacity will be designed to provide adequate water supply for the required water flows for the hydrant and/or sprinkler systems. This was discussed, in concept, to be approximately 300 gal/min for a duration of 120 minutes with the exact criteria to be determined during the completion of this component of the projects design. The Applicant’s provision of these important life safety and fire prevention measures in compliance with required codes, and in cooperation with the Cragsmoor Fire District additional requirements, will further substantially reduce the impact on the district’s fire protection resources.

In order to perform a detailed and accurate analysis of impacts on the Fire District, the Applicant evaluated an itemized budget of the Cragsmoor Fire Department to determine which items would be affected by the department’s projected population increase. Certain expenses in any fire department’s budget are static and independent of the number of calls served, such as facilities maintenance, bond service, administration and insurance. The budgeted items that were determined to be potentially affected (i.e. the non-fixed expenses) were totaled, and then multiplied by the potential maximum day-to-day population increase of 13.8 percent as proposed under the site plan as originally proposed. Table III.L-1 presents the Cragsmoor Fire Department’s itemized 2007 budget, differentiating between fixed and non-fixed budget items.

Table III.L-1: Cragsmoor Fire District 2007 Budget

Type of Expense Estimated Expenditures

Fixed/Non-fixed

Budget Affected by Additional Population

Principal $20,758 Fixed -- Bonds Interest $5,541 Fixed -- Workers' Compensation $2,027 Fixed -- Insurance General $10,000 Fixed --

Personal services $2,800 Fixed -- Legal fees $500 Fixed -- Public inspection -- Non-fixed -- Truck Reserve $12,000 Non-fixed $12,000 Other $200 Non-fixed $200 Equipment purchase $10,000 Non-fixed $10,000 Gasoline/Oil $2,200 Non-fixed $2,200 Building rental $7,000 Fixed -- Equipment

maintenance/repair $8,000 Non-fixed $8,000

Telephone $180 Fixed -- Supplies, printing $400 Non-fixed $400


Table III.L-1: Cragsmoor Fire District 2007 Budget (continued) Training $1,200 Non-fixed $1,200 Fire prevention -- Non-fixed -- Medical supplies $700 Non-fixed $700 Physicals $500 Non-fixed $500 Workshops $500 Non-fixed $500 Total $84,506 Non-fixed $35,700

Source: Urbanomics, 2006 Based on the above evaluation methodology and summary of fire protection measures, the Applicant proposes to make a voluntary annual goodwill contribution to the Cragsmoor Fire District, representing a fair offset to the impacts of the project on the Fire District, beginning upon the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, and increasing as additional buildings are built up to an Annual Maximum Contribution at total build-out of the project. The Annual Maximum Contribution shall be defined as $2,400 as of the date of the issuance of the first building permit on the project, and shall be increased by $100 each year thereafter. The Applicant will begin making yearly payments upon receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy from the municipal Building Department for occupancy of the first building, constituting a pro rated portion of the Annual Maximum Contribution, which amounts shall be increased, in a pro rata proportion based on the percentage of approved occupancy for subsequent construction phases as they are completed, up to the Annual Maximum Contribution upon completion of total project build-out. After total buildout, when the Annual Maximum Contribution is reached, the yearly payment shall continue to increase at the rate of $100 per year during the life of the project. Again, this methodology was based on the projected population increase resulting from the original site plan; the modified site plan will result in a somewhat reduced population increase. As noted above, the Applicant’s modified site plan will reduce the day-to-day population of the Hermitage to a maximum of 85 people from 107 people as initially proposed. This population of 85 people represents the maximum possible number of people on-site (with the exception of the up to eight special-event days per year). The actual number of people on-site on a normal basis will likely be significantly less than 85, and will generally average 40 to 50 people. However, the Applicant is still proposing to pay the same Annual Maximum Contribution amount per year, even though the maximum potential population has been reduced since the original calculation. In addition, after consultation with the Cragsmoor Fire District Board of Commissioners, the Applicant has also proposed to allow the Fire District to access the fire hydrants and underground fire protection reserve storage tank water supply located on the Hermitage property in the case of any fire emergency at a nearby structure or in the surrounding area. This water access would only be for emergency situations, not on any regular basis.

L.2 Comment: My concerns as a volunteer fireman and commissioner is the statement

in the DEIS that no increased impact to emergency services would be realized. 17 buildings, upwards of 150 people full-time, many more on retreat holidays (Ted Horn, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 19, 2006).


L.2 Response: Regarding the Fire District, see L.1. The conclusions in the DEIS relating to the Ulster County Fire Coordinator's Office were reached based on comments from Chief Coordinator Charles Mutz that he does not foresee a need for additional staff or equipment due to the project. The conclusion was reached for the Ellenville First Aid and Rescue due to Chief Coordinator Mutz’s comments, the relatively few proposed buildings on the site, the projected low-impact religious use and the number of site occupants. It should be noted that, in response to public comments on the DEIS, the Applicant has reduced the scale of the proposed project, resulting in a reduction of the day-to-day occupancy from 107 people to 85, and a reduction in the size and square footage of the buildings. As a result, any potential impacts to the Ulster County Fire Coordinator’s Office or the Ellenville First Aid and Rescue will be lessened further, and no mitigation is proposed.

L.3 Comment: This development, I fear, would change the character of Cragsmoor as a

small hamlet with its lands of Bear Hill and Sam’s Point Preserve welcoming to all visitors. The retreat center will overwhelm us in terms of population but will add nothing in terms of community (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006).

L.3 Response: See Response L.2 for a discussion of the Applicant’s reduction in size and

scale of the proposed Hermitage, resulting in a 21% reduction in the potential day-to-day population housed at the Hermitage. In addition, the DEIS stated that participants in the special events held at the facility up to eight times a year would be required to register in advance; the events would not be open to the general public or “drop-ins.” Therefore, the Hermitage staff would be able to have control over the number of visitors on site at all times. It should be noted that the hamlet of Cragsmoor is the location for various large events, such as the annual Cragsmoor Day and private social functions at the Stone Church, without the character of the community being compromised. Regarding the Hermitage’s relationship to the Cragsmoor community, Dharmakaya has conducted outreach efforts in the Cragsmoor community, and the Applicant's spiritual leader, Rinpoche, has traveled to the area to discuss the project with residents and to conduct teachings and meditation sessions for the community.

