91. Rule Site 301.14(f)(2)(a) provides that a wind project shall comply with the

fQllowing so~d standard:

the A-weighted equivalent sound levels produced by the applicant's energy facility during operations sball not exceed the greater of 45 dBA or 5 dBA above background levels, measured at the L-90 sound level, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. each day, and the greater of 40 dBA or 5 dBA above background levels, measured at the L-90 sound level, at all other times during each day, as measured using microphone placement at least 7.5 meters from any surface where reflections may influence measured sound pressure levels, on property is used in whole or in part for permanent or temporary residential purposes, at a location between the nearest building on the property used for such purposes and the closest wind turbine.

92. The predictive sound study to be supplied by the Applicant must be "conducted in

accordance with the standards and specifications of ISO 9613-2 1996-12-15." N.H. CODE OF

ADMIN. R. Site 301.18(c). The modeling shall also include an adjustment to the Leq sound level

produced by the model applied in order to adjust for turbine manufacturer uncertainty factor ("k•

factor") per the standard covering such data IEC 61400-11. ld. The modeling must also include

predictions made "at all properties within 2 miles from the project for the wind speed and

operating mode that would result in the worst case wind turbine sound emissions during the

hours before 8:00 a.m. and after 8:00 p.m. each day." ld. Additionally, the model must

incorporate other corrections for model algorithm error to be disclosed and accounted for in the

model. Id. The ISO 9613-2 standard specifies a tolerance of ±3 decibels which was not

included in the model assumptions. See ISO 9613-2 1996-12-15 at §9 (titled "Accuracy and

limitations of the method'') appended as Appendix B to N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 300, et

~-

93. In a nutshell, the predictive modeling performed by Mr. O'Neal understates sound

levels at all properties by at least 6 decibels because Mr. O'Neal used a completely erroneous

33

DONA!mB, 'l'UCXBR & C'IANDBLLA, PLLC - AT'l'OUBYS AT LAW OPPICIIS Ill BXBTD, III'OltTSI«lUT, IIBREDI'I'II 6. CONCORD, Nllll liAMPSIWUI - -800-566-0506 - llllll . l:ll'Cl.AliYBRS.COM

App. 250

ground factor of 0.5' representing sound propagation over unfro~n ground and because Mr.

O'N~al failed to include tolerances to the ISO 9613-2 model for variability of sound propagation

as atmospheric conditions change at the Project site.

94. First, Mr. O'Neal utilized a ground factor of 0.5 to his predictive modeling,

meaning that he anticipated that the ground was going to absor\> ~ portion of the sound.

However, due to the Project's height, Mr. O'Neal should have used a ground factor of 0.0. See

Pre~filed Testimony of Richard James at 17. The use of a 0.0 ground factor would. have been

appropriate because the height of the turbines meant that the likelihood of the sound coming

from the Project would not interact or be absorbed by the ground prior to ~hing a sttv.cture.

Id. This is especially true during winter periods with frozen ground and snow cover. ld. In fact,

using a ground factor other than 0.0 is not supported ·under the ISO ·9613-2. standard which states

that "the method of calculating ground effect is applicable only to ground which is

awroximately flat either horizontally or with a constant slope. See ISO 9613-:2 1996-12-15 at§

7.3.1' (titled "Ground effect: General method of calculation'') appen4ed as Appendix B to N.H.

CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 300, et g. (emphasis added). Such terrain is not characteristic of the

Antrim site. Therefore, the appropriate g-factor is that of "hard ground" or ''reflective surfaces."

See 10/19/16 PM Transcript at 32. Using a ground factor of 0, Mr. O'Neal's predictive

modeling should have been 3 decibels higher based on ground factor alone. See P~-filed

Testimony of Richard James at 17-18; ~also 9/22/16 AM Transcript at 72; Wmd Action

Exhibit 8 at 10.

