VERBATIM PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PUBLIC HEARING

FOR THE CONSISTENCY APPEAL

OF ISLANDER EAST PIPELINE CO., LLC

NOVEMBER 5, 2003

OMNI HOTEL

155 TEMPLE STREET

NEW HAVEN,CONNECTICUT

. . .Verbatim proceedings of a Public Hearing of the United States
Department of Commerce, In Re: Consistency Appeal of Islander East
Pipeline Co., L.L.C., held November 5, 2003, at the Omni Hotel, 155
Temple Street, New Haven, Connecticut. . .

CHAIRPERSON JAMES WALPOLE: Good morning and welcome. My name is Jim
Walpole. I'm the General Counsel of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration \-- we call it NOAA \-- which is an agency within the
U.S. Department of Commerce. And I will be serving as the Hearing
Officer for today's proceedings.

Let me briefly provide background on the Islander East appeal and remind
everyone of the procedures we will follow in conducting the hearing.

Our purpose today is to gather information for the Secretary of Commerce
to consider in deciding the Islander East Pipeline's administrative
appeal filed under the Coastal Zone Management Act, CZMA. NOAA is
responsible for handling many of the aspects under appeal for the
Secretary, such as conducting today's hearing.

The Coastal Zone Management Act allows the states with Coastal
Management Programs that are approved by NOAA to review activities that
require federal licenses or permits if the activities are expected to
affect any land or water use of the state's coastal zone. The state has
the opportunity to review these activities to determine whether the
project complies with the enforceable policies of the state's coastal
management program.

Islander East has sought federal permits from the FERC, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct
and operate a natural gas pipeline that would connect an existing
pipeline near North Haven and extend it to Long Island, New York. The
project would cross portions of the Long Island Sound and affect
Connecticut's coastal zone.

The Act required Islander East to file with the State of Connecticut a
certification for the pipeline project. The certification is required to
indicate that the planned construction and operation of the pipeline is
consistent with the state's coastal zone plan.

Connecticut disagreed and objected to Islander East's project. The
state's objection precludes federal agencies from granting any license
or permit for the project. However, the project may proceed if the
Secretary of Commerce overrides the state's objection.

Today's hearing is part of the process of collecting the information on
which the Secretary's decision will be based. Islander East's appeal
requests the Secretary of Commerce to override the State of
Connecticut's objection to the Islander East proposed pipeline on two
grounds.

First, an override \-- for an override, the Secretary must find that
Islander East's project either is not consistent with the \-- is
consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act or it
is necessary in the interest of national security.

A finding by the Secretary that either ground is satisfied is sufficient
for Islander East to prevail in its appeal.

NOAA's regulations implementing the CZMA provide further details
concerning the two substantive grounds, listing specific elements the
Secretary considers in deciding this aspect of the CZMA appeal. We have
prepared a handout highlighting these elements and it is available in
the foyer outside this room. The same information appears in NOAA's
January 24, 2003 Federal Register Notice concerning Islander East's
appeal.

As you may know, we have a Website with additional information about the
Coastal Zone Management Act, as well as the documents and comments
contained in the administrative record for the appeal. The address of
the Website is given out in the copies of my statement on Page 5.

Switching topics, there are a few procedural reminders before calling
out our first speaker. Persons interested in testifying at today's
hearing must first register. If you have not done so, you may register
in the hall outside this room.

Today's hearing will begin with opening statements from both parties,
Islander East and the State of Connecticut. We will then receive
testimony from members of the general public and representatives of
organizations, alternating between the two categories.

Speakers will be recognized in the order in which they have registered
on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the general public will
have three minutes for their remarks. Organizations will receive five
minutes.

There are also two periods, one in the morning session and one in the
afternoon, that we have set aside for remarks from elected officials.

Our hearing will have three sessions, morning, afternoon and evening. We
are planning on intermissions near noon and again around 4:30. And we
will announce the length of the intermissions before each recess. There
also may be short breaks during the course of the sessions if need be.

When you come to the microphone to testify, please be sure to state your
name and then spell your name clearly for the record in order for the
Court Reporter. The hearing is being transcribed and the transcript will
be included in the appeal record in which the Secretary relies in
reaching a decision.

Please remember it is essential that each speaker be afforded the
courtesy of having their comments heard regardless of the point of view.
Interruptions will only result in delays and inconvenience to everyone
here.\
Many people may wish to testify today, probably tonight. So I expect to
enforce the time limits. I will mention right now that in prior hearings
that we've had, we've had much larger crowds and we've had to
accommodate sometimes 150 witnesses in a day. And so the time limits
were important, that everyone had a chance to be heard.

Given this morning's session where we have relatively few people, you
know, I think it would be sensible to extend that to maybe five minutes
for individuals, if they want. They don't have to take that long. And
seven minutes for organizations.

But the purpose of the three minutes was not to reduce the testimony of
people but, rather, to allow everyone to testify. So today we don't have
that situation. So we'll be a little more lax.

To assist the speakers, we will let you know when you have 30 seconds by
holding up a card of the time.

Jeff, can you hold up the card just to show them?

Again I emphasize that the purpose of the hearing is to obtain
information for the administrative record which will be carefully
considered by the Secretary. Please focus your comments on topics that
are relevant to the issues the Secretary considers in deciding Islander
East's appeal. And those are the two items that I mentioned earlier.

Also, neither the parties nor I will engage in debate about the merits
of Islander East's proposed pipeline. However, I may ask questions of
witnesses if there is something that is not clear for the record.

Anyone who wishes to submit written comments instead of or in addition
to the testimony may do so today at our registration desk. Further, the
public comment period will run for some time after this. So we will
continue to accept written comments up to the end of the date of the
administrative record in the appeal. So if you have additional comments
that you'd like to make, feel free to submit those.

And, again, see our Website, which is referenced in my \-- copies of my
statement out in front.

In proceeding with our format today, we will turn next to the parties
who will each have 15 \-- each of the two parties who will have 15
minutes. Thank you for your interest in attending this hearing and
sharing your views.

I would also mention that there are emergency exits over to my right,
your left, by the cameraman. And through these exits, they lead to
another emergency exit through there. And, also, the rest rooms are in
the back lobby just by the registration desk.

Before calling our first witnesses here, I would ask if there are any
procedural questions concerning today's hearing. Does anyone have any
questions about how we're going to proceed?

There being none, let me begin the hearing by turning to the parties for
their remarks. And I believe Islander East will proceed first.

If you could remember to spell your name when you get up, I'd appreciate
it.

MR. CHUCK DAVERIO: Sure. Good morning. My name is Chuck Daverio,
D-a-v-e-r-i-o. I'm President of Islander East Pipeline. I would like to
take this opportunity to thank the U.S. Department of Commerce and
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Office for conducting this
hearing on our appeal of the CZM.

We believe that our project passes the hurdles required for the issuance
by the Secretary of an overturn. As you know, many days of hearings have
been held in many forums on this project, with many issues and decisions
rendered.

We are looking forward to hearing the comments of the parties and the
public today. And if any new issues are raised, we will address those in
our written comments that are due later. And I want to again thank you
for this opportunity to hold these hearings and listen to other people.
So I think at this point we'll waive the 15 minutes so that we can
listen to the parties and the public comments.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

State of Connecticut?

COMMISSIONER ARTHUR ROCQUE: Good morning, Mr. Walpole. Welcome to New
Haven. My name is Arthur J. Rocque, Jr. That's the fancy spelling of
Rocque. It's

R-o-c-q-u-e. I'm the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, which is the cognizant CZM agency in the State
of Connecticut.

I expect that somewhere in the sea of fog, rain and traffic is my
favorite lawyer, the Attorney General, who will be here to speak to you
as well this morning, hopefully.

I'm not going to embellish the record. The record is fairly clear, I
think, in this matter. The written record is extraordinarily clear. We
have had two certification attempts on this project. Both have been
rejected. They've been rejected on factual, scientific grounds.

What I would rather like to do is I would like to provide a slightly
different perspective, an historical perspective, if I may. You can
probably tell by my countenance that I've been around on the planet long
enough to perhaps have an historical perspective. I was actually one of
the State officials that was instrumental in the National Coastal Zone
Management Act's passage and its early implementation. And I'm also the
State official in Connecticut that designed the State's Coastal Zone
Management Program.

Prior to certification, coastal states were given the incentive of
federal consistency, the ability to take a look at federal projects and
public projects requiring \-- or private projects, rather, requiring
federal permits to determine whether they met the enforceable policies
of the state's approved CZM program.

Here in Connecticut, we didn't take the easy way. We actually put our
enforceable policies in statute. This project, simply put, does not meet
the enforceable policies. The certifications or denial of certifications
on this project make that very clear.

Before you, however, is a bigger question, in my humble opinion. And
that is whether the Secretary should overrule our failure to certify.
Simply put, should the Secretary do that, it is my considered opinion
that he'll blow the guts out of the state CZM program nationwide.

There is no other incentive for states to follow national policies in
the CZM program other than the ability to control projects that were
previously affecting their coastal zones and the resources therein
without having any say or any ability.

I note as well that in this particular project that the Federal Resource
Agencies have also agreed with our certification.

There is one other aspect that I will call to your attention also in the
written record and that is there is a viable alternative that literally
avoids all of the impacts associated with this particular project.

The project probably could not be placed in a more sensitive environment
in Long Island Sound or a more unique environment in Long Island than
going through Branford and the Thimble Islands. It's just simply not
acceptable. And the State of Connecticut stands very strongly by its
very considered, very clear and well-articulated denial of
certification.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Our first speaker will be Joan \-- Joel
Rinebold, Task Force on LIS per Public Act 03-95.

MR. JOEL RINEBOLD: Thank you very much for this opportunity to come
before you today. My name is Joel Rinebold. I'm with the Institute for
Sustainable Energy at Eastern \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell that please for the Court Reporter?

MR. RINEBOLD: Joel Rinebold,

R-i-n-e-b-o-l-d. I'm with the Institute for Sustainable Energy at
Eastern Connecticut State University. In year 2002, the Connecticut
General Assembly and Governor Rowland established a task force for the
protection of Long Island Sound. I was appointed as Chairperson of this
task force. I'm here to present this report and the data associated with
this task force to you today. I've already earlier this morning provided
copies of this to you.

I'm aware that you will have a daunting task before you to make this
decision on law and data. I'm here to provide you with some of the data
to assist you with this task.

The report addresses energy infrastructure, environmental resources,
alternatives and the regulatory process for solutions. In addition to
this written report, this report is on line in a digital format,
including the data with the mapping which has also been provided to you
in hard copy.

The review that we conducted included an inventory of environmental
data, evaluation of resources, methods to minimize crossings of Long
Island Sound and evaluation of impacts, inventory of crossings,
reliability and operational impacts and recommendations.

To summarize the recommendations of the task force, they include
improvement of the decision structure for solutions, including
coordination of decisions for energy infrastructure, protection of the
environment and consideration of alternatives. And this included
components for comparative analysis of alternatives, cumulative impact
analyses, regional planning and coordination among Connecticut and New
York, and the development of consistent preferential standards.

The preferential standards developed by the task force including
standards to first avoid crossing; second, minimize; third, mitigate;
and fourth, in this order, compensation. So there's been a strong
preference to avoid, as the first line of consideration.

Other recommendations include regulatory reform and to convert a
standard of benefit into a standard of need. This has been adopted by
the Connecticut General Assembly. And that is the standard that
Connecticut now uses. That is a public need standard.

Administrative reform provisions include improved public scoping,
independent analysis, use of application guides to structure the process
and provision of information both as a part of a Website and public
repository for better public participation.

Last, we had developed a process for resource mapping and spatial
management in order to evoke a comprehensive plan for the protection of
Long Island Sound.

The report consisted of over 35 members and alternatives, state
regulators, federal regulators, industry personnel, utility personnel
and environmental organizations. Five public hearings were held. Over 90
technical sessions were held. 60 collaborative meetings were held. The
process moved on for over one year. It was a comprehensive assessment.
And I hope that this information will help guide you in making your
decision both on the data and the law.

Thank you very much. If I can answer any questions \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

I understand Attorney General Blumenthal has arrived. And we would be
glad to hear your comments at this time.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Thank you very much. First, I want
to express my appreciation to you for being here, for your staff and for
the Department of Commerce considering what we think is a critical
environmental and energy issue, critical to the future of our state and,
indeed, our nation because the actions taken here will really set a
precedent and perhaps even a pattern for the nation as a whole.

The Islander East gas line is a paragon, virtually unexcelled as a
potential environmental disaster. There are numerous ways that it will
be destructive to the environment. It will have devastating effects on
coastal resources, degradation of water quality, destruction of
essential fish habitat and lasting damage to tidal wetlands.

This list of environmental harms is incomplete. There are more. But the
main point is, from a legal standpoint, that there are plainly
preferable alternatives. And those alternatives not only exist but they
are required to be considered and used if they are, indeed, available
under the law, as I'm sure you are aware.

I have a written statement that I'm prepared to submit. I'm going to
condense my remarks because I hope it will be made a part of the record.
But simply to say that this 141 rocky islands are literally the worst
case in the worst place to build this kind of pipeline. A location less
acceptable would be virtually impossible to find. And since preferable
alternatives plainly are available, they are required to be used.

Every relevant state agency and federal agency, as you know, every one
of them responsible for viewing and reviewing this proposal has rejected
it, including the National Marine Fisheries Service, even the Federal
Regulatory Commission staff, as well as our own DEP, as you've heard
from Commissioner Rocque earlier, and the Federal EPA. So every one of
them has found that this project will cause severe, irreparable and
pervasive damage to the marine environment in this uniquely valuable \--
and I stress uniquely valuable \-- part of Long Island Sound.

This pipeline construction will forever alter the bottom of the Sound at
this critical point and others along the way. It will spew vast
quantities of suspended sediment around the Sound. There are other
dangers and damage that are detailed in my statement producing hypoxia
or inadequate oxygen for sea life, anoxic pits, unstable sediments,
turbidity at certain points of the Sound.

For all these reasons and more that are in the statement, I believe that
the DEP's determination rejecting this horrendous project was
unassailably correct, should be upheld, indeed, must be upheld under the
law. This precious, extraordinary treasure, this part of Long Island
Sound, the Thimble Islands which are unique in their geological and
environmental aquatic life, should be safeguarded and, we submit, must
be safeguarded under the law.

I hope the Department of Commerce will review these very plain,
virtually uncontested facts, follow the law and deny Islander East's
challenge to the DEP's determination.

Again, my thanks to the Department and to you individually and
personally for being here today and for hearing us so thoughtfully.
Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Ted Kennedy, Jr., speaking on
his own behalf.

MR. TED KENNEDY: Thank you. My name is Ted Kennedy, Jr. I\'m a resident
of Branford and a member of the Juniper Point Association, a body of
land and adjacent water body that will be affected by this pipeline. And
I would like to thank you for coming to New Haven to listen to the
concerns of the people. Keep in mind that this is at least the eighth,
that I'm aware of, public hearing about this issue. And, quite honestly,
I think that there has been a little hearing fatigue on behalf of those
of us in the environmental community, the legal community and others who
are voicing our opposition to this pipeline.

But it's not just the environmental impacts that we are so outraged by.
But it's that the Islander East Pipeline Company has been an extremely
untrustworthy project manager of this pipeline. I think it's probably
fair to say that most people in Branford were open-minded, at least.
They weren't thrilled about the idea of a natural gas pipeline going
through Branford, but they were open-minded. And time and time again,
people have been misled. The science that has \-- and I know a little
bit as a graduate of the Yale School of Forestry, Environmental Studies.
I'm very well aware of how science can be used to buttress a political
end. And this is a textbook case of how shoddy science is used to
somehow say that this project will not be environmentally destructive to
the marine environment.

It's \-- so I think it's \-- I think time and time again, people who
were open-minded initially have crossed the line and just the Islander
East Pipeline Company has not been responsive. They say they've been
responsive. But in public hearing after public hearing, they'll say,
"We'll get back to you." And then they write up a memo saying "We have
responded to the concerns." Their response is "We'll get back to you"
about the noise created by the HDD, about what will happen when the HDD
fails, about what's going to happen if bentonite is released into the
Long Island Sound, about what's going to happen carrying this sludge
away from the site through the streets of Branford. All of these
questions have not been responded to, much less what\'s going to happen
if \-- should there be an explosion.

Islander East says there is no risk of explosion. And citizens of
Branford say, "Well, then why not take out an insurance policy? Why not
post a bond?" But, yet, Islander East is not willing to do that, saying
that there is no risk. Well, if there's no risk, why not post a bond?
Why not take insurance out?

And time after time, people have not been able to \-- are really sick of
the minimization of the problem. Minimize, minimize, minimize, deny,
deny, deny. And the credibility is completely shot. And that's why there
are so many people who are here and who are frustrated with this
process.

And as an administrative law attorney myself, not an environmental law
attorney, but a health care law attorney, I can't believe the
maneuverings and the process by which the citizens, especially the Town
of Branford \-- there is no intervenor fund. Everybody who you see here
who is coming here today is taking time off work. We're not paid to be
here. We're here because we're sick of this, of hearing about this
proposal that \-- where there's an alternative, plenty of alternatives
that have not been considered.

And I just really appreciate you coming here to New Haven today and
keeping an open mind and take the information in and really take a look
at the science behind this proposal. So thank you very much for hearing
my concerns.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: The next speaker will be John B. Lust of Branford
Blue Ribbon Committee, Chairperson.

MR. JOHN LUST: Good morning. My name is John Lust. That's L-u-s-t. I am
a resident of Branford. I'm a member of the Land Trust. I'm a Planning &
Zoning Commissioner. And I'm current chair of Branford's Blue Ribbon
Committee to study this project.

That committee has been studying this project for almost two years now.
We've prepared a report on this. You're in receipt of a copy of that.
Since then, we've filed two other briefs. Our early concerns and our
most recent concerns all still apply.

We recognize that Islander has made an attempt to minimize impacts. We
certainly appreciate that. However, it's not enough. The area is too
sensitive. This project is clearly not consistent with CZM. And it is
clearly not in the interest of national security.

Saying that, I guess, you know, rather than get into specific
environmental concerns, I want to talk to you as an agency and let you
know as a people that the state of Connecticut and beyond, in fact, the
people in this country, we look to agencies like yourself to protect us.
And we looked to DEP in this case and they have certainly upheld all our
concerns.

And we're very much aware of the political flak that's in the air over
this project now. And I guess we're asking you to be strong, to be
independent and objective and to do the right thing.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

The next witness will be \--

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Will be Larry Williams.

MR. LARRY WILLIAMS: Good morning. My name is Larry Williams. I'm a
shellfisherman from Milford.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Is that spelled the standard way, Williams?

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope so.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Good.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure how many other variables there are.

I'd like to make a few comments about Islander East. I had the honor and
opportunity to submit testimony in front of the Connecticut Siting
Council concerning this project. I have been a shellfisherman in the
state of Connecticut for over 30 years now. And one of the great
concerns as a shellfisherman with these types of projects is the
permanent loss of bottom associated with the scarring and trenching of
the pipeline area. It's a big concern.

We had \-- in the past, we had a similar project in Milford. And there
are long-term impacts as a shellfisherman concerning these types of
projects. And what the area essentially becomes is inaccessible for the
cultivation of shellfish.

The Islander East project is very similar to past projects. The protocol
for mitigation and compensation \-- I would just like to go on record as
saying in the state of Connecticut as a shellfisherman we can't point to
a successful mitigation on a project of this scale. It just does not
exist. The compensation mechanism for essentially compensating maybe the
shellfishermen or the State through the public trust domain is sort of
like a loaded gun. If compensation takes the form of money but the
damage exists, what do you do to mitigate the damage? And it's a
Catch-22 situation for at least the water-dependent uses.

Myself, I'd like to go on record as supporting the DEP's position
concerning this project. I think they made the right decision. It's
comprehensive. It makes sense. And I urge you to look at some of my
testimony that's quoted in there. I believe I'm the only shellfisherman
that actually made it to the Siting Council to essentially state my
observations as accurately as I could as to what happens to someone who
lives off the bottom of Long Island Sound.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

I might add that the administrative record is certainly open for you to
submit other materials. I don't know that the Department of Commerce
would automatically have the Siting Council material, your testimony, in
it unless that's been submitted to us.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'll make sure you get it.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to give
you that opportunity.

Our next speaker will be Joan Merrick of Branford Land Trust.

MS. JOAN MERRICK: I'm Joan Merrick,

M-e-r-r-i-c-k. And I'm President of the Branford Land Trust and speaking
for that organization.

The people of Branford take pride in and love their town and they're
willing to work hard for their community. No observer of this long
series of hearings can deny the efforts and passion that our community
possesses.

Branford began as a small farming community in the mid-17^th^ century
and has grown to a population of over 28,000 people. In some ways,
Branford has become a victim of its own success. Much of our buildable
land has been developed and pressures for the development of Branford's
remaining natural space is intense. Moreover, what is left, the marshes,
inland wetlands and other sensitive and fragile environments now become
the targets for development, inappropriate development.

Branford residents have responded to this dilemma in what has become
their signature response; by meeting the challenge. The Branford Land
Trust is an all-volunteer organization that now protects nearly 800
acres of open space. Our properties help protect the air and water
quality of our community and Long Island Sound and provide habitat for
wildlife and flora. They provide for recreation and buffers between
commercial, industrial and residential areas.

Our land owners have foregone the obvious financial benefits of selling
valuable shoreline property. When we must fund raise to purchase a
property, donations come from every segment of the community, often with
notes of appreciation of our efforts and wishes to be able to do more.

Further, the residents to this town have set aside this property at
their own collective expense, removing it from the tax rolls in order to
provide a legacy of open space for future generations.

The proposed Islander East pipeline crosses three Land Trust properties.
This is dedicated conservation land that will not tolerate well further
fragmentation. It is easy to see why we are targeted. There's just not
much open land left. But the reason it is open land is that we have
worked hard to protect it and not to reserve it for the first energy
giant to confiscate for a natural gas pipeline.

The Connecticut DEP has recognized the damage the proposed pipeline will
do to these areas already fragile and rare, both onshore and off. The
evidence is clear and in front of you. There are very reasonable
alternatives, but perhaps not as profitable for Islander East.

Please consider that short-term market-driven, expedient solutions are
not in the best interest of the environment nor the long-term interest
of the American populace as a whole.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker will be Bill Horne.

MR. BILL HORNE: My name is Bill Horne,\
H-o-r-n-e. I live at 246 Pleasant Point Road in Branford. I'd like to
address what I see as an important shortcoming in the Islander East plan
as submitted.

They propose using horizontal directional drilling as a way of making
the transition from the shoreline into Long Island Sound. And certainly
that would be less damaging, if it works, than the traditional dredging
approach. What they have not done is to say how they are going to
proceed if HDD does not work.

There's \-- there are really only two routes that they could take that
will not require a major realignment of the pipeline. One would be to go
between Juniper Point and the Tilcon facility and would require dredging
through and underneath the shipping channel where Tilcon brings
heavily-loaded stone barges in and out. Some of the neighbors in Juniper
Point have provided photographs of these barges tipping over and
swamping and sinking. I doubt that FERC or the Department of
Transportation would be particularly happy about siting a high-pressure
gas pipeline underneath a shipping channel where large, heavy barges, if
not routinely, at least somewhat regularly sink.

The other option is to go to the east where they would go through a
large salt marsh that's part of a natural area. Ms. Merrick spoke of the
efforts of the Branford Land Trust. This salt marsh is owned partly by
the Land Trust, partly by the Town of Branford and partly by the State
of Connecticut. And there are natural areas, upland areas on either side
that make it an important habitat area.

The whole coast of Branford was included in a significant coastal
habitat identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a report
issued in 1991. And they particularly noted that tidal flats, salt
marshes and the Thimble Islands were areas that were particularly
deserving of protection.

And the fact that Islander East has seen fit to completely ignore the
appropriate engineering approach of providing alternatives of how
they're going to proceed in the event that their preferred method
doesn't work I think in itself is reason for denying consistency of the
plan.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Senator, would you like to speak now before the
11:00 time for elected officials? It's up to you.

Okay. Our next speaker will be Senator Gunther, State of Connecticut.

SENATOR GEORGE GUNTHER: Senator George L. Gunther, G-u-n-t-h-e-r. The
German way. Anyway, I'm the Senator from the 21^st^ Senatorial District
in the State of Connecticut. As a little background, I've had 38 years
of service in that position. I authored the tidal wetlands law in 1969.
I co-sponsored the inland wetlands law in 1971. I've authored many of
the bills that were done in the years I've been up there relative to
both shellfishery and finfishery. I've been 30 years a member of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. And so, with that as a
little background, I know when my good friend Rocque was up here, I had
the first bill put in and helped to modify the thing and we got it
passed. And so we also have been the author of the harbor management
bills and the Coastal Zone Management Act. So that I've had a little
background, I think, and a little interest in Long Island Sound.

I want to say at this point I can agree with practically every speaker
that has spoken prior to my speaking and it will save me a little time
on some of those things.

I get very, very concerned over the process that we've been having with
these hearings. Now, just in the past three to four months, we've had
\-- well, on August 5, we had the U.S. Corps of Engineers that had one
of these three-minute citations that we could make, but down in
Branford. And the interesting part about that, that's the first time
that I've ever appeared or written to the Corps of Engineers that I ever
really got an answer back when they said, "We received your
communication. It's in print. It's in the record" and that type of
thing.

Each one of these things that we go to, it bothers me that we all aren't
in the same room at the same time. Why we have this fragmentation for us
being up here now with you people \-- and, incidentally, I've got a
great admiration because I've certainly over the years seen the work
you've done, especially in Long Island Sound with all the side scan,
sonar readings. You've had the readings for all the structures at Long
Island Sound going on for years. And I've kept in touch with you people.

The thing that bothers me is we're here talking about things that I'm
sure that you people must know a hell of a lot more than I do about in
some respects.

On the other hand, there's an awful lot of material that I find that in
other organizations they are totally unaware of. And why we go through
this regurgitation \-- and I say regurgitation because back in August 5
I gave the same thing that I'm going to submit here now with the
documentation of some of the things we've been arguing about.

I'll say that I've written to FERC many times. In fact, they're
notorious in my book because I rarely get anything back. It's a one-way
communication. You can ask all the questions in the world that you want.
But back in July of this year, I wrote a very, very pointed, 10-question
letter to the fellow who was at that time the head of the commission. I
waited for about a month and I got no answer at all, which is not
unusual, frankly. And, finally, in the early part, I believe, of August
\-- my first went in July. In August, I called up, said, "What the heck
is going on? Can I get an answer? Can I get some reaction to the
letter?" And with that, I sent another letter to confirm the first one.
And I did get an answer back, I think in about two weeks, from FERC. And
I'll tell you. It's a revelation. It's in this package I'm turning in to
you.

The thing I say it's a revelation because I was very interested in
Attorney General Blumenthal who said the alternatives are there and they
should be considered and that sort of thing. According to the letter I
got from FERC, if the petitioners do not list exactly what they're
asking for, they will not be considered because apparently FERC will not
initiate anything. And, in fact, they have the East Chester line that
they were reviewing and finally approved. They had this, the Islander
East. They were totally independent areas and they would not let any
override from one to the other be considered. And I think this is a bit
ludicrous when you're supposed to have the Long Island Sound at
interest. And here we have the East Chester being heard, being approved
and being set up.

And, incidentally, in this particular group of papers I've also got the
statement from FERC that I said there's an altern\-- there's several
alternatives. One alternative was the actual route that they were
taking. The second alternative was that there was another proposition
that was being offered, to my understanding. And I think it was recited
by Rocque when he made his presentation. And that was that there was
another route that's already established. We have the Iroquois line that
goes from Milford all the way to Northport. It has takeoffs in
Bridgeport and it has takeoffs over at Northport. Now, that is a 24-inch
line that right now is not being utilized. Possibly \-- I'll say 25 to
30 percent of the capability of that line is being utilized at this
particular time.

They could actually accommodate the Duke gas going all the way over to
Long Island. And there's no need for doing anything else other than
what's already been done.

The other consideration was I've time and time wrote to FERC. I wrote to
Patacki, the Governor of New York, saying that why didn't they consider
\-- if they wanted to put lines in, why didn't they consider the Flag
Telecon cable which goes all the way from Northport all the way out to
Montauk. That line could have been utilized to take and put any pipe,
any cable and that.

And, incidentally, if you look at the topography and also the geological
formation out there, it's mainly sand, gravel and glacial clay. They
laid the East Chester line in there like they were going through cream
cheese. So if they wanted to do something and in a hurry, they should
have been doing that.

Oh, you're a devil. You've got all the time in the world here.

The other part of that was the fact that they put the Port Chester line
in. That's a 24-inch pipe by Iroquois that goes all the way from
Northport into Hunter's Point. Now, that put that in to bring gas to New
York City. It is not to be considered and they wouldn't consider it as
being in the other direction where they could bring it from New York and
SLI and that area back up into Long Island.