Throughout the planning process for the proposed Hermitage, the Applicant has

sought to acknowledge somewhat divergent goals within the Cragsmoor community. For example, some residents have expressed concern that the Hermitage will significantly alter the community, and consequently want the facility to be separate from the community for minimal impact. Conversely, other residents have expressed a desire for the Hermitage to be an active part of the community, and open the facility to Cragsmoor residents. The Applicant feels that the best way to be a positive community participant – that is to relieve the majority of Cragsmoor residents’ concerns – is to adhere to its planned program of providing quiet space for meditational retreat that does not interfere in the life of Cragsmoor and that directly complements the residents’ desires for an environment of quiet retreat away from the world. This quiet nature of the Hermitage program will be true even on the six to eight special event days, because the people coming to the site will be sitting quietly on mats, listening to a teaching and then practicing meditation for a two- to three-hour period. Dharmakaya aims to be a good neighbor by first and foremost


by preserving the intent of the community – an atmosphere of quiet retreat. It will also serve as a resource to the community in that nearby residents could choose to attend a teaching day or program.

L.4 Comment: What plans do they have for the fire department? Do they have one of

their own? Or are they planning to support ours? And how will the trucks get in? We recently had a disastrous fire in Cragsmoor, and I don’t see how our little wonderful fire department could take care of this large community (Ruth Ditar, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

L.4 Response: The Hermitage would not be served by a private fire department, and

would rely on the services of the Cragsmoor Fire Department. See Response L.1. The site plan has been designed so that fire trucks have sufficient space for entry and turning movements. Regarding other fire prevention measures, all structures of the proposed project will comply with the Town of Wawarsing Zoning Code as well as all New York State Fire Code requirements. Most buildings on-site will contain sprinklers, supplied by water locations at these structures, and several water detention areas provided in the landscaping plan will provide additional water resources for fire prevention and other emergencies.

M. Socioeconomic/Fiscal Impacts M.1 Comment: Can the town of Cragsmoor afford another large parcel of land that is

tax-free (Harry McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)? M.1 Response: While the tax-exempt status of the proposed Hermitage would result in

the elimination of the tax income currently being received by the Town of Wawarsing ($6,274), this loss must be weighed against the likely demands for public services imposed by the land use. The DEIS concluded that the proposed project would generate 0 to 3 school children and impose very few demands for community services, with the key demands being for intermittent emergency services (police, fire ambulance). It is useful to compare the likely tax revenue and public service demand situation of an as-of-right residential development. The DEIS estimated potential property tax revenue of $220,000 for such a development. However, the potential subdivision would generate 16 to 25 school children, at a cost of $141,077 to $220,433, and would require roadway maintenance and snowplowing at an annual cost of $3,342 to $4,245. These educational and road maintenance costs would be in addition to any expenses generated by residential demand for emergency services. In contrast, the proposed Hermitage would generate few, if any, school children, and roadway maintenance on the site would be performed by the Applicant, as the internal roadway would be privately owned.

M.2 Comment: Can the town of Cragsmoor afford another large parcel of land that is

tax-free (June McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)? M.2 Response: See Response M.1.


M.3 Comment: Can the town of Cragsmoor afford another large parcel of land that is tax-free (Scott McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

M.3 Response: See Response M.1. M.4 Comment: The costs of the extra wear and tear on the roads and strain on our local

volunteer fire company would be footed by the tax-paying residents of our town (Russell and Monica Damsky, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 6, 2006).

M.4 Response: As detailed in Chapter IV.H of the DEIS, the proposed Hermitage would

generate a maximum of 48 trips during peak periods (representing the special events held up to eight times a year). On an ongoing basis, the maximum peak-period trips generated would be 14, representing the weekend trips. An analysis of the study area intersections showed that the project-generated trips would have only a minimal effect on traffic conditions, with the exception of the intersection of Route 52 and Route 209, which would see degradation in level of service. At all other time periods, this intersection would operate at an acceptable level of service. The level of service with the project at this intersection could be mitigated by adjustments to its signal timings. Because the expected increase in traffic would significantly affect only one intersection in the study area, and this effect can be mitigated, it is not expected that the proposed Hermitage will result in any significant increase in “wear and tear” on the local road network within Cragsmoor. It should be noted that Route 52 and Route 209 are not local roads; therefore, any maintenance required for them would be funded via state or federal taxes. Regarding the financial impact of the proposed project on the Cragsmoor Fire Department, see Responses L.1 and L.2.

M.5 Comment: Discussion of PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes). Because it is expected

that Dharmakaya Inc. will apply for real estate exemption status, the Town of Wawarsing will receive no tax revenue, placing increased financial burdens on Township tax payers. Based on Budget Supervisor and Bookkeeper financial records for the Town of Wawarsing DEIS CH V-8, the cost of road maintenance and snow plowing is $45.16 per person, and based on the number of proposed occupants of the completed Dharmakaya site, the approximate amount of $5,000 could be freely donated to the Town of Wawarsing annually and the same dollar amount donated annually to the Cragsmoor Fire Department (Linda Rogers, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

M.5 Response: The per capita cost of $45.16 given in the DEIS was provided for the

purposes of comparison with the potential as-of-right residential subdivision that could occur on the site. The Town of Wawarsing would not incur any road maintenance or snow plowing costs for the roads within the Hermitage site, because these roads will be privately owned and maintained. See Response M.1. Therefore, the Applicant is not proposing to pay a PILOT to the Town to cover road maintenance expenses. See Response L.1 for a discussion of the Applicant’s proposed voluntary annual goodwill contribution to the Cragsmoor Fire District.