95. The use of a ground factor of 0.0 was supported by the evidence. The National

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners ("NARUC") notes that the use of a 0.5 ground

34

DONAROB, 'lUCltBR a CI:ANDBLLA, PLLC - AT'l'OJUIBYS AT LAW OFPICBS Ill liD'I'IIR, PORTSMOUTII, MBRI!DITB & CDNCOIII), IIBif JlliMPSIIDIB 800·566·0506 • IOOI.D'1'CI.NIYERS.COII

App. 251

factor is appropriate for flat topography, such as farmlands in the Great Plans. See Wind Action

Exhibit 28 at *3. Richard James, expert for Abutting Intervenors further opined that the use of a

grourid factor of 0.5 would be inappropriate due to the few opportunities for sound from elevated

noise sources on the ridge top to interact with the ground prior to reaching a structure. See Pre-

filed Testimony ofRichard James at 17-18.

96. Second, Mr. O'Neal's predictive modeling is inaccurate because it does not fully

account for atmospheric impacts that are not represented in the ISO 9613-2 model. As stated

above, the predictive modeling is to anticipate ''worst case wind turbine sound emissions" during

the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. The ISO 9613-2 model, however~ is predicated upon

facilities operating on flat ground where the noise sources are below 30 meters above grade and

then only for receptors that are within 1,000 meters. See ISO 9613-2 1996-12-15 at§ 9 (titled

"Accuracy and limitations of the method"). It does not factor in atmospheric effects associated.

with wind turbines that exceed 30 meters in height and are not situated on flat land. See id.

Uncertainties are more than ± 3 decibels for projects that exceed 30 meters in height above the

receptor, which is assured when locating wind turbines on towers over 90 meters tall on top of a

ridge. See id. The ISO 9613-2 standard cautions that sound levels can exceed the tolerances of3

decibels for projects that are more than 30 meters in height above the receptor or during weather

conditions that more strongly favor sound propagation. See id. This assertion is supported by

NARUC which stated that under such weather conditions, operational turbine projects commonly

produced sound levels that fluctuated by ± 5 decibels above the mean trend line and that, on

some occasions, noise spikes of 15 to 20 decibels were observed. See Wind Action Exhibit 28 at

*12. The study titled, "Wind turbine noise modeling and verification: two case studies - Mars

35

DONAJI'CJB I TUCXBR " CD.HDBLLA I PLLC - A'l"l''RRBYS M' I.AW OFFICBS Dl IIXZ'ID., POrrr8MCt11'11, MERBDI'l'B ~ OIIROORD, _, BIIMPSliDUI 800-566-0506 • 11ft . M'C!NIYliRS . CDC

App. 252

Hill and Stetson Mountain I, Maine," which was cited by Mr. O'N~ reflects that the experts in

those case studies accounted for atmospheric impacts to the ISO 9613-2 model, adding 3

decibels for "published .limitations inherent in ISO Standard 9613-2." See Wind Action Exhibit

6, Wallace, J. et. ~"Wind :furbine noise modeling and verification: two case studi~Mars

Hill and Stetson Mountain I; Maine" at •2, 7, 17 (July 25-27, 2011). Finally~ Mr. James opined

that the ISO 9613-2 model needed to be adjusted to account for model limitations, which

involved an adder of approximately 3 decibels to predictive sound levels. See Pre-filed

Testimony ofRichard James at 10-11.

97. Mr. O'Neal cited a document titled ''Massachusetts Study on Wind Turbine

Acoustics,"' to which Mr. O'Neal's company was a contributor to support his contention that ISO

9613-2 did not nee4 to be adjusted for the modePs published limitations. In facl. the

Massachusetts Study experienced numerous exceedances when ISO 9613-2's modeling

limitations were not taken into consideratioa12 Mr. O~eal ignoied that pursuant to Rule 301.18,

the sound study is to be a worst case scenario and the Massachusetts Study experienced

exceedances when ISO 9613-2's modeling limitations were not taken into consideration. See

WindAction Exhibit 12, Resource Systems Group, Inc., "Massachusetts Study on Wind Turbine

Acoustics" at •65.

12 Mr. O'Neal opined that some of the exceedances were due to turning the turbines on and off dwing the tests, whicb, assuming for the sake of argument is correct, is a phenomenon that would not account for all of the exceedances. ~ 9/22/16 A.\1 Transcript at 114. Mr. O'Neal acknowledged that the pmpose of the Massachusetts study was, in part, to assess how well predictive modeling matched actual measurements taken at an operating wind project.~ 9122/16 AM Tianscript at 102-103.