I've got maps, incidentally, if you haven't seen them, that indicate all
the pipes that are laid out in Long Island. And there's plenty of
alternatives over there.

So all I can say \-- if I can leave you with one thought and I'll cut it
off at this point \-- I'd love to spend all the morning giving you some
references and that. But I guess it's getting a little sickening to sit
up there and listen to it. It's just as sickening for me to repeat this
four and five times.

I would love to see you set up a program where we could have the
opponents and proponents in with a whole group of you, be it the U.S.
Corps, be it your group, NOAA, be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the whole
group in one room, not limited to three minutes to take and make
speeches, but to go over issue by issue and have everybody heard.

Do you people ever sit down as a group and say, "Look. This is what I've
been through. This is what I'm having. And don't \-- should we agree or
disagree at that point?" Instead of this fragmentation all over. And
I've listened and I heard somebody say, well, they have to take time off
from work. We have to take time off, too, to cover it. Some of us have
been doing it for three years. And all I can say, we're getting a little
worn. I'd love to have them in one room. And you've got some of the
people that are being speakers later on here, like John Volk I think
will be here \-- you've got Dr. Stewart. You've got, oh, our former
geologist and also the head of our Marine Fishery, Beckwith. Those
people, plus all these groups that are formed here, you know, Save Our
Sound, and put us all in one room without the restriction of time and
let's get thing ironed out because I believe if you ever did that \-- I
see Joel. I've got to mention Joel.

You know, a year and a half ago we didn't have a plot plan of the state
of Connecticut, of Long Island Sound. He's got rolls here. I've got
fishery data that has never been shown to general groups and that. Right
now, a year and a half after he started, we've got almost a total plot
planning of the type of soils, the geological formation, the fishery \--
and, incidentally, you as an organization have a dozen different
studies, the last of which was in the year 2000, which was a 10-year
fishery study. All these things \-- why do we have to bring these up to
other areas? I think that we should be able to do that in one swooping
movement by the people in this state and the regulatory agency. And
let's get this thing down to brass tacks so we know what we're talking
about.

Thank you for the time. Sorry to have used your time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Lance Stewart.

MR. LANCE STEWART: Welcome, Mr. Walpole and NOAA staff. I'm Lance
Stewart. I'm a professor \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your name please?

MR. STEWART: S-t-e-w-a-r-t. And I'm a professor of marine biology with
the University of Connecticut. I serve as Commissioner on the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission. And with that group, I co-chair the
Habitat Committee for all the Atlantic coastal states that looks
specifically at issues of essential fish habitat, which I'm sure NOAA
and the National Marine Fisheries Service are increasingly concerned
about.

It's my observation in this particular sequence of hearings that we've
repeated, as Doc Gunther mentioned, our concerns over and over again.
One point I'd like to first of all highlight is the lack of substantial
science that is addressing trench environments.

For 30 years, I've been involved in environmental assessment of marine
impacts, one of them being the primary dredging disposal siting process
throughout New England, the Daymos program. Several oversight agencies
had been very adequately addressing those impacts and site selection,
specifics about the change of environments on the ocean bottom.

I don't see that in any of the pipeline work that has been already
constructed. Examples are the hub line. Some of the science is just not
there. It's not being addressed. I think it's abusive to all the work in
the past that's tried to protect the environment and certainly falls
under Coastal Zone Management and Marine Fisheries Conservation
Management concerns.

One of the issues that I think is extremely important is the barrier
effect these cross-line trenches create. Some of the entrainment and
entrapment of the larval forms that are most sensitive, the anoxic
conditions that may exist in trench environments. As an investigator for
the last 30 years, I was the Science Director for the NOAA Undersea
Research Center for the Northeast. And I spent thousands of hours in
submersible studies and diving studies and ROV studies.

And that environment, that changed environment of a trench is extremely
critical to understand. And it's not being addressed. And I think those
are the issues. It impacts 100-fold more of Long Island Sound's
environment than our dredge material management studies. And it's not
being adequately addressed.

Points of betonite fluid discharge, which is a poison, a toxin. If you
look at the literature, there's several examples of it being detrimental
to many of the commercial fishery forms.

So as our charge with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, I
just find it irresponsible at this point to look at some of these major
construction projects without addressing the science.

At that point, I'll have some written comments to offer to you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

I think we'll take a \-- literally a five-minute recess now. I want to
check and see how many other speakers we have.

The other thing I would mention, several people have mentioned that
there are certain materials that are not being considered. Of course,
you know that unless these materials are submitted to the Department of
Commerce, they will not be considered because they won't be part of the
administrative record. So I would encourage you to submit whatever maps
or materials you think might be relevant. Thank you.

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to resume.

Okay. I'd like to make two points here. One is that we are now getting a
larger list of speakers. And so we are going to use the three-minute,
five-minute rule because we will not enough time to let everyone speak.
I think that's better than prohibiting people from speaking. So we'll be
using that.

The other thing I would mention is that \-- keep in mind that the
Secretary of Commerce is, by statute, only allowed to consider two
factors here. And those are listed in my remarks. And so to the extent
you can focus on the factors that we need to consider \-- factual
information, of course, is always helpful. But, by statute, we are \--
the Secretary is required to only focus on two items for this. So I
would just \-- if you could focus your remarks on those, that would be
helpful.

Our next speaker is Rick Goldwin, Branford Town Committee, Chairman.

MR. RICK GOODWIN: Good morning. My name is Rick Goodwin, G-o-o-d-w-i-n.
I live at 43 Linden Avenue in Branford.

First of all, I've got tell you guys I love NOAA. Your marine weather
forecasts, I listen to them three, four times a week when I'm out on the
boat fishing and \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you repeat that again about how you like
NOAA?

MR. GOODWIN: I love you guys. You got \-- you're the best. You guys have
kept me out of more trouble. I don't even want to go there. But I mean
you guys are the best.

In any case, that being said, I wanted to tell you that usually there's
a lot more people than what you're seeing. It's sort of the way this was
set up. You know. It's all day. So people are going to be trickling in.
But typically \-- like we fill up schools on this issue. And everybody
speaks out against this project. So you're starting to see some of those
numbers. And I hope it just fills the page. But it's \-- it's a little
different than normal. And I \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Well, one of the reasons for that is because if you
limit the time for the hearing, people just don't get a chance to talk.
And we've experimented with different ways. And we found, very
successfully, that if we have them all day and people can come when it's
convenient, the evening session will be crowded, but at least people
will have a chance to speak. And we want everybody to have, you know, a
lick at this.

MR. GOODWIN: Well, I think you'll see that that happens.

In any case, you're going to hear from a lot of people that are going to
talk about how clear the damage of this thing is. It's on the record.
And I don't think I need to add to that. I usually bring in pictures of
seals, big pictures of these seals that live in the area and, you know,
there's \-- it's on the record. They're very cute. And it has a nice
effect. But I didn't do that this time.

As Chairman of the Republican Town Committee in Branford, I wanted you
to know that this issue is completely bipartisan. There is no argument,
not on the Democratic side, not on the Republican side, nowhere. The
town is 100 percent \-- 99 percent against this project.

And I just want you guys to \-- I want to urge you to be strong and
stand up against FERC who, you know, is acting for Bush and Cheney in
complete contradiction to the actions and the will of the town of
Branford. Now, remember, I'm a Republican and I'm talking this way.
Okay? And the state of Connecticut in opposition to this project. I mean
it embarrasses me, frankly.

I beg you to be strong on this and follow your mandate and support the
environment and the public will over corporate greed. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: The next speaker is Peter Borgemeister. And I hope
I pronounced that correctly. If you could please spell that, it would be
helpful.

MR. PIERRE BORGEMEISTER: Thank you. The name is Borgemeister. You
pronounced it better than I can. It's B-o-r-g-e-m-e-i-s-t-e-r. And I
live at 47 Monticello Road in Branford.

I've been involved with the Branford Land Trust for 30 years. And I know
something about the emotions and thoughts of people who give land to the
Land Trust. And I think that's a factor that must be considered. The
Land Trust owns eight parcels of land that abut the Tilcon railroad.
There may not be actually \-- the pipeline or the proposed pipeline may
\-- does not go through this land. But they're just across the railroad
tracks from it.

And they are going to be affected by the 75-foot swath of cutting that
will be required to lay that pipeline. Three of those parcels contain
inland wetlands that, as you people well know, are protected by law in
the state.

As the pipeline approaches Long Island Sound, if, indeed, the route east
of the Tilcon development is chosen, some 3500 linear feet of tidal
wetlands will have to be ditched and filled. And that will have a
serious impact on the \-- on the integrity of that whole wetlands.

But you've heard a lot about the biological and environmental impacts.
But not yet today have you heard much about the human impacts. So I'm
just going to end my talk with that.

These marshes \-- crossing these marshes is a very, very popular walking
trail used by bicyclists and walkers. The ditching of that marsh and the
swath of cutting that would take place in the uplands alongside that
marsh and property owned by the Land Trust, given to it by Mrs. Goss and
by the Goss family, would be considerable. It would take away their
enjoyment of that land. And I think that this is a human factor that you
must consider subliminally, even if it isn't within the statute's
purview.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Jonathan Waters, RTM, 2^nd^
District Representative, Stamford, Connecticut.

Okay. We'll hear from Mr. Waters at later time, I guess. Oh \-- and I
might mention that if you're not here when your name is called, you're
still allowed to testify. We'll just fit you in. It's not use or lose.

The next speaker is Gil Kleman.

MR. GIL KELMAN: Kelman, K-e-l-m-a-n.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. If you could spell your name, sir?

MR. KELMAN: My name is Gil Kelman,

K-e-l-m-a-n. I'm just an ordinary 82-year-old retired editor and
publisher. Most of the organizations that have been speaking today I've
made contributions to, but I am not \-- I don't serve on any of the
committees nor do I wish to.

I've appeared at several of these hearings. And nothing that I've heard
from the proponents or the opponents have altered my evaluation of the
project.

I speak now, as I have spoken before, based on your statement that all
things that you have said in the past doesn't count unless you have it
on your records. And I will submit this to you for your consideration in
the future.

For 50 of my 82 years, I've been a saltwater fisherman on Long Island
Sound. Since 1952, I found Can Marker 5 and 7 on the Long Island Sound.
Fished the area for bluefish, striped bass and flounder. I would leave
Branford Harbor and sail across the sound to Wading River, a distance of
approximately 20 miles, to find the best fishing ground I could ever \--
that I had ever found.

One Thursday, with the kind of bright sky that makes mornings on Long
Island Sound such a beautiful place, I approached Can 7 to see a
flotilla of two boats and barges working an area near a newly developed
building site that I later learned was to become Shoreham, a nuclear
plant that never was to produce a single kilowatt of power. That
flotilla was installing several major-sized pipes that would accommodate
cooling outflows and intakes for that plant. Those lines extended out
from the Long Island side for approximately two miles. The work was to
invade Long Island Sound for \-- just as suddenly as that project
started, fishing ceased in Can 5 and 7. Fishing has never returned in
those areas.

I then found Brown's Reef near the Thimble Islands. Bluefish, striped
bass, flounder and later tautog became my fish of the day. Brown's Reef
is almost as good as on the other side when that was still good. Brown's
Reef and its proximity almost equal in beauty the Long Island north
shore because of its rocky type of beauty.

In 1972, I found a 1768 house on Stony Creek harbor and retired to it,
two miles run from Brown's. The proposed pipeline is within spitting
distance of my fishing grounds. I want my children and my grandchildren
to be able to fish these waters. The pipeline will do to this area what
Shoreham and its invasion did to Long Island Sound on its side, its
coastline and water bottom terrain.

Please don't destroy this coast. Certainly, history has now proven to us
what will occur when a 24-inch pipeline invades it.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker will be Nicholas Cristale of the
Connecticut Lobsters Association \-- Lobstermen's Association. I'm
sorry.

MR. NICHOLAS CRISMALE: Nicholas Crismale, Connecticut Lobstermen's
Association.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your name please?

MR. CRISMALE: C-r-i-s-m-a-l-e. I'm President of the association. I'm
also a member of the Long Island Research Steering Committee to research
\-- we have six and a half million dollars from Commerce to study the
lobster die-off of 1999. I'm a member of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Advisory Panel from Connecticut. And I sit on the Lobster
Institute of Maine, the Northeast Lobster Consortium.

I'm here to talk about the misgivings of the impacts of the pipeline on
a \-- as far as the degradation of Long Island South. The pipeline has
yet to be installed or whatever there's a proposal here. But the
problems exist in Long Island Sound. We've lost our lobster fishery. And
it's not the results of pipelines or cables that have been installed.
And what we're upset about is the detraction from the real issue here.
And the real issue is that Long Island Sound is already at a threshold
and which it may never return from environmental stresses and impacts.

There was a study recently done by the Department of Environmental
Protection that suggests that there's approximately 35 percent lobster
\-- natural mortality in Long Island Sound. These aren't from proposed
pipelines. I mean the focus here is on the degradation of the
environment from the pipeline. The pipeline hasn't been installed. I've
been a lobsterman for 32 years. It's the first time in 32 years I
haven't put a trap in the water. And it doesn't seem likely that I will
be putting any traps in the water.

Approximately 75 percent of the industry is gone. And there's a good
chance we will be going out of business shortly. Lobsters have been a
part of fishing in Long Island Sound since the Pilgrims came here.
That's how they were fed and things. And it looks like we're going to
lose this industry.

Just not to get too far off the subject with the environmental things, I
do oppose the pesticides. But I took the initiative. I was invited to a
conference in Providence approximately a couple of months ago. Maybe
you're familiar with it. It was by the Blue Atlantic Transmission
System. And they're interested in running a pipeline, sub-sea pipeline
from Canada, somewhere in Sable Island, down to New York, New Jersey. It
really doesn't have an impact on Long Island Sound. But I am a
shellfisherman. And part of my \-- our grounds, we lease or own
approximately 4,000 acres outside Branford. Part of my property,
approximately six acres, is being impacted by this pipeline.

So I took the initiative on my own time. I was invited as an industry
representative to this conference, a three-day conference, which was
fully paid for and sponsored. And my intent was to get a background on
some of the equipment that might be deployed as some of the procedures
that might be used. And there was a considerable amount of expertise
there. People were invited from all over the East Coast, Canada where
pipelines had been installed. And they wanted to gather information and
they wanted to put together as much information as they could to
eliminate some of the potential environmental impacts.

Well, I spent the time there. I got as much information as I could. But,
you know, I mean for a state that was so intent on environmental
impacts, Connecticut was absent. They failed to \-- they failed to be
there. And I called the Department of Environmental Protection, was just
wondering what their take was. And they said at that time that they
really couldn't send anybody or there wasn't \-- nobody showed up, for
whatever reason. And I was a little bit concerned.

I mean I fought against the cable in New Haven. I thought there was some
environmental impacts there. The cable went ahead. The construction was
done. Shell beds were impacted and so on. So that's been done.

But as far as the pipeline was concerned, there was a lot of information
there to be had. Nobody accessed from Connecticut this information, why
they weren't there. There was over 200 research people, people from
government. I think there were people from your office, the Army Corps
of Engineers and all the state department \-- protection agencies.

I do have \-- I have five acres, six acres that is being impacted by
this pipeline, probably the largest shellfish company being impacted by
this pipeline. From the very beginning, Islander East has communicated
with myself as a shellfisherman and also as an industry representative.
They've put together a program to eliminate the impacts if this permit
is granted, eliminate the impacts to the commercial fisherman and
eliminate as much of the impacts to myself as a shellfisherman.

I have an agreement that \-- with Islander East that calls for a
restoration program and a removal of the shellfish in the area. They
seem to be concerned. They've been very open with us, with my company,
right from the start.

Not to get off the subject, I also own 277 acres in Branford Harbor that
has been impacted by environmental things such as sewerage. You know,
I've got \-- on one hand, I've got six acres being impacted. I've got
277 acres being impacted. The Town of Branford has over 110 Clean Water
violations. Nobody seems to address that problem. You tell me where the
balance is.

So when we talk about environmental issues, I think something needs to
be said here about the problems in Long Island Sound, the proposed
problems and existing problems. And I think because of the continuous
focus on the proposed problems, the existing problems are continuously
ignored, the real problem. And if it continues, Long Island Sound will
be the bearer of this major problem and maybe to the point where we will
lose our fisheries in Long Island Sound.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you. And I would \--

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: I might suggest you provide \-- if you have
documents or whatever, to be sure to put it in the administrative
record.

Okay. I understand now Mr. Jonathan Waters is here. Is that correct?
From RTM, 2^nd^ District Rep, Stamford, Connecticut.

REPRESENTATIVE JONATHAN WATERS: Yeah. That's Stony Creek, Connecticut.
I'm Jonathan Waters, 2^nd^ District Rep, and I'm also an oyster farmer
in Stony Creek, Connecticut. I farm oysters in the Thimble Islands. This
project threatens my livelihood and, I believe, the history and the
future of oyster farming in Stony Creek through the destruction of the
habitat and the surrounding areas.

I support the Connecticut DEP's determination of inconsistency. Thank
you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is John Caruso.

MR. JOHN CARUSO: Hi. My name is John Caruso, C-a-r-u-s-o. And I'd like
to combine my time with \--

MR. LEROY DAVIS: Leroy Davis, D-a-v-i-s.

MR. CARUSO: All right. I'm \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Yeah. That would be fine.

MR. CARUSO: I'm a member of Local 478 \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: If you'd like, we could have you each have three
minutes as individuals. But it's up to you folks.

MR. CARUSO: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay.

MR. CARUSO: And I'm here in favor of the Islander East Pipeline; reasons
being that it would \-- besides creating jobs now, it also will create
revenue for the state. And Islander East is probably the best contractor
because they are sensitive to the Sound and they would do their best to
have the least impact possible. And I think everyone here should really
think hard and long about it because it will be a good project for the
state.

MR. DAVIS: And I feel likewise. I support the idea that the pipeline
should be in place because it will help in the economic struggle of the
unions and everybody concerned. So I do support the Islander's pipeline.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you.

Sir, could you repeat your name again? Was it Leroy Davis?

MR. DAVIS: Yes. D-a-v-i-s.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

The next speaker will be Robert Earley.

MR. ROBERT EARLEY: Good morning. My name is Robert Earley and I'm an
attorney that works \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you please spell your last name?

MR. EARLEY: Sure. E-a-r-l-e-y.

I am an attorney that works for the Connecticut Business and Industry
Association, better known as CBIA. I have submitted written testimony.
But I will summarize my remarks now.

CBIA is the state's largest business association. We have 10,000 member
companies. Although some of those are large, the vast majority is made
up of small companies with less than 50 employees. Chief among CBIA's
missions is to cultivate a climate that's conducive to economic growth
in the state of Connecticut. And fundamental to achieving that economic
growth is having stable and reliable supplies of energy.

We are here today to support Islander East Company's appeal for that
very reason. By almost every account, natural gas is and will continue
to be a dominant primary fuel in the Northeast for years to come.

The proliferation of combined-cycle natural gas electric generation has
increased fivefold in the last few decades. And that trend is going to
continue. The State Department \-- Connecticut's Department of Public
Utility Control reports that in 1999 roughly 10 percent of our electric
generation came from natural gas. By 2020, 60 percent of it will come
from natural gas.

And moreover, not only have we seen huge increases in natural gas
demand, in the Northeast we've also seen significant changes in how our
energy markets work. The state vertical planning models of the 1980's
have been transformed by deregulation.

Consumers in Connecticut that receive energy don't get it from their
local utilities. It comes across whole states and whole regions.
Connecticut is not an energy island. We are dependent on other states to
receive stable and reliable supplies of energy.

We are here today because we believe it is critical that we have an
infrastructure that can supply this important commodity. And we believe
that it is in the best interest of this body to listen to the local
concerns and the environmental concerns associated with the building of
this project.

However, we think it's critical that this body not be swayed by that,
that it looks at the irrefutable evidence that natural gas is a
commodity that is going to play a huge role in this region and that we
need to have an infrastructure that can supply it.

Thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Jerry Shaw.

MR. JERRY SHAW: Yes. My name is Jerry Shaw, S-h-a-w. I live in Stony
Creek, part of Branford. And I'm an avid fisherman. I'm here to speak
for a particular species since I have limited time. So I'm going to
focus on what are known as tautogs or blackfish.

The issues surrounding the installation of Islander East's pipeline have
received extensive attention since June 15 of 2001 when the application
was submitted to FERC. And there's been much debate about their merits.
But little has been said about the proximity of Brown's, Wheaton's and
East Reefs to the pipeline path. I point out that it's a couple of
hundred yards away.

Little mitigation effort has been contemplated south of Milepost 12,
which is near Red Buoy R-4-A for either restitution, mitigation or
avoidance of one of the most productive blackfish or tautog recreational
fishing sites off the coast of Connecticut, nor has there been
consideration of these measures for other productive reef areas to the
north of Milepost 12 up to Milepost 10.1 at the end of the HDD exit
hole. All the while, however, the lessor of shellfish bed L-55, Mr.
Crismale, who spoke earlier, which is adjacent to Brown's Reef, has
received a contract for 1.9 million dollars for potential damages to a
six-acre plot. And that's right next door. But nothing for recreational
fishermen, Brown's Reef.

I've included in my submission of written comments photographs taken
just two days ago on November 3, 2003 of a fleet of over 20 recreational
fishermen surrounding Buoy R-26, thereby documenting the commercial
importance of the recreational fisheries in any consideration of a
balance between economic development and need. The recreational fishing
industry in Connecticut is substantial. Multi million dollars are spent
on boats and bait and bait shops along the coast of Connecticut.

Note that the pipeline path is proposed to proceed south of Milepost 12
just west of N\-- 2-N-W, only a few hundred yards, as I mentioned
before, away from the reef. Tautogs and cunners, which are a related
fish, are very territorial, seldom venturing more than a third of a mile
from their feeding grounds. Unfortunately, Islander East has provided
little scientific information on the impacts of the pipeline on their
habitat, let alone identify the locations of productive demersal finfish
habitats along the proposed pipeline path.

Geographical locations of breeding grounds, potential effects of
contaminated sediments and larva, identification of interconnected
spawning and juvenile nurturing areas and the potential effects of
contaminated sediments on crustaceans which are a part of the tautog
food chain have not been identified.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you. If you'd like to submit the rest of your
testimony \-- your time is up. You could certainly submit that for the
record.

MR. SHAW: May I make one final comment?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: I'm sorry?

MR. SHAW: I'd like to make one final comment.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: All right. Sure.

MR. SHAW: As to the uniqueness of the Thimble Islands, I submit that in
a recent report and study conducted under the Long Island Sound Program
a census was conducted of Norwalk's Harbor and found no tautogs. I
submit that the Thimbles should be designated as a marine protected area
under the legislation that has been passed by the Federal Government.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our first elected official is Krysten Ledoux
Lieberman.

MS. KRYSTEN LEDOUX: Good morning. My name is Krysten Ledoux. That's
K-r-y-s-t-e-n,

L-e-d-o-u-x. I'm here today representing Senator Joseph Lieberman. And
on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Secretary Evans and the Department of Commerce staff for affording
all of us here today a public opportunity to address our concerns.

I have a letter here written, dated November 5, today's date, from
Senator Lieberman to Secretary Evans. I would like to read the letter
into the public record.

"Dear Secretary Evans, I am writing today in reference to an appeal that
has been submitted by Islander East, LLC asking the Department of
Commerce to overturn the October 15, 2002 and July 30, 2003 decisions of
denial issued by the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection regarding proposed construction of the Islander East
pipeline."

"As you are aware, the proposed pipeline would extend through five
Connecticut communities, including Branford, Connecticut where it would
enter Long Island Sound and continue on to Shoreham, New York."

"As I have stated in previous correspondence, the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection has twice denied Islander East permit
application for the project after determining that the project was not
consistent with the State's federally approved Coastal Zone Management
Plan. In their denials, DEP officials cited numerous concerns about the
adverse environmental impacts that construction of the 24-inch diameter,
23-mile-long natural gas pipeline would have on the ecologically
sensitive environment of Long Island Sound, including negative impacts
on shellfish, shellfish habitat, water quality and tidal wetland areas."

"According to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,
installation of the pipeline would negatively impact 45 acres of
shellfish habitat and other activities associated with the project,
would threaten an additional 1900 acres of Long Island Sound. In
addition, federal agencies, such as the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, that
have reviewed the plan have expressed similar concerns with the
project."

"However, one of my greatest concerns has been the overwhelming
opposition to the project that I've heard from my constituents,
especially from residents in local communities that would be most
directly impacted by the construction and operation of the pipeline.
Unfortunately, the fears of my constituents appear well-founded in light
of the concerns about the project that have been raised by the
Connecticut DEP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service."

"Sadly, these concerned Connecticut residents can readily point to the
construction of the Iroquois natural gas pipeline in Long Island Sound
more than a decade ago as a terrible reminder of the severe and
irreparable harm that can be caused by the installation of such a
project in an ecologically sensitive environment."

"While I fully grasp the need for the construction of additional
infrastructure to ensure that the energy needs of New England and New
York are sufficiently met, I believe that additional infrastructure
should not be constructed to the detriment of our precious natural
resources, such as Long Island Sound."

"The Islander East pipeline has twice been rejected by the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection on grounds that the environmental
impacts of the proposed project are simply too great to outweigh any
hypothetical benefits of the project."

"With this in mind, I strongly urge you to uphold the October 15, 2002
and July 30, 2003 decisions rendered by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection that found that the construction of the
Islander East pipeline is incompatible with protection of Connecticut's
coastal resources."

"Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. I look forward
to your response." Signed Joseph I. Lieberman, United States Senator.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: The next speaker is Allison Dodge.

MS. ALLISON DODGE: Good morning. My name is Allison Dodge, D-o-d-g-e. I
am here on behalf of Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has asked me to
read the following statement into the record.

"Since the Connecticut Coastal Management Program's inception in 1980,
it has been a pioneer on a national level in its efforts to balance
protection and management of coastal resources, ensuring their
protection for future generations while balancing competing national,
economic, cultural and environmental interests."

"Quite simply, the Islander East proposal does not meet the basic
standard which has been set to facilitate this balance. After thorough
review, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has
determined on two occasions that the Islander East Pipeline proposal to
install a 24-inch diameter natural gas pipeline is not consistent with
the state's federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program."

"The DEP found that, as proposed, the construction and installation of
this pipeline would have negative impacts on water quality, shellfish
habitat, water-dependent use and tidal wetlands."

"In addition to the DEP's objections, the Islander East project has also
been reviewed by several federal agencies in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air Act. To date, both
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service have expressed numerous concerns with the proposed project."

"It must also be noted that the Secretary of Commerce, via
correspondence dated April 29, 2003, was informed by Philip Grone,
Principal Assistant Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense, that the
Department of Defense could not, quote, 'conclude that a national
defense or national security interest would be significantly impaired if
the project were not permitted to go forward as proposed.'"

"Since the inception of the Clean Water Act in 1972, investments in
water pollution control programs have led to great improvements in the
water quality of Long Island Sound. Ten percent of our country's
population lives within 50 miles of the Sound. A healthy Sound is
critical to our economy and quality of life."

"When we look at the continuing impact of the cross-Sound pipeline that
already exists, we as a community and a state are wary of any additional
harm that may come with the installation of another pipeline." "With the
installation of the Iroquois natural gas pipeline only a decade ago,
Connecticut residents have witnessed the severe and irreversible damage
that can be caused by such a project."

"Despite the fact that a less environmentally damaging route has been
identified not only by the DEP but by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, FERC has refused to consider this alternative in concert
with the Islander East proposal. The Islander East proposal is simply
not the best proposal when considering the environmental risks."

"Connecticut's shoreline communities and the Long Island Sound,
particularly the Thimble Islands and associated shellfisheries in this
area, represent an enormous cultural, historical and economic value to
our state."

"The State of Connecticut has and continues to work hard to ensure that
we have an adequate, reliable energy supply. While I appreciate the
benefits of an adequate energy supply, I cannot support a proposal that
will have such a negative impact on our communities and provide no
benefit to our state. Solutions to our neighbors' energy needs cannot be
made at the expense of the state of Connecticut and the Long Island
Sound."

"As the State's regulatory enforcement agency, the Connecticut DEP is
best positioned to judge the environmental impact of this project. Their
determination of this project's inconsistency with the Connecticut CZMP
is well reasoned and based on sound science."

"I strongly urge you to uphold the October 2002 and July 2003
inconsistency decisions issued by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection."

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you. I would ask if you could give a copy of
your statement to the Reporter?

Okay. Our next speaker is Richard Roy.

REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD ROY: Thank you. My name is Richard Roy, 43 Howe
Street \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Would you spell your name please?