M.6 Comment: I find it ironic that those who would come to profit from the environment

pay no taxes and apparently would not contribute in any positive way to the


Cragsmoor community (Wayne Brown, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006).

M.6 Response: As discussed above, Dharmakaya is a non-profit organization. The

organization has no intention to “profit from the environment.” See Response A.19. Regarding Dharmakaya’s contribution to the Cragsmoor community, see Response L.3. See Response L.1 regarding the Applicant’s plans to voluntarily contribute to the Cragsmoor Fire District.

M.7 Comment: The proposed retreat center is like an exclusive hotel that will profit by

offering weekend events but will pay no taxes. They will exclude the town residents and not contribute to the community in terms of voluntary and monetary support (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 24, 2006).

M.7 Response: Because the proposed Hermitage will be part of a non-profit

organization, it will not profit from offering weekend retreats. There will be no exclusivity to the Hermitage; it will offer programs to anyone who is interested in joining them, subject to the total population limits discussed in this EIS. Fees charged for retreat usage will purely be used to cover expenses associated with ongoing administrative functions and programming. See Responses A.19, L.1, L.3 and M.6.

M.8 Comment: For several years now, at every meeting, it has been requested for the

Dharmakaya to compensate the community for the additional taxes we will without a doubt be hit with on top of the ~38% increase this year. And for years, we have been assured that “they are looking into it.” We have learned what they mean by “selfless activity of generosity” by their continued silence (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

M.8 Response: The Applicant acknowledges that the tax-exempt status of the proposed

project would result in the elimination of the $6,274 annual tax income currently being received by the Town of Wawarsing. However, the Hermitage will result in significantly fewer demands for public services than would occur with an as-of-right residential subdivision. For example, the project will generate a minimal, if any, number of school children, and will not require public funds for roadway maintenance or snowplowing, as all internal roads will be privately maintained. As a result, the Applicant is not proposed to pay and PILOT, and is not required to do so. See Response M.1. Regarding potential impacts on the fire department and the Applicant’s plans to voluntarily contribute to the Cragsmoor Fire District, see Response L.1.

M.9 Comment: In regards to taxes, discussions issues of payments to the township and

the Cragsmoor Fire Company by Mahamudra in lieu of taxes should be on the agenda (Tom Gale, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

M.9 Response: See Responses L.1, M.1 and M.8. M.10 Comment: At one informational meeting held at the Cragsmoor Fire House, I heard

John Henderson, spokesman for the Dharmakaya, assert that his organization would not be able to afford property taxes. Given the impact the proposed


development would have on road maintenance, fire and other emergency services and other infrastructure demands, this seems vastly unfair (Mary Kroul McAlpin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

M.10 Response: See Responses L.1, M.1 and M.8. M.11 Comment: I am concerned also on the impact the Dharmakaya’s project will have

on our taxes. I realize that retreat functions as they propose will generate a great deal of income for them and I find it galling that they will not commit to any support to the community (Dolores Williams, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 26, 2006).

M.11 Response: See Responses A.19, L.1, M.1, M.6, M.7 and M.8. M.12 Comment: I recommend the designation of a specific amount of money in lieu of

taxes to be paid annually to the Cragsmoor Volunteer Fire Company to cover the cost of protecting the center and the increase in our population (Maureen Radl, VP, Cragsmoor Historical Society, VP, Friends of the Shawangunks, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

M.12 Response: See Response L.1 regarding the Applicant’s proposed voluntary annual

goodwill contribution to the Cragsmoor Fire District. M.13 Comment: What’s the tax base for this area, and can we afford to increase the

population and the wear and tear on the roads and the community at the detriment of taxes (Jeff Kraft, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006)?

M.13 Response: See Responses M.1 and M.8. M.14 Comment: Is the Board going to look into the strong business component of the

Hermitage and their tax-exempt status? And will that be in anything you put out for us to see (Irene Dunn, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006)?

M.14 Response: Because Dharmakaya is a non-profit organization, the Hermitage has no

business component. See Response A.19. N. Cultural Resources (historical and archeological) N.1 Comment: What about the Historical aspect of our community that so many of us

have struggled to preserve (June McCombs, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated November 25, 2006)?

N.1 Response: The purpose of the Phase 1 report is to identify the potential for the

project area, specifically the area of potential effect (APE), to contain prehistoric and/or historic cultural resources, and to determine through a field reconnaissance survey whether such resources are present within the project area. The Cragsmoor Historic District is well documented, and was referenced in the Phase 1A. While it would be informative to include more detailed information concerning the


Cragsmoor Historic District and the Cragsmoor Inn in the Phase 1 report, it was not necessary for such information to be presented in order to make the determination concerning the potential for prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the APE.

N.2 Comment: Please provide an original copy of the archeology report that is included in the DEIS (Kenneth Markunas, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator, memo dated November 29, 2006).

N.2 Response: CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants has provided an original

copy of the revised Phase 1 report to OPRHP for review by Kenneth Markunas and Douglas Mackey. The copy of the report was produced from original documents, including maps and photographs, to ensure that the copy submitted to OPRHP was legible. In the letter from Mr. Markunas, he requested a number of items, including visual simulations, elevation, sections, etc., that have been included within this FEIS as part of other Chapter III responses.

N.3 Comment: The main deficiencies in City/Scape’s report arise from a failure to

recognize and adequately address the potential for historic archeological resources within the project area, portions of which lie within the Cragsmoor Historic District. The fact that the investigation occurred within and adjoining the Historic District should have triggered a more intensive and careful evaluation of potential project impacts (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.3 Response: Although a portion of the Historic District does extend into the northern

portion of the project area, research indicates that this area has never contained structures of any kind. Along Cragsmoor Road, the gates that provide access to Old Inn Road are within the historic district boundary, but the Mahamudra Buddhist Hermitage property, which has an access point on Cragsmoor Road some distance south of these gates, does not include the intersection of Old Inn Road and Cragsmoor Road.

