Town board delays completeness decision on IWS draft environmental impact statement pending ERB input

The Town Board of Goshen on July 10 discussed whether the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) submitted by the IWS project is sufficiently complete for public review and decided to defer a formal completeness determination to allow the Environmental Review Board (ERB) time to provide written comments.

Sean (staff member) told the board it must determine, under state regulations, whether the DEIS complies with the final written scope the board adopted and whether it provides necessary information for the public and involved agencies to evaluate impacts. He told the board one item of concern is that the applicant has not finished a geotechnical investigation and instead proposed to complete that work later. “It can’t, in my opinion, be left open‑ended with the DEIS,” Sean said, and recommended requiring either a test plan or a specific trigger for when the geotechnical work and any required remediation will occur.

The board was reminded that the state regulations establish a 45‑day deadline for the lead agency to make a completeness determination; with the DEIS submitted on June 16, that deadline falls on July 31. Sean advised the board to allow the ERB to finish and transmit its comments and said he would circulate his memo to the ERB and the applicant.

Board members asked whether the determination should be made at this meeting or at the next meeting; Sean recommended waiting until the next meeting so the ERB can advise the board. The board discussed options to give the ERB more time, including scheduling a special meeting between July 24 and July 31, but Sean cautioned that if the applicant resubmits a revised DEIS the board would have 30 days to act on the resubmission. He emphasized that any grounds for finding the DEIS incomplete must be provided to the applicant in writing and that, if the board finds it inadequate, that finding must be in writing.

The board also discussed a few substantive concerns raised by members, including handling of unauthorized waste identified in the DEIS materials and the applicant’s stated plan for its removal. Members were instructed to submit any written comments to Mary so the board can compile and forward them to the applicant and the ERB.

The board did not make a formal completeness determination at the July 10 meeting. Sean said his expectation is the board is “likely going to say that it’s inadequate,” but he and the board members agreed to wait for the ERB’s written input and for the applicant to respond before issuing a written determination.

What happens next: the board will receive written comments from the ERB (and any additional board comments submitted through Mary), will circulate Sean’s memo to the ERB and applicant, and will take up a formal completeness determination at a future meeting before the regulatory deadline.