REPRESENTATIVE ROY: R-o-y.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ROY: 43 Howe, H-o-w-e, Street in Milford. I'm State
Representative from Milford.

Gentlemen, we must plan for Long Island Sound. We now plan for all of
our land uses. Let's plan for our water uses, also. We've got to
determine what are the best routes, coordinate all of the different
requests we have \-- and there's probably about nine proposals before us
right now \-- so that we don't have a haphazard use, cross uses that are
causing problems for all of those who do use Long Island Sound.

We right now have a plan before us that goes right through the Thimble
Islands, perhaps the most pristine and beautiful part of Long Island
Sound. It's unconscionable if this goes through.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Excuse me for a second.

Could I ask the folks in the back to be quiet so that \-- in respect for
the speaker? Thank you.

Continue, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE ROY: The Iroquois pipeline out of Milford is already in
place. It's in place in a desert at the bottom of Long Island Sound. Ten
years ago when the Iroquois pipeline was put in, we were guaranteed that
the shellfish beds would be replaced, would be restored. Ten years
later, it is still a desert. That pipeline is being used less than half
capacity.

If we take what Islander East wants to do and tap into the Iroquois
pipeline, we send the stuff over to Long Island and we do not harm any
other part of Long Island Sound's floor.

The routes \-- there are routes on the northern shore of Long Island
Sound \-- of Long Island that can move the pipeline from the west to the
east where they need it. There is no problem. There would be much less
problem for fishermen, for boaters, for swimmers and for the habitat of
Long Island Sound.

New York created this problem. It wasn't Connecticut. It wasn't Long
Island Sound. New York \-- we can go back to the parable \-- was the
grasshopper who played his fiddle and danced in the summer sun. We in
Connecticut are building three plants right now to meet our power needs.
We are the worker ants who diligently worked and are putting things in
place so that we will meet our power needs. New York is dancing and
says, "Well, just send your stuff. Use Long Island Sound. Criss-cross it
with pipelines and power lines."

But we want to dance, too. They have not done anything to rectify the
problem or to help other parts of the U.S. Maybe we can tap into
Cleveland, Ohio. We tried that this past summer. Didn't work too well.
But let's get \-- let's be fair. New York is the problem. It doesn't \--
we don't deserve to be the next problem if these lines to through.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

Our next speaker is Anthony DaRos, if I'm pronouncing that right. DaRos?

FIRST SELECTMAN ANTHONY DaROS: Good morning. My name is Anthony DaRos.
I'm the First Selectman of the Town of Branford.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

FIRST SELECTMAN DaROS: That's D-a-capital R-o-s.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

FIRST SELECTMAN DaROS: We are pleased to be here to provide our views to
NOAA and to the Secretary Evans. We appreciate your efforts today. We
are here to urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny Islander
East.

As I understand it, there are specific criteria that Islander East must
meet in order for you to override the State's denial. The project must
advance the nation's interest, that interest must outweigh the project's
adverse impact on the coast, and there's no reasonable alternative.

I also understand that if this project were in the interest of national
security, it would be approved. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the
Department of Defense had determined that it is not.

You will receive ample evidence that this project is not in the nation's
interest. It will cause irreparable destruction to the Sound, its
shoreline and its marine life, outweighing any conceivable interest and
making any interest insignificant.

Long Island Sound is a unique estuary and must be treated like the
environmental treasure that it is. Any proposal for the construction,
operation and future repair of this proposed pipeline, which I may
remind you is a non-water-based used, will permanently and irreparably
damage it.

Finally, there are alternatives. Islander East has been told this
repeatedly by FERC and others. The State Department of Environmental
Protection has denied the required Coastal Zone Management Plan
consistency certificate \-- certification, not just once, but twice.
They reached the same conclusions that the Town's Blue Ribbon Committee
in November of 2001. That application is incomplete and insufficient.

From the beginning, Duke has been unable or unwilling to answer even
basic questions such as what they plan to do if the underwater drilling
didn't work. They still haven't devised a feasible back-up plan.

Two months ago today, more than 400 opponents from around the state
stood before the Army Corps of Engineers and submitted their data. They
included Congressional, State and local officials. Also, there was DEP
Commissioner Art Rocque, Assistant Attorney General Robert Snook,
Wesleyan University Professor Jolan Varekamp and Yale Professor Carmela
Cuomo.

I will leave with you the transcript from that hearing so that you can
include their testimony in today's record. I ask that you carefully
review it.

No town, city or even state has the financial resources that Duke and
Keyspan have. They have spent more than 25 million dollars on lobbyists
and PR campaigns. We have volunteers. But we're realistic and we accept
the sad reality that the playing field is not level. And that's where
offices like yours come into play.

As it's been from the beginning, the issue is who acts for the public
trust? Certainly not Duke or Keyspan. They refuse to consider any
alternative routes, even though they're less environmentally damaging.
They prefer to fabricate and even exaggerate the foreign gas reserves
they hope to use.

In each of the public hearings, dozens of citizens made public
statements, as they will today. It's a rare voice that supports Islander
East. Today may be different. You may hear some say that it's good for
Connecticut and the region. But keep in mind it's not supported by any
fact or analysis. It's actually the 25 million dollars talking.

Again, I want to thank you for coming to Connecticut. And we all
appreciate your efforts.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Paul Widlitz or Widlitz? I'm
not sure how to pronounce it. Oh. Pat. I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA WIDLITZ: Good morning. My name is Patricia
Widlitz. I'm State Representative for the 98^th^ District, through which
this proposed project is planned. And I'm also co-chairman of the
Connecticut General Assembly's Environment Committee.

I'm here this morning in total agreement with and support of the
Connecticut Attorney General and Department of Environmental Protection
and the people of Branford in opposition to this Islander East
application.

While the Islander East project threatens to negative impact Branford
Land Trust properties, 18 water bodies and Long Island Sound, of special
concern is the impact on the magnificent Thimble Islands, which are not
only a tourism magnet but also support diverse habitats for water fowl,
birds and even seals.

Within the path of the project are commercial and recreational shellfish
beds. Connecticut has already experienced the degradation of its oyster
beds from the Iroquois pipeline in 1991. And to this day, the shellfish
beds in that path have never recovered.

In its proposal, Islander East plans to use horizontal directional
drilling to penetrate the floor of the Sound. In the event that this
method is unsuccessful, there's a lack of information regarding
alternative construction and the resulting environmental impacts.

There is also concern that during the HDD construction that the drilling
fluid, bentonite, could be released into the waters of the Sound, thus
placing the shellfish in peril.

In his July 30, 2003 letter to Mr. Mueller of Islander East, Arthur
Rocque, the DEP Commissioner, states that "The activities as proposed by
Islander East in the proposed location would cause significant adverse
impacts to coastal resources and water-dependent uses and would,
therefore, be inconsistent with the enforceable policies of the
Connecticut Coastal Zone Management Program."

During the 2003 legislative session, the Environment Committee in
Connecticut and the Energy and Technology Committees worked together to
enhance the protections of Long Island Sound, along with a focus on
long-range planning for the siting of energy facilities and
infrastructure. We passed two very important bills which I will refer to
in testimony that I will leave.

But the point is that the State has a desire to determine the necessity
for these lines and then if, in fact, they are necessary, to determine
the least environmental impact way to accomplish that.

I strongly oppose the proposed project as it blatantly ignores the
clearly-documented public policy goals of the State of Connecticut. It's
in direct conflict with Connecticut's federally approved Coastal Zone
Management Program, does not provide adequate information on alternative
construction methodologies, does not give adequate consideration to
alternative sites and the potential impact of this proposal on water
quality, shellfish, shellfish beds, tidal wetlands and the public trust
of Long Island Sound, an estuary of national significance, is
devastating. We should all stand firm in a resounding No to this
project.

And I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this morning.
Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker will be Carl Balestracci.

FIRST SELECTMAN CARL BALESTRACCI: Thank you. That's a correct
pronunciation. Members of the \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: If you could please spell your name?

FIRST SELECTMAN BALESTRACCI: Yeah. I will. I will.

Members of the Department of Commerce, gentlemen, my name is Carl A.
Balestracci, better pronounced Balestracci, Jr. That's
B-a-l-e-s-t-r-a-c-c-i. I'm a lifelong resident of Guilford and currently
I am serving as the First Selectman of Guilford.

The communities of Branford and Guilford share a history and heritage
that began 600 million years ago. An ancient volcano was formed when its
erupted to the earth's surface and the magma cooled. This volcano gave
birth to igneous rock. Over the millenniums, the lithospheric plates of
rock that formed the earth's crust continued their long geologic
odyssey. Today, this particular igneous rock exists on the eastern coast
of South America, the west coast of Morocco and between the Indian Neck
region of Branford and Guilford Harbor.

The citizens of our area and people all over the world know it by its
trade name, Stony Creek pink granite. This granite defines our
shoreline, forms our islands, cradles our wetlands and serves as the
bedrock of our marshes and Long Island Sound itself.

These land and water forms provide our growing populations with
treasured natural resources and a most critical challenge. We must all
work hard to maintain that delicate balance between human needs and
nature's needs.

With state and federal help and the efforts of groups such as the
Branford and Guilford Land Trusts, our communities have acquired the
stewardship of hundreds of acres of forest, wetlands and salt marshes.
The citizens of our two communities have for the past half-century
contributed hundreds of thousands of hours of work and hundreds of
thousands of dollars to protect and preserve that balance which is
essential to our quality of life.

Under the guidelines of federal, state and local regulatory agencies,
our commercial shellfishermen and private citizens carefully harvest our
beds and shellfish populations.

You, the members of the Department of Commerce, also have a most
critical decision to make in the very near future. You must decide if it
is necessary to give approval to yet another private, for-profit company
to cut, blast, tunnel and permanently deface and change a 75-foot swath
of land to provide a right-of-way for a 24-inch gas pipeline through our
land.

Whether the Branford route or the Sachem's Head alternative is chosen,
our citizens have safety concerns. We have concerns about the right of
eminent domain, property values, damage to our roads and infrastructure
and many concerns about the environment.

As an example, if the Sachem's Head alternative is chosen, the pipeline
would cross five streams of both fresh and salt water, 8,000 feet of
wetlands and forested wetlands, five miles of forestland and traverse
ten significant granite cliffs which would have to be blasted out. All
of this would have to be done before the pipeline even reached Long
Island Sound.

I ask you, as I asked the Siting Council and the Army Corps of
Engineers, to join with the members of our Congressional delegation,
United States Senator Christopher Dodd, United States Senator Joseph
Lieberman, our Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, our Attorney General Dick
Blumenthal, our DEP Commissioner Rocque, William Aniskovich, our State
Senator, Patricia Widlitz and Bob Ward, our State Representatives, in
support of a moratorium on all energy cross-Sound lines until, one, a
true needs assessment can be completed; two, the least number of energy
lines necessary to meet those needs is determined; three, routes of
least environmental impact can be established.

Steven Crane in his book, "The Red Badge of Courage", wrote "We can't
always choose our battlefields. The gods do that for us. But we can
plant a standard where a standard never flew." We have planted our
standard on this issue because we want to protect our people, our homes,
land, water and quality of life.

We fervently hope you will join us in this endeavor. Thank you very
much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is William Aniskovich.

SENATOR WILLIAM ANISKOVICH: Thank you. My name is Bill Aniskovich. I'm
the State Senator from the 12^th^ District. I am joined and will cede a
portion of my three minutes to John Opie. He is the First
Selectman-elect, recently First Selectmen-elect in Branford.

I am Bill Aniskovich. That's

A-n-i-s-k-o-v-i-c-h. I will be submitting written testimony and will
just summarize a portion of it here this morning for you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. If I may mention, certainly you could each
have three minutes. That's up \-- you know. If you'd like.

SENATOR ANISKOVICH: Thank you very much.

My district includes the towns of Branford, Guilford, North Branford,
Madison, Killingworth and Durham. I have served in the General Assembly
for 13 years. I am here today to state for the record once again my
complete and unequivocal opposition to the proposal by Islander East to
build a 24-inch-diameter pipeline from an existing gas transmission
facility in North Haven through the towns of North Haven, East Haven,
North Branford and Branford.

This proposal will have undeniable negative impacts on one of the most
environmentally sensitive areas of Long Island Sound. In Branford alone,
the proposed pipeline path cuts right through three Land Trust
properties and indirectly impacts other conservation wetlands and
uplands, including a town-owned nature trail.

The loss of open space and the cumulative impact of future activities
associated with the pipeline, including future maintenance activities,
all threaten to diminish the environmental value of protected open space
in our community.

We can find a way to provide Long Island with the energy it needs
without causing environmental destruction and ecological disruption to
the degree that will result from this project.

Connecticut as a state has long recognized the importance of mitigating
environmental impacts of transmission lines. In 1971, we created the
Connecticut Siting Council to protect the environment and the ecology of
the state and to minimize damage to scenic, historic and recreational
values.

We are asking you this morning, as we have asked numerous federal
authorities, to respect the control that we want and exercise over the
protection of our environment.

The Connecticut DEP, the United States EPA and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service have each gone on record expressing the view that this
project will damage our environmental assets. The general public in
Connecticut has overwhelmingly opposed this project since its inception.
The General Assembly has overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner
expressed its concerns about this project and has opposed it. The people
in both their direct and indirect capacities have spoken.

This project threatens to disrupt the evolving ecological balance that
our community has struggled to create over many years, pitting the
traditions of our local control against one company\'s race for a
competitive economic advantage.

I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning. And I thank
you for holding this hearing. And I urge your consideration and respect
for our opinions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

FIRST SELECTMAN-ELECT JOHN OPIE: Thank you, Bill.

My name is John Opie. And as Bill said, I am the Selectman-elect to the
Town of Branford as of last night. I'm here today to \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

FIRST SELECTMAN-ELECT OPIE: Yes. It's

O-p-i-e. And I live at No. 15 Buena Vista Road in Branford.

I'm here today to pretty much second the comments of Senator Aniskovich.
I also presently am the RTM Representative for the 2^nd^ District in
Branford, the district in which this pipeline as proposed would cut
through.

I wanted to express my opposition to it vehemently. I feel this pipeline
is based \-- the project is based on corporate greed, not civic need. No
one yet has demonstrated the need for this thing on Long Island.

However, should it be demonstrated, there seems to be a perfectly
reasonable alternative in the connection to the Iroquois line. It would
be a far lower impact environmental issue, plus improved safety
situation. It may not yield the same corporate profits. But it certainly
would have a far improved environmental situation.

I'd like to pass on a message to Islander East that as the new First
Selectman of Branford, we will continue the fight against this program
until it's done, regardless of how many hearings we have to go to and
how inconvenient they might be for the residents of Branford. There's
been a tremendous outpouring of effort. We saw it yesterday at the polls
with so many people signing cards pledging their support against this
program. We'll continue that from the Town of Branford side, just as
it's been done for the past two years.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Vincent Candelora.

MR. VINCENT CANDELORA: Good morning. My name is Vincent Candelora. It's
C-a-n-d-e-l-o-r-a. I represent the Town of North Branford. I'm a Council
member there.

The Town Council and the Town of North Branford as a whole strongly
objects to this Islander East project. Throughout this entire process,
we have emphasized that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found
this project, quote, "lacks the detailed information necessary to
understand the direct and indirect and secondary impacts to the wetlands
and waters associated with the proposed project."

It's these secondary impacts that I'd like to talk about. While North
Branford is inland, we don't have any coastal land, we believe that
there is an issue that ultimately does affect the Coastal Zone
Management Program.

The pipeline is proposed to go through North Branford through an area of
land that is contaminated with PCE. There\'s a pollution plume there
that is in fractionalized bedrock. It's migrating slowly. We recently
were able to obtain public water for residents in that area. This
pipeline is proposed to go through that pollution plume and disturb it.

Studies that were done back in 2000 recommend that we don't touch this
area. They have no recommended remediation measures for it because of
the nature of the bedrock. They're not sure about the aquifers in that
area. But it leads into Cedar Lake and potentially could lead into
Saltonstall, which goes into the Long Island Sound.

For this reason, we strongly object to this pipeline. We feel that
Islander East \-- or we know Islander East has not given us satisfactory
studies to show that they will not disturb this pollution plume.

The Town of North Branford stands with the State of Connecticut in
objecting to the certification of any projects that will degrade and
endanger key environmental and economic resources. This project runs
counter to the environmental policies of the town and the State of
Connecticut.

We ask that the Secretary of Commerce uphold the determinations of the
Connecticut DEP that has twice denied Islander East's application. Thank
you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: We were going to take just a short break. But I'm
wondering if there are any more elected officials that are here that
haven't registered or would like to speak. Okay.

A VOICE: Would you like to have a few more citizens speak?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Yes, we will. We're going to take a five-minute
break and then we'll come back. We've got \-- we'll be here until
midnight. So stay with us. Thank you.

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is John Smith, RTM Minority
Leader. Is Mr. Smith here?

MR. JOHN SMITH: Yes. I'm coming.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you.

MR. JOHN SMITH: My name is John Smith,

S-m-i-t-h. I live in Short Beach, which is the 3^rd^ District in
Branford. Up until \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Pardon me.

Could I ask the folks to sit down and give some respect to the speaker?
Thank you.

I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. Go ahead.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Up until the election yesterday, I was the Majority Leader in the RTM.
It's now a 15/15 and I might be the majority, might be the minority. But
my comments are going to be the same as I've made in the other meetings.
And I thank you for coming to New Haven. I wish you would come down and
see our town of Branford. And if you're going to stay here to midnight,
you're most welcome to come and we could take a peek and maybe even
bring you to a restaurant.

But, seriously, we see on the RTM, which is a 30-man body, 30-person
body, we see no economic or political or environmental benefit from the
pipeline. What we're looking at is coming through some of the most
beautiful pieces of property that we have set aside for ourselves and
for our grandchildren and our children, which has been paid by our
citizens to preserve that land. And we have an area out there which I
again you would see, which is so precious in terms of the Thimble Isles
and Stony Creek.

Now, I'm a Short Beacher, so I'm on the other side of town. But I could
still say it that way.

But, seriously, we need to really take a look at what's important here.
Unanimously within our town, unanimously across all of the parties,
across all the people, they see no benefit here. All they see is
environmental harm. They don\'t see job creation. They don't see any
economic issues that would make it worthwhile.

I would urge you in looking at it that you look at the benefit analysis
to say is it a real benefit analysis to where this gas is going to go?
Is there enough supply up there that this additional line is going to be
necessary?

The people clearly \-- and we do have a wonderful aquaculture system
here. And we have produced not only beds that we're going to be leasing
in the town, but we're looking to do additional farming of aquaculture,
which will be impacted when the pipeline goes into the Long Island
Sound.

And we, please, urge you and, if you would, take your time \-- if you're
going to be done at 9:30, we'll bring you out there before your airplane
comes out. We have a spacious high school. Wish you guys could have come
and spent time there and you would have had more of a crowd to come
here.

But I want to thank you for listening. And whether I'm the Minority or
the Majority Leader, we will continue as a group and as a town to take
and say "This is not good for the town of Branford or for the
surrounding towns like North Branford and Guilford."

And I thank you for listening to our response.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Just a comment about the crowd. It's deceiving that
the crowd seems not overwhelming at times. But are actually running
through quite a few witnesses. And by the end of the day, I suspect
we'll have a hundred witnesses or more, is my guess, which is pretty
substantial.

The next speaker \-- and that's the reason we did it, was to let \-- to
have a lot of people have an opportunity.

Andrew Gullans?

MR. ANDREW GULLANS: Hi. My name is Andrew Gullans. That's spelled
G-u-l-l-a-n-s. I live on 25 Hotchkiss Grove Road in Branford. And this
issue really does upset me and a number of other people because not too
long ago, a nuclear power plant was built to bolster New York City's
burgeoning power consumption. The citizens of Long Island protested,
saying "Not in my back yard." Initiatives were then formed to construct
a number of conventional power plants in the same area for the same
purpose. Again people shouted "Not in my back yard."

Now you want to build a second pipeline across Long Island Sound while
the first one is only utilized at 30 percent, a plan which fills the
pockets of an elite few corporate pigs, provides no real salient benefit
for most Long Islanders and does grievous harm to us in Connecticut and
our beloved fragile environments.

Well, to this I say "Not in my back yard." Connecticut will not be a
vassal state to corporate greed. We will not allow our delicate
ecosystems to be irrevocably scourged for an unneeded pipeline to
conduct a non-renewable fuel to obsolete generators on the other side of
the water, especially when we already have one that is not being used to
its full capacity. That right there indicates someone's making money out
of a bum deal.

It is not within our technology's ability to create a coastal wetland
and a shellfish bed. These are irreplaceable natural treasures of
incalculable value. It is within our present technological ability to
build and implement alternative power generation means.

There is enough unused acreage on top of the skyscrapers of Manhattan to
install enough windmills to convert the insistent gale force winds 30
stories up into sufficient power to light all five boroughs. Simple
dual-phase saltwater evaporation/rehydration tanks wherein water is
added to sodium with explosive steam-generating effect and later
separated passively by evaporation under sunlight already produce
remarkable wattage in Sweden.

Tidal hydroelectric generators can also be successfully employed in New
York Harbor with negligible impact. Every day, millions of tons of
explodable organic waste are generated by the Empire City, all of which
can be used to produce methane and other burnable gases for power
production. I don't even need to mention solar power.

We are living at the emergence of the age of safe, clean hydrogen power,
a new industry which promises millions of jobs, billions in profits and
the future well-being of our species. Government initiatives towards
wholesale conversion of our petrochemical-based power grid to hydrogen
power offer money in tax cuts to those companies who dare to implement
the dream of hydrogen power.

Not too long \-- okay. Natural gas, like the other petrochemicals, is a
resource both obsolete and finite. If more power is needed, why not
build more hydrogen fuel \-- why not build hydrogen-fueled generators?
The profits and benefits of this technology are beyond the wildest
expectations of the proposal we intend to shoot down today.

People, the future is upon us. The prosperity, the very survival of
America, our species and our planet is at stake little by little every
time some shyster tries to pull a fast one like this. The
shortsightedness many humans exhibit when filling their pockets is an
appalling blemish on the rest of our species, which ultimately threatens
to render our irreplaceable plant uninhabitable.

So I say again "Not in my back yard. Not in anyone's back yard." It is
time to evolve to use newer, safer, smarter, better technology.
Although, like any project, this requires a significant initial
investment, I guarantee its efficiency and profitability.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Craig Roberts.

MR. CRAIG ROBERTS: Good morning. My name is Craig Roberts,
R-o-b-e-r-t-s. I live at 39 Linden Shores in Branford. As arbiters, you
probably all have heard this before. "A natural gas pipeline? Not in my
back yard." But this time, this is different. We're not defending our
back yard. We're defending what is a national treasure.

Not long ago, Long Island Sound was a dying body of water. Waste and
neglect had all but voided the western Sound of life. Fortunately, the
people and politicians of New York and Connecticut at the time realized
what was happening and acted.

Their efforts have paid off. The waters of Long Island Sound have
recovered. Long Island Sound is again a recreational treasure and a
livelihood for many. Those of us who have sailed in other waters know
that Long Island Sound is a truly exceptional place. Its deep protected
waters provide excellent conditions for recreational boating and a home
to many aquatic species. Fishermen and lobstermen have supported their
families for generations and provided the rest of us with many an
excellent meal.

Projects such as Islander East Pipeline, if allowed to proceed, threaten
to reverse all the hard work that has been done to recreate this natural
resource and national treasure.

The country is founded on the principles of capitalism. And I as a
businessman certainly support the concept of profit. But there are also
responsibilities that we as businessmen must recognize. That is easy to
do in our own communities but can be overlooked when trying to develop a
project that runs through somebody else's community for environment.

In this era when corporate greed and arrogance have been making lots of
headlines, some companies have begun to realize the need to act with
social responsibility. Islander East has not gotten this message. It is
a violation of democratic principles that the will of the people should
be ignored and frustrated by such blatant corporate arrogance.

We have to recognize our responsibilities as custodians of the earth
that is our home. Many ecosystems have been damaged or destroyed in the
name of progress. The usual defense that in reality means convenience
for some and profitability for a few.

Sometimes there are no alternatives. But in this case, there are other
ways to get energy to the people of Long Island that are less intrusive
on the Long Island Sound ecosystem but less profitable to Islander East.
Let's use one of them.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: The next speaker is Rebecca Mars.

MS. REBECCA MARS: Hello. My name is Rebecca Mars. And I oppose the
Islander East project. I stand behind our competent and capable DEP when
it determined that the Islander East gas pipeline project did not meet
CZM consistency.

Islander East has been given the option of siting their pipeline in an
ecologically preferable location by FERC but has chosen not to take the
advice and extensive knowledge of our Connecticut DEP, FERC and the
citizens.

Instead, a handful from this newly formed LLC backed by large energy
interests have chosen to circumvent the system and appeal to you to
override it.

There is no emergency here for a gas pipeline and no lack of gas
pipeline service to Long Island. In fact, Iroquois Gas states they have
excessive capacity in their existing pipeline and withdrew their
application.

Our President ran on the Republican platform that states have strong
rights and should control their own destinies. I am sure our President
would not approve of compromising his ideals for special interest
groups.

I believe you employ the Republican ideals and the platform that states'
rights take precedence here. You are the extension of our President and
chosen by him to uphold the beliefs.

I am going to enclose \-- I petition you today to reject the request to
override the decision of our Connecticut DEP and all of us who adamantly
oppose this egregious project.

I am enclosing pictures of wildlife that are within 20 yards of the
proposed project. And I also have two pictures of barges that were
overturned in the proposed area of the pipeline. And I happen to live
next to them. And I asked repeatedly to have some kind of an analysis
done to see if this is safe or not because it's my family and my
children's lives at stake here if these barges overturn on the proposed
route. And every single time, no one has gotten back to me. Even FERC
got back and said it's not their job; it's the DOT. Well, no one has
even evaluated whether there's a safety issue here. And I think that we
haven't even started, you know, that process.

So I would like you all to come out to see firsthand. I invite you to
our home and to look at this issue and find out, you know, if there's
safety issues here. So I ask you if you could just come out and look at
all of our concerns. I think you'll see firsthand.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Bill Donnaruma. Is Mr.
Donnaruma here? Okay.

A VOICE: I think he had to leave.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay.

A VOICE: He'll be back.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: He'll be back. Good. We'll save him a spot.

Next is William VanWie? V-a-n-W-i-e?

MR. WILLIAM VanWIE: Yeah. My name is William VanWie. And it's spelled
capital V-a-n, capital

W-i-e. I come here wearing two caps as an individual and my main concern
is preservation of the environment. The first cap is I'm a
fifth-generation resident of the town. So I've seen in the course of my
own lifetime many, many changes, most of which are destructive to the
community. The second cap is I'm a member of the Branford Land Trust.
And recently, my family, my mother and my father, my wife and myself,
were given a plaque because we donated over 100 acres of open space to
the Town of Branford. So, therefore, my concern about the environment is
very deep-seated.

So I urge this committee to abide by the DEP Connecticut law prohibiting
the destruction \-- construction of the pipeline, which as far as I
could see won't do Branford any good, won't do the community any good,
but it will be helping somebody else and, in the process, might further
destroy what is very endearing to me.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Reverend Suzanna Gryphand?
Maybe I didn't pronounce that right.

George B. Case?

MR. GEORGE CASE: That's me. You know, we could do well to refer this
whole matter to the Attorney General because it comes as a gift to us,
on us and at us from the Governor, from Tomasso, from Tilcon, et cetera.

The offices, local offices, for Islander East were set up before we
started to have hearings. Where were they set up on? The Tilcon
property. Or recently sold.

Let's investigate. Let's not approve anything. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is George Bussmann.

MR. GEORGE BUSSMANN: My name is George Bussmann, B-u-s-s-m-a-n-n. I live
at 109 Highland Avenue in Branford. I'd like to add my voice to the
chorus of people who are opposed to this pipeline. My understanding is
that there are two major criteria to overturn or to allow this pipeline
and overturn DEP's assessment of the damage that this would cause. This
must be a national security. That certainly hasn't been demonstrated by
the chorus of testimony that shows exactly what kind of damage would be
created by this pipeline.

I've been to many of these meetings over these past months. And the
preponderance of evidence has been clearly against putting this pipeline
in. The number of environmental and other concerns has completely
overwhelmed Pipeline East's testimony to the fact that this would not in
any way affect the very delicate ecosystem that exists in the Sound.

I've spent all of my life, close to 60 years, boating and using the
Sound and can tell you that spending one day in the Thimble Islands at
sunset is enough to make any consideration of this pipeline absurd.

I also have heard that Long Island is facing some sort of energy
shortage. At the moment, the gas company is offering rebates to people
who will switch to gas. So it is clearly not a matter of need for this
gas pipeline.