The research demonstrated, as noted above, that no standing structures associated with the Cragsmoor Inn or its golf course were located within the APE, a conclusion that was supported by the Phase 1B survey, which confirmed that the proposed project area contained no historic cultural resources. With respect to the J. L. Decker farm, which was identified in the southeastern portion of the project area on late 19th Century maps, no evidence of this structure or outbuildings associated with it was identified in the Phase 1B survey. Visual inspection of the land on the south side of Old Inn Road by the Principal Investigator, Stephanie Roberg-Lopez, M.A., R.P.A., combined with sub-surface testing, identified no evidence of foundations or any surface materials associated with either prehistoric or historic usage. If foundations or surface evidence had been observed along Old Inn Road or elsewhere on the site, it would have been appropriate to test those areas, even if outside the APE, but, if such resources were present, but buried, then the preferred approach, according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, would be to leave them in situ.


Given that the community is fully aware of the historic resources in the area, the purpose of “a more intensive and careful evaluation” of the Cragsmoor Historic District is somewhat unclear. The potential project impacts were intensively and carefully evaluated by highly qualified professionals prior to undertaking the Phase 1B.

N.4 Comment: Page one of the report states that the project area lies partially within the Cragsmoor Historic District but does not discuss why the Historic District exists or why much of the community of Cragsmoor is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Although the report includes a series of maps, none illustrate the overlap between the Historic District and the project area (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.4 Response: To address this comment, we have revised the Phase 1A report to include

this information (see Appendix J). Please refer to DEIS Figure III-4: Cragsmoor Historic District Map, and DEIS Figure IV.K-4: Cragsmoor Historic District Map Showing Project Site Building Locations.

N.5 Comment: The investigators did not consult local research facilities such as the

Cragsmoor Free Library, the Cragsmoor Historical Society, the Ellenville Public Library, or Mohonk Preserve. The first two are within walking distance of the project area and thus could easily have been accessed (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.5 Response: This was an oversight that has been corrected to the extent possible.

During a second site visit made in early 2007, the Principal Investigator, Stephanie Roberg-Lopez, and Gail T. Guillet, visited the Cragsmoor Free Library, where they gathered additional information, as well as a number of photographs of the Cragsmoor Inn and the golf course. The investigators attempted to visit the Cragsmoor Historical Society, but were told that it was closed. The Ellenville Public Library was contacted to determine if it had material relating to the Cragsmoor Inn and Cragsmoor Historic District. In particular, the investigators inquired if the library had a copy of the 1899 Map of the Central Part of the Shawangunk Mountains, and were informed that neither the Ellenville library nor the museum had any such map. The investigators also contacted the Mohonk Reserve, in the hope that it might have a copy of the 1899 map, but while it does have a copy of the map relating to that particular section of the mountains, it does not have a copy of the central portion. Research indicates that the only person known to be in possession of this particular map is Ms. Harris herself, who not only did not reveal this information, but has not offered it for inspection. A very poor copy of the map can be found in the back of the Hakam & Houghtaling pamphlet, titled Cragsmoor: an Historical Sketch, but it was not possible to read the information included on the map or make an adequate copy for inclusion in the revised report. It continues to be the investigators’ professional opinion that, while deficiencies in the research completed for a particular project can always be pointed out, the information required to make a valid assessment of the potential for the project area to contain prehistoric and/or historic cultural resources was reviewed at the time that the initial Phase 1A was completed. Nonetheless, a revised Phase 1A report is attached to this FEIS within Appendix J.


N.6 Comment: Some of the historic maps included in the report appear to have been

printed directly from microfilm and thus are of poor quality. Additionally, the map sequence is incomplete. Because of this, the period of the project area’s greatest sensitivity has not been adequately depicted (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.6 Response: Some of the maps available at the New York State Library, where the

research was done, are not of the best quality, but this is not uniformly the case; in the original Phase 1 report the maps are clear and entirely legible. However, a problem with maps that have been repeatedly been copied is that they become increasingly illegible, and it may be that this is the case with the copy of the report reviewed by the commenter. As noted above, the Phase 1A report has been revised (see Appendix J), and legible maps are provided for the final report. With respect to the comment that the map sequence is incomplete, the only map that we are aware was not included was the 1899 Smiley map. For the reasons stated above (See Response N.5), the copy of that map included in the Hakam & Houghtaling pamphlet was examined, but because of its extremely poor quality, was not included in the revised Phase 1 report.

N.7 Comment: The land use history of the project area’s immediate environs is not

accurately represented. The Cragsmoor Inn, the historic property that formerly adjoined the project area, is mentioned only in passing and its predecessor, a private home known as “Wawbeek,” is not mentioned at all. The report’s failure to discuss these two structures is problematic. Due to the proximity of these structures to the project area and the potential presence of archaeological and structural remains associated with them, the history of these structures should have been a primary focus of the City/Scape investigation. Please consult the 1899 Smiley Map, which is available locally (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.7 Response: CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants does not believe that the

focus of its investigation should have been on the Cragsmoor Inn and its predecessor. “Wawbeek” and the Cragsmoor Inn, whether considered as a single entity or two, were located on the north side of Old Inn Road and, therefore, entirely outside the APE of the proposed project. While clearly the commenter must consider these resources of historic importance, we would point out that this has not always been so, and that in 1970 the structure was “burned as a fire drill by the Cragsmoor Volunteer Fire Co. (Hakam & Houghtaling 1983:24), suggesting the Cragsmoor Inn was not until recently the focus of such intense community interest. We would also note that research indicates that "Wawbeek" [sic] was not a private home, but was built by Charles Geilhard as a boarding house to serve the summer tourists. He built "Wawbeck" on the site of the Cragsmoor Inn after the J. L. Decker house – known then as "Mountain House," and which he purchased in 1884 – burned to the ground in 1887. When the Stauvant family purchased "Wawbeck" from Geilhard in 1905, they made substantial changes to the building and renamed it the Cragsmoor Inn.