Notwithstanding, Mr. James testified that it would be unreasonable to expect competent researchers to allow their data to be contaminated with artifacts tiom the test, i.e. not accounting for turning 1be turbines on and oft: See 10/19/16 PM Transcript at 62-63. Doing so ''throws into doubt the entire study." k 10/19116 PM Transcript at 61-62. Even if the da1a were contaminated by the test, Mr. James testified that measurements during the much quieter 'turbine-off' condition would have resulted in lower and not higher measurements. See 10/19/16 PM Transcript at 62-63.

36

DOHABUB, TOCKD & CIAHDBLLA, PLLC - AT'l'OlliiBH A'f LAW OPFICES IX IID'l'IIR, I'Olt'l'&MOll'l'll, MBIUIOI'lll 5 CCIICORD, NllllliAMPSBIRB • 800·566•0506 - IIWII.Il'l'ClolllllrD.CCM

App. 253

98. As reflected above, the overwhelming weight of the evidence reflects that the ISO

9613-2 model needs to be adjusted to account for atmospheric conditions that are not captured by

the basic model. Mr. O'Neal's predictive sound levels, therefore, should have been increased by

three (3) decibels to account for the improper use of a 0.5 ground factor and, at least an

additional three decibels to account for ISO 9613-2's limitations- a total of six (6) decibels.

Adding six (6) decibels to the predictive sound levelS; results in numerous properties predicted to

experience sound levels that exceed 40 dBA 13

99. As such, the Project exceeds the maximum threshold allowed for sound from a

wind energy project See N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 301.14(f)(2)(a). The Subcommittee

made an erroneous finding of fact when it determined that the Project would not have an adverse

effect on public health and safety due to sound when the evidence clearly demonstrates that the

maximum sound thresholds would be surpassed and when the Subcommittee approved the

Project based upon an un-vetted and unanalyzed mitigation proposal. 14

2. Shadow Flicker

100. The Subcommittee's determination that the Project will not have aD. adverse effect

on public health and ~ety with regard to shadow flicker is unlawful and unreasonable because

the Shadow Flicker Analysis prepared by Mr. O'Neal of Epsilon Associates, Inc. found that

properties within a mile of the Project would experience shadow flicker in excess of 8 hours

during a year. The Subcommittee's decision to grant a Certificate of Site and Facility, despite

13 The standard is 40 dBA, as Mr. O'Neal's ambient background sound levels reflect an average L90 sound level of between 27 and 36 decibels. ~Sound Level Assessment Report, prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc. at S-8.

14 Regardless of the inclusion of the 6 decibels, one property - a hunting cabin - had a rounded sound level of 40 dba. The Committee erroneously excluded this hunting cabin from consideration on the basis of Mr. O'Neal's wilatmll conclusion that the hunting cabin was "dilapidated." The hunting cabin is, in fact, in use, and would qualify as "temporary residence" Wider Rule Site 301.14(f)(2)(a).

37

DONAEUB, TUCKER & C:IAHDBLLA, PLLC - ATTOIIRYS A'l' LAW DPPICIIS Ill II:XIn'lm, PDR'1'SIIDU'I'I, MDEDrl'll • CDNCIOIID, Dll IUIKPIIIO:Ra - 800·565·0506 111111.ll'l'Cl.IUMa!8.CCN

App. 254

acknowledging tbis .finding, is con1rary to the mles of the Committee and is predicated upon the

Applicant implementing an untested "shadow control protocol" that has not been used in the

United States.

101. · Rule Site 301.14(f)(2)(b) states that "the shadow flicker created by the applicant's

energy facility during operations shall not occur more than .8 hours per year at or within any

residence, learning space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area,

or other occupied building." To allow the Subcommittee to analyze shadow flicker, the

Applicant must provide:

[a]n assessment that identifies the astronomical maximum as well as the anticipated hours per year of shadow flicker expected to be perceived at each residence~ learning space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area, other occupied building, and roadway, within a minimum of 1 mile of any turbine, based on shadow flicker modeling that assumes an impact distance of at least 1 mile from each of the turbines.

