February 26, 2025, Planning Board Special Meeting Transcript - WEHI

25 of 46 sheets Page 97 to 100 of 115 03/03/2025 06:36:47 AM 97 are standards from five or six years ago that had1 nothing to do with the 100-year project and as you look2 at five or six years ago were they projecting the3 stormwater runoff?4 THE WITNESS: Were they projecting the5 future storm sizes?6 THE PUBLIC: Yeah.7 THE WITNESS: That's was when we saw the8 latest rules, inland flooding rules and I believe that9 was, I can't remember the date now, but two or three10 years ago.11 THE PUBLIC: If you looked at the old12 standards versus the new standards, and looking forward13 to our future with environmental degradation, would you14 say that the new standards, which you're not even15 governed by, would be woefully inadequate for the future16 10, 20 years?17 THE WITNESS: I don't know if I can speak18 what it's going to look like in 10, 20 years compared to19 the new standards I have. That's like an evaluation, so20 like the DEP rules that I am not really, I don't think I21 could talk to that point. Are you trying to imply22 they're going to be even worse?23 THE PUBLIC: Absolutely.24 THE WITNESS: I haven't reviewed data to like25 98 give that kind of professional opinion on it, so I don't1 think I can comment on that.2 THE PUBLIC: Army Corps of Engineers, have3 you taken into consideration what they plan to do4 downstream on the Rahway River, the Orange Reservoir,5 that's an improved future project for stormwater runoff?6 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't seen any of7 those plans.8 THE PUBLIC: Are you aware that the9 topography of this land supplies water to two river10 systems, the Canoe Brook and the Rahway River systems?11 THE WITNESS: Yeah, that was my12 understanding.13 THE PUBLIC: Have you look at the percentage14 of water running off of each of these two different15 systems?16 THE WITNESS: From this section itself you17 mean?18 THE PUBLIC: This project. You know, this19 mountain side.20 THE WITNESS: I discussed a little bit how21 it was draining to wetlands that are headwaters of that22 area.23 THE PUBLIC: The wetlands are which river24 system?25 99 THE WITNESS: Well, this is Canoe Brook on1 the left and I think -- well, I'll be honest, I was2 focused on the site. I don't know exactly where these3 feed into and what their headway's are. The stormwater4 analysis is pretty close to the site and that's where I5 was trying to put my focus on.6 THE PUBLIC: Would

te. I don't know exactly where these3 feed into and what their headway's are. The stormwater4 analysis is pretty close to the site and that's where I5 was trying to put my focus on.6 THE PUBLIC: Would it be possible for you to7 do that evaluation?8 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to that9 so let's -- he didn't testify to that.10 THE PUBLIC: He didn't?11 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: He didn't testify to that.12 You can ask him questions about what he testified to.13 Right now you used up your time. Thank you very much.14 THE PUBLIC: You're welcome.15 CHAIRMAN BAGOFF: Any other members of the16 public have questions for Mr. Walsh on his testimony?17 Please come up.18 THE PUBLIC: Jessica Pearson again. Thank19 you.20 So picking up on a couple other things that21 were said by other members of the public. You looked at22 their calculations for peak flow?23 THE WITNESS: Yes.24 THE PUBLIC: Okay.25 100 And you looked at them under present1 conditions and it's natural state?2 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's the benchmark3 used.4 THE PUBLIC: And then you looked at their5 calculations based on the 2, 10 and 100-year storms?6 THE WITNESS: For existing conditions, yes.7 THE PUBLIC: Under existing and then their8 proposed conditions in various states of development9 depending on which portion of the site and which10 watershed they were talking about, right?11 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I didn't try to12 recalculate what they did in proposed conditions. I was13 measuring against the new -- the way, I would call them14 revised peak flow, existing peak flow evaluations.15 THE PUBLIC: So when you explained their16 calculations you had stated that, we know that they're17 not running calculations for the future for year 2100,18 we know that they're not running calculations based upon19 the new rainfall totals currently, but going back to the20 2021 stormwater ordinance, before the new rainfall21 totals were wrapped up for Essex County, accordingly22 were their proposed conditions meeting the muster of23 that ordinance or did they fall under even there?24 THE WITNESS: I think based on my analysis25