Again, with reference to the 1899 Smiley map, which the commenter states is available locally, we attempted to examine the map at the Cragsmoor Library,


where we understood it was available, but, if it is in the collection, the librarian was unable to locate it at the time of our visit. We then consulted the pamphlet, Cragsmoor - an Historical Sketch, which includes the map, but the quality of the reproduction is so poor that, with the exception of the words Lake Maratanza, Losee’s Hill and Cragsmoor, it is completely illegible. That map is not, however, identified as the Smiley map, but is identified as the “Map of the Central Part of the Shawangunk Mountains.”

N.8 Comment: The structure of the Phase 1B field testing methodology makes it very difficult to accept the investigators’ conclusion that there are no archaeological concerns within the site of the proposed project. Because their assumption is that the project area and its immediate environs were uninhabited during the historic period, the filed testing strategy is essentially flawed (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.8 Response: The Phase 1B testing strategy focused on the APE, or Area of Potential

Effect. It appears that either through oversight or lack of information on current testing strategies, an assumption has been made that the entire project area required sub-surface testing. In fact, only those areas within the APE are considered for Phase 1B testing. In fact, based on map research, the only area that might have contained historic cultural resources was the southeastern portion of the site, where the J. L. Decker house was located. The visual inspection of the area and the results of the Phase 1B survey indicate that no evidence of this structure remains. Bearing in mind that “immediate environs” is a somewhat unscientific term, suggesting an undefined envelope around the project area, there can be no doubt that CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants is well aware of historic habitation in the southeastern portion of the site, and the general vicinity of the site, and has thoroughly documented it in the Phase 1A Literature Review. We must reiterate, however, that the Phase 1B testing focuses on the Area of Potential Effect. Therefore, archaeological concerns focused primarily on testing for the presence of buried prehistoric and historic cultural resources within the APE. This testing was conducted using the methodology developed by the New York State Archaeological Council NYSAC, of which the Principal Investigator is a member. The Principal Investigator, like Ms. Harris, is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA). While the visual inspection of the site did not identify any prehistoric or historic cultural material, the strategy for sub-surface testing includes a statistical possibility that undocumented subsurface prehistoric and historic resources may be encountered. Neither prehistoric nor historic cultural sites were identified during testing.

N.9 Comment: Many of the maps included in the DEIS are illegible, most notably the map entitled “Field Reconnaissance Map,” which serves as the Project Map for this investigation. Because the individual shovel test numbers/transect numbers cannot be read, there is no way to interpret the results of the investigation (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.9 Response: The revised Phase 1A and Phase 1B report (see Appendix J) includes a

large-scale field map. As noted above, the issue of illegible maps was resolved in the revised report.


N.10 Comment: Revised formatting requirements for Phase 1 Archaeological Reports were issued by OPRHP in May 2005. This report does not comply with a number of these. Among the missing elements are: Management Summary, directional arrow on the Field Reconnaissance Map, photographs that are keyed to a project map (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.10 Response: These omissions are corrected in the revised Phase 1 report (Appendix J). N.11 Comment: There are several typos and repeating paragraphs in the report,

suggesting that it may have been hastily assembled. Additionally, some of the sources cited in the text do not appear in the bibliography (ex: Survey conducted at Sam’s Point Preserve). Please correct oversights before report is finalized (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.11 Response: These oversights are corrected in the revised Phase 1 report (Appendix J).

N.12 Comment: The report makes several references to the “professional excavation” of OPRHP prehistoric site #A111.19.00292, located on the shoreline of Lake Maratanza. This site was not professionally excavated. It was initially identified by an avocational archaeologist and is clearly recognized as such in the OPRHP site files. Please correct (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.12 Response: This correction is included in the revised Phase 1 report (Appendix J). N.13 Comment: The report makes several passing references to the many stone walls that

crisscross the project area. The Cragsmoor community considers these walls (many of which are over 150 years old and constructed by early farmers) to be important material remnants of our cultural and historic heritage. However, these are not discussed or documented in the report (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.13 Response: The importance of these resources to the local community has been

documented in the revised Phase 1 report (see Appendix J). N.14 Comment: OPRHP is reviewing the DEIS in accordance with Section 14.09 of the

New York State Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law of 1980. They have been unable to review Phase 1 Archaeological Report because they were having difficulty reading the maps and figures and requested an original copy of the report. As of this week, OPRHP has still not received the document, and their review of the DEIS should not be considered complete until they have read the archaeology report and issued formal comments (Wendy Harris, Cragsmoor resident, professional archeologist, memo dated December 20, 2007).

N.14 Response: As of March 2007, CITY/SCAPE: Cultural Resource Consultants was not

aware that OPRHP was having a problem with the maps and figures in the Phase 1 report. The problem of the legibility of the various maps and figures has been


discussed above. This comment has been addressed in the revised Phase 1 report that has been submitted to OPRHP. It should be noted that the procedure for the submission of reports to OPRHP is for the cultural resource consultant to provide a bound copy with first-generation maps and figures, which are more legible than second-, third- or fourth-generation copies. Some of the commenter’s concerns would have been addressed if the consultant had been asked to submit the report from our office, rather than as part of the DEIS.

N.15 Comment: We believe the Applicant should mitigate the impact by finding another

location for the Teacher’s House. New construction in the listed Historic District IS avoidable and easily mitigated by redesigning the site plan (Sally Matz, Cragsmoor Historical Society, President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

N.15 Response: Please refer to Response E.3. N.16 Comment: There is evidence of prehistoric activity in the area that was not

adequately looked into. A shovel full of dirt here and there with large unexplored spaces is not a study thoroughly done (Joanne and Richard Bierschenk, Cragsmoor residents, memo dated December 25, 2006).