I would like just to finally state that as you listen to this unending
chorus of people in support or, rather, against this pipeline but in
support of reconsidering this, that you do the right thing. Listen to
this heartfelt and bipartisan support that has brought this community
together. And it is, again, very heartening to see just the unbelievable
well of support and love of the area that we live in here.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Roy Vincavage.

MR. RAY GINCAVAGE: You came closer than most. It's Ray Gincavage. It's
G-i-n-c-a-v-a-g-e. I reside at 11 Whiting Farm Road in Branford.

Long Island Sound is one of the most precious resources that Connecticut
has. The Connecticut DEP has documented quite eloquently the irreparable
damage that this pipeline will cause to the Sound. Islander East has, in
fact, admitted that serious damage will be done by offering to pay
millions of dollars to certain fishermen if the project proceeds. These
potential payments have bought the silence of this group. In fact, has
bought the support of this group relative to the pipeline.

But Islander East should not be able to buy the right to irreparably
damage our natural resource and, therefore, reduce the benefits and
enjoyment it will bring to future generations.

From the first public hearing that Islander East held several years ago
on this project, they were told time and time again that sections of the
pipeline needlessly crossed some of the most pristine and
environmentally sensitive shoreline between New York and Maine. Yet,
they stubbornly and arrogantly refused to consider alternatives. Why?
It's about money.

The route Islander East selected would cause the most environmental
damage \-- and I dare say it would be hard to pick a route that would
cause more damage \-- yet it appeared to be the least expensive route
and, therefore, the most profitable route for them into the lucrative
Long Island energy market.

It is about time \-- excuse me. It is about some large corporations
making money at the expense of a natural resource that we all own a part
of. It should not be allowed to happen. It is not about a dire need for
energy on Long Island. If it were, the cross-bay pipeline, which would
have supplied gas to Long Island from the New Jersey side, would have
been built. This pipeline was approved with no environmental issues, but
was not built because of some tariff disputes.

Also, if it were about a dire need for gas on Long Island, gas companies
would not be giving away gas-burning equipment to get Long Island
customers to convert to gas from other forms of energy.

This is not about national security. And the project as proposed is
definitely in violation of the intent of Connecticut's federally
approved Coastal Zone Management Plan. I commend the Connecticut DEP for
recognizing the project as such and hope that you will do the right
thing and support the position of the Connecticut DEP.

There is a clear alternative which all regulating parties, including
FERC, say is environmentally preferable while accomplishing the goal of
supplying more gas to Long Island. And that is tying in to the Iroquois
system.

It is time that Islander East realized that the Iroquois route is the
one that should be used and modify their plan and profit expectations
accordingly.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Next is Alicia Betty.

MS. ALICIA BETTY: I'm Alicia Betty. I live at 45 Harding Avenue in
Branford.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

MS. BETTY: Certainly. B-e-t-t-y.

I'm a lifelong resident of Connecticut. And I've lived near Long Island
Sound for many years. I'm an environmental attorney and work in the land
conservation field. And I'm also a board member of the Branford Land
Trust.

I respectfully request that you uphold the decision of the Connecticut
DEP to deny Islander East's coastal consistency determination for this
pipeline across Long Island Sound.

Long Island Sound is a national treasure. It's one of the most important
natural resources that New England has and provides local communities,
the state of Connecticut and the region with environmental, economic and
recreation benefits that cannot be replicated if it's destroyed.

This will all be endangered if Islander East obtains its permits. For
instance, the shellfish industry has recently been compromised. This
pipeline would further unnecessarily imperil the industry by destroying
shellfish beds.

The current route of Islander East's pipeline will do long-term damage
to properties that it crosses, including property that has been
permanently protected. It will damage water quality, coastal wetlands
and shellfish beds. Too many coastal wetlands have already been
destroyed in the past. Please help us to protect the wetlands that we do
have now and retain the integrity of the ecosystem of Long Island Sound.

And lastly, I think, and most compelling is that there isn't a less
environmentally damaging feasible alternative for Islander East to use.
I respectfully request that you uphold Connecticut DEP's decision. Thank
you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. We have no more new cards for this morning.
But I'll just ask if Bill Donnaruma is here or Reverend Suzanna Gryphon.
Okay. Well, maybe we'll hear from them this afternoon.

All right. We'll take a break now and maybe come back about 1:00. We'll
start at 1:00. Thank you.

(LUNCHEON RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Walpole. I'm the
General Counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
which is the bureau in the Department of Commerce. And I am the Chairman
of the hearing. I will be reading a little longer statement probably
around 1:30 or so when we get more of a crowd. There was a little mix-up
as to what time we were going to start.

But I thought if there are any of the witnesses that signed up that are
here, we would like to proceed with their testimony. There was a
Reverend Suzanne Gryphon? Bill Donnaruma?

And I'll start with a few others here. Barbara Gordon?

A VOICE: (Indiscernible)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay.

Patrick Lowe? Lowe?

Kiki Kennedy?

Elizabeth Dock? Okay.

Okay. One thing I had mentioned this morning \-- I don't know if you
were here \-- is if you could not only state your name but also spell it
for the Court Reporter, I'd appreciate it.

MS. ELIZABETH DOCK: My name is Elizabeth Dock, D-o-c-k, 249 Pleasant
Point Road, Branford. My home overlooks the land-to-water entry site of
the pipeline. I believe the prevailing currents will bring sediments,
including the drilling materials and heavy metals, directly into the
healthy salt marshes of Long Marsh Creek. These salt meadows owned by
the State, the Town, Tilcon and the Branford Land Trust provide
productive breeding sites for fish and shellfish of the Sound.

I'm a co-owner of an adjacent sand beach which will be similarly
degraded.

Active commercial harvesting of shellfish in the proposed pipeline is
visible from my home. And the known damage, if we learn from the Milford
site, will render these sites unusable for years.

Connecticut is justifiably proud of its shellfishing production. And to
allow an unproved drilling project that could be located at the
alternative site in Milford to tunnel under and through these beds would
create an unacceptable risk to the health of the local shellfishing
industry. These beds are owned by the Town and leased out. And we
citizens are shocked at reports of buyoffs of the watermen by Islander
East.

At previous hearings on this pipeline, we've heard scores of experts
from Yale, Wesleyan, UConn, the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, including its head, and our elected officials both from the
local and state level testify that the pipeline would be environmentally
damaging.

The private sector has also weighed in with virtually unanimous
opposition, making it clear that a comprehensive plan to control and
consolidate pipeline crossings is desperately needed for this fragile
Sound.

If this project is permitted, the fear is well warranted that a flood of
applications for individual crossings will quickly follow if no overall
plan is in place for pro-active control.

It is the prevailing belief of the citizens of the shoreline this
hearing is only for show, that NOAA will bend to the politics and bow to
big business, that it will ignore the science, that it will ignore the
State and it will ignore us. Please prove us wrong. We fervently plea
that NOAA protect our fragile Long Island Sound, stand firm and deny
this project.

Thank you very much for your time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Barbara Gordon?

Patrick Lowe?

Kiki Kennedy?

Oh. I'm sorry.

MS. BARBARA GORDON: Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Gordon,
G-o-r-d-o-n. And I'm the Executive Director of the Connecticut Seafood
Council. I think what strikes me most today is that once again we have
had to come together in opposition to the Islander East pipeline, a
proposal which should never have gotten off the ground in the first
place.

I will be submitting a more detailed statement by November 20. For this
hearing, I simply want to state our opposition to the Islander East
project. And, yes, we oppose for environmental reasons, for safety
reasons, for preservation of our shellfish beds, for all of these
reasons, but for two critical issues.

One, we support Connecticut's Coastal Zone Management Regulations. It is
arrogant of Islander East to attempt to circumvent Connecticut's
regulatory process. And, two, we wholeheartedly support Connecticut's
DEP in its denial of this project. Our state stands firm in its support
of our state's rights.

I urge you to put an end to this for-profit attempt to ignore
Connecticut's well-being. I urge you to uphold the well-documented
decision of Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Patrick Lowe again?

Susan Peterson?

Vivian Briggs?

Virginia Shaw?

Dana Naumann?

MS. VIRGINIA SHAW: I'm Virginia Shaw,

S-h-a-w, 33 Queach Road. I've lived in Branford for almost 16 years and
have grown to treasure its lovely coastline, its carefully preserved
open spaces, the recreational pleasures of its clean waters and to value
its long history of citizens who make their livings from shellfishing.

Islander East's project would destroy a large part of these activities.
And for what? For profits for a company producing power for Long Island,
for which there are many other options.

It should be clear after the multiple governmental denials of permits
and plans suggested by Islander East that the laws appropriately serve
the people and will not allow this travesty.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Stan Mars? Oh, did Mr. Mars testify before?

A VOICE: It's the same last name.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay.

MR. STAN MARS: Good afternoon. My name is Stan Mars, M-a-r-s. I live at
16 Juniper Point Road in Branford. I'd like to express my opposition to
any approval of the Islander East Pipeline project. In the Coastal Zone
Management Act of '72, Congress found that the key to more effective
protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone
is to encourage the states to exercise their full authority over the
lands and waters in the coastal zone.

Congress also found and declared that it is national policy to preserve,
protect and develop and, where possible, to restore and enhance the
resources of the nation's coastal zones for this and succeeding
generations and, two, to encourage and insist \-- assist the states to
exercise programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources.

They also found that, where possible, to the maximum extent possible, to
locate new commercial and industrial developments in or adjacent to
areas where such development already exists.

I see that the intent of Congress is clear. Coastal zones must be
preserved and protected. States are identified as being the preferred
guardians of this resource, not commercial enterprise. And build in
areas that already have existing development.

When you are considering this proposal, I'd ask you to also consider
that, one, gas can reach the shores of Long Island by another route.
Second, consider that gas can also reach Long Island if the name on the
pipeline is not Islander East.

The DEP has twice rejected the Islander East Pipeline permit request and
has also pointed out that a less damaging alternative does exist. This
alternative route is consistent with Congressional findings in that the
route is also adjacent to an existing pipeline. Again, I point out that
if the alternative route is not acceptable to Islander East, then
perhaps another pipeline company may be willing to undertake this
project.

If the real need is to provide energy to Long Island, the need can be
met without the damaging consequences currently proposed. Long Island's
energy needs can be met. The Sound can be protected. And the Connecticut
DEP can continue to provide its key role in protecting our environment.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Jean Tomasso?

MS. JEAN TOMASSO: Good afternoon. My name is Jean Tomasso,
T-o-m-a-s-s-o. And this is my daughter, Isabelle. We weren't really
planning on speaking. But since we're here, we thought we would.

Obviously, I must strongly oppose this is I'm willing to bring my
four-year-old daughter in the rain to New Haven right after nursery
school when she probably needs a nap.

We're opposed on this because of the environmental issues, the water
quality contaminants \-- I can't even say it \-- contaminants in the
soil and in Long Island Sound. I'm also concerned about the safety
issues from accidents, vandalism and terrorism. They haven't showed me
how they're going to protect this from all of these variable factors.

We've lived in Branford \-- she's lived in Branford all her life and
I've lived in Branford for 12 years. And we moved to this area from
Washington, D.C. because we liked the community, because we liked the
Long Island Sound and how involved we were in the outdoor activities.
And to put this in would jeopardize not only my ability to enjoy the
outdoors but my daughter's future and ability to live in this area.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: James Pietro?

MR. JAMES PERITO: James Perito,

P-e-r-i-t-o, 55 Aber Place in Branford. At the onset, I want to say I
don't own property along the pipeline. So I have no specific personal
interest in property being affected. But I've lived in Branford for 14
years. I've been an active member of the Branford Land Trust. And I've
worked real hard for a long time to protect the open space that we have
in our town and to acquire properties in our town so that other citizens
in the town and the other towns around us can enjoy our open space.

I think that the DEP's decision is correct and protects the health of
Long Island Sound as an economic and recreational resource. The DEP has
had extensive hearings and has reviewed a multitude of reports and data.

Any benefits of the Islander East pipeline are far outweighed by the
environmental harm done to the water quality and the shellfish beds, as
well as the coastal wetlands.

I ask you to uphold the decision of our DEP to deny Islander East a
coastal consistency determination under our Coastal Zone Management Act.
The pipeline will have significant adverse environmental impacts where
there are other alternatives that are readily available.

I think in this case your course and choice is clear. You can protect
the environment or you can allow profit to outweigh the well-reasoned
decision of our DEP.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Peter Debona?

MR. PETER DEBONA: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Debona, D-e-b-o-n-a.
I reside at 113 Flat Rock Road in Branford. I'm not a long-term
Branfordite nor am I a Creeker or anybody else's name. I'm a family man.
And I came to Branford because I like the town. I chose it for its
proximity to the water and its small town feeling. I've resided here for
now seven years. It's everything a family could want. I was fortunate to
spot for a small boat. I'm retired with a disability. And the peace and
tranquility of Branford's Stony Creek is my therapy.

I'm extremely concerned about what can happen to the peace that I now
enjoy. I love the water. And this proposed drilling, if it begins, is
going to cause me personally a detriment.

I'm also concerned with the disturbance to my fishing grounds and the
surrounding areas, both through the Thimble Islands and also inland. I
live about a mile from the creek. And during the boating and fishing
season, there's hardly a day goes by that I'm not there. I want this to
continue for my lifetime and my family's.

I have two articles that I have submitted with my testimony. They're
both concerning Duke Energy's hub line project. The first is from The
Sound Newspaper written by Kiki Kennedy and it details the problems that
Duke Energy has had with the construction of a 29-mile, 30-inch gas
pipeline being built offshore from Salem to Weymouth.

The second is from a national boating magazine called Offshore dated
October 2003 and it details the ongoing problems that they are having.

I readily admit to not being a technical person or an engineer. However,
through the media I have seen and read about the destructive force that
a gas explosion can have. I'm just an ordinary citizen who thought he
found his little town. How can they be so sure that these problems won't
happen here when obviously they're still encountering problems in
Massachusetts?

If these problems can occur offshore, what can we expect inland? Will I
ever be able to feel comfortable about this pipeline buried in the
ground, traversing railroad lines, abutting school grounds and
neighborhoods and leaving a permanent scar across the open space of our
town?

Lastly, will this pipeline make our town a target for terrorism? I ask
you, I plead with you, don't let this project go forward.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next speaker is Terrell Naumann.

MS. TERRELL NAUMANN: My name is Terrell, T-e-r-r-e-l-l, Naumann,
N-a-u-m-a-n-n. And I reside at 22 Third Avenue, Branford, Connecticut. I
vehemently oppose the building of the proposed Islander East pipeline
and respectfully request that you deny Islander East's appeal. Please
uphold the people's and the state's rights to protect Connecticut's
environment.

I've been to numerous hearings and have heard many reasons, but I have
not once heard of one good reason why this proposed pipeline would
benefit our state in any way.

There are many reasons to be concerned with the Islander East business
practices. For example, they are an LLC and not accountable for any
future damage to our land, our children, our Sound, our wetlands and
shellfish beds.

In addition, I have recently been told of test boring samples that have
been taken in North Branford, that they were found to contain Native
American artifacts dating back three to four thousand years. Islander
East has not responded to numerous requests for further archeological
investigations and testing.

We are all concerned that once again Islander East is not disclosing
important findings when the results are not in favor of their proposed
plans. We, the residents of Connecticut, are entitled to any information
pertaining to valuable artifacts and the right to protect our resources,
history and people.

I ask that you please deny the appeal and protect the people and
environment of Connecticut.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Dana B. Naumann? Pronounced it right that time.

MR. DANA NAUMANN: You did.

My name is Dana, D-a-n-a, Naumann,

N-a-u-m-a-n-n. First initial B as in boy, for Dana B. Naumann. And I am
a fourth-generation Branfordite. And I've heard a lot of comments today
that I thought were just incredible, accurate and true. And it's amazing
that we're still sitting in front of all of you. And thank you very
much, by the way, for coming a long way. Because it's been denied by the
Connecticut DEP. And what more can be said?

Islander East continues to try to do the end runs to get around it. And
my relatives \-- I'm a fourth generation again \-- would say \-- and I
heard this before today \-- "Not in my back yard." Currently, I live at
22 Third Avenue. And that's in Branford. But I own a lot in Juniper
Point which literally abuts the Islander East line coming through
Branford. And "not in my back yard", not in all of our back yards now
for that matter.

And it definitely will impact the property values, as well as the
environmental impacts are just without a doubt overwhelming, even just
to mention a few, the shellfish beds, just the quality of the water and
et cetera.

I would like to see this appeal be denied by the \-- by you for Islander
East to go forward any further. It's been dragged on too long now, I
think.

Thank you very much for coming a long way.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Vivian Briggs?

Sherry Peterson?

Patrick Lowe?

Carmela \-- it's hard to read this. Cuoso? PhD.

MS. CARMELA CUOMO: Actually, my name is Carmela Cuomo, C-u-o-m-o. And,
yes \-- my name is Dr. Carmela Cuomo. I\'m a research scientist at Yale
University. And I head up the undergraduate Marine Biology Program at
the University of New Haven. I am a trained geologist, geochemist and
marine ecologist. My overall specialty is in marine benthic
bio-geochemical interactions and my primary focus is in hypoxic and
anoxic environments in estuarian systems. And I do a tremendous amount
of research in central and western Long Island Sound.

I do not reside in Branford. I am a resident of Hamden, Connecticut. And
as such, the pipeline installation does not directly impact my home or
my neighborhood. On the other hand, the pipeline installation will
dramatically impact central Long Island Sound and the marine environment
there.

To this end, I feel it is my duty as both a citizen and a scientist to
express my deep misgivings about the installation and operation of this
pipeline.

You should be aware that I've read both the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and the Final Environmental Impact Statement and have made
comments upon both of them.

I stand here because I would like to briefly review some of the problems
that I've had with both of these and the entire approach to this project
in central Long Island Sound.

First of all, in both the Draft EIS and the FEIS, Islander East and
their consultants failed to accurately addressed the geological
components of this entire system. They fail to adequately provide the
background information on where and how they were able to decide they
were not going to encounter bedrock when I challenged them to talk to
the State geo\-- the former State geologist who will happily show them
where the bedrock exists along their pipeline.

They dismiss an active geological fault that has been documented by Yoke
Varekamp as able to sustain a magnitude earthquake 5 and is actually
overdue for an earthquake by about four years, by dismissing it and
saying that in the area where the pipeline is going to go \-- first they
said there was no active geological \-- first they said there was no
fault. Then they said there was no active geological fault, when the
eastern border fault of Connecticut runs right through this area. And
any geologist, myself included, could have told them this.

The next problem that I find is overall a general lack of scientific \--
I'm trying to think of the right word \-- rigor in their approach. If I
was writing a grant proposal to try to study this area, I would never
get funded with the approach they took. They missed the earthquakes.
They don't \-- the benthic work that has been done is inadequate,
doesn't even follow the standards that were put forth by the Army Corps
of Engineers for benthic sampling. And they don't even begin to discuss
and adequately address the geochemistry in there. In fact, they misquote
some of the scientific papers and work that has been done on the
geochemistry of the area.

There will be tremendous harm done to central Long Island Sound. It will
end up \-- you'll end up bringing what is already the hypoxia that's in
the western Sound to the central Sound.

I've enclosed all of this in eight pages of notes here. And I'll be
happy to submit it to you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Sure. Just leave it with the Court Reporter. Thank
you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: James Padeni?

Ellen McCarthy-Payden?

MR. JAMES PAYDEN: It's James Payden,

P-a-y-d-e-n.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Oh. I'm sorry. I apologize.

MR. PAYDEN: I printed it. I thought it was very clear.

Dear committee members, my name is James Payden. And I thank you for the
opportunity to express my concerns. I am totally opposed to the Islander
East proposal and the degradation of the God-given resources that this
proposal will destroy and land, as well as the natural resources that
presently exist on the bottom of Long Island Sound.

The Iroquois gas transmission project of some 20 years ago should have
taught us that man cannot play with Mother Nature and hope to win. The
damage inflicted by the Iroquois project has never been remediated and
most likely never will.

I've had personal contacts with fishermen who have worked that area,
bottom fishermen such as oystermen and clammers, that said that the
damage has never taken care of itself. And most of these people, they're
third and fourth-generation fishing people that know what they're
talking about. They're not necessarily scientists. They're earth people.
And they said that once a bottom is disturbed as a natural resource for
the breeding of oysters, in particular, it can never, never be
remediated.

And the Islander East is a well-documented disastrous project that I
think you should refer to before you give any consideration to any
further degradation of Long Island Sound.

Based on the knowledge we have obtained, the potential damage and
degradation to individual wetlands and the Branford Land Trust protected
areas damaged and destruction of thousands of acres of Long Island sea
floor and shellfish beds will be destroyed forever.

We do not want to be a party to the destruction of Long Island Sound.
And we hope that you folks would not want to be a party to it, either,
for the betterment of a few corporations that are basically only
concerned by their bottom line.

Thank you for your consideration.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Ellen McCarthy-Payden.

MS. ELLEN McCARTHY-PAYDEN: Hi. I'm Ellen McCarthy-Payden. And I thank
you for this opportunity to express my opposition to Islander East. Long
Island Sound is Connecticut\'s greatest natural resource. It is the home
to hundreds of sea creatures and various types of plant life. It has
provided people with a livelihood, as well as a place for all to absorb
the beauty of creation.

Please do not allow the greed of big business to destroy forever this
treasure. Numerous damage to wetlands, acres of sea floor, the release
of toxins and contaminants and the risk of explosion are but a few of
the devastating results. Stop this catastrophic disaster and deny
Islander East's appeal.

Thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Barbara Gayley?

MS. BARBARA GAYLEY: My name is Barbara Gayley. And I have property at
Juniper Point, property which was in my husband's family since 1900.

The proposed \-- the proposal by Islander East to build a gas pipeline
across Long Island Sound has been denied for good and proper reasons by
all those agencies whose business it is to protect the environment. And
I will not belabor these points.

My property at Juniper Point lies right next to the proposed pipeline
route. And, therefore, my testimony against the installation must
necessarily be biased. However, beyond my fear for the safety of my own
family and myself and the incipient decline in property value, I have a
more fundamental concern. I fear for my country when the unanimous will
of the people of Connecticut can be overruled by a company so powerful
it can make its deals behind closed doors in Washington.

The founding fathers of this country instituted safeguards against the
excesses of an autocratic central government by affirming the rights of
states to control business within their borders and to make decisions
regarding highways and waterways in the best interests of its citizens.

To erode this sacred trust in order to benefit a powerful business with
ties to political energy interests is to break faith with the American
people as well as the people of Connecticut.

I ask that NOAA and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Commerce,
respect the right of the State of Connecticut to determine what is best
for its environment and its citizens.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Matthew Gayley?

MR. MATTHEW GAYLEY: My name is Matthew Gayley. I own two lots 125 feet
west of where the pipeline will enter Long Island Sound. I am also the
developer of the land that is now known as Juniper Point. And I feel
that this project, the Juniper Point project, had to comply with the
Connecticut Coastal Management Act. Residential subdivisions are not
considered water-dependent uses. The term "water-dependent use" comes
from the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, which by itself was defined
under the Federal Coastal Management Act, which in itself was defined by
the estuarian survey conducted, I believe, by NOAA a good many years
ago.

The use of water-dependent use for the coastline goes without saying
that now we have limited coastline. We must protect or utilize it for
those activities that are or need access or must use water. Tilcon sends
things by barge. They obviously need water.

The rest of us have to provide, in lieu of a water-dependent use, a \--
something that the Connecticut Coastal Management Act will accept in
lieu of water-dependent use. In this case, the Juniper Point project had
to create and protect two salt marshes and to create, as the Act allows,
in lieu of water-dependent use, public access.

The derivation of all this does come from the Federal Act. And I find it
sad that it appears that the Federal Act now being reconsidered is to
say "Well, we really didn't mean it. And so we can have
non-water-dependent use on the shoreline."

I'm opposed to this. I don't think this is correct nor do I think that
all of us in Connecticut who for the last 250 years managed to follow
our state laws, our state regulations suddenly find a business use which
is not directly related to have priority over our water and coastlines
under both the Federal Act and the Connecticut Coastal Management Act.

I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Elizabeth Possidente? Possidente?

MS. ELIZABETH POSSIDENTE: I'm Elizabeth Possidente. I live in 250
Thimble Islands Road.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you please spell your name?

MS. POSSIDENTE: P-o-s-s-i-d-e-n-t-e.

In Stony Creek. I'm going to brief. But I have children and
grandchildren that live in Branford. And I'm also \-- oh, the other
thing is that I'm a member of the Land Trust.

And I find it just despicable that this company has tried time and time
again to assault us and to reach into their deep pockets and try and pay
off fishermen and stuff to keep their \-- keep the ball rolling for
themselves.

I think it's a tragedy that they would ever be allowed to trespass on
Land Trust property and into our \-- the bottom of Long Island Sound
which is a treasure for Connecticut and for all of the families that
live in Branford and in Connecticut.

And I hope that you will not let this happen to us. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Next is Mavis Brittelli.

MS. MAVIS BRITTELLI: Hello. My name is Mavis Brittelli and I'm \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Can you please spell that?

MS. BRITTELLI: B-r-i-t-t-e-l-l-i.

My husband and I, David Brittelli, live in Stony Creek. And we are
opposed to the pipeline plan by Islander East. We both are scientists
and we think it's very dangerous to the environment. And I have a bunch
of photographs of the area that I've taken over the last ten years that
we've lived here that I would like to submit for the record.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Certainly. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Andrea Wilson?

MS. ANDREA WILSON: Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Wilson. I reside in
Stony Creek, Connecticut. I am speaking in opposition to the proposed
Islander East pipeline through Branford. I oppose it for the following
reasons.

First, there is a shorter route for the pipeline. Second, there is a
safer route for the pipeline. It is unconscionable to even consider
placing a high-pressure natural gas pipeline adjacent to a school. The
route of the proposed pipeline is past Whitewood School and takes no
measures to protect the children. The route was chosen because it is
more profitable than the existing route in Milford.

Recently, in Jeffersonville, Kentucky, a natural gas pipeline similar to
the one proposed through Branford exploded. In that fire, acres were
scorched. And because of the pressure in the pipeline, it took several
hours before the flames were brought under control.

I would like you to try to imagine just what would happen to school
children 70 feet away from a ball of fire hot enough to melt sand. In my
opinion, building a high-pressure gas pipeline next to a school cannot
be morally justified.

Third, there is a less environmentally damaging route for the pipeline.

In conclusion, to date there has been no proof that the pipeline is
either indispensable or necessary. The proposed pipelined is not about
eminent domain. It is about greed.

If you allow this pipeline to proceed, it will be a safety and
environmental disaster. It needs to be stopped now. I implore you to do
the right thing and emphatically deny Islander East's appeal.

Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

John Wilson?

MR. JOHN WILSON: My name is John Wilson. I live on Stony Creek. I'm
asking you to deny Islander East's appeal. The proposed Islander East
pipeline is neither indispensable or necessary as there is an alternate
route that is shorter, safer and less environmentally damaging.

The elephant in the room is that eminent domain should not be used to
create terrorist targets. A natural gas pipeline buried in three feet of
dirt is a vulnerable terrorist target. How is the current administration
in its war on terrorism going to stop a terrorist with a small shovel
and a radio-controlled detonating device?

I believe building this pipeline next to a school should be a criminal
offense.

In addition, the national and international message that approval of
this pipeline would send is that the Bush administration's war on
terrorism takes a back seat to corporate profits. This message
challenges the sincerity of the war on terrorism and is a dangerous blow
to the security of all Americans. Denying this pipeline is a national
issue.

If this pipeline is truly safe, then why is the parent company which
made a gross profit of 8.7 billion dollars last year hiding their assets
behind a limited liability company? If they are not willing to risk
their money, you should not be willing to let them risk our children.

I hope the nation will be watching and this committee will send a clear
message. And I hope that message will be that even though Islander
East's parent company was a member of the secret Cheney Energy Task
Force and is a major political contributor, it cannot buy the right to
put our children at fatal risk.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

Nathan Brown?

MR. NATHAN BROWN: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Brown. As
a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 478, I
wish to express my support for the Islander East Pipeline project. This
pipeline represents the most cost-effective project to deliver
much-needed gas, natural gas, to our region. It provides Connecticut
with the infrastructure to meet the increasing demand for natural gas.

The National Transportation Safety Board statistics show that the U.S.
interstate pipeline system is the safest energy delivery system in the
nation. In the Islander East proposal, safety is clearly a top priority.
They will meet or exceed the safety requirements of the U.S. Department
of Transportation, the agency that governs the design, construction and
the operation of the interstate transmission pipelines.

The pipeline system will be monitored electronically 24 hours a day, 7
days a week in a gas control center. In addition, Duke Energy, the
project manager and the agent for the Islander East Pipeline project,
has a continuous record of safety. It includes a half-century history of
safely constructing and operating natural gas pipelines in Connecticut
and other New England states. This last May, Duke received American Gas
Association's top safety award for its outstanding achievements in
promoting natural gas pipeline safety. Safety will certainly not be
compromised.

