Hi Julia,

Here is our response to your questions. If you have any more questions, please let me know.
Regards,
Melissa
Response to Questions
Why did the Gould family choose this moment to enter the process?

1. The Belleayre resort application is essentially a tale of two projects. Crossroads initially filed an
application with DEC to construct a two-part resort complex which included both Wildacres, and
a huge development on a parcel known as Big Indian, which lies east of Belleayre Mountain Ski
Center (BMSC). A hearing process convened in 2005 resulted in the 2007 signing of the
Agreement in Principle, or AIP, which, under the guidance of Eliot Spitzer, struck a private
bargain to move a major part of the construction from the east side of the BMSC (Big Indian ) to
the west side of the BMSC (Highmount). This new location, to be built on the ridge and the
steep slopes adjacent to the defunct Highmount ski center borders our property. We have
requested since 2012 to meet with DEC to express our concerns about the extensive Highmount
development. Although Mr. Weintraub claims the review of this project has been ongoing for
15 years, in essence, we did not have any opportunity to comment on the new project involving
Highmount until the supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS) for the
project was released to the public in the Spring of 2013. Pursuant to the SEQR process, the
public had only three months to review all of the voluminous documents and accompanying
exhibits released by DEC. We filed extensive comments on the SDEIS in July 2013 and raised a
number of concerns demonstrating that: the stormwater modeling and plan were flawed, the
economic data contained in reports dating back to 2007/2008 were stale especially in light of
the major recession that struck the country following that time period, and that the rejection of
the No-Highmount alternative had no support in any of the extensive documents filed by
Crossroads.
In early 2014, when we discovered pursuant to a FOIL request that Crossroads had submitted
after closure of the public comment period, at least four new reports or analyses to DEC, we
again attempted a meeting with DEC. That request was also rejected and DEC has not provided
any official forum for us to comment on those new reports.

When the project was changed so that major construction was moved from Big Indian to
Highmount, the hearing was placed in abeyance. DECs motion to dismiss, filed this past
September, reopened the process after all these years and we promptly filed our petition
for party status.

2.

Larry Weintraub, in the memorandum of law he issued on Dec. 8, addresses the issues that you raise in your
petition (stormwater runoff, flooding, economic feasibility) and argues that they have all been dealt with in the
FEIS and its comments. He also dismisses much of Millspaugh's reasoning. How do you respond to that?

Many of Mr. Weintraubs allegations are not borne out by the facts. For example, he
states several times that DEC staff reviewed all of the comments submitted during the
SEQR process and have not identified any substantive and significant
issues. Circumstances belie that claim. As noted above, after the public comment

period closed, the applicant Crossroads submitted to DEC at least four new studies and
analyses. These included two new economic studies (this time dated 2013), a new NoHighmount alternative analysis, and an updated stormwater management review. These
new studies and analyses specifically spoke to issues raised in our comments, and in
comments submitted by other interested parties. If in fact the documents were complete
and correct after all of those years of review cited by Mr. Weintraub, there should have
been no need for the expenditure of time and money to produce these additional
reports. We note that none of these new submittals by Crossroads were put out for public
review and comment by DEC, and there are significant flaws in each. Given how DEC
has structured these proceedings, our only opportunity to be heard on these issues is
through the instant hearing procedure and it appears that DEC has stymied us in that
regard as well. In our comments to the SDEIS submitted back in July 2013, we attached
a report prepared by Mr. Millspaugh that provided specific comments concerning flaws
in Crossroads HydroCAD model and in the stormwater plan in general. Obviously,
DEC and Crossroads must have found merit in some of those comments or there would
have been no need to produce an updated stormwater report. However, the updated
stormwater analysis assumptions regarding the ditches at Rte 49A were changed in order
to model an existing baseline condition that precludes water overtopping the road. Such
change in a model artificially overstates the preconstruction peak flow at certain design
points which would invalidate a comparison between the pre and the post-construction
condition in their HydroCad model.
Mr. Weintraub also states that the probability of storms exceeding the 100-year storm
event in the project area is so low that it would be unreasonable to prepare for their
mitigation. However, such storms already have occurred in the project area in recent
years (Irene and Lee) and in his comments Mr. Millspaugh referenced a newly minted
report by New York State itself warning exactly of Mr. Millspaughs concerns storms
of greater frequency, magnitude and intensity.
These are just a few of the outstanding issues that require airing in an adjudicatory
hearing.

3. In his memo, does Weintraub address the issue of whether or not your family has a right
to be involved in the resort permitting proceedings?
Mr. Weintraub does not address, in any depth, whether our family has a right to be
involved in these proceedings. That is because after we filed our papers, we received
correspondence from Louis Alexander from OHMS stating that the Commissioner of
DEC, Joseph Martens, had ordered that a response to all petitions for party status and
cross motions be put on hold until DEC had responded to the papers addressing the
motion to dismiss. If OHMS grants DECs motion to dismiss, and essentially closes out
the hearing, OHMS essentially would be foreclosing our familys right to be heard on
these very important issues.
4. Is your family prepared to sue the DEC if it moves forward with the FEIS without
allowing you to become a party?

Even given the past conduct of DEC in this matter, we remain hopeful that the Agency
will follow its own regulations and grant our petition for party status, and then hear the
substantial and significant issues we have raised.
5. What is your ideal resolution of the resort controversy going forward?
.
We are not against development in the Belleayre area and would support the construction of an
appropriately sized resort at the Wildacres site. It is the construction of the Highmount Resort on
the steep slopes of Highmount that will create the worst environmental impacts. Contrary to
Crossroads allegations, the economics do not support the claims that the Highmount Resort is
necessary to the success of the entire endeavor.
We support a single lower-build resort, below Route 49A and located across from the Belleayre
Mountain Ski Area. The Wildacres Resort alone would still be a very large resort for the
Northeast, would provide a significant economic boost to the area in the form of job creation and
tourist attraction. A single location and reduced size closer to Route 28 would be more in line
with a smart growth model, where density is compact and driving is kept to a minimum because
guests are close to the golf course, skiing, spa, pool, and restaurant amenities. The location,
within walking distance of BMSC, would provide convenient lodging for skiers, bikers, and
hikers utilizing Belleayre Mountain resources.
A Wildacres-only Resort would eliminate the environmental degradation associated with steep
slope development of the Highmount Resort and Spa, and cumulative impacts associated with an
expanded BMSC onto the former Highmount Ski Area. Such associated negative environmental
impacts include; stormwater impacts from increased runoff and erosion, excessive noise (from
construction, snowmaking, grooming and resort occupancy 24/7), increased traffic on the narrow
and steep 49A above the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center Upper Entrance (from area residents,
construction, service vehicles, guest and employees), light pollution (from operating a 24/7 resort
located on the ridgeline with vehicles coming and going, snowmaking and grooming equipment,
and resort lighting from roadside and resort buildings), degradation of the community character
including the value and setting of the historic Galli-Curci estate, and visual impact of ridgeline
construction that can be easily seen from roads, public trails and the Balsam Fire Tower.