N.16 Response: The methodology followed in the Phase 1B survey complies with the

requirements both of OPRHP and NYAC, which utilizes a 50-inch grid pattern across those areas within the APE that are identified as archaeologically sensitive. The areas of archaeological sensitivity exclude areas with slopes in excess of 12% (±18.5 acres of the ±30 acres within the APE), leaving ±11.6 acres with the APE that required testing. In addition, we would note that the proposed project area was used by the Cragsmoor Inn as a golf course. In the process of building the golf course, grading and other alterations to the terrain would have taken place, decreasing significantly the potential for intact prehistoric cultural resources to be present. The presence of a reported archaeological site on Bear Hill (Cragsmoor Rockshelter: OPRHP Site Identifier A11119.000291) indicates that the area was utilized by prehistoric peoples. This information was taken into consideration when designing the field methodology for the Mahamudra Buddhist Hermitage site. In keeping with the standard methodology, the project area was inspected for rock outcrops that might have been utilized as rockshelters or quarry sites. None were identified. The site was visually inspected to identify any prehistoric cultural material that might be lying on the surface of the ground. Finally, the project area within the APE was tested at intervals of 50 inches along transects conforming to the ground surface. The transects and shovel tests were entered on a field map, which was finalized as the Field Reconnaissance Map for the Phase 1 report. No prehistoric material of any kind was recovered from the Phase 1B excavations. Given the history of the site, this is not unexpected, and it was the conclusion of the Phase 1B that no further investigation of prehistoric potential on the site was warranted.

N.17 Comment: What about the historical preservation of the Cragsmoor community (Blake Benton, Cragsmoor resident, memo received December 26, 2006)?

N.17 Response: The Phase 1 report has pointed out the relationship of the project area’s

APE to the Cragsmoor Historic District and the historic structures within it that are


adjacent to the project area. These issues are further addressed in the revised Phase 1 report (see Appendix J). See also Response N.18.

N.18 Comment: The project area lies partially within the Cragsmoor Historic District but

the report does not discuss why the Historic District exists or why much of the community of Cragsmoor is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Not only is the National Register Nomination itself not cited, there is no mention of the history of Cragsmoor or the Cragsmoor Artists’ Colony (Douglas Mackey, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Program Analyst – Archeology, memo dated December 28, 2006).

N.18 Response: This issue has been addressed in the revised Phase 1 report (see

Appendix J), which includes a discussion of the Cragsmoor Historic District, the history of Cragsmoor and the Cragsmoor Artists’ Colony.

N.19 Comment: There is insufficient consideration of the Cragsmoor Inn, its association with the Historic District, its predecessor- a private home known as Wawbeek or the potential for either to have associated archaeological deposits within the project area. The location of these structures should have been identified and testing focused in those areas (Douglas Mackey, NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Program Analyst – Archeology, memo dated December 28, 2006).

N.19 Response: As discussed above, "Wawbeek" [sic] was never a private home, but was

specifically built as a boarding house to serve tourists in summer. The name of the boarding house, according to material in the Cragsmoor Free Library, is "Wawbeck." Both of these structures are located entirely outside the proposed APE. As such, no testing would have been required in the area of the Cragsmoor Inn (former site of “Wawbeck”). The revised Phase 1 report discusses the Cragsmoor Inn and “Wawbeck” in the context of the Cragsmoor Historic District and the history of Cragsmoor.

N.20 Comment: The DEIS acknowledges that the proposed teacher’s house is in the

historic district but makes no case as to why the building could not be sited elsewhere, so the open views could be protected and the privacy and setting of the two historic residences could be maintained. As sited, the proposed building constitutes an adverse impact on the historic district (Sally Matz, President, Cragsmoor Historical Society, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

N.20 Response: Please refer to Response E.3. N.21 Comment: The Cragsmoor Historical Society urges the Planning Board to request a

plan revision that protects the integrity of the historic district and the setting of the two affected historic residences (Sally Matz, President, Cragsmoor Historical Society, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

N.21 Response: Please refer to Response E.3.


N.22 Comment: The Cultural Resources report in the assessment of Historic Archeological Sensitivity indicates that there are no historic structures located within the boundaries of the proposed project area but the project area does contain the site of the Cragsmoor Golf Course Club House (Sally Matz, Cragsmoor Historical Society, President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

N.22 Response: The Cragsmoor Golf Course Clubhouse is "Beveridge Cottage," which

was built as a private house, briefly served as the golf course clubhouse when it was a public course after Cragsmoor Inn closed, and is now, again a private house. The "Beveridge Cottage" is outside the project area, though adjacent to it. See also Response N.8.

N.23 Comment: The Historical Society is concerned with a proposal by the Cragsmoor

Fire District seeking a substantial upgrade to the Inn Road, possibly requiring the removal of the national register listed stone entry gates at Cragsmoor Road. Such an upgrade would bring a significant adverse impact on the district (Sally Matz, President, Cragsmoor Historical Society, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

N.23 Response: It is the Applicant's understanding that, after investigation, the Fire District

has determined that no modification or removal of the Old Inn Road Stone Entry gates is necessary. The opening between the stone piers is a bit less than 15 feet (approximately 14 feet, 9 inches) which is adequate to accommodate fire apparatus including the required turn into Old Inn Road from Cragsmoor Road. The fire district has also indicated that Old Inn Road will not need to be widened from its current width. While the Fire District indicated that pull-off areas need to be provided along the roads length so vehicles during any emergency would be able to pass. Upon further field investigation and discussion with the Old Inn Road Neighborhood Association, it appears that the existing driveways at each residential driveway entrance will accommodate this requirement, without the need for any other road widening. It is important to note that Old Inn Road will function only as a secondary emergency entrance for Fire and other emergency vehicles. The main entrance and exit from Dharmakaya is on Cragsmoor Road.