Islander East has proposed a project that will minimize any
environmental impact. Only after considering the concerns of residents
and the local fishing industry did they develop the proposed route. They
will utilize a horizontal directional drill to lessen any distribution
to the aquaculture of Long Island Sound. They will engage all reasonable
measures in their restoration efforts. And the restoration will fully
comply with federal, state and municipal requirements.

Economically, Connecticut will benefit from the creation of jobs due to
the construction and operation of this pipeline. In addition to the
employment opportunities, the state and certain municipalities will
benefit from the development of a new tax base.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Robert Dow?

MR. ROBERT DOW: My name is Robert Dow. I reside at 71 Stony Creek Road,
which is approximately 500 feet away from the proposed pipeline and
across the street from the Whitewood School which is located immediately
adjacent to where the pipeline would go. I also own an industrial
building at 20 McDermott Road, which is off of Route 139, north of Route
1, which backs up to the existing Branford steam railway.

I'm not going to speak to the environmental issues and all of that. I'm
not a scientist, although I am a civil engineer by degree. I can tell
you that there is tremendous vibration which occurs as a result of the
Branford steam railway. It's an extremely heavy gauge rail transporting
tons and tons of crushed stone over the rail.

I have had tenants that could not locate in my building off Route 139
because of the vibration that transmits through the ground. I don't
believe \-- I know that initially there were no vibration studies when
this started. I haven't heard of any sufficient studies as a result of
that. And particularly in view of the fact that you're talking about a
couple of hundred grammar school kids, as well as residents, I think it
really should be looked at.

Moreover, I'm concerned with the way this whole thing has been handled,
both from a governmental issue as well as from Pipeline East. I think
their work has been sloppy. They provided only necessary information.
They've done studies only after they've been required to do them and
only the minimal amount. They're not doing what's right. They're doing
what they deem they have to do to get away with it.

Lastly, it concerns me that, instead of a hearing like this being held
in Branford at a time when most residents and people concerned can be
here, that we're holding this in New Haven where people have to pay to
park and get here to start with and during normal business hours. It was
a problem for me to get here.

I would encourage you folks and whoever else is involved to do an
overall comprehensive study. First, is there a need for gas on Long
Island? Secondly, what is really the best and most efficient way to
accomplish providing Long Island with gas if they need it? And then
maybe putting out proposals for the best place. And if this really
became the best and the safest and the most \-- way to do it, I don't
think you'd have nearly as much opposition as you do in the way that
this has taken form. I think there are better ways. But I'm not an
expert. I would only ask you folks to look at all the alternatives that
are going to the person who's got the most money.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Back to Reverend Suzanna Gryphon?

Bill Donnaruma?

Patrick Lowe?

MR. PATRICK LOWE: My name is Patrick Lowe. I have at 159 Stony Creek
Road, which is \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your name please?

MR. LOWE: L-o-w-e.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

MR. LOWE: It's about \-- less than a quarter-mile from the proposed
pipeline. I've got two children, ages 9 and 12, who I'm frightened for
their safety with a pipeline so close to the house. They play in the
woods near where the pipeline is proposed to go through. I'm frightened
of that, that they're in the woods with such a volatile, you know,
potential bomb so close to them.

I'm frightened for the Long Island Sound, the health of Long Island
Sound. I'm frightened of people like Ken Lay. And I'm frightened of
companies like Islander East.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Vivian Briggs.

MS. VIVIAN BRIGGS: Vivian Briggs, Pine Orchard Road. And I'm concerned
about the pipeline for several reasons, first being the construction
phase. I'm concerned what impact that will have on our economy, our
little corner of the world in terms of both noise and traffic while this
is under way.

I'm also concerned about the environmental issues. My husband is a
boater and a recreational lobsterman. What impact will this have on the
shellfish beds in our area?

I'm concerned about the wetlands. We live in a beautiful area where we
have a nature trail through the marshes that is enjoyed on a daily basis
by many people, both who live in community and outside of the community.
What will happen to that?

I'm also concerned about the safety of the entire operation once the
pipeline would be completed.

And, finally, I'm also here as a member of the Pine Orchard Association
Board which represents about 400 families in the Pine Orchard area. As
an association, we are against the pipeline.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: The last name I believe is Farwell? I'm not sure
\-- I can't pronounce \-- I can't read the first name.

MS. ANSTRESS FARWELL: Yes. My name is Anstress Farwell. It's spelled
A-n-s-t-r-e-s-s. I'm President of the New Haven Urban Design League. The
Design League has worked with the Long Island Sound Action Committee to
study ways of improving the health of Long Island Sound and to protect
its future. We join them and other groups in opposing the Islander East
project because it will harm a vital and pristine part of the
Connecticut coastline.

We support the Department of Environmental Protection's objection to
this project on the grounds that it is neither consistent with nor
approvable under the Coastal Zone Management Act. And we agree with the
findings of the DEP and the Attorney General's Office that there are
feasible and viable alternatives that would not \-- that would cause
less environmental damage and still bring gas to Long Island.

We are concerned that the application is incomplete. At the time of the
August hearing, Islander East had not done test borings of the sea bed
to determine conditions in the zone where the HDD would be operated.
Islander East had not determined where the HDD would emerge. And
Islander East has provided no alternative to HDD installation should
that method prove inappropriate to the conditions in Branford Harbor.

These are not details but primary factors; how the work will be done,
where the work will be done and what the results will be.

I share the dismay of Branford officials who sensibly observed that this
application for a major interstate, multi-million-dollar engineering
project does not approach the level of completeness that would be
required for a local Planning & Zoning Board review.

We are concerned that the application is also ever-changing. At the
August 1 Army Corps hearing held in Branford, Islander East presented
new proposals for the land route which might spare some important open
space. While we commend the goal of improving the project, it raises the
question, what project is being considered, the one FERC reviewed or
what the Connecticut DEP reviewed?

Islander East has asked the Department of Commerce to forego any further
hearings, saying that the public meetings to date suffice. This request
is invalid in the light of the incomplete and ever-changing application.
We're glad you're here today.

The lack of incomplete information creates a dangerous scenario. Having
been involved in the effort to prevent the installation of cross-Sound
cable in New Haven Harbor, I'm concerned that similar mistakes will be
repeated in this case. That is, in an effort to work with the applicant,
an ad hoc review process will allow decisions to be made and work to
proceed without adequate foundation of facts.

So thank you for coming here and considering our testimony.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Jeanne Crowley?

MS. JEANNE CROWLEY: You want me to spell my name?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Please.

MS. CROWLEY: My first name is Jeanne,

J-e-a-n-n-e. My last name is Crowley, C-r-o-w-l-e-y. I live in Branford,
also. I was just working on my remarks because I didn't think I'd be
speaking for about an hour. But I guess I'll just have to talk from my
heart.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: If you \-- you're welcome to talk from your heart
or if you'd like to do it later, that's fine, too.

MS. CROWLEY: I won't do any better later. I'm not a great speaker, to
tell you the truth.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay.

MS. CROWLEY: And I almost didn't come because I thought I'm just one
voice and I'm a nobody and Islander East is this big company. They've
got all the power and all the money. I don't think they care what we in
Branford want. We're fighting this pipeline, those of us who live in
Branford. I'm not lucky enough to live right down on the water where the
pipeline would go. But I treasure that land. I walk it as often as I
can. I don't know if you've seen it. But I'd love you to see it so you
could see what's at stake.

I'm really appalled at the way Islander East conducts their business.
They've done testing they didn't have permission for and haven't done
other testing they probably should have. I feel like if I was their mom,
I'd be very ashamed of all of the people at Islander East.

And as a mom, although I have many other things I could be doing today
and really don't know if anything I say is going to matter, for the sake
of my own three kids I have to come here and try to fight for a little
bit of open space that we have left in Branford and a beautiful
community. And I have to hope that maybe we'll be heard.

They're a big, powerful company. I feel like the United States
Government is all for what they're doing. I know Attorney General
Blumenthal is fighting tooth and nail. Wonderful people, like Kiki
Kennedy, are just trying so hard to fight this great big Goliath. But
maybe we in Branford can be a little bit like David and maybe Goliath
will fall.

So, for what it's worth, speaking from my heart, please keep the
pipeline out. And let's find other ways to work on these problems.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

Sheri Peterson?

MS. SHERI PETERSON: Good afternoon. My name is Sheri Peterson. I'm here
on two counts, one as an individual residing at 282 Pine Orchard Road in
Branford. The second is as a representative of the Pine Orchard Yacht
and Country Club in the Pine Orchard section of Branford which is
adjacent to the proposed pipeline.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: If you \-- two things. If you could spell your
name? But, also, since you're here representing an organization, you're
entitled to five minutes, not just three. So \--

MS. PETERSON: Okay. Okay. My name is spelled S-h-e-r-i, Peterson,
P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

On behalf of the Pine Orchard Yacht and Country Club, we support the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in its coastal
consistency determination under Connecticut's Federal Coastal Zone
Management Plan.

On a personal note, I would just like to say over 10 years ago, I lived
in Milford when the Iroquois pipeline was first being proposed. My
neighbor at that time was an oysterman. He mined \-- not mined. He
harvested from the waters of Long Island Sound. At that time, the
Iroquois project seemed like a straight shot. It was just right \-- it
was much easier than what we're facing here today. It isn't running
underneath a railroad track. It's not going in through granite. And it
was a fairly easy production compared to this.

He was assured throughout the whole process that there would be no
damage to his beds, that he would be able to go back and have his
livelihood. And within a month of the project starting, he lost his
entire livelihood. All the beds were covered with silt. The oysters were
destroyed.

And if anybody knows anything about oystering, you have to start with
clutch and it builds up over a period of time. It isn't like it's
instantaneous. It's a long process.

He lost his livelihood for five years, ended up winning a lawsuit
against Iroquois and was told behind closed doors or whatever that it
was just basically a payoff, that they knew that this was going to
happen.

And this is what bothers; is because I see how my friend suffered. And I
worry now, looking at this pipeline proposal and everything that goes
against it. Common sense is just lacking. It's terrible. And I'm just
very scared about this untested technology going through granite which
is supporting the AT&T building and the base of the Statue of Liberty
and everything else. But nobody has tested this technology. So I hope
everybody thinks twice before they approve this.

Thank you for your time.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

Jeanne Benny-Waknine?

MS. JEANNE BENNY-WAKNINE: Hello. I'm Jeanne Benny-Waknine. I am a
resident at 8 Juniper Point in Branford.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Could you spell your name please?

MS. BENNY-WAKNINE: J-e-a-n-n-e, B-e-n-n-y, hyphenated, Waknine,
W-a-k-n-i-n-e.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

MS. BENNY-WAKNINE: Okay. I ask that you support the Connecticut DEP and
that deny Islander East's appeal. And I'd particularly like to see the
Sounds preserved for the children and particularly my son.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Bill Donnaruma?

Or Suzanna Gryphon?

We'll take about a 15-minute break then and wait until some more folks
sign up and we'll continue. Thank you.

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could take your seats,
we'll continue.

I might mention that for the people that are here for a long time today
that are parked in the garage, there is an \$8.00 sticker you can get
for the whole day as opposed to, I guess, 14, which is available from
the Business Center downstairs. It's a sticker that they sell for your
parking. If that's a help to anyone. If you're just here for a short
period of time, it's not going to help you much.

Next I'd like to call Jennifer Glass.

And if I could remind everyone again to be sure and spell your last name
for the Court Reporter.

MS. JENNIFER GLASS: Jennifer Glass,

G-l-a-s-s. Hello.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Hello.

MS. GLASS: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jennifer Glass.
And I reside in Stony Creek, Connecticut. I moved there 11 years ago.
And I quickly discovered the nature trail as a recreational runner. My
husband and my children and I enjoy it on an almost daily basis.

I'm here in opposition of the pipeline because I'm concerned for the
safety of my family and all the other lovers of this nature trail.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Richard J. Donohoe?

MR. RICHARD DONOHOE: Last name spelled Donohoe, D-o-n-o-h-o-e, 23 Tweed
Road in Branford. I'd like to compliment the pipeline people for funding
this venue. Next time, maybe we could meet closer to where the problem
is, a little town called Branford.

The past 15 years \-- and I know you're interested in water. But I'm
here to talk about land for the minute and a half I have left. We've had
3,184 reported gas pipeline incidents, accidents, resulting in the
deaths of 328 people.

My family and I have lived over 30 years next to a part of the Tilcon
property, not where the pipeline is proposed to go. We have seen in that
time one fire, brush fire, caused by track trains during the
leaf-falling time, throwing sparks. Had to be put out by Tilcon people.
We have seen one train go over Totoket Road on the side because some
kids were playing with the derailer. And one we were going to Hartford
to petition the State Government about a different problem. We
discovered that on the Tilcon line one of the trains had hit a passenger
car, which, not the fault of Tilcon, was attempting to beat the train.

It is known that the Tilcon property still passes over public roads.
Now, we know that Tilcon is adamantly opposed to this project. And I'm
sure that you have all the documentation that has been submitted in
previous meetings to various State agencies. Is that true, gentlemen?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: No. It's diff\-- it's not. The administrative
record for the Department of Commerce consists of the materials that are
submitted to the Department for this review.

MR. DONOHOE: So federalism plays little part here. Is that correct?

I would think that any documentation that has been presented \-- and
Tilcon makes a very big case for not having that pipeline anywhere near
their property \-- would certainly be part of your portfolio at this
time. And if it is not, I will see that that is done.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

MR. DONOHOE: Now, Tilcon objects to this because you're going to \-- the
pipeline folks want to take \-- what is it? \-- about four miles along
their property. And they're scared to death, the Tilcon people are. They
own the railroads. An Irish company, but it's on our land. It's in
America. They're scared to death of a train accident because, if a
pipeline blows and a train is there, who is to claim who had it. And we
know that the asset value of the folks down in Texas are basically
located in Texas where the asset values of the Tilcon Company are
basically located here in Connecticut. So should anything bad happen in
the way of liability or should Long Island all of a sudden find that it
has no gas in the middle of the winter, who do you think is going to get
sued more? So Tilcon, the people that these folks want to take four
miles from, are adamantly opposed to this. And I will make sure that you
have that documentation from their law firm.

Incidentally, the folks at Islander East, when turned down by
Connecticut, decided that they were patriots. And they wrote \-- they
got a hold of the Department of Commerce and said, "There's a national
security thing here." Well, the Department of Commerce is not into
national security. So they bucked it to the Pentagon.

Here is the response from the Pentagon by a gentleman by the name if
Philip W. Grone, who has the following title, if you can believe this,
Principal Assistant Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense. "We have reviewed
the appeal and cannot conclude that a national defense or the national
security interest would be significantly impaired if the project were
not permitted to go forward as proposed."

Thank you, gentlemen.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Richard Hughes.

MR. RICHARD HUGHES: Good afternoon. My name is Rich Hughes, H-u-g-h-e-s.
I live at 39 Meadow Wood Road in Pine Orchard. I've been in this area
for 20 years. My wife and two children live with me. I also represent
four other families that are immediate family members in the area.

I swam in the Long Island Sound and the Thimble Islands for the last 17
years. I have watched the Sound grow nicer, cleaner, better and have
talked other people into coming in with me each and every year. I've
watched the seals come into the area over the last five to ten years.

I feel that we've taken small steps at getting that Sound to where it is
today and can do a lot more to get it better in the future.

What we are doing here is taking one big step back. And I firmly believe
that I'm going to have a hard time swimming in that water when they have
machines digging it up.

I came down here, took some time off from work, because I feel this is
very important. I just respectfully request of NOAA to look at the
facts, not the money involved, not who is doing what, but the facts. And
I feel that from looking at the facts, they will make the proper
decision.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Richard Bonzani.

MR. RICHARD BONZANI: Hello, members of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. My name is Richard Bonzani, B-o-n-z-a-n-i.
As a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
478, Hamden, Connecticut, I am a resident and would like to express my
support of the Islander East pipeline.

I see this project as a means to meet the growing demand for natural gas
and an opportunity for job creation in both Connecticut and New York.

The Islander East pipeline is necessary for providing two states with
essential infrastructure to ensure an adequate gas supply. Furthermore,
with our ever-stricken economy, this project is crucial to employment
opportunities, while both states and numerous municipalities will
benefit from the development of a new tax base.

I hope you will consider these facts in support of this important
project. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Louis Nargi? I don't think I pronounced that right,
Louis.

MR. LOUIS NARGI: Yes. You pronounced it right. My name is Louis Nargi. I
live at 79 Stony Creek Road.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: And if you could spell your last name please for
the Reporter?

MR. NARGI: N-a-r-g-i.

I'm an affected landowner. This pipeline \-- I'm opposed to the
pipeline. And I support the Department of \-- the environmental issues
that the DEP is involved in. This pipeline will destroy my property. It
goes right through my septic system. And Islander East forced me to do a
perc test and found out that a new septic system couldn't be relocated.
Okay?

I don't understand, with all the alternatives that we have here \-- we
have a Milford alternative that's five and a half miles shorter than
this one. Okay? Less environmentally damaging than this one, yet the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves this one. They like the
Milford one better. Where's the logic here? Okay?

We find out that they don't really need the gas on Long Island. They're
just doing fine the way it is. Okay? Then we find out where they're
taking the gas from. Sable Island. There's not enough gas there for the
next seven years! They're going to even starve Canada! Okay? So this
pipeline is not really needed.

And I'm opposed to it. I'm opposed to the waste. I'm opposed to just
pushing a pipe through an environmentally sensitive area \-- okay? \--
just for the sake of Duke Energy so they could make more money. This guy
says it's going to create jobs. It will create a few jobs temporarily.
Okay? I'm in the same business he is in. Okay? As soon as they don't
need you, they lay you off. Six months, maybe. That's it.

So I'll repeat myself. I'm opposed to this pipeline.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Carol Lemmon or Lemmon? Either one.

MS. CAROL LEMMON: Thank you. It is Lemmon. Most people don't pronounce
it that way.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name for the Reporter?

MS. LEMMON: It's L-e-m-m-o-n.

Islander East has several alternatives to the overwhelming proposed
destruction of tidal and inland wetlands, designated open space and
miles of marine sanctuary called Long Island Sound.

Liquefying natural gas is one alternate method used to transport natural
gas in a more environmentally acceptable way. Energy corporations such
as BP, PLC, Exxon-Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Phillips Petroleum and
Chevron are investing in plants to produce liquid natural gas and ships
to transport it. Liquid natural gas is brought to the temperature of
minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit and is pumped into insulated ships. It can
then be transported anywhere, worldwide, as easily as oil. Liquid
natural gas is then converted back into a gaseous state at the delivery
point.

In the U.S., a dozen efforts are under way to build or enlarge liquid
natural gas receiving terminals. Five currently exist. The terminals are
in Massachusetts, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and Virginia. The Chevron
Corporation is building receiving terminals along the Texas coastline.
And Phillips Petroleum is building in southern California and in Mexico.

This is not new technology. Phillips Petroleum has been shipping gas
from the T. Moore Seeve properties near Darwin, Australia to southeast
Asia for more than 30 years. Liquid natural gas is being moved from
places such as Nigeria, Siberia, Katar, Alaska, Iran, Brunei, to
countries such as Japan, Korea, Britain, France, Belgium and to the
United States at a terminal in Louisiana.

Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Chairman, and the Wall Street Journal
article dated July 20, 2003 both encourage this profitable and less
damaging method of moving natural gas. This is considered the method of
the future.

Please deny Islander East's appeal as they have failed to meet
Connecticut's coastal consistency as part of the federally approved
Coastal Zone Management Program, have failed to utilize existing and
less environmentally damaging alternate routes, such as the existing
Iroquois route, and have failed to consider liquid natural gas as an
alternate to their damaging proposal of overland and marine trenches.

I'd also like to add that the steam railroad has possibilities of being
contaminated. And this should be checked into as well.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Doreen Birdsell?

MS. DOREEN BIRDSELL: Hi. My name is Doreen Birdsell. I live in Westport,
Connecticut.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

MS. BIRDSELL: B-i-r-d-s-e-l-l.

And I've heard a good deal being defined as when both parties are
blessed. And I'm just here to say that this pipeline doesn't sound like
a good deal. There are too many ramifications and too many lives at
stake, both human and in our waters. And there are ramifications that
haven\'t even been considered yet. I don't think enough testing has been
done to see what will happen when this pipeline, if it ever came to
pass, was laid, when you hit ledgerock. And that it is just not a good
deal. And I don't think God's blessing is on.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Maureen DaRos?

MS. MAUREEN DaROS: Hello. I just wanted to start off \-- I'm surprised
that this meeting is being held in New Haven because it's a Branford
issue. I wish you had had the hearing in Branford. If I could just make
that note?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

MS. DaROS: D-a-capital R-o-s.

I'm a 34-year resident of Stony Creek. I oppose the Islander East
pipeline and any other pipeline that may be hiding in the wings. I
support the use of a viable alternative route, mainly the Iroquois
pipeline.

If the reason the Islander East doesn't want to share the profits of the
Iroquois pipeline and it's because of a loss of profits, that is not a
good enough reason. It is not worth the sacrifice of Branford land where
residents work hard to acquire and protect wetlands and open space.

I worked as a contract archeologist 11 or 12 years ago on the Iroquois
pipeline when that line was going in. I know what a 50-foot swath of
land looks like all cleared. Another word for this work is salvage
archeology where resources and information will be lost or damaged. It
would be a shame for Branford to lose these resources unnecessarily.

I wanted to make a note of the oyster beds and other marine resources.
The beds in Milford and Branford are and always were the most plentiful
in Connecticut. It was even noted in the mid-1700's that these two spots
were the best between New York and Cape Cod. Milford has been damaged
and not recovered by Iroquois. Please don't allow this happen in
Branford.

No one has convinced me yet that Long Island is in dire need of another
pipeline, electric, gas or otherwise, or that Connecticut will benefit
in any way. I am concerned about the maintenance of the line once
Islander East has made its buck and has vacated its Branford office.
Branford is left with a potential danger that they did not have to worry
about before. And we are left with a loss of environment that will taint
our open spaces policies. This tarnishes our quality of life for which
your mission as an agency is supposed to be balancing with commerce,
along with protecting our coastlines.

I am sick of Branford being used as a thoroughfare for big businesses
and unregulated utilities and transportation. I am asking that you not
only do not allow Islander East to scar our landscape as it will only
benefit a few and is a great loss to many. And I'm speaking for
generations to come.

Other agencies have deemed this project unnecessary and environmentally
unsound. And I hope that you do, also.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. I think we'll take a break for about a half
an hour, unless we get a surge of cards that come in. But we're pretty
much all caught up now. So we'll back in about \-- let's say 45 minutes.

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: If you could take your seats, we'll get started
again.

For those of you who have just joined us, my name is Jim Walpole. I'm
General Counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA, which is a bureau in the Department of Commerce. And I will \--
I'm the Chairman for the hearing.

The purpose of the hearing is to gain information for the Secretary of
Commerce to determine whether or not to override the State of
Connecticut\'s objection to the Coastal Zone Management Act permit of
Islander East.

Each individual will have three minutes to speak and organizations will
have five minutes.

I see by the cards here \-- I think we just have individuals. So that's
fine.

We plan to break at 4:30 until 6:00. And when we return at 6:00, then
we'll continue until everyone has been heard.

So our first speaker will be Robert Yeager.

And if I could remind everyone, for the Court Reporter it would be very
helpful if you spell your last name as you approach the microphone so
she can get it down.

MR. ROBERT YEAGER: Am I on? Oh, yeah. Okay. My name is Robert Yeager,
R-o-b-e-r-t, Y-e-a-g-e-r. I live in Norwalk, Connecticut. And I'm part
of a growing movement from the western part of Connecticut that opposes
this project, pipeline project.

I have lived for 23 years here in Connecticut, always on the edge of
Long Island Sound. My dock has always \-- the entry to my dock has
always been over wetlands and built in accordance with local
requirements. I swim in the Sound. I fish in the Sound. I treasure the
Sound. For 20 years, I was fortunate enough to live on a little body of
water called Bermuda Lagoon, which is almost \-- the entry to which was
almost totally surrounded by wetlands. And pretty much regardless of the
condition of the Sound, Bermuda Lagoon, as measured by the Department of
Health in Westport, Connecticut, was always pristine. We could always
fish in it. We could always swim in it.

During this period of 25, 23 years, why, I have observed increasing
incursions onto the wetlands. I think that science has shown now that
the wetlands help preserve our Sound. And during these 23 years, I have
witnessed science, as indicated to us, that further pollution has
existed in the Sound and the Sound is becoming hypoxic from New Haven to
New York. And that hypoxia is gradually creeping toward the ocean.

I fish out in the middle of the Sound. And, of course, I have noticed
the tremendous lack of lobstermen whom only five or so years ago were
out there in great abundance and are no longer there. I \-- from what I
have read, that is due to the extremely \-- fragility in the Sound and
to a bacteria that was introduced by a spraying that occurred around the
Sound, which, according to the folks who were going to be doing the
spraying, would be harmless to the Sound and to the life within the
Sound.

I'm opposed to this project even though I live a number of miles from
the project because it will help further destroy the lobstering and the
oystering in the Sound. And the Sound has been, of course, a very
prolific provider historically of lobsters and oysters. And if it stirs
up the silt within the Sound, I don't think any of us really know what
further toxins may be introduced to the Sound.

I also speak indirectly for the people who live close to where this
pipeline will be entering. And I'm concerned about the incursion on
those people and also the incursion on the coastal area of the Sound. As
I have understood it from professionals I've talked to, why, such an
installation will leave a toxic material, gelatinous material, that will
leave that part of the Sound essentially lifeless thereafter. What it
will do out in the middle of the Sound where this construction will
continue to take place, I really don't know.

I believe as a resident of Connecticut that we should stand tall in our
objection to any type of development that will in any way be incursive
on the wetlands and on this fragile coastal area several hundred feet
inland and up to the wetlands.

I see that my time is up. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you, sir.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Next, John McMahon?

MR. JOHN McMAHON: My name is

M-c-M-a-h-o-n. And I'm a Branford resident. Please support the
Connecticut DEP's decision and deny the appeal of Islander East. It
isn't right for the Federal Government to ignore the DEP's environmental
concerns, especially when there's an alternative to this pipeline route.
My understanding is a branch could be put off the pipeline in Milford
and accomplish the same goals.

Also, it's beyond me why somebody would want to put a pipeline of this
nature under a railroad that's had numerous derailings over the year.
You know, it's like putting a bomb underground and running the detonator
on top of it.

The Tilcon railroad has been using creosoted railroad ties ever since I
can remember, for decades. These ties, the creosote slowly leaches into
the ground, at which point the ties will rot. At this point, Tilcon
replaces the ties. So all this ground under the railroad tracks is
probably soaked with creosote. And I think prior to creosote, they might
have used arsenic.

So when they start excavating under the tracks, all these, this creosote
and whatever else is there, is going to leach into the ground water and
into the wetlands.

Over the years, I've seen a lot more wildlife in the area of the Tilcon
railroad because I live right along the tracks. There are numerous deer,
foxes and God knows what else that have only recently begun to come into
the area. I'm sure the construction will force them out.

Yesterday, I saw a seal in the Branford River. That's something you
never used to see.

Another thing is the pipeline route is only possibly three or four miles
from the New Haven ship anchorage. During Hurricane Gloria, ships were
dragging back and forth over that pipeline route. Now, if one of those
ship's anchors catches this pipeline, God knows what's going to happen.
I'm sure the pipeline can't withstand a 500 or 700-foot ship dragging on
it. You know? It's going to break.

There are no valves, as I understand it, underwater. So you will vent
whatever it is, 18 miles of pipeline into Long Island Sound, which will
be a catastrophic environmental problem and probably a huge explosion.

Another concern is the pipeline won't last forever. Steel pipe in a
saltwater environment does not have a great deal of longevity. I don't
know whether it's 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. But at some point, the
pipeline is going to have to be replaced or abandoned and we'll have to
go through this while rigmarole again. Maybe not you and I, but other
people.

So, again, please deny the appeal and consider our wishes. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Tim Raynor?

MR. TIM RAYNOR: R-a-y-n-o-r.

My name is Tim Raynor. And I'm an affected property owner. The pipeline
is going to actually be within a good baseball throw of my back deck.
The Tilcon property and the Land Trust property is in my back yard.

In the past, through rallies and hearings, I've spoken about safety
issues and addressed the wildlife that we see, the coyote, the deer and
all those other issues. But this afternoon, the predominant question for
me is how did we get to a position where corporate rights \-- and let me
take a step back. Not even an "S" corporation, an LLC. When did a
limited liability corporation company \-- when did their rights override
the rights of the individual?

You know, also being a property owner \-- I'm a Fire Commissioner in
town. But, also, I'm a history teacher. And so when you talk about civil
rights and Bill of Rights, you know that the basic foundation is the
rights of the individual.