N.H. CODE OF ADt.fiN. R. Site 301.08(a)(2).

102. While the Shadow Flicker Analysis expressly acknowledges that 24 properties

within 1-mile of the project site will experience more than 8 hours of shadow flicker per year, the

fact remains that this estimate was calculated based upon a methodology that does not comport

with Rule Site. 301.08(a)(2). The Applicant's Shadow Flicker Analysis does not comport with

Rule Site 301.08(a)(2) because the analysis only calculated shadow flicker impacts out to 1-mile

despite the rule assuming an impact distance of "at least 1 mile from each of the turbines." See

id. Mr. O'Neal agreed that structures outside of one mile would experience shadow flicker,

however, the Shadow Flicker Analysis shows these properties experiencing zero (0) hours of

shadow flicker per year. See Antrim IT Decision at 161; see also Shadow Flicker Analysis at

Figure 4-2. Mr. O'Neal opined that Rule Site 301.08{a)(2) did not require a shadow flicker

38

DO:NAB'OB, '.l:t1C1tBR & CIAHDBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''IIIBYS AT 1oAJf OFPXI38 IM Dli'I'BI., POll'1'SMCit71', IIBRBDI'I1! I. CQMCOIU), IIIIIW :IWIPSBIU - e00·566 ·0506 • 1lll1f .l:ITCLJIIIYIIRS. COli!

App. 255

analysis beyond one mile. See id. However, the consequences of assuming a shortened impact

distance is more pervasive and also extends to properties within the 1-mile distance by failing to

fully assess the contribution of multiple wind turbines casting shadows on those properties.

Running the model using larger impact distantes could result in more hours per year of shadow

flicker at any property, and consequently could shift the determination that the Project would not

have an adverse effect on public health and safety. See 9/22116 PM Transcript at 8-9 (testimony

of Mr. O'Neal stating "as you change the distance ... a location such as a residence could now be

potentially experiencing shadow flicker from another turbine that wasn't in the analysis before.

Now it is included, in not all cases of course, but in some cases it could potentially be in line to

cause some additional hours or minutes of shadow flicker").

103. Moreover, the Shadow Flicker Analysis appears to be predicated upon historic,

average meteorological conditions as evidenced by the fact that Epsilon Associates, Inc. relied

upon the "historical dataset for Concord New Hampshire from the National Climatic Data

Center." See Shadow Flicker Analysis at 4-2; ~also 9/20/16 PM Transcript at 60-61. The

result of using an impact distance of just one mile and relying on historic, average weather data

is that the anticipated hours of shadow flicker is underestimated. 15

104. Notwithstanding the understated hours of shadow flicker, the Shadow Flicker

Analysis concluded, and the Subcommittee ultimately found, that the Project will exceed the

maximum shadow flicker threshold set forth in Rule Site 301.14(f)(2)(b). The Subcommittee

issued the Certificate of Site and Facility based upon the Applicant's promise to implement

"shadow control protocols." These protocols, however, are untested in the United States and

1$ Additionally, the Shadow Flicker analysis, like the Sound Report, excludes "participating properties," the error of which is discussed in Section II (c) infra.

39

DOHABUB, 'l"D'CKBR r. CIAHDBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''JUI'EYS AT LAW OPnt'ES Ill EXB'ri!R, 1'0aT9IICID'I'I, MEIIIIDI'l11 • CIOROOIID, lll!ll I!NIPSRIRE 800·566·0505 - -.D'l'CLUYI:RS,COII

App. 256

.have only been deployed in Europe. See 9/28/16 PM Transcript at 160-61 (testimony of Mr.

Kenworthy). Much like the implementation of NRO, these "shadow con1rol protocols," which

appear to involve suspension of turbine operations during certain times may have impacts on the

energy to be produced by the Project and may impact the Project's financial feasibility in a

manner that has not been discussed or analyzed during these proceedings.

105. As a result of this decision, residents falling under the shadow of the Project will

be forced to endure shadow flicker that may exceed 8 hours in a. given year. Their only recourse

would be to either trust the Applicant to implement an untested technology to mitigate this

shadow flicker (the extent of which remains uncertain due to the Shadow Flicker Analysis'

underestimated hours of sunlight), or to resort to funher proceedings before this Committee for

relief after the Project has been built, the money spent, and the impacts felt.