N.24 Comment: The Historical Society is also concerned with the proposal by the

Cragsmoor Fire District seeing a substantial upgrade to Inn Road as it passes through the Historic District. This would most likely require the removal of the National Register-listed Stone Entry Gates at Cragsmoor Road and the line of trees leading up the hill from the gate. Changing the scale and eliminating important characteristics of the road would virtually destroy its historic value. Such an upgrade would bring a significant adverse impact on the district. If a second access road is needed for the project to meet safety standards, then we suggest a study of alternatives including a new second access road on Dharmakaya property that could be dedicated to emergency access (Sally Matz, Cragsmoor Historical Society, President, memo dated December 21, 2006).

N.24 Response: See Response N.23. N.25 Comment: It may behoove the town to require the town hire an architect or an

archeological expert at their expense and have him on site doing all excavation.


Because I think between bulldozers, excavators and backholes, they are going to move a lot more dirt than 212 shovelfuls (Dick Nolan, Cragsmoor resident, Public Hearing November 30, 2006).

N.25 Response: The cultural resources investigation has complied with the requirements

and standards of the Secretary of the Interior, the OPRHP and the New York State Archaeological Council (NYSAC).

O. Noise O.1 Comment: What limits would the township impose so Cragsmoor residents would

not be inundated by constant construction-related noise (Joan Lesikin, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 24, 2006)?

O.1 Response: As discussed above, the Applicant has proposed to mitigate construction-

related noise impacts by limiting construction to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays, with no construction activities occurring on Sundays. This construction schedule is more stringent than that provided for in the Town of Wawarsing Noise Ordinance. In addition, the Applicant will use noise damping practices during construction to minimize the impact on surrounding properties, and all mechanical construction equipment will be maintained in good working order to minimize noise. As discussed, no blasting is expected to occur during any construction phase. See Response C.4.

O.2 Comment: I just would like the Planning Board to consider the impact of the noise

and construction equipment for ten or more years (Walter Meily, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

O.2 Response: As discussed above, depending upon success of its programming and

fundraising efforts, Dharmakaya intends to complete all phases of construction in a seven year period. Construction phases would be limited to 12 to 18 months, with quiet periods in between phases with no construction activity. Should construction, for any reason, take place at a slower pace, there would be even longer periods between construction phases. See Response A.9. The size of the project, considering this long build out period, will not result in intensive construction activity at any one time. Regarding noise and construction equipment see Responses C.4, O.1, Q.1, and Q.2. Construction on the site will not be constant, and will be spread over a period of years. The large size of the site will further serve to limit noise impacts.

P. Analysis of Alternatives P.1 Comment: The DEIS compares the impacts of the proposal with possible as-of-right

development and concludes that the Hermitage proposal would have lower impacts than a standard subdivision. We would suggest that “as-of-right” development is a poor measure of what would be suitable because of the sensitivity of the site. We remain concerned about the proposed disturbance of 39% of the site, which will result in permanent loss of habitat, erosion and stormwater impacts and impacts on


ground and surface waters (Heidi Wagner, The Nature Conservancy, Preserve Manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident, memo dated December 21, 2006).

P.1 Response: The as-of-right residential subdivision was chosen as an alternative

because it is the land use allowed under the Town of Wawarsing’s current zoning, and therefore represents a reasonable alternative to the proposed Hermitage. The comments concerning site disturbance, habitat, erosion and stormwater impacts, and ground and surface water impacts, are addressed in the substantive sections of the FEIS dealing with those impacts. (See, for example, Responses A.1, A.3, A.9, A.32, A.35, C.8, C.16, E.7, E.8, F.6, F.15, F.17, G.5, G.8, G.21, G.22, G.23, G.24, G.28, I.3 and Section J). However, it is briefly noted again that, in response to public concerns, the Applicant has reduced the size and scale of the proposed project, resulting in a decrease in occupancy, number of buildings, total square footage and parking. See Response C.3. The modifications will generate a significant reduction in total site disturbance, to less than 34 percent. See Tables III.A-1 and III.A-2, above, for a revised summary of the site disturbance under the modified site plan.

The original project proposal kept the Shawangunk Ridge ecological community intact. See Response A.9. The proposed reduction in size reduces any potential habitat impacts. The stormwater design, which includes erosion and sediment control measures (both during and post-construction), will comply with the NYSDEC Phase II Stormwater Regulations. The Applicant conducted an extensive study of ground water conditions resulting from the proposed development, which found there will not be any significant impacts. These issues are discussed at greater length in the appropriate sections of the FEIS.

P.2 Comment: A particular deficiency of the DEIS is its violation of the SEQRA

requirements to review reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The lack of discussion of any realistic alternative is a glaring error for a project of such size compared to its setting. Failure to consider a smaller-scale project where necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts is a fatal error in the DEIS (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

P.2 Response: The range of alternatives presented in the DEIS is reasonable. The DEIS

analysis did not disclose impacts which compelled the applicant to include any additional alternatives relating to project size in order to mitigate project impacts. Moreover, the DEIS thoroughly revealed and examined impacts relating to construction and development on the various sections of the site, creating the opportunity for comments targeted to eliminating or lessening development in any particular area based on perceived impacts. Many comments on the DEIS suggested reduction in size in either particular or general terms. While there was no flaw in the DEIS, and while the reduction in size was not necessary to mitigate impacts, in response to public comments during the review process, the Applicant has reduced the size of the project. See Responses C.3 and P.1.

P.3 Comment: One final impact which is ignored is the alternatives. They only list three

alternatives. One is no action, which of course no developer is ever interested in


pursuing. One is to basically build a housing investment, which is an interesting alternative and one they are not interested in. The other is an alternative site. They never look at the possibility as to whether or not their purposes of establishing a meditative retreat can be accomplished by anything less than a 17-building, 78,000-square-foot facility (David Gordon, attorney for Cragsmoor Association, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

P.3 Response: See Response P.2. P.4 Comment: The DEIS compared the impacts of the proposal with possible as-of-right

development and concludes that the Hermitage proposal will have lower impacts than a standard subdivision. We would suggest that as-of-right development is a poor measure of what would be suitable because of the sensitivity of the site (Heidi Wagner, Preserve Manager for Sam’s Point Preserve, Cragsmoor resident, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

P.4 Response: See Response P.1. P.5 Comment: The DEIS acknowledges that the proposed teacher’s house is in the

historic district but makes no case as to why the building could not be sited elsewhere, so the open views could be protected and the privacy and setting of the two historic residences could be maintained. As sited, the proposed building constitutes an adverse impact on the historic district (Sally Matz, President Cragsmoor Historical Society, at public hearing November 30, 2006).