So, as an individual property owner, I oppose the project. And then
collectively as a town, we put together a Blue Ribbon Committee and our
elected officials and our neighbors, we came together and we opposed the
project. And then some more individuals got together, the affected
towns, the Attorney General and the DEP and, again, as individuals we
stood up and we said, "No. We're against the project."

But, yet, we find ourselves here with the argument again somehow the
rights of the corporation appear to be more important than the rights of
the individual. And I would wish that you do consider that question.

The State of Connecticut has taken a position. We would like to reserve
the right as individuals to determine what\'s best \-- I want to
determine what's best for my property. I want my town to determine
what's best for our community. And I want our state to determine what's
best for the state.

And we've taken a position. So all I'm here to ask you today is please
respect the position that we've taken as individuals and allow our
individual rights to override corporate rights. And, again, not even a
real corporation, an LLC. And the LLC dissolves in 29, 30 years. So,
please, just respect our decisions.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: J.L. Pottenger, Jr.

MR. J.L. POTTENGER: Good afternoon. And that's P-o-double T\--e-n-g-e-r.
I'm the Nathan Baker Clinical Professor of Law at Yale Law School. I
live near the proposed Branford route, not too far from Juniper Point.
I'm not afraid of a gas pipeline. And I'm not worried about the impact
on my property values. If anything, my taxes will go down if the
property values are affected. And despite my beard, I'm not a tree
hugger.

But, for me, this appeal is about two important public issues,
environmental protection and states' rights. And Connecticut as a state
has had its responsible environmental authorities review this proposal
and concluded that it's not consistent with Connecticut's interpretation
of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

If the administration and if the Secretary are serious about believing
in State's rights and wanting to protect the environment, then there can
only be one answer to this appeal and that is to deny it.

I would add further that even the federal agency which has reviewed this
concluded that there is a reasonable alternative which is less damaging
to the environment. And as I read the Secretary's job, that should end
the matter because you could not find that the Islander East proposal
meets the "no reasonable alternative" requirement if there is an
alternative which is less environmentally damaging.

With respect to the national security dimension, I would only say that
I'm not an expert on national security. But I find it hard to believe
that the national security would be significantly impaired if the
pipeline went forward in Milford rather than in Branford.

Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Mark Pelice?

MR. MARK DeFELICE: Hi. My name is Mark DeFelice. That's D-e-capital F as
in Frank, e-l-i-c-e.

I live in North Branford. And my property will be directly impacted upon
the proposed Islander East project. We have so much to save and so
little time. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to speak before
you on this important issue.

In short, please deny Islander East's appeal and please uphold the
Connecticut DEP ruling. We have been through so many of these hearings
these past two years, Army Corps of Engineers, Connecticut Siting
Council, Town of Branford, Town of North Branford, North Haven, State of
Connecticut Legislature and on and on, all to stop this pipeline
project.

The fact that we are here tells us that to date we have proven our case
before all these other local, state and federal agencies that this
pipeline is a bad idea for Connecticut and for Long Island Sound.

There are many special interest groups that are trying to override
common sense and good judgment by requesting you to override the
Connecticut DEP decision. Please stay the course and deny this appeal.

I care about Connecticut's environment and Long Island Sound. The
current route proposed by Islander East is so bad, it's hard to imagine
a more damaging route. The current route is dangerously close to houses,
wells for drinking water, a school, marsh lands, a golf course, a Land
Trust, a heavily used railroad track, personal septic systems with no
options to work around and our precious Long Island Sound, which will
affect the water quality, shellfish beds and coastal wetlands for a
very, very long time.

Please keep in mind that there is a less environmentally damaging route
available. Even FERC cited this alternative as better for the
environment. Our Connecticut DEP carefully reviewed all the facts and
correctly denied Islander East the coastal consistency determination. I
wholeheartedly support the decision of the Connecticut DEP.

Please deny Islander East's appeal and don't override our state's
authority. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: I would make other comment with regard to Mr.
DeFelice's comment that there's so little time, which is true. We don't
have a lot of time for each individual speaker. But bear in mind that
the public record is open until November 20. So any materials that you
wish to submit are certainly welcome by them. And they will be
considered just as carefully as any testimony. So the fact that we have
limited time in the hearing doesn't mean that other materials can't be
submitted and will be considered exactly the same.

Next will be Kelly Brownell.

In fact, we encourage comments before the more information we obtain,
the more careful the Secretary can consider these things in making his
decision.

Go ahead.

MR. KELLY BROWNELL: Thank you. My last name is Brownell,
B-r-o-w-n-e-l-l. I live in the Pine Orchard section of Branford, close
enough so that if there were some catastrophe, myself and my children
and my family and my dog and everybody else could potentially be hurt a
great deal by this.

But I'm thinking less of myself as an individual and more of our
community. I can think of the potential catastrophe that could befall us
if something were to happen with this pipeline.

For my work, I'm the Professor and Chairman of the Psychology Department
at Yale. And I've watched with interest how our community has mobilized
around this particular issue. I've never seen our community get together
as it has for this. I've never seen so many people come together for so
many hearings over such a long period of time. It indicates to me that
there are very real issues touching very real nerves in people.

And as I asked myself why people would come together on this, I think
it's because they're frightened. There's a Twilight Zone element of this
that is amazing to me to sit and watch. Our local officials have come
out very strongly against this. Our State Attorney has come out against
it. Our State Legislators. Our U.S. Congresswoman, Rosa DeLauro, has
come out against it. Our two U.S. Senators have come out against it.
Environmental hearings come out against it. And, yet, here we are with
yet another opportunity that the will of the people won't be heard and
this environmental catastrophe potentially could come through our
community.

My guess is if one were planning to serve Long Island with gas, natural
gas, and you started from scratch and could put this anywhere, the place
where it's likely to be, according to Islander East, is about the worst
possible place it could go. It goes through a maximum amount of
residential property. There are all the environmental issues that have
been discussed. It goes past a school. It goes past a railroad track.
And it goes past \-- through some of the most heavily used and beautiful
parts of the Connecticut shoreline. So it's hard for me to imagine a
worse place for it to go.

And just because Islander East happens to have a pipeline that comes
down close to there doesn't seem to be a very good reason to place it
where there's likely to be a place, especially given that there is an
alternative.

So what I ask of you is to help us, to protect us, to hear us and to
make sure that this company doesn't overwhelm what a community has asked
for and our legislators and our leaders have risen up and supported us.

This project occurs to me to be highly ill-advised, potentially
dangerous. And it could be located somewhere else much more readily. And
please relieve us from the Twilight Zone. We're tired of hearings. The
voice has been heard by the community time after time after time and
it's never wavered. The opinion of our elected leaders has never
wavered. And the potential disaster this could represent has never
diminished.

So we've asked every committee along the way to protect us, defend us
and we hope that you do as well. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Just a comment. And I \-- there's been a number of
folks that have mentioned the number of hearings they've been to and the
efforts that they have gone to. And I might just say that in matters
like this, there are certain state laws that must be followed and there
are certain federal laws that must be followed. And the process that
we're going through is very traumatic for the folks here that are
affected, as well as the company. But the \-- but the laws that are in
place, the procedures that are in place are standard in the sense that
we take this very, very seriously, each one.

But the fact that the pipeline is going through this procedure in
Connecticut and then files an appeal with the Secretary is certainly
provided for by law. And every party that would be involved in this
would have that right. And so we are \-- we are looking at this new in
the sense that we know that the FERC has made its findings, et cetera,
and now it's \-- the law provides that the Secretary has to look at
this. So it's the normal process that's followed in every one of these.
Just so that folks understand that.

And that isn't to say that we are callous and we just look at them
casually. We don't. They're very, very important. We get one, maybe two,
a year. And so it's something that we take very, very seriously.

But the procedure that's being followed is pretty typical. So \--

Next person is Gerald S-h-a-f-f, Shaff? Shaff?

MR. GERALD SHAFF: Shaff.

My name is Gerald Shaff.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: And I just spelled it.

MR. SHAFF: S-h-a-f-f.

And just a quick point. I want to emphasize something that John McMahon
said. You have a glass of water on there. If you \-- if that train where
the pipeline is going was located almost twice as far as that wall and
it went by, the water on your thing would be shaking. That's how heavy
the train is and how it's shaking as it goes by. And you could imagine
what a pipeline located within five feet would be shaking. It's very
dangerous. Islander East knows it's dangerous. That's why they've
organized so that Duke Energy would not be responsible for any
catastrophe.

But I want you to know we realize that any time a pipeline is going
through, the people that get affected are going to complain. This is
different. There already is a pipeline. And when Islander East says, "We
need clean gas. And Long Island needs gas. And we have to reduce our
dependency on foreign oil", we agree. That's not what the fight is.
They're trying to turn it around as to what the controversy is.

The issue is that there already is a pipeline. So no more damage needs
to be done.

The only reason to go ahead with the Islander East proposal is so that
Islander East gets 100 percent of the pipeline and, when they get across
to Long Island, they could turn and go into New York City. It's a very
good financial monopoly that they would have.

But if the problem is that we want to be \-- use clean gas and we want
to be independent of foreign oil, we can do it with the other
alternative. So, using the existing pipeline, the clean gas still goes
to New York City eventually. No environmental damage will be done. If we
follow Islander East's, there will be tremendous environmental damage,
but Islander East will make an awful lot of money. And that really is
the only choice.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Alice Lambert.

MS. ALICE LAMBERT: L-a-m-b-e-r-t. 21 Sunset Beach Road in Branford. I'm
a descendant of an original settler of Branford. I've seen enormous
changes in Branford over my 76 years. This is the worst proposition we
have ever faced. I personally \-- I'm outraged by this corporation who
wants to violate our Land Trust properties which we've all put money
into and back for the preservation in Branford.

I'm outraged by the plan to damage the oyster beds and the oyster
business.

And I am absolutely enraged by the arrogance of a corporation favored by
Bush buddy Cheney that flouts the will of the State of Connecticut and
the will of the residents of Branford time after time.

Why is this hearing in New Haven? Why is it not in Branford? I am
appalled. I also \-- I feel violated as a United States citizen and I'm
violated as a citizen of Connecticut and as a citizen of Branford.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Marvin L. Zimmerman?

DR. MARVIN ZIMMERMAN: That's

Z-i-m-m-e-r-m-a-n. My name is Marvin Zimmerman. I am a retired physician
and I've lived in the Stony Creek portion of Branford for the past 44
years on the shore, perhaps about a half a mile from where the pipeline
would be located.

When we first moved here 44 years ago, the Sound was in big trouble.
That was in 1959. We were at the end \-- we were in the middle of a big
building boom which took place after World War II. There was all sorts
of construction. There was no \-- there were no environmental laws in
place.

As a result, there was tremendous silting. Every stream had construction
material in it. You could \-- now, whenever there's any excavating, you
see these bales of straw. You see the black plastic. All aimed at
containing silt. They weren't there at that time.

And in about 19\-- oh, perhaps 1970, the silting had gotten so bad that
the oystermen had not had a set of oysters for four years. The Federal
Government was very concerned about it. They planted spawning oysters in
Pine Creek, right about where the pipeline is supposed to come out. And
for the first time in years, we did get a set. The same time, the
environmental laws were cranking in and the silting was much better.

Now the company talks about using horizontal directional drilling to go
under the surface of the Sound to put their pipeline. Sounds great. When
I heard about that, I called a company that did horizontal drilling. I
explained what the situation was. And they said, "No way". They couldn't
do that because of the Clean Water Act.

Why? Because when horizontal directional drilling is done, it's usually
done under a lake, under a river. They start on dry land at one end, it
goes under, comes up on dry land at the other side. The enormous amount
of sludge and waste that's pushed through that area is left at one end.
They can cart it off. They can do whatever they have to do.

This project starts on land and comes out perhaps in 30 or 40 feet of
water. All this stuff, the sludge will go through there. The bentonite,
a clay, will also come through there. Thousands of pounds of it, which
is pumped to try to seal this thing, will go through.

Now, a 24-inch pipe starts as an 8-inch hole and gradually \-- about
eight times they drill to get a hole that's 36 inches in diameter to put
a 24-inch pipe. This is going to just once more destroy the area.

Milford where the pipeline is, where we put another one, has not
recovered. It's now 13 years. The oystering has not recovered in that
time.

I beg you to really consider this and see that this is a terrible,
terrible thing to do.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much, Doctor.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: William Lazine? Did I pronounce that right?

MR. WILLIAM LAZINE: It's Bill Lazine. I'm a resident of Branford, Stony
Creek Road, actually \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

MR. LAZINE: L-a-z like in zebra, i-n-e.

As I said, I'm a resident of Branford and an affected property landowner
within the 50 foot of the proposed pipeline. Obviously, I'm in
opposition of the pipeline. I hope you support Connecticut DEP's
decision.

Some of the other concerns I had were the effect to species, both plant
and animal, in the area. And I'm also concerned for the septic system
and the well on the property, as well as others, as a result from
blasting.

The proposed pipeline in Long Island Sound will transverse Branford's
recreational shellfish harvesting areas and also are adjacent to
commercial fishing areas. The area is mainly comprised of pink granite
that would require extensive blasting. The effect of blasting and
construction to wells and possible contamination to water \-- the area
has a very high water table.

Addressing sanitation issues, homes along the southern portion of the
proposed pipeline do not have access to city sewer lines. Many of the
homes in the area are close to inland wetlands that are linked to tidal
wetlands. It's compounded by the extent of pink granite throughout the
area and potential contamination from blasting to Long Island Sound.

The proposed pipeline would cross a scenic registered state highway.
This is a 24-inch gas pipeline with an operating pressure of 814 pounds
per square inch within proximity of a school. I mean you couldn't get it
any closer.

The adverse ecological effect to Branford, a registered coastal town,
including woodland, marshland and tidal wetland, permanent visual
disruption of natural growth and topography in the area. The 75-foot
construction right-of-way and a 50-foot permanent right-of-way. The
threat of eminent domain. The simple fact it doesn't hold any benefit to
anyone in the area. And, most important, it's absolutely not necessary.
There's other proposed projects by Iroquois transmission system to
service the same market, use the pipeline that's already built. With
respect to Connecticut's soil, no further damage to Connecticut would
result from this.

I'm a State employee for about 30 years. I'm a State Highway Maintenance
General Supervisor. And I can't see for the life of me how you would
ever stop the introduction of contaminated soils or runoff water from a
pipeline if \-- I mean if you can get compaction around a 24-inch pipe,
let me know how it's done. You know? We'll all be rich pretty quick. But
\-- plus, the pipeline is actually going through an area that is already
contaminated, which I've got a lot of concerns for that. So \-- and I
don't want to take up any more of my time. Those cards scare me to
death.

But, anyways, if I have to something to submit over here, I can bring it
up to the desk?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Absolutely. And, in fact, you're the last speaker
that we have listed. So if you want to take another 30 seconds or a
minute, that's fine.

MR. LAZINE: Yeah. I wanted to point out I'm a certified diver. I grew up
in Milford. I live in Branford. It's pretty much split up. But I \-- my
parents were both certified divers, which might be a little unusual. But
I was probably between five or eight years old and they were both
certified. And growing up in Milford, I was able to cross the street and
go float up and down on the coastline, so to speak, and see eight, ten
feet down. And I can't begin to tell you what I could see.

But longer story short is in the 70's, I had gone diving. That was
after, obviously, the introduction of some chemicals into Long Island
Sound. And I can't really begin to tell you what I saw or how it felt.
But the whole thing was that there wasn't anything there. And that's how
bad the problem was out there. I mean when I say there wasn't anything
there, I mean there wasn't even the routine junk fish or bait fish that
rob your bait or what everybody else fights with when they're fishing.

Anyways, I got to talk to somebody who was in the Test Department. That
person happened to be my father and was pretty much aware of the
situation. I never really did find out what it had stemmed from. But
it's pretty scary to go diving, when you've done it pretty much all your
life, and over the course of a month, you can't see something or you
can't find fish or the absence of it kind of doesn't sit right with you.

And that included the shellfish, blue crab, all the rest of the, you
know, bait fish, so to speak, for the larger fish. I mean if you don't
have barnacles \-- essentially what it was what you could walk on the
shores. You're not going to have anything else. And in a sense, that
wasn't there, either.

Anyway, since that time, I mean there's been a great improvement in the
Sound. Although, as a kid I used to see porpoises, which I still don't
see to this day. Obviously, in my eyes it hasn't come back that far. But
I'd hate to see, in my opinion, any type of line going across Long
Island Sound.

I mean it's obvious that \-- I don't know. As my father would say, it's
not really nice to call something stupid. But I guess you could probably
say that to keep going across Long Island Sound, you \-- I guess you\'d
be brain dead. I guess it would be all right to say that. I mean it's
just \-- the potential is just there to either disturb what's already
been done or create other problems.

And I'm getting kind of tongue-tied. But thanks for the extra time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: We do have two more here and there may be some more
that come in between now and 4:30. But I'm going to take just a three to
five-minute break and we'll be right back.

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Our next person is Peter Brown, the Thimble Islands
Association President.

MR. PETER BROWN: Good afternoon. I'm going to read into the record a
letter that the Thimble Islands Association sent to you folks in July.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: That's fine. And just leave a copy with the
stenographer. And if you would spell your last name? I know that it's
probably obvious. But we need to get it for the Reporter.

MR. BROWN: It's B-r-o-w-n.

"Thank you for reviewing and considering comments from parties and
citizens regarding the proposed Islander East pipeline proposed to run
under Long Island Sound from Branford to Long Island, New York."

"The Thimble Islands Association is a duly incorporated local property
owners group made up of some 100 families that seasonally occupy the
Thimble Islands off the coast of Branford."

"The Thimble Islands Association absolutely, unanimously and
unequivocally objects to this project. In the interest of the citizens,
the environment and public safety, our association is relying on NOAA
and the Department of Commerce to deny the application."

"As you are probably aware, the Thimble Islands are very unique and
geologically rare. They comprise approximately 300 pink granite rocks
and islands off the Branford, Connecticut coast. These rare granite
outcroppings not only provide summer residential sites but are
economically important recreational boating and fishing areas.
Additionally, commercial and recreational shellfishing for many of us
are a way of life."

"The Islands provide a unique, important natural habitat and sanctuary
for wildlife that includes, but is not limited to, clam and oyster beds,
rookeries, tidal pools, glacial potholes, sandy beaches, craggy ledges
loaded with seaweeds, barnacles, mussels, marine life. Plus, there are
numerous salt marshes and mud flats. Undisturbed clean water is
essential to the island life."

"Other special resources in the islands include the Federal Wildlife
Stuart B. McKinney Preserve on Outer Island and a Yale University,
Peabody Museum Natural Habitat Laboratory on Horse Island."

"We object to the Islander East pipeline on the following grounds. There
will be destructive and disturbing environmental impact during the
construction of this line. You should not permit irreparable harm to
come to our delicate, rare habitat only to trade it for transmission of
a non-renewable, temporary-fix energy source. The gas will dry up. There
will be permanent environmental damage to the life of our waters that
may never heal."

"The continuing \-- Number two, the continuous environmental impact and
damage during the decades the pipeline is laying on the sea bed. The
lobster population in our little area has proven to be very delicate,
even without unnatural disturbances."

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN: Yes?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: If I might suggest? Since you are going to submit
the material in writing, we will be considering it then since your time
is up.

MR. BROWN: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

MR. BROWN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Robert Mercer Falkoff?

We also a few ones from earlier. Bill Donnaruma? And Suzanna Gryphon?

Robert just signed up. So I'm surprised he's not around. Does anyone
know him? Is he standing right outside the door?

Well, Peter, I'm sorry that I cut off, since we had time after all.

A VOICE: (Indiscernible - not at microphone)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Sure. If you'd like to do that, that's fine. I was
trying to make sure that we got the other gentleman in beforehand. But
go ahead.

MR. BROWN: I appreciate \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: It's not that we're limit people. We want as many
people as possible. And we were just trying to limit the time. But
that's all. But go ahead.

MR. BROWN: We want as many people as possible, too.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Yes.

MR. BROWN: So that's fine. But if I can finish?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Sure. Since the other gentleman isn't here, that's
fine.

MR. BROWN: Okay. If he arrives, I'll cut it short. How's that?

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay.

MR. BROWN: "We're concerned there's no adequate provision or bonding for
the removal or the abandonment of this pipe. Following years of
corrosion, the pipe will be left behind for our grandchildren to remove
and a disturbed sea bed to try to restore."

"Number three, safety. We question the sensibility and safety of
locating the pipe in a high-traffic barge channel on the skirt of our
islands. Heavy barges laden with crushed stone can break loose. They can
sink. We witnessed such events. There is a potential for thousands of
tons of iron and stone to fall, crushing the pipe. Corrosion will be
safety's hidden enemy. Add to this the rail line, the pipe weakened by
rust, plus the barge or a rail accident could spell disaster.
High-pressure gas transmission lines can kill people. And we live here."

"There will be no local benefit. No one Thimble Island will be supplied
with gas from Islander East. No Branford homes would be warmed by this
project. Even the benefits to Long Islanders are in question. The only
real winners will be the shareholders of Keystone Energy and Duke
Power."

"Further, the energy companies and their owners are sheltered from the
risks rather than \-- and the islanders are not. It is an abuse of power
of eminent domain. Eminent domain is being used for public harm rather
than public good. At least when government takes lands for a highway,
there's public access. This is a private project with a very limited
public benefit, excepting a few private business investors."

"Number five, if need be, there are better alternatives to crossing the
Sound than here at the Thimble Islands. At Milford, Connecticut, there
already exists a connecting point that could make a much more feasible
project. Disturbing new areas seems to show no regard for the Sound."

"Please, in your power and your mandated authority to protect these
special environmental habitats and to assist marine safety and
transportation, consider these issues and take the correct stand. We,
the Thimble Islanders, request that you deny the Islander East Pipeline
permit. Thank you."

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

Kelly Monaghan?

MR. KELLY MONAGHAN: Hello. My name is Kelly Monaghan. I'm a travel
writer and publisher who lives in Branford.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

MR. MONAGHAN: M-o-n-a-g-h-a-n.

I think there are three levels on which we can approach this; from the
scientific, from the commercial and, for want of a better word, from the
spiritual. I'm not scientist, but I've struggled through the papers
submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. And
from what I can read, it stands on its own merits and shows that there
really is no scientific basis for believing that this project would be
without serious, serious impact.

Commercially, it's my understanding that the natural gas field that
would feed this pipeline has turned out to be a spectacular bust and
would not even begin to fill the pipeline's capacity. Beyond that, there
are already apparently several alternate means of bringing gas to Long
Island which are lying fallow because there's no demand. So commercially
it makes no sense.

And, finally, spiritually, I hope you'll all get a chance to visit the
Thimble Islands area. It's the quintessence of what makes the
Connecticut shoreline so special and so unique. And I would hope that we
are not going to sacrifice this little gem of our heritage on the altar
of corporate greed.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Robert Mercer Falkoff?

Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we have no more folks that are signed up for
this afternoon's session. So we will adjourn now and reconvene at 6:00
when we will \-- I'm sure people will have signed up for that. And we'll
go as long as people want to testify.

Thank you.

(Off the record)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: There was one other person that wanted to be heard
before we broke up. And I'd like to accommodate her so she won't have to
wait until 6:00. We just got the card.

Nancy Biamonte? And if you could spell your last name for the Court
Reporter please?

MS. NANCY BIAMONTE: B as in boy,

I-a-m-o-n-t-e. And I thank you very much for accommodating me. I got a
ride here and they can't wait. So \-- I have brief remarks.

I know that you've heard in previous hearings all about the ospreys and
the lobsters and the sediment and the children playing in their back
yards and the trains on the train track. And that would be a lot of the
content of this Islander East issue.

But tonight \-- excuse me. I would like you to consider the process and
the process that we have undergone and these many several previous
hearings has consisted of our noticing that the project and Islander
East stands to gain a great deal from this and profits, whereas \-- oh,
aren't you kind. Thank you. Okay. Much better.

And we, the people of the shoreline, have nothing to gain. So what I'm
asking you to look at is this process by which we, the potentially
exploited people, have to come before you time and time again and state
the reasons why we should not be exploited. I just thought this might
put a different spin on it.

And I thank you again for your letting me speak.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. We stand adjourned until 6:00.

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. If you'd take
your seats, we could get started.

My name is Jim Walpole. I'm the General Counsel for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, which is part of the Department of
Commerce. This is our evening session. And I have kind of an
introductory statement to read explaining some of the purposes of the
hearing, et cetera, for those that weren't here earlier.

Because there was a little bit of a mix-up as to when we would
reconvene, some of \-- I think the folks at the desk mentioned 6:30. And
so there may be some more people coming in. I'd like to just delay
reading the statement a little bit. But I don't think that's going to
affect too much of the testimony here.

And I thought maybe what I would do, just so that we can get as many
witnesses in as possible, we would start to hear some testimony for
another 15, 20 minutes before I do that.

One thing I would mention is that for individuals the time limit is
three minutes and for organizations it is five minutes. We have
timekeeper here that will let you know when you've got 30 seconds left.

And when you approach the microphone, it's important that you spell your
last name, not so much for me but for the Court Reporter who is
transcribing this.

So if we could start with the \-- the first person is Mary Margaret
Visnic. Okay. Well, we may hear her later then.

Roberta Rattner?

Mona Scales?

I told you there was a bit of a mix-up.

Clifford Cohen?

MR. CLIFFORD COHEN: Good evening. My name is Clifford Cohen. Last name
is spelled C-o-h-e-n. I'm a resident of the town of Branford and I'm
speaking here tonight in opposition of this project and to respectfully
request that NOAA deny Islander East's appeal.

The area where this project will take place is probably one of the
nicest, in fact, the nicest coastal area in the town of Branford. It
represents a very important part of open space. Many, many people in
town have done an awful lot and spent an awful lot of time to try to
preserve it. There's a nature trail that runs right through. And from
what I've seen, this pipeline would run clear across the nature trail.

The \-- you know, I know that you folks have a very narrow point of law
to consider. From what I understand of NOAA \-- and I've been involved
in NOAA as a consumer of, you know, weather reports and charts and those
kinds of things. And really, you know, you folks have done an awful lot
with regard to my personal safety as a sailor and so on. So I know \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: I think that's all we want to hear for tonight.
We're going to quit on a high note here.

MR. COHEN: Well, you guys, you know, clearly seem to be all about
protection and safety of people and the environment. And all I can tell
you is that if you could just take a look at where this is and where it
would go, you would know that it's no place to put a pipeline. And
without a doubt, that everything that's happened in the state and in the
town has been geared around, you know, protecting this parcel and this
area. And that should continue.

And thank you for the opportunity to speak to you folks.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Gordon Geboleg? Not even close, hmm?

MR. GORDON GEBALLE: It's probably my writing. Gordon Geballe,
G-e-b-a-l-l-e, also from the town of Branford. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak. I'd like to start in the reverse order of your
memo, which was very helpful. The national security issue.

Certainly we're not in an extreme national security. If we were, we'd be
having rationing of energy. So there's not an extreme. And I don't even
think that really significant inroads into energy conservation has taken
place in New England, Long Island, New York. And so I think that
there\'s ample evidence to suggest that we're not really in any kind of
national security \-- even in the long run, because there's phenomenal
chances for energy conservation. And Long Island especially, where
people are very densely put together, there's great opportunities for
increased mass transit, which actually would reduce all the congestion
on the roads.

So I think that the Secretary, in taking the extreme position of
overriding the people and their elected officials in Connecticut, which
is apparently, if I understand what the Commerce Secretary would have to
do, he has to override what the State has decided to use the national
security \-- certainly not emergency, but even not need. I don't think
he can \-- that he's able to do that at this time.

Certainly, Connecticut would be glad to participate in any national
security activity that we all agreed to. But I don't think the people in
Connecticut see that right now. Yes, there may be energy problems in
Long Island that the energy consumer in Long Island would like to solve.
But they have many ways of dealing with that within their own power. And
we in Connecticut would like to see that happen and would like to see
more ample proof that there's really a national emergency before we are
asked to make the sacrifices that we think we'd have to make for this
pipeline.

And the only other point I'd like to make I've already made is I would
think that the Secretary of Commerce would have to have very strong
reasons to overcome a sovereign state, the State of Connecticut and its
duly elected officials. We've had many hearings, as I'm sure you've
heard. And I'm sure there's a long testimony here. And when the people
of a town, of a state and their elected officials come to a conclusion,
yes, there is obviously reason to appeal. It's in the law. But the
Federal Government has to tread very lightly when it overcomes that kind
of activity.

So I think for those two reasons, again, this appeal should be denied
and the conclusion that the State of Connecticut has come to should
stand.

Thank you very much for listening to all of us tonight.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Julie Biagiarelli?

MS. JULIE BIAGIARELLI: Very good. Yeah. My name is Julie Biagiarelli.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Oh, I was pretty good on that one.