106. Respectfully, the Committee's determination with regard to shadow flicker is

unlawful and unreasonable. The Committee should grant a rehearing on this matter and find that

the Project will Iiot comport with Rule Site 30 1.14(f)(2).

3. Ice Throw

107. The Subcommittee ·acted unlawfully and unreasonably when it determined that the

Project did not present an unreasonable adverse effect to public health and safety based with

regard to ice throws. The Subcommittee acted unlawfully and unreasonably because its

determination that the Applicant provided more credible evidence of the pote$al distance of ice

throw ignores the uncontroverted and credible evidence presented by the Opposing Intervenors

for conclusory and self-serving assertions from the Applicant The Subcommittee should grant

rehearing on this issue.

40

DOHAJIUB, 'l'UCKBR fc ClAHDm.I.A, PLLC - ATTORRBYB AT L»t on'lCBS Dl EXI:l'lat, l'Oil'l'SIICIOl'll, IIZREDI'l'H • CDiaJRD, 1111:11 HIIMl>BHIRII • 800-566•0506 • lln. M'I:LIUIYZIUI.CCN

App. 257

108. Rule 301.08(aX4) requires that the applicant provide an "assCS$Dlent of the risk of

ice throw, blade shear, and tower collapse on public safety, including a description of the

measures taken or planned to avoid or minimize the occmrence of such events, if necessary, and

the alternative measures considered but rejected by the applicant."

109. The Applicant presented, and the Subcommittee specifically found, that the

maximum ice thrown distance is 250 ineters. See 9/15/16 AM Transcript at 144. This evidence

was presented by Darrell Stovall of DNV GL during the hearing on the merits in this matter and

by the Applicant. See id. Mr. Stovall presented no evidence to corroborate this figme, other

than to state the 250 meters is "a general assessment and it is somewhat of an indus1ry-accepted

number," even though Mr. Stovall's admission that he "is not an expert on ice throw." See id.

Utilizing this figure alone, the risk of ice throw would intrude upon individual's property lines.

See at 9/29/16 AM Transcript at 88-89. However, the evidence clearly reflects that ice thrown

from the project turbines can be thrown over 300 meters. See at Abutters Exhibit 52, Bredesen,

et. Al, "Methods for evaluating risk caused by ice thrown and ice fall from wind turbines and

other tall structures" at *4. The Bredesen Report reflects that that the calculated ice throw zone

"is dependent on local wind conditions and may in the worst cases with modern turbines exceed

the general rule of 1.5 • ( H + D ), where His hub height and Dis the rotor diameter". Id.

Turbines situated at elevations above SWTOunding properties would also add the 'overheight' to

the H. Id. Applying this documented and published industry standard to the Antrim turbines,

where (H is equal to 92.5 meters and D is equal to 113 meters) and assuming flat ground, ice

throw would exceed 300 meters at the project site.

41

DONABUB, TtJCltD &: CI.lHDBLLA, PLLC - A'l'TORBBYS AT LAW O!'l'lCI!S m I!XB1'BR, POR'l'SMOOTB, NlilREDI'l'B a OCIIICOI]), Nllll IIANJ'BKil!E - 800-56&·0506 WWII.D'I'C!l.liiiYIC.CCIM

App.258

110. Unlik~ the Applicant's off-the-cuff remarks, the Opposing Intervenors submitted

objective evidence from disinterested tbird·parties as to the potential "zone Qf danger" for ice

throws. Using the 300 meter figure, these ice throws will extend well into iildividual's properties

and pose a danger to the individuals that may be enjoying their property. It i$ fundamentally

unreasonable and unfair to expect residents to incur these risks.

111. For this reason, the Subcommittee erred in its determination of the adverse effect

to public health and safety resulting from ice throw and, consequently, its decision on said issue

is unjust and unlawful.