P.5 Response: The Applicant has modified the proposed site plan to relocate the

Teacher’s House to the southwest, further into the interior of the project site, from its currently proposed location just off Old Inn Road. This relocation would avoid construction within the viewshed from Old Inn Road down the former golf course fairway, and the Teacher’s House would sit at a significantly lower elevation relative to the road (approximately 30 feet lower). In addition, the Teacher’s House will be moved approximately 225 feet to the southeast from the neighboring residence located immediately to the northeast of the project site, eliminating the need for the curb cut off of Old Inn Road previously proposed to provide access the Teacher’s House. While the new location of the Teacher’s House and Guest Teacher’s House are also within the Cragsmoor Historic District, the new location screens both structures from off-site views.

Q. Unavoidable Impacts Q.1 Comment: The largest and final phase of the project will begin only in 2015. It will

be bad enough to have heavy construction-related truck traffic disturbing the pristine, scenic roadways approaching the Cragsmoor summit over so many years. It is even worse that it disturbs the precious aesthetic quality and unusual community character of the Cragsmoor creative artist environment with at least nine years of heavy trucks, with ensuing noise and odors typically accompanying such traffic. Please include this significant negative traffic impact on community character in the


EIS (David Porter, consultant to Cragsmoor Association to review the DEIS traffic analysis, memo dated November 29, 2006).

Q.1 Response: The largest phase of the proposed project is the first phase, which will

consist of the Milarepa Meditation Center and associated support facilities, as well as site infrastructure such as interior roads, drainage facilities, water distribution, and septic systems. Based on the modified site plan, this phase will involve approximately one-third of the total project building square footage and approximately 50 percent of the total site disturbance. This phase is expected to last between 12 and 15 months. The final phase of construction is presently expected to be the Bodhisattva Dharma Center and the Welcome Center, plus the balance of the parking, with the construction period of approximately 12 months. While that structure is the largest building of the proposed project, its size has been reduced by nearly 11 percent under the modified site plan, and this construction phase will represent about 24 percent of the total project building square footage and approximately one-quarter of the total disturbance. As to further discussion of phasing possibilities, see Response J.3.

As discussed earlier, depending upon success of its programming and fundraising

efforts, Dharmakaya intends to complete all phases of construction in a seven year period. Construction phases would be limited to 12 to 18 months, with quiet periods in between phases with no construction activity. See Response A.9. This measured development pace is congruent with the low-impact nature of the proposed use, and will minimize construction-related impacts. See Responses C.4, K.13, K.14, O.1 and O.2 for further discussion about construction-related noise and traffic impacts.

Q.2 Comment: A back of the envelope calculation reveals that approximately 300

truckloads of bank run gravel will be needed for the construction of fill-type septic systems. What other resources will be brought to the site? How many truckloads will be needed? How many trucks per day will be coming to the site during each phase of construction? A numeric estimate of heavy truck traffic is needed to characterize the impact on the community and environment (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

Q.2 Response: As described in Response K.13, with the exception of the special fill

required for the SSDSs (septics) the project will have a balance of cut and fill. The phasing of the project is such that not all of the SSDSs will be constructed at one time. The phase where the Common House is built will require the most imported material for the SSDS and we have projected that the construction will result in approximately 160 truck trips over a four-week period. This would result in eight deliveries per day or an average of one per hour. The addition of one truck per hour coming into and exiting the site would have no impact on the traffic in the area.

Q.3 Comment: Long-term adverse effects that are not included in the DEIS include:

withdrawal of 18 gallons per minute from local aquifers serving the community; withdrawal of 18 gallons per minute from a local aquifer with limited recharge; upgradient – lowering the water table in the bedrock aquifer over a large area


where each home draws from the aquifer; downgradient – interrupting the recharge of downgradient unconsolidated aquifers supplying homes along Cragsmoor Road, Route 52 and Clark Road; changing runoff rates to wetlands; creating sewage seepage points at the toe of septic fields; and changing the viewshed from Route 52, Cragsmoor Road and Bear Hill (Katherine Beinkafner, Mid-Hudson Geosciences, consultant to Cragsmoor Association, memo dated December 26, 2006).

Q.3 Response: As described in various responses in Section III.H, the Applicant’s

hydrogeologist, LBG, has thoroughly studied the proposed water use and its impact on the aquifer and neighboring wells. The study found that only the two wells closest to the development showed any impact; however, it was minimal, and the Applicant has committed to monitoring these wells for two years after the complete build-out of the project. The study and well tests also concluded that there is adequate water available for the Dharmakaya Hermitage. The town retained its own independent expert in hydrogeology, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., to review the Applicant’s study as well as those prepared by consultants hired by the Cragsmoor Association. Malcolm Pirnie’s report can be found in Appendix D. More detailed discussions of issues raised in this comment regarding the proposed water system can be found in Responses H.3, H.4, H.12, H.14, H.17, H.30, H.31, H.34 and H.49.

With respect to the change in runoff to the wetlands, as stated in Response I.6, the construction will not create any change in runoff to any of the wetland areas. The contributory areas to the wetlands themselves are not changing in the post-construction condition. A discussion of septics and their potential for seepage can be found in Responses G.10 and G.18. Additional studies have been completed of the viewsheds for the project, and we have found that there is no negative impact on the viewsheds due to the proposed action. A detailed description of the additional viewshed analyses can be found in Responses E.1, E.8, E.11, E.12 and E.21.

FEIS Chapter III - Comments and Responses

Documents

Transcript of FEIS Chapter III - Comments and Responses