MS. BIAGIARELLI: You were absolutely right. Much better than an
telemarketer.

It's B-o-a-g-i-a-r-e-l-l-i.

Okay. I'm also a resident of Branford. I live in the Stony Creek area.
I've lived there most of my life. And I'm opposed to the pipeline
project because of the overall disruption that it will cause the
community, especially the damage to the wetlands and the degradation of
the water quality.

Many of the activities that our community thrives on depend on the
health of these delicate ecosystems. For example, during the summer
months, I mean I swim every day, as do many residents of Stony Creek.
And we've always appreciated that the Branford Health Department tests
the water for quality and safety. And occasionally they do have to close
the beach. It could be a rain storm. It could be dredging nearby. So we
know all too well just how easily the natural balance of the local
ecosystem can be affected.

So a project such as Islander East Pipeline will be devastating to the
area because that's such a big project. And it will really affect our
quality of life. And, you know, people who live in Stony Creek know;
they pay a lot of taxes, a lot of property taxes, you know, to live
there because it's considered, you know, a great place to live. And this
would really change all that.

So, thanks for listening.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Richard Shanahan?

MR. RICHARD SHANAHAN: Hi. I'm Richard Shanahan. Last name is
S-h-a-n-a-h-a-n. I'm also a resident of Branford. I'm also the Vice
President of the Branford Land Trust. I am here tonight to voice my
opposition to this pipeline. Even if one accepts the assumption of the
energy needs in Long Island, there are definite alternatives that are
less environmentally damaging and I believe more economically viable.
The pipeline in Milford is the prime example of that. I do think these
alternatives have been properly explored. And until they are, there
should be absolutely no granting of the pipeline in Branford.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Henry Burdick?

MR. HENRY BURDICK: My name is Henry Burdick. I'm a resident of Branford.
My last name is Burdick, B-u-r-d-i-c-k.

And, Mr. Walpole, and your colleagues, I want to thank you personally
for taking the time to come here to listen to me and to all the other
folks giving our testimony. We appreciate it.

You folks are the last line of defense in terms of integrity. Islander
East, which has a rather innocuous, if not boutique-y name, is really
the front for a group of profiteers from out of this area, from out of
state. They are appealing a decision by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection that denied their request for this proposal.

The proposal is without merit. In fact, sir, if you charged the
engineers and NOAA to come up with a plan and a route that had less \--
I mean more down side than this particular route, I don't think they
could do it. It travels within 50 feet or so of an elementary school. It
goes through an estuary and a wildlife preserve. It gets out into oyster
beds and the Thimble Islands to deliver gas to the Hamptons on Long
Island. The plan is dangerous. It's without merit.

And I would urge you folks to deny the request to the appeal because, as
I said, the plan is without merit. The Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection has looked at this, reviewed it, reviewed it,
studied, studied it and so on and they've said No. We urge you to agree
with DEP and say No. Send this plan away.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: The reason that we set a three-minute time limit
\-- and I mentioned this earlier \-- was because we wanted to make sure
that everyone was heard. And this morning there were not as many people
here. And so since we were going to be here anyway, I just extended the
time period for people to speak if they so wished. This afternoon was a
little more crowded. But we're in a situation now we don't have a lot of
folks here and I only have a handful, five or six people. And so if
people would like to extend the time to speak, you know, I'd certainly
entertain that. I don't want people to think that they've just got three
minutes when we've got all night to do this.

Oftentimes, these \-- at three minutes apiece, they still go until 11:00
or 12:00 at night. It might be because of the weather and other reasons
that we won't be going that late tonight. So, you know, I'm going to be
here, anyway. We're going to be here. So if people would like some extra
time, we're certainly happy to do that, unless we get a big crowd of
people and it gets \-- you know, we get a big, long line. Because I do
\-- it's very important that we get as much information \-- as many
views as possible and as much information as possible. And so the three
minutes was just to allow more people to come in. But, as I say, if you
need more time, we can do that.

I thought maybe we'd have more people by now. But \-- well, maybe I'll
wait just a few more minutes before I read the statement.

The next speaker is from an organization, Jeff, and it's Charles
Rothenberger from the Connecticut Trust Fund for the Environment.

MR. CHARLES ROTHENBERGER: If only that were so. The name of the
organization is actually the Connecticut Fund for the Environment.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: What did I say?

MR. ROTHENBERGER: Trust Fund.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. I'm sorry.

MR. ROTHENBERGER: Skews the picture slightly.

And my last name is spelled

R-o-t-h-e-n-b-e-r-g-e-r.

And I'd like to thank you as well for the opportunity to present this
evening. Really, I'd just like to impress upon you the fact that the
State actors have been taking the issue of cross-Sound energy projects
very seriously. They have not been taking an obstructionist view but,
rather, a thoughtful approach, trying to slow the pace of these energy
projects in general so that they can really evaluate the cumulative
impact that these energy projects will have on the Sound.

There is one natural gas pipeline that was approved and built over ten
years ago, the Iroquois line, which had serious environmental
consequences for the shellfish beds in the area. More than ten years
later, those beds have still not recovered. So it's very important to
take the environmental hazards seriously and not simply gloss over them.

I'd like to focus specifically in your charge as you go through and
evaluate this appeal the third standard that you apply. The Secretary
cannot affirm this appeal unless it should find that there's no
reasonable alternative permitting the proposed activity to be conducted
in a manner consistent with the enforceable policies of the State of
Connecticut's Coastal Zone Management Program.

The State enforcement agency, the State Department of Environmental
Protection, has already twice determined that the proposal, the plans as
put forth by the applicant, are not consistent with our State Coastal
Management Plan. It's asked for more information from the applicant. The
applicant has not been forthcoming with that information.

Despite the relative lack of information that the applicant has been
willing to share with the State authorities, nevertheless, our State
agency found that there was at least one potential alternative that
would minimize the adverse environmental impacts. And that would be
piggybacking on this earlier Iroquois pipeline.

The damage had already been done by laying that project. Since the
damage has already been done, we may as well use that to minimize future
impacts from a subsequent project.

Despite that, the applicant has simply dismissed that as an option. And
I would urge you to very strongly consider the fact that a concrete
proposal has been presented that's been flatly rejected.

At the federal level, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also
found that there was at least one other viable alternative which would
be less environmentally damaging.

Despite that, FERC came to the conclusion that the national interest
trumped that environmental concern. I would strongly disagree with that
conclusion. I think that the State agency is in the best position, as
the Federal Coastal Zone Management legislation itself recognizes, to
make determinations about what's in the best interests of the state's
coastal resources.

And I would also bring to your attention the fact that federal
administration's own policies urge a balancing between national energy
policy and environmental responsibility and expressly states in
Executive Order 132-12 that the national energy policy should only be
pursued in a way that is environmentally responsible and that minimizes
the adverse environmental impact.

So I would urge you to consider those standards, to look at the record
in this case that's been made and to deny Islander East's appeal in this
matter.

And I thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Gail Chapman?

A VOICE: She just stepped out.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Well, we'll \-- we can \-- take your time.

MS. GAIL CHAPMAN: I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: That's all right.

MS. CHAPMAN: My name is Gail Chapman,

C-h-a-p-m-a-n. And I'm a resident of Branford for over 25 years. And I
have to say that I have known of Branford \-- I visited Branford as a
six-year-old. And I've \-- I'm terribly opposed to the pipeline.

I'm sure that you've been hearing all day about why people are opposed.
And I will say that I concur with them, even tonight for the last few
people. There are no advantages to putting in this pipeline due to
economic, environmental concerns and so forth.

I have to thank you for wanting to know everyone's opinion. I was
running. Sorry. But I guess the issue I have is that there are so many
Branford residents I believe who would want to share their opinion with
you and their views, but they really do not feel comfortable coming in
to New Haven.

Now, we've been going through this, these meetings, for about two years
now, you know, justifying why we are opposed to Islander East putting in
the pipeline. And at the Branford High School, it's standing room only
for all of these meetings. I think they started at 6:00 or 7:00 and
ended about 11:00.

And all of a sudden, I'm looking at this empty room, saying, "Wow. Where
are people?" And I mean if you had had this meeting, I believe, in
Branford, you would actually have gotten a tremendous response. So I'm
disappointed that it's here, but I'm very happy that at least, you know,
you're having this someplace where some of us could express our views.

So I'm encouraging you strongly to consider not allowing Islander East
to move forward with their plans. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: You raise a good point about the location of the
hearing. And I might mention how it was selected. When we were \-- when
NOAA was scheduling \-- planning to have the hearing about six months
ago \--

MR. KARL GLEAVES: Even longer.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Maybe eight months ago. We had to make a
determination as to where the hearing would be held. And NOAA did this
by itself. We don't ask the parties or whatever. We wanted to select a
place that, number one, is convenient to the \-- one of the locations
most affected, but, two, that will allow us to have adequate and
comfortable space, where we can have security, where we can have access
for handicapped people, where we have facilities that can do the right
copying. For example, a lot of our \-- the FedEx package that had all
our materials never arrived. So we had to use a disk that we had. We
needed a facility that would have the proper copying/business center, et
cetera.

And we did look at some facilities other than this. We looked \-- in
fact, we looked at many others. And it was \-- I don't want to say a
trade-off. But it was something that we wanted to have it close to the
site, yet have the capacity that we wanted.

In other hearings, we've had \-- we've filled rooms much bigger than
this on the hearings. And \-- although, today we've gone through over 80
witnesses, which even if you had the hearing at 7:00, 6:00 or 7:00 at
night and went to 10:00 or 11:00, you wouldn't have many more.

But I think your point was also well-taken when you said at the high
school or whatever it was it was standing room only. And this isn't
standing room only. And that's the point.

We've had hearings in \-- years ago, in government buildings, whether
it's federal or state or local, and have had terrible problems because
you can't get the audio/visual that you need. You can't get the room
that you need. The heat is \-- you don't have control of that because
the heat might be 100 degrees and the custodian has gone for the night
or is on vacation or you can't get a hold of him and there's nobody in
the building at that point. And, also, security is a problem sometimes
in those buildings. It's tough to get people to arrange ahead of time.

And for handicapped people, sometimes it's a problem getting in and out
if there's elevators or stairs that aren't convenient. Not the newer
buildings, but a lot of the older buildings.

So when NOAA selected the site seven, eight, nine months ago, we looked
and saw that it was less than an hour from the site. Although \-- am I
wrong in that? Is it more than an hour from here to Brampton?

A VOICE: Branford.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: I'm sorry. Is it an hour?

A VOICE: Not long.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Is it a half an hour?

A VOICE: No.

VOICES: If there's not heavy traffic \-- construction \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Is it what?

A VOICE: It's not about the time. It's about the urban location. The
people that live in Branford, they often don't even \-- they don't come
in to New Haven for a variety of reasons.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Oh.

A VOICE: And what you're saying about the facility, I can tell you that
Branford High School has state-of-the-art copying and computers and
everything that you need, you know, as well as, you know, they could get
a custodian and security. It's a secure area, anyway. So that doesn't
really \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Can it hold five to eight hundred people?

A VOICE: I wouldn't know exactly \--

A VOICE: 600 people.

A VOICE: About 600 people. Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Well, as I say, we've had problems in the
past and we've found it, just as a general rule, to go with this. And so
I \-- I'm sorry that people don't like to come in to New Haven. But that
was \-- I guess that's a factor that we didn't put in the equation. But
we saw it was less than an hour by \-- as the crow flies. And so we
figured that was pretty reasonable.

And we have hearings like this in a lot of places and it doesn't seem to
present the same problem. So I'm sorry if it was inconvenient for folks.
But we \-- we didn't do anything consciously to inconvenience the
locality. But we thought we were doing the right thing and people would
be pleased to have, you know, a nice \-- a nice hearing location.

That said, I will just read a brief statement. I read this this morning,
but a lot of you folks weren't here this morning. So I thought maybe I'd
go over it again. For those of you who arrived recently, I'd like to
highlight several portions of my introductory remarks from this
morning's session.

This is part of a process for collecting information for the Secretary
of Commerce to decide this appeal. Islander East's appeal asks the
Secretary of Commerce to override Connecticut's objection to the
project.

For an override, the Secretary must find one of two things. And this is
the important part because this is the \-- these are the two things that
the Secretary of Commerce looks at to \-- by law, these are the only two
he can look at. And one is whether the plan, the project, I should say,
is consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act. If
he finds that the project is consistent with the objectives, then he can
override the objection.

If he finds that it's necessary in the interest of national security, he
can also override the objection.

By the same token, if he does not find either of these, that it's
consistent or necessary in these two cases, then he leaves the decision
of the State of Connecticut in place.

A finding by the Secretary that either ground is sufficient for Islander
East to prevail in its appeal. Islander East has also asked
Connecticut's objection be overridden for a procedural reason, asserting
that the State of Connecticut did not object in a timely manner. So
there's a procedural aspect as well.

Additional details concerning the appeal and the Act, which is the law
we follow, are contained in my opening remarks from this morning. And
copies are available in the front by the desk out there.

Switching topics, a number of procedural requirements. And I think maybe
I've gone over these. Speaking for three minutes. Please register before
you speak. And people are doing that. And \-- I can kind of cut through
some of this, I think. Have your \-- for planning purposes, tonight's
session might conclude between 10:00 and 11:00. We will continue as late
as we need to to accommodate everyone.

Please show speakers the courtesy. We've had other ones that have been a
lot more rowdy than this. But the good folks of Connecticut are very
polite and that isn't a problem.

Again, we emphasize that the purpose of the hearing is to obtain
information for our administrative record. And this matter will be
decided on what information is contained in the administrative record to
be considered by the Secretary.

And another important point, people are advised and encouraged to submit
written comments in addition to the testimony or instead of the
testimony to NOAA. And those will be considered just the same as
testimony. We will consider all comments that are coming in. And the
comment period ends November 20. But you can leave materials with us or
send it in later. And those directions for that are in the statement
that I read this morning.

I would also like to introduce the two gentlemen on my left. Karl
Gleaves, who is a Senior Manager in the \-- with NOAA General Counsel.
And on my far left is Jeff Augello, who is the Sea Grant Fellow who is
an attorney and working at NOAA now. And we're glad to have him there.

That said, I will continue on. I've got a couple of different piles.
There were some folks that signed up earlier. Mary Margaret Visnic? Is
she here?

Roberta Rattner?

Or Mona Scales?

Marcia Johnson?

MS. MARCIA JOHNSON: My name is Marcia Johnson. That's M-a-r-c-i-a,
Johnson, J-o-h-n-s-o-n. I'm a resident of Branford. I live in the
Hotchkiss Grove area. I've been to a number of these hearings. And it
seems clear to me, after all that I've heard and read, that there are
clear negative consequences for the environment for this project, for
the quality of life of residents and that there are significant safety
issues.

And many Connecticut residents have expressed their opposition. And most
of our local, state and national representatives have expressed their
opposition.

At one of these hearings in Branford, the 16-year-old son of a friend
attended one of the hearings in Branford. And after three hours of
listening to the comments and information presented, he asked his
mother, "If the evidence is against it, if the people are against it, if
our elected representatives are against it and if there's a reasonable
alternative way to get energy to Long Island, how could this happen?"

Well, if this goes through, what would we say to him and other young
people who are now forming their views about how our system works?

So I'd just like to urge you to deny the Islander East appeal. Thank
you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Carol Raye?

MS. CAROL RAYE: Good evening. I'm Carol Raye. That's R-a-y-e. I'm a
resident of Branford. And I have both local and global concerns about
the Islander East project.

I've lived on \-- I lived on Long Island for over ten years and loved it
and loved the Sound. I lived on the north shore. I now live on the
Branford shore of Long Island Sound and I love it. And I live at the
water's edge. I go kayaking in water that often is crystal clear. And my
neighbors in Hotchkiss Grove go clamming about 50 feet from my back
door.

I look directly at Stony Creek and the Thimble Islands. And if the
Islander East pipeline goes in at Stony Creek, I'll be able to watch it.
And, in addition, I'll probably watch \-- I'll probably watch the clam
beds die.

I'm going to go on to my global concerns. There is evidence today that
life on our planet is reaching the point of becoming unsustainable. We
are over-fishing. We are draining aquifers in a way that they're not
going to refill. And I think that it's \-- we just can't afford any
longer to have cheap energy as a goal. I think it no longer makes sense.

And I think that, you know, democracy and capitalism are the two things
which have made our country great. But capitalism needs to be managed by
democracy. And capitalism can't be allowed to run roughshod over
democracy. And I feel that that's what's happening in this Islander East
project.

And I hope that NOAA will find the arguments of the local people in
Branford and the surrounding communities persuasive. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Our next person will be Suzanne Botta of the
Menocatuck \-- and I know I'm saying that one wrong \-- Menuncatuck \--

MS. SUZANNE BOTTA: Menunkatuck.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Menunkatuck Audubon Society. Being from Osswego, I
should know some of these Indian words. But I don't.

MS. BOTTA: I'm going to give you a copy of the \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Why don't you just give it to the Court Reporter?

MS. BOTTA: I've got another copy here.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thanks.

MS. BOTTA: Okay. What you have in front of you is the full version of
the testimony that I would like to be taken into the record. But for
time limits, I'm \-- I've pared it down somewhat.

Just for the record, my name is Suzanne Botta. I am President of the
Menunkatuck Audubon Society. We are the chapter of the National Audubon
Society which encompasses all the shoreline times from West Haven
through Madison, which also includes Branford.

Tonight I'm speaking on behalf of Menunkatuck's over-700 members. We
believe the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection made the
correct decision in denying Islander East a Coastal Zone Management Act
federal consistency.

The breadth and variety of the problems with the Islander East
application have not yet been adequately addressed as the FEIS lacks
vital information as indicated through comments made by other federal
agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency.

Each agency has entered into the record its concerns regarding the lack
of quantifiable gas demand information for the region. Additionally,
there are serious concerns and many unanswered questions regarding both
short- and long-term impacts on federally endangered species, such as
the lease tern, as well as federally protected species, such as the
harbor seals and gray seals. And gray seals, by the way \-- this is \--
Branford, off of Outer Island, is one of the only places in the state
where you'll find these gray seals hauling out in the wintertime.

Menunkatuck Audubon believes it would be wholly inappropriate for the
Secretary to determine that the proposed activity is consistent with the
objectives of the CZMA. The function of this particular pipeline would
be to serve the gas-utilizing constituents on Long Island. Because there
is a lack of quantifiable gas demand information in that market, an
informed decision cannot be made about the long-term needs of the
region.

Would the region be best served by a dozen cross-Sound cables and
pipelines or by one or two larger pipelines with more capacity? This
question has not been addressed. Nor have adequate, prudent and feasible
alternative been offered.

In order to pursue a rationale of national interest, there must be a
variety of prudent and feasible alternatives available to appropriate
decision-makers and agencies, such as the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, as well as the Department of Commerce. This is
currently not the case.

The federally supported Long Island Sound Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan approved in 1994, affirmed in '96 and in 2003, and the
Connecticut Coastal Management Act of 1980 have been developed and
implemented because there are complex issues raised by the scarce
resources and competing uses of Connecticut's coast. This requires
active and ongoing planning and management by the states of Connecticut,
New York and the U.S. EPA.

Connecticut's Coastal Management Program was designed with an emphasis
on balancing the protection of fragile coastal resources on Long Island
Sound's ecosystem with sustainable economic uses of the shoreline.
Sustainable management means we can no longer afford a piecemeal
approach to utility crossings in Long Island Sound. We can all attest to
the importance of prior proper planning.

Moving forward with major projects without prior knowledge and
understanding of existing assets, conditions, consequences and
alternatives would be foolhardy at best.

Allowing Islander East to proceed with their pipeline construction
without considering the ramifications of cumulative effects of
additional proposals to come, including Islander East expansions of the
project or looping the pipeline, as it may be, borders on gross
negligence on any agency's part.

If we are to have proper energy distribution in the tri-state area,
Northeast and throughout the country, permit applications must be judged
on their merits. The Islander East pipeline does not meet the legitimate
requirements set forth in the Coastal Management Act, a statute approved
by the Federal Government in 1980.

Long Island Sound is the most heavily used estuary in North America.
It's 1300 square miles and has been designated as an estuary of national
significance. The Sound is an estuary with finite resources and capacity
for recovery from construction. Yet, the state's coast supports diverse
industries, including a 50-million-dollar shellfish industry, tourism,
marine commerce, as well as defense-related manufacturing.

The Sound provides feeding, breeding, nesting and nursery areas for a
diversity of plant and animal life and contributes an estimated 5.5
billion dollars per year to the regional economy from boating,
commercial, sports fishing and sightseeing, all of which can be very
heavily impacted by this proposed pipeline.

More than eight million people live in Long Island Sound's watershed.
The associated development of this watershed has increased some types of
pollution, altered land surfaces, reduced open space and restricted
access to the Sound.

This reinforces our position that there is a greater need than ever to
rely on the expertise of local scientists, professionals and applicable
agencies to gauge what types of activities the Sound can withstand and
still remain viable for future use, whether commercial or recreational.

There is a profound national interest in balancing utility construction
and other economic and environmental concerns. It is in the interest of
us all to have a healthy and viable Long Island Sound and protect
endangered species, such as our lease tern.

Certainly, projects to shore up energy reliability in the Northeast are
critical. But these projects must be done properly, not on a first-come,
first-served basis.

We, therefore, respectfully request that Islander East's appeal be
denied.

And I'd like to thank you and just mention for the record that I do have
some credentials to go behind the things that I've said. All of the
comments, they have been cited. I do have a background in wetland
ecology. I work for the Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk. I have Reg-4
federal certification from the Army Corps of Engineers and the NRCS in
wetland delineation and identification. I've been certified by the
Connecticut DEP on wetland issues and additionally by the Connecticut
DEP on wildlife issues.

In addition, I'm a Wetland Commissioner for the Town of Branford. And so
I do understand that there is a process in terms of applications and the
need to \-- thank you \-- and the need to look at the facts, the figures
and the questions that need to be answered.

And I wholeheartedly believe that the questions that you are addressing
tonight, both of them \-- is the Connecticut DEP \-- have they made the
right decision?" Absolutely, yes. Are we meeting federal standards?
Absolutely, yes. Is this an issue of national interest or security? No.
There have to be prudent and feasible alternatives. And those have not
been put forth at this time. There are alternatives. And, therefore, it
does not qualify as a must in national interest.

So, if have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, I thank
you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Next would be Mike Lengle. Let's see how
close I came on that one.

MR. MIKE LENGLE: You were right.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: If you could please spell your name for the
Reporter?

MR. LENGLE: Yeah. M-i-k-e, L-e-n-g-l-e.

I'm Mike Lengle. I'm a resident of Branford. As I see it, there's an
energy problem on Long Island. It's an insufficient energy supply that
seems to be common around the country. We live in bigger houses. We want
to keep them warm. We drive cars that are no more efficient than the
first car that was put on the road in the 1920's. We live in an
Internet-driven age with computers that use a lot of energy. And we
don't have the political leadership that seems to want anybody to make
sacrifices to curb that supply. So we look to alternatives which seem to
be increasing supply.

So there's solutions such as putting a pipeline or a cable under the
Long Island Sound. The experts say that that would not be
environmentally sound. But we'll probably want to do it, anyways. We may
want to look for oil in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge and endanger
that environment to get about one percent of a year's supply worth of
oil.

We may want to look onto federal lands. We may want to dig under a lot
of ranch owners' property out West. We might take off the tops of some
mountains in West Virginia and pollute the streams there to look for
this energy. Some would say we might even go to war overseas and risk
our lives and the world stability to find some of this energy supply as
well.

If you consider the consequences and the ramifications of that, for
instance, to the Long Island Sound, which is, you know, being restored
and is a wonderful environment now that it hadn't been in decades past
from pollution, to put that at risk if you take at face value, are
willing to consider the idea that we might go into foreign war
engagements to find energy supply, if you think of the losses of lives
and the expense that that's costing us, 87 billion this year. If you
think about those consequences, it doesn't seem to me to be sound public
policy not to ask people to conserve or consider alternate methods of
energy before we would increase supply in those areas.

And for a lot of the reasons I've outlined, I would also seem to think
that it's probably immoral to look to increasing energy supply before we
consider conservation and other measures.

The people in my community are against this pipeline. The people of the
state and the leadership of the state are against it. And I would
encourage the Federal Government, Department of Commerce, to respect
those decisions.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: The next person is Diane Laudano.

MS. DIANE LAUDANO: Diane Laudano,

L-a-u-d-a-n-o. Okay?

I didn't really expect to speak here. But it is an emotional issue and I
do want to be heard. I believe that that portion of Connecticut along
the shoreline belongs to you all, as well as we. It \-- I ask you to
protect the lesser forms of life, as well as the greater forms of life
that live along the shoreline. And just ask you to stop this project.
Simply.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Robert Rattney? Was I good on the name on that?

MR. ROBERT RATTNER: It's Rattner.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Rattner. Okay. If you could please \--

MR. RATTNER: R-a-t-t-n-e-r.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: \-- spell it, it would be great.

MR. RATTNER: R-a-t-t-n-e-r.

I've been a resident of Branford for about 12-1/2 years. I've enjoyed
living in this community. I've been following the pipeline issue,
involved for quite a while. And as I was thinking of speaking today, I
really had a hard time deciding what to talk about. So much has been
said. Hundreds of people have spoken their minds at this hearing and
many previous ones. Reams of documents have been submitted. Numerous
questions get asked over and over again. Issues are raised. And we just
don't get answers.

Islander East has not addressed some very serious concerns raised by the
citizens of the shoreline and by our legislators and more pointedly by
the Department of Environmental Protection when they rejected the two
applications.

I honestly don't see how they can appeal a decision when they haven't
addressed the concerns that have \-- that led to the declining of their
applications. I also don't see how it can \-- how they can morally move
ahead without addressing the very serious concerns of the community.
There are concerns involving health, safety, environmental damage and
economics. And these simply are not addressed.

Perhaps most poignant and most relevant to this hearing is the fact of
alternatives. The purpose of this hearing, as I understand it, is to
evaluate if overriding the decisions made by the State, decisions, by
the way, which I understand are mandated by federal regulation to be
made by the State, and to override this would require a cause of
national interest. And that would require several tests. And we have
heard this discussed several times today. The benefits versus the impact
and alternatives being explored.

Well, the impacts have been delineated quite specifically. We have
serious health issues. We have the idea \-- the safety issues. A
high-pressure gas pipeline within 50 feet of a school. Whatever you
think of pipeline safety, it's clearly a lot safer to not be near one
than to be near one and put our school children so close.

The act of eminent domain is an extreme act of government and it should
be only used in the most serious applications of the public interest. In
fact, the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain is for public use.

Well, what is the public use here? Public use here seems to be the
potential need for energy on Long Island. Maybe the real need. This has
been questioned. That's fine.

Well, there is an alternative. The Milford pipeline was built in 1991.
There was great damage done to the shellfish beds. They were predicted
to recover in a year. And now 13 years later, 12 years later, they
haven't recovered.

But, most importantly, the Milford pipeline has capacity. So why build a
new pipeline? Why violate people's property rights? Why put a
high-pressure gas pipeline alongside a school? Why go through public
trust lands? Why risk serious pollution to the Sound and other shellfish
beds within the South and the marine life and the water quality of the
Sound when there is capacity in a pipeline that exists in Milford and
the technology to add to that through a piggybacking method?

And the only answer that's been brought up repeatedly is the potential
profits for Islander East and its parent companies. There seems to be no
other reason. Now, if that outweighs \-- if that is a benefit that
outweighs the impact, I'd be quite surprised if you find many people who
agree with you.

I just want to make one other point. I spent much of yesterday, along
with quite a few other people here, asking people to sign cards and
telling people about today's hearing.

This procedure has really generated a lot of cynicism in the community,
with the unaddressed issues and questions, with the same issues and
questions being asked over and over again. There's a disillusionment
that was really disturbing to hear. Across the political spectrum,
people think of this as a done deal and are also very disappointed to
find that the hearing is being held here in New Haven, making it much
less accessible to many people.

I do hope that this will proceed as it should. I do thank you for coming
here today and hearing our concerns. And I do hope that we can reach a
good resolution and that our issues and questions will be properly
addressed, finally.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Just to make a comment, the procedures to date \--
the procedures up through when the State of Connecticut objected to the
application did not involve the Department of Commerce. We were not
involved in that part at all. So when you say that there's some
cynicism, it's a little disappointing, since we weren't involved in the
earlier proceeding.

Once we became involved, that is, once the petition \-- once the appeal
was filed, then the material that's been submitted to us by the parties
and by \-- that is Connecticut and Islander East, as well as
individuals, has been the material that we are starting to look at now
or that we are looking at.

So there can be no done deal since we weren't involved in the first
part. We were \-- that is the Department of Commerce was divorced from
that. We \-- under the law, we don't get involved in what the State is
doing. And if the State had not objected, then the project could go on
and the Department of Commerce would never see it.