4. Decommissioning

112. The Subcommittee misapplied its rules and, in doing so, effectively granted the

Applicant a waiver from Rule Site 301.08(7) when it approved the Applicant's decommissioning

plan to excavate a trench and pulverize and bury on-site the concrete comprising the turbine

foundations. Rule Site 301.08(7) states that "[a]ll underground infrastructure at depths less than

four feet below grade sluill be removed from the site." The Subcommittee's decision is clearly at

odds with this rule. Although the Department of Environmental Services permits pulverization

and burying of concrete as a best management practice, such practice is not authorized by the

rules of the Committee.

113. Had the Subcommittee intended to adopt a rule similar to the Department of

Environmental Senrices best management practice and limit Rule 301.08(a)(7) applicability with

regard to on-site concrete, it could have done so. Cf. Grafton County Attorney's Office v.

Canner, 169 N.H. 319, 327 (2016) (noting that ''if the legislature desired to limit the application

of a statute it could have done so explicitly").

42

DONABUB, TO'CXBit & Cl:ANDBLLA, PLLC - A'l'TORHBYS A'l r.lJf OPnCJ:B IN BXB'rEil, PCIRTSMOOTII, lml!:l>l'l'll I< QlNCDRI), BPI DMPSBJU 800-566-0506 -.~.CCIII

App. 259

114. The Subcommittee should grant rehearing on the matter of decommissioning.

iv. The Subcommittee's finding that the Project will not have unreasonable adverse impacts on the natural environment is unjust and unreasonable.

115. The Subcommittee's finding that the Project will not have unreasonable adverse

impacts on the natural environment is unjust and unreasonable because the Applicant did not

submit any evidence with regard to the Project's impact on mammals, other than bats, The

Subcommittee's decision makes no mention of the potential impact to large mammals,

specifically bears, as a result of the Project. See Antrim II at 12944. In this regard, the

Application, and consequently the Subcommittee's detennination is incomplete, unjust, and

unlawful.

116. Rule Site 301.07(c) requires the Applicant to provide information relating to

"[t]he identification of critical wildlife habitat and significant habitat reso~s potentially

affected by construction and operation of the proposed facility" and an "assessment of potential

impacts of construction and operation of the proposed facility on ... critical wildlife habitat and

significant habitat resources." "Significant habitat resource" is defined as a "habitat used by a

wildlife specific for critical life cycle functions." N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 102.49.

117. Here, the Subcommittee heard evidence of the existence of bear and bobcat in and

around the Project area. See ~.g. 10/18/16 PM Transcript at 11.8, 121 (testimony of Mr. Block);

10/19/16 AM Transcript at 27-31 (noting that area in and around Project was "core habitat for

black bear, bobcats, coyotes, moose, deer, and other big game species"). Specifically, the

Subcommittee heard from Geoffrey Jones of the Stoddard Conservation Commission regarding

the quality of the habitat with regard to the boulder fields, which the Applicant initially proposed

to destroy to construct access roads to the Project ridge. See 10/19/16 AM Transcript at 34, 94.

43

DONAHtJB, TUCltBI. & CLUmBlot.A, PLLC - A'l"l''IIlmYS AT LAW O!'PICIIS nT IIXBTBR, POilTIIMCU'Zil, MDIIDI'I'B ' CONCORD, NBW IW!PBHiliB - 800-566·0506 - 'llllii,DTCI.IIIIYIIItS .COM

App.260

In light of this analysis. there appear to be areas of the Project site which would constitute

"significant habitat resources," i.e. areas used by bears and other animals for "critical life cycle

ftm.ctions." Indeed, Mr. Jones stated that blasting associated with the Project could impact

denning bears, particularly newborn cubs, who may be placed at risk if they (understandably)

flee the blasting to occur • the Project See 10/19/16 AM Tnmscript at 59-60.

118. While other intervenors submitted evidence regarding the presence of bears and

the existtmce of "significant habitat resources," the Applicant has not submitted any evidence or

analysis to satisfy the Committee's rules.

