Change in tone

Seems to me there's a bit of a change in tone today. The last time Klemens testified, the green groups were basically trying to show that there is not nearly enough data to approve a project without two more years of research, and the developers and their supporters were trying to just discredit him. APA staff was the only one really looking at how to move forward while using the info Klemens presented.

Today, instead, there have been several groups, including the Adk Council and the ACR reps, who have asked about how to use the information Klemens is presenting to mitigate potential impacts on amphibians on the site.

So that's, I guess, a nice sign that people are looking to work together rather than just butt heads?

The cross-examination is getting kind of annoying, though, because it's all supposed to be only related to the 2-page document that we're dealing with today: Klemens' list of species he found during his survey. It's become a whole lot of repetitive questions and sustained objections.

O'Connell said this a few minutes ago: "I am beginning to find that the examination is repetitive. ... We need to be very focused, please, on the supplemental direct."

Previous Post | Next Post