In terms of the location of the hearing, I guess I'm disappointed in
that, too. And I guess maybe I should apologize. Although, it was
certainly unintentional. Having these hearings within an hour or so of
the location is pretty standard for the way that we handle the
consistency appeals. And as I mentioned, when we go to government
buildings, schools have \-- are in session. We couldn't have had
hearings there all day. They oftentimes don't have the facilities that
we need. We typically do not have them in public buildings for that
reason. We've just had so many problems and people complain so bitterly
when they make an effort to attend.

And that isn't to say anything specific about the Branford facility
because we \-- you know, we just \-- we didn't consider that because
we've had \-- we typically have had problems.

So I guess in the hearings that I'm familiar with, we haven't had such
concerns when people have \-- you know, if we had it two or three hours
away, I could understand the concern. And I'm just disappointed. And I
guess I apologize if it's inconvenient for folks. But it was just
something that \-- it's surprising, I guess, that it's such a problem.
But \--

I'm going to take a break just for five minutes. We've got one other
card here. And I'm going to check back and see if we have any others.

(Off the record)

MR. ROTHENBERGER: \-- in that the hearing at least was going to be open
until 9:00. And I think that information was communicated to that
effect. So people may be planning on somebody being here until 9:00 and
planning their time accordingly.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Well, that's even more important that we leave it
open then.

MR. ROTHENBERGER: Right. I just \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: We will stay up here until after 9:00 then, if
people are thinking of coming in.

MR. ROTHENBERGER: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could take your seats,
we'll get started again.

Mary Margaret Visnic?

MS. MARY MARGARET VISNIC: My name is Mary Margaret Visnic, V-i-s-n-i-c.
I reside at 347 Pine Orchard Road, Branford, Connecticut. I have been a
part of the Connecticut Stop the Pipeline for over two years. I will be
brief.

My husband, Kevin, and I have four young children. They also have been
active with Connecticut Stop the Pipeline. We live on the water,
approximately 300 yards from the proposed pipeline. One summer day, we
had a children's beach party last summer. We had approximately 40
children. It was a beautiful day. The sky was blue. The water was blue
and clear. And the kids were having a blast. I remember feeling lucky to
have all these wonderful children and the beautiful Sound to swim in.

The kids were all sitting on the beach eating their ice creams and I
said, "Kids, look how beautiful the Sound is." One little girl stood up
and said, "If they put the pipeline in, what would happen if it explodes
while we're swimming?"

Please do the only right and fair thing. Deny the appeal by Islander
East.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Dan Lorimier?

MR. DAN LORIMIER: Hi. My name is Dan Lorimier. I am a resident of New
Haven. I live at 1280 Townsend Avenue.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

MR. LORIMIER: Sure. It's L-o-r-i-m-i-e-r.

I would like to start by just saying that Connecticut is a resource-rich
state. Its environment is packed with treasures. But the premiere
resource of the state is Long Island Sound. Long Island Sound, as I know
you know, was on the verge of death 15 and 12 and 10 years ago. And only
through huge investments by Connecticut, the State of New York and, of
course, the Federal Government has Long Island Sound been resuscitated.
It's not well. But it's alive.

I would ask you to uphold Connecticut's Department of Environmental
Protection's decision to deny the permit to Islander East for this
project because I believe, with as valuable and precious a resource
that's in such a fragile condition, it would be a huge error to plow
through it with a project as ill-conceived as this.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Next will be Sandy Breslin of the Audubon
Connecticut.

MS. SANDY BRESLIN: Is this one working? Can you hear me all right?

My name is Sandy Breslin. I'm the Director of Government Affairs for
Audubon Connecticut, a part of the \--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Could you spell your last name please?

MS. BRESLIN: B-r-e-s-l-i-n. Okay?

I'm the Director of Government Affairs for Audubon Connecticut, which is
a part of the National Audubon Society with more than 13,000 members
statewide. We work to protect birds, other wildlife and their habitat
through research, education, conservation and advocacy.

We're here tonight to strongly support the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection in its denial of coastal consistency
certification to the Islander East proposal. We urge you to recommend
that the Secretary deny the appeal of Islander East on two grounds.

The first is that the proposed project, even as it is revised by
Islander East, would have significant adverse impacts on the natural
resources and land and water uses in the coastal area around Long Island
Sound and, as such, would be inconsistent with the purposes and
objectives of Connecticut's federally approved Coastal Zone Management
Plan.

The second reason is that as described in the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's Final Environmental Impact Statement there exists a prudent
and feasible alternative to the project as it is currently proposed that
would have a lesser environmental impact. And we urge that this impact
be explored by the applicant.

To override the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in
this matter would fly in the face of \-- and I'm quoting \-- "the unique
federal/state partnership that provides a proven basis for protecting,
restoring and responsibly developing the important and diverse coastal
communities and resources", end quote, that we believe are Long Island
Sound.

And the quote actually is from NOAA's own Website on the page that
discusses the Coastal Zone Management Program.

The waters and areas of Long Island Sound, the coastal areas, provide
some of the most important and significant wildlife habitat in both
Connecticut and New York. For this reason, Audubon is currently
considering whether or not Long Island Sound meets the criteria for
designation as an important bird area, a part of a voluntary global
program that Audubon runs of the same name, that is committed to
identifying and protecting key bird habitat.

Within the Sound itself, Audubon concurs with the DEP that Islander East
\-- the pipeline proposal will go through some of the most unique,
productive and diverse habitat complexes along the Connecticut shore. We
also agree that, though the pipeline construction is not inherently
inconsistent with the integrity of either an important bird area or with
the Coastal Zone Management Plan, siting this pipeline in this specific
area of the Sound would have significant adverse impacts that are
inconsistent both with the maintenance of healthy habitat for birds and
wildlife and with the enforceable policies of the Coastal Zone
Management Program.

We will be submitting more detailed written testimony. But I thank you
very much for your patience and for a long day.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much. Appreciate your coming
tonight.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Carla Cesare?

MS. CARLA CESARE: Thank you for pronouncing my name right. My name is
Carla Cesare. That's C-e-s as in Sam, a-r-e. I live at 81 Main Street in
Branford.

I keep hearing the phrase "national interest". And I know it sounds so
awesome and overpowering to one person living in one small town in one
small state. But I do believe that when you put us together collectively
as 28,000 people, should anything ever imperil us, such as an accident
of some sort with the pipeline, I think we don't become one person in a
small town in a small state. We become a national interest. And I would
hate for Branford or anybody there to become a negative interest for
negative reasons.

I chose to move to Branford three and a half years ago for a job. I
chose to buy in Branford two and a half years ago for the town,
primarily because I like the shore. And I would hate to see the reason
why I moved someplace and choose to make my life become a useless waste
because it's been imperiled by national interest which \-- or as they
say, national interests which are not for the \-- they never took into
consideration the safety and the value of the lives in that town.

I think probably a better option is to look into alternative energy
sources that are less perilous to us, less perilous to the environment
and can maintain the lifestyle that we like to have in Branford.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Charles Stanislau? Sanislow?

MR. CHARLES SANISLOW: My name is Charles Sanislow, S-a-n-i-s-l-o-w. I'm
a resident of Branford. I live in Short Beach. I've been recreating on
the Sound for ten years. And I'm opposed to the pipeline.

I believe that the Sound is a valuable resource for our region and for
our nation. And I believe that democracy is a valuable resource for our
nation. And I hope that both are preserved.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Kiki Kennedy, CT Stop \-- Connecticut Stop the
Pipeline.

MS. KIKI KENNEDY: Thank you. It's Kiki Kennedy, K-e-n-n-e-d-y. And I'm
the spokesperson for Connecticut Stop the Pipeline. And we're a
grassroots organization that began in the summer of 2001 in response to
the Islander East Pipeline project. We worked very hard from the get-go.
And I'd like to submit for the record a copy of the 5,577 signatures we
obtained in the fall of 2001 in opposition to the Islander East
pipeline.

Since that time, as you've heard, there have been a number of different
hearings. We've had actually tremendous turnouts at those hearings. And
the most recent was in \-- before the Army Corps of Engineers in August,
August 5, 2003. We had over 500 people in the auditorium.

And this is not an indictment of your choice. I know you've apologized.
You feel bad about it. But it \-- I think it's really important to
realize that there are a lot of people.

And to that effect, yesterday we took advantage of it being election day
and turned out at the polls. And I'd also like to present for the record
the over-2,000 postcards that we collected in basically a 14-hour
stretch. These people are primarily registered voters. I'd say 99
percent of them are registered voters. And they care about their
community, about Long Island. And I'd also like to say when we were out
collecting signatures, there were \-- people would run across the
parking lot in order to be able to sign this and say "I can't get to New
Haven. Please be my voice."

So the few people, the number of people who turned out today I think are
a good example of the people in our community, the parents, the
fishermen, the lawyers, the professors at Yale that make up basically
the sense of the full range, both old and young, educated, not educated,
Republican, Democrat. And it's really amazing how actually easily it's
been once we educate people about what's going on to hear their dismay
about this project.

So after my testimony, I will submit \-- it's a very heavy box. I
apologize. But about 2,009 postcards.

I'd also like to just address the issue of alternatives. As has been
discussed earlier today and as I know you are aware, there are at least
two alternative routes for this pipeline that are less environmentally
harmful.

We really feel as a community this is not about not helping our
neighbors in New York, about not getting gas there. It's really about
choosing the least environmentally harmful route.

The route that \-- although we do not want any cross-Sound routes, we
are willing to compromise \-- is the ELI's alternative route. This was
certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in their August
2002 Final Environmental Statement. This route was certified as less
environmentally harmful than the current route because it was 5.5 miles
shorter, 20 percent shorter. It hits fewer shellfish, if any, shellfish
beds. And it has no wetland impacts.

We know that this is a practicable alternative because the Iroquois
Pipeline Company itself submitted this to the FERC. It did receive a
preliminary determination in September 2002. However, in February 2003,
the company withdrew the project because, quote, "The market failed to
materialize", close quote.

So we know that this is a viable route. You can tap into the pipeline
there.

We don't, frankly, understand why Islander East isn't taking advantage
of the less environmentally harmful route. But we urge you, NOAA, to
please look at this alternative route and please consider this route.
Again, we're willing to compromise. We'd prefer no cross-Sound route.
But since this is less environmentally harmful, we are willing to
compromise. And we really ask you to get Islander East to compromise and
do this less harmful route.

Another alternative route is \-- which does not cross Long Island Sound
is the cross-bay pipeline which was \-- actually received a final
certificate from the FERC in the fall of 2001. However, again, the
project was abandoned. This went from New Jersey to New York. And
basically, there were very little environmental impacts or opposition.

This was abandoned by the company because apparently the tariffs that
were set would have to be revised or looked at again. And, frankly, it
looks like, according to the time, that maybe they thought that Islander
East would be cheaper and easier to put in. But that's speculation.

Cross-bay, ELI's alternative, both are alternative routes. You've heard
a lot of other alternatives, from liquefied natural gas to conservation
measures to solar \-- to solar power on top of the Empire State
Building. We ask you really to look at everything, but at least to look
at the viable cross-Sound route that is less harmful.

I'd also like to address, finally, before I stop, the question of need
on Long Island. Here we have Iroquois abandoning a project February 2003
after receiving a preliminary determination from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission because the market failed to materialize.

We really wonder what are Long Island's energy needs. Since the Islander
East Pipeline Company proposed their project in June of 2001, we've had
September 11. There's been a downturn in the economy. Things have
changed. The Long Island market needs need to be re-examined. And we ask
you, NOAA, to examine them again.

Islander East is still standing by their four precedent agreements that
they presented in June 2001. Two of them are for power plants. One is
for AES Endeavor, which is a power plant that will never be built. They
don't even have land. Islander East is still insisting that this is a
viable contract that they will need to serve. It's not going to happen.

The second is Brookhaven, which is a power plant in the process of being
permitted. We have testimony that indicates that they can get adequate
supply of gas from an existing Keyspan pipeline on Long Island that will
be supplied either by Iroquois or by Transco which goes to Long Island.

So there's two of them.

The other two precedent agreement are Keyspan Energy distribution
systems. It makes us very concerned and very suspect since Keyspan
Energy is a 50-percent co-investor on Islander East.

So when you have the destruction to our coastline and to Long Island
Sound in order to serve the needs of Keyspan Energy in order for it to
basically supply two energy distribution systems that it owns, we are
very, very concerned about, basically, the corporate energy industry
just pushing something through that we feel and really question is not
needed.

So please, we urge you to look at the alternative routes. We urge you to
re-examine the Long Island \-- Long Island's energy markets and the real
need for Islander East. We urge you to listen to the voices of the
citizens that could not be here, the 2,009 people who signed those
postcards that would be jamming the halls here tonight. Again, no
indictment of you. But, really, their voices are meaningful.

And we urge you to respect our State DEP. They made the right decision.
Deny Islander East's appeal.

We really appreciate you coming here. Thank you so much for listening.

Thank you to the State DEP for listening to us as well.

And we hope that you will deny the appeal. Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

This is a challenge for me, this name. John Bysiewicz? Bysiewicz?

MR. JOHN BYSIEWICZ: Hi. My name is John Bysiewicz, spelled
B-y-s-i-e-w-i-c-z. I've been a resident of this area for over half of my
life we've resided in Branford. And we chose Branford because of the
scenic coastline. And we do live in the Stony Creek neighborhood.

I hope you won't allow the Islander East pipeline. I believe that the
Connecticut environmental is very strong. Connecticut is one of the
first states for bottle deposits, one of the first states to be very
active for over 15 years already in curbside recycling. They spent
millions of dollars back in the 60's to clean up the Connecticut River.
They spent even more money on cleaning up Long Island Sound. The State
is behind it in our license plate program to give money towards the Long
Island Sound cleanup.

And I just believe that the people and the government are not behind
this project. I hope that you deny them their project. And thank you for
coming today.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Kathryn Templeton.

MS. KATHRYN TEMPLETON: Hello. My name is Kathryn Templeton,
T-e-m-p-l-e-t-o-n. I live in Branford, Connecticut. And I'm a
capitalist. I think making money is a great thing. And I think it's very
important to stand behind the things you believe in.

I moved to Branford ten years ago from San Francisco, California. I like
to be near the water. My husband and I loved the town. So we bought a
house, pay taxes and now have three children.

One of the things I don't enjoy is seeing that capitalism is at the cost
of environmentalism. And I think that's what's happening here. I moved
to Branford. I'm very active in the community. And I think it would be
unethical if I didn't come forward to speak on behalf of the other folks
in our community; that we are not interested in having our Sound
disrupted. We're not interested in seeing that the government is not
listening to the people. And we hold in our hearts the hope that you all
will listen to us and to deny the appeal from Islander East Pipeline.

Thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Leah Lopez, Save the Sound, Inc.?

MS. LEAH LOPEZ: Good evening. As you said, my name is Leah Lopez. That's
spelled L-o-p-e-z. I'm the staff attorney for Save the Sound, a
31-year-old, bi-state, non-profit membership organization dedicated to
the restoration and protection and appreciation of Long Island Sound and
its watershed through advocacy, education and research.

Tonight, Save the Sound asks that you support the DEP's decision to deny
coastal consistency for the Islander East proposal. Despite what might
be said, this is not just a local issue. This is about Long Island
Sound, the public trust doctrine and what does or does not meet the
statutory and regulatory criteria of the Coastal Management Act.

Day by day, project by project, we strip away the Sound's health, waters
held in trust for New York and Connecticut citizens, not for the
non-water-dependent, non-historical privatized use of industry. Cables
and pipelines set precedents for future uses and future coastal reviews.

If this DEP or any other state's DEP given authority under this federal
program is not provided the deference needed to credibly make these
decisions, what will occur when future projects requesting consistency
determinations apply and receive answers they do not like? What they
will do is appeal to you, just as Islander East has, because they will
not trust the opinion of their state.

The reason DEP has review authority is because you trusted its program.
So trust it. According to NOAA, quote, "The unique federal consistency
requirements provide for the consideration of and the adherence to state
and local coastal laws", end quote.

There should be agency pride placed in the fact that the Coastal Zone
Management Program is a unique federal/state partnership. However,
partnerships can only exist with mutual respect. The DEP deserves the
full weight of that respect, not because of blind faith but due to 23
years of faithfully discharging its duties under this federally approved
program. This respect can only be demonstrated by upholding their
determination. Anything else is overreaching and will impact future
relations with not only Connecticut but all other coastal states who
trusted NOAA when it told them that their decisions had meaning.

According to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, State
and Federal Coastal Zone Management efforts are guided by the CZMP's
strategic framework of sustaining coastal communities, sustaining
coastal ecosystems and improving government efficiency.

A determination by you to overrule the DEP, grant coastal consistency to
this project and legitimize this appeal will further none of those
goals.

Thank you very much for your time and for consideration of our comments.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Next is Loretta Fox.

MS. LORETTA FOX: Good evening. My name is Loretta, L-o-r-e-t-t-a, Fox,
F-o-x. I live at 15 Long Point Road in Stony Creek section of Branford.

I want to thank the Department of Commerce for the opportunity to give
this testimony. You have several responsibilities when considering
overturning the decision of our Department of Environmental Protection.

I would like to address one of those, which is the mandate and the
objective to determine if this application is consistent with the
objectives of the CZMA. And under that objective is that you must
determine that the national interest furthered by the proposed activity
outweighs the activity's adverse coastal effects when those effects are
considered separately and cumulatively. NEPA requires consideration of
cumulative impacts. Our Connecticut Coastal Zone Management Act in
Section 22a-36 of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses requires the same
evaluation of the cumulative impacts.

I would like to highlight just a few of what I consider some of the
adverse impacts inherent in this proposal and how they add to make a
cumulative impact statement.

Quickly, who and what are being impacted? Juveniles which inhabit
wetlands, streams and vernal pools, oysters, clams, crabs and other
bottom-feeders, birds and ducks, as well as wildlife that inhabit the
area, finfish of all species, plankton, Long Island Sound reef-dwellers
and the substrate, school students, fishermen, residents and even rail
workers.

What are some of the impacts that concern me? The pipeline's permanent
ROW or right-of-way and the temporary ROW will create new or expand
present access roads into areas now not accessible and create the
opportunity for contaminated runoff. The ROW opens the now-wetlands and
forest to invasive species.

Maintenance of this ROW could result in impacts from pounds of
fertilizer running into ground water, streams and wetlands. Plus lime,
which has been proposed for the area, changing the pH of soils and
runoff areas which would then end up in the Sound.

The right-of-way area maintenance opens the area to intrusive and
damaging activities, such as ATV use, illegal dumping and unsanctioned
mountain or trail bike type invasion.

These activities, when unmanaged, can lead to a degradation of the
valued wildlife habitat and watershed areas as they are today.
Uncontrolled release of frackout material into the waters of Long Island
Sound poses a real threat. Such a release that is uncontained includes
bentonite clay, metal filings and contaminants like oil or grease, all
damaging the environment of Long Island Sound and its inhabitants.

The hydrostatic testing of the pipeline. Water amounts are undetermined
and the location of the release of the water uncertain, putting the
inhabitants of Long Island Sound in another set of dangers.

There are some safety issues. Danger of safety from locating a
high-pressure natural gas pipeline along a railroad line that carries
loader cars full of crushed rock along an aging rail track system.
Danger from natural gas explosions by locating pipelines within 50 feet
of a school.

The quality of life for humans and nature are in danger from the
cumulative impacts inherent in the Islander East project. I have only
presented a few of the construction and maintenance issues which you
might weigh, that you must weigh in your decision to overturn this
twice-denied project by our Connecticut DEP. I support their decision
100 percent.

I'm including some definitions from our DEP's CZMA regulations which I
find relevant. And I also am submitting pictures and information
regarding species that will be impacted and that I don't have time to
mention.

Thank you very much for coming. And I appreciate the time to make my
statement.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Is there anyone else that would like to be heard?
We've got some names here that I've called several times and no one's
been here. But if there's anyone else that would like to sign a card and
testify, that's fine.

We have been asked, because of some jumbled communications, that we stay
here until 9:00 because there may be some people coming at that time.
And we'd like to accommodate those folks if that is, indeed, the case
since we had planned by here later, anyway. So maybe we'll take a break
here until 8:30 or 9:00.

Do you want me to read those again?

Okay. We understand there's one person that's here. Mona Scales.

But while we're waiting, I \-- again, folks had approached me on the
break about the location of the hearing. And I would mention that it
would not have been possible to have the hearing today at the school
because of the classes.

But the other thing is a number of people came up to me this morning and
were most appreciative of us having the hearing during the day because
they said when the hearings are held at night, they can't come. Either
they work in the evenings or they're not \-- it's not convenient for
them to come. And I think, as I mentioned, during the daytime alone we
had over 60 folks testifying.

What was the total so far, Karl?

MR. GLEAVES: 105.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: 105. So we had more than half of our folks that
came during the daytime. And that isn't to say that we wouldn't have
gotten more had we been at Branford. But it's a good indication that
people do like to come during the day as well.

Is Ms. Scales here? Okay. If you'd please spell your name after you give
it?

MS. MONA SCALES: My name is Mona Scales,

S-c-a-l-e-s. I live in Stony Creek, Four Watrous Avenue, Stony Creek.
And my position today is I'm a kayaker. Welcome to Connecticut.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you.

MS. SCALES: Thank you for coming many miles from your home to learn
about the amazing coastal landscape and the waters that we are blessed
to call our home. I'm sorry the weather is so bleak today, obscuring the
beauty of our shoreline that you might have been able to see. If you'd
been here on Monday, I would have invited you to lunch with me. I was
out on my kayak in 70-degree weather, floating near rock outcroppings,
watching seagulls, cormiers, terns, herons and listening to fish jump
that I could never quite see. I was a guest in their amazing habitat.

And as I drifted quietly near those outcroppings of rock that define the
place where human economic interests threaten to blast the sea bed in
future months, I was going to speak to you about the negative economic
impact of the proposed pipeline on recreational tourism. And then I saw
something floating by. And I thought I'd do a show and tell.

The first item belonged there. It's just a birch log with some sea life
attached to it. A nice piece of driftwood for my kitchen window. And
then I saw this. And that's a cooler top from some really nice
recreational activity. So I'm not \-- I'm not actually here to speak to
you about recreational tourism. I think I'm really here to speak to you
about the environment that I was floating in.

And I wish you could experience what words can't very well describe here
today. I think that the band width of human attention is very narrow and
it's very difficult to let in all the information that you all are
charged with being able to assimilate and somehow balance.

And I think the point about the environment where I was floating on
Monday is about the delicate balance of an ecosystem. And I think that
you're charged with being able to strike a balance between the
interests, hopefully not just of human beings, but of a very fragile
place that is home not to us necessarily but to I think a lot of
wildlife that's going to be impacted by this.

And I guess what I would say is I think there were a lot of people
speaking today. I stopped by earlier in the morning and there were some
people who were speaking for the pipeline. And I think it's important
that everyone has a voice.

But I think it's important to ask, as you make your decisions about what
kind of recommendations you have for our environment and for the
environment that belongs to this wildlife, is what are the interests
that you have to balance. And I think there are some folks who have
individual and corporate interests that are largely economic interests.
And I think there are a lot of people who have spoken here today who
don't stand to gain at all from doing what we consider to be the right
thing.

So I ask you to consider the delicate balance as you make decisions for
the future of this ecosystem. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. Did you mention that you thought some folks
were coming at 9:00?

MR. ROTHENBERGER: I just \-- there was information circulating that said
that the hearing room would be open at least until 9:00. So folks may
\--

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Well, we'll take a break until 9:00 and see if we
have any more folks that want to participate so that everybody does get
a chance. Why don't we just take a break until then?

(RECESS)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: May I present to you Number 107, Jeffrey Moriarty?

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: And, Jeffrey, if you would spell your name for the
Court Reporter please?

MR. JEFFREY MORIARTY: Hello. My name is Jeffrey Moriarty,
M-o-r-i-a-r-t-y. I'm a resident of Branford, live near Stony Creek on
Gould Lane. I'm here to talk for my children, actually. My daughter is
15. My son is 9. Connor and Leah. They've been raised here in Branford,
there in Branford, I should say, and have enjoyed the environment there
and are fearful of losing that which they have enjoyed for their years
down in Branford.

I'm a layman. I don't have scientific knowledge as to this project. But
they're fearful. I'm fearful that all that they love about Branford can
be lost or damaged. So I'm opposed to the Islander East Pipeline project
because of the negative environmental, economic and safety impacts.

And I urge you to uphold the October 20, '02 and July 20, '03 decisions
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Please
support our Connecticut DEP and deny Islander East's appeal.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Thank you very much.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIRPERSON WALPOLE: Okay. I think it's probably unlikely that we're
going to get too many other folks in here. But if there are people that
you know of that wanted to testify and participate, please let them know
that they can submit comments and they will be considered just as
carefully as we did the testimony. Until November 20, they can submit
those.

And I would also encourage people to look at our \-- at the Islander
East Website of NOAA's which is set forth in the written statement I
have out in front. And questions about other documents and things that
have been submitted, those are all on the Website. And you can review
the materials as they come due. The testimony will be on the Website
within a few weeks, as well as the materials presented, et cetera.

I want to thank you for all your hard work of all parties in presenting
information to us today and tonight to make our job a little easier and
that is by submitting material to us to consider. These hearings are
extremely important. And the information that we take away from this
will play a very important role in our decision-making process.

So I know it was a big effort, time and expense, for all the people here
to participate. But I can assure you that the Department of Commerce and
NOAA appreciates it very much.

Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 9:20 P.M.)

INDEX OF SPEAKERS

PAGE

Chuck Daverio 9

Commissioner Arthur Rocque 10

Joel Rinebold 13

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal 16

Ted Kennedy, Jr. 19

John B. Lust 22

Larry Williams 23

Joan Merrick 26

Bill Horne 28

Senator George Gunther 30

Lance Stewart 38

Rick Goodwin 41

Pierre Borgemeister 44

Gil Kelman 46

Nicholas Crismale 49

Representative Jonathan Water 54

John Caruso 55

Leroy Davis 56

Robert Earley 56

Jerry Shaw 58

Krysten Ledoux (for Senator Joseph Lieberman) 62

Allison Dodge (for Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro) 65

Representative Richard Roy 69

SPEAKERS (CONT.)

PAGE

First Selectman Anthony DaRos 71

Representative Patricia Widlitz 75

First Selectman Carl Balestracci, Jr. 78

Senator William Aniskovich 81

First Selectman-Elect John Opie 84

Vincent Candelora 86

John Smith 89

Andrew Gullans 92

Craig Roberts 95

Rebecca Mars 97

William VanWie 100

George Case 101

George Bussmann 101

Ray Gincavage 103

Alicia Betty 106

Elizabeth Dock 108

Barbara Gordon 111

Virginia Shaw 112

Stan Mars 113

Jean Tomasso 115

James Perito 116

Peter Debona 117

SPEAKER (CONT.)

PAGE

Terrell Naumann 120

Dana Naumann 121

Carmela Cuomo 123

James Payden 126

Ellen McCarthy-Payden 128

Barbara Gayley 128

Matthew Gayley 130

Elizabeth Possidente 131

Mavis Brittelli 132

Andrea Wilson 133

John Wilson 135

Nathan Brown 136

Robert Dow 138

Patrick Lowe 141

Vivian Briggs 142

Anstress Farwell 143

Jeanne Crowley 145

Sheri Peterson 147

Jeanne Benny-Waknine 150

Jennifer Glass 151

Richard Donohoe 152

Richard Hughes 155

SPEAKERS (CONT.)

PAGE

Richard Bonzani 156

Louis Nargi 157

Carol Lemmon 159

Doreen Birdsell 161

Maureen DaRos 162

Robert Yeager 165

John McMahon 168

Tim Raynor 171

J.L. Pottenger, Jr. 173

Mark DeFelice 174

Kelly Brownell 177

Gerald Shaff 181

Alice Lambert 183

Marvin Zimmerman 183

William Lazine 186

Peter Brown 191

Kelly Monaghan 197

Nancy Biamonte 199

Clifford Cohen 201

Gordon Geballe 203

Julie Biagiarelli 205

Richard Shanahan 207

SPEAKERS (CONT.)

PAGE

Henry Burdick 207

Charles Rothenberger 210

Gail Chapman 214

Marcia Johnson 222

Carol Raye 223

Suzanne Botta 225

Mike Lengle 232

Diane Laudano 234

Robert Rattner 235

Mary Margaret Visnic 241

Dan Lorimier 243

Sandy Breslin 244

Carla Cesare 247

Charles Sanislow 248

Kiki Kennedy 249

John Bysiewicz 255

Kathryn Templeton 256

Leah Lopez 257

Loretta Fox 259

Mona Scales 264

Jeffrey Moriarty 268