119. Notwithstanding the deviation from the Committee's rules, the Subcommittee

granted the Applicant a Certificate of Site and Facility, without the opportunity or ability to

adequately analyze the P.roject's impacts on large mammals and the possibility of habitat

fragmenta~on associated with the Project Moreover, while it is commendable that the

Subcommittee restricted the blasting and destruction of the aforementioned boulder fields, the

Subcommittee did not go far' enough with regard to restricting the Applicant. See Antrim II

Decision at 143. The Subcommittee's decision leaves too much discretion to the Applicant With

regard to the decision to blast boulders in these sensitive and ecologically important areas. See

Antrim II Decision at 143 (stating that ''the Applicant shall, to the extent possible, use all

reasonable efforts to avoid, rather than demolish, any boulders identified during" the

proceedings). The Subcommittee has identified the boulder field as a sensitive resource, and

intervenors have testified that the boulder field is a potential habitat for large mammals; the

Applicant should not be afforded the considerable discretion to decide which aspects of this

44

DOHAB'Ol!l, 'l't7CICD & C:tAJ:U)J!:LLA, PLLC - A'l"l''IRYS AT LMf Ol'F%CIS IR li:Xll:'rlla, PORTSMOtJTB, IIDiilDI'l'll a COI!ICORD, lllnl IWIPSIIIIUI 800· 56&•0505 - 11111r ,D'l'CLNIYD.Il,CQM

App. 261

habitat it will be able to destroy, especially when the Applicant has put forth no analysis of the

Project's impacts on large animals.

120. Therefore, the Subcommittee should grant rehearing on this matter because the

Applicant has not submitted the requisite information to allow this Subcotmpittee to make a

sufficient finding regarding the Project's impacts on large mammals.

v. The Subcommittee's finding that the Project will not have unreasonable adverse impacts .on the orderly development of the region is unjust and unreasonable.

1. Consideration of municipal views regarding the Project.

121. The Subcommittee's determination that the Project would not have an

unreasonable adverse impact on the orderly development of the region is predicated upon

erroneous considerations of municipal land use regulations and priorities.

122. Pursuant to Rule Site 301.09, the Applicant, and by extension the Subcommittee,

must give due consideration to municipal and regional planning commissioners and municipal

governing bodies, including consideration of master plans and zoning ordinances of the proposed

facility host municipalities. The Applicant must further provide analysis and consideration of the

Project's impacts upon "prevailing land uses in affected communities" and "how the proposed

facility is inconsistent with such land uses." See N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 301.09.

123. Here, the Subcommittee did not properly consider various provisions of the

Antrim Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan. Primarily, the Subcommittee did not adequately

weigh that the proposed use is not permitted in the ~ural Conservation Zone under the Zoning

Ordinance. The Subcommittee further did not sufficiently weigh that the Town of Antrim was

45

DONABUB, TUCBER a CIANDBLLA, PLLC - M"l'':R!lftS AT LAW o:rnc-s m BXIITBR, l'ORTBMOm'll , MBRIIPITB ~ COIICOIID, lin DMP~ 800·566•0506 - llllii.DTCLAimiRS . alN

' App. 262

'

faced with proposals to amend the Zoning 'On,.iinan~ Qn three separate occasions to allow for the

Project, and each time, the Town declined to adopt the proposed ordinance.

124. Moreover, the Subcommittee~·s detenWD.ation that the people of Antrim want the

Project based on their re-election of various Selectboard members reads too much into the

~lection. The re-election of a Selectboard m~mber can be predicated upon numerous

considerations that do not relate in any way to that member's su_ppOrt of the Project. To

ex1rapolate public support of~ Project based on. the citizen's re-election of a Selectboar<J

member that supports the Project is specious reasoning. The more telling indication of public

support is the Town Meeting's rejection of proposed zoning articles that w~lUld have allowed the

Project in its proposed location- when faced with the specific decision of allowing the Project,

the citizens of the Town voiced their opposition through their vote. The Subcommittee's

determination does not give adequate weight to this consideration.

125. Moreover, the Subcommittee's consideration of conservation ·easements as a

means to make the Project consistent with the Town of Antrim's Master Plan.ignores that the

Master Plan prioritizes the preservation of sensitive areas and wa~heds. See Antrim Master

Plan, Water Resources at V-5, submitted as Exhibit Cal-B~ The Project will be an industrial use

in these scenic areas, which remain for half of a century. The Project will involve placing the

tallest free-standing structures in the State in an area which does not permit basic commercial

uses. see· Article IX of the Antrim Zoning Ordinance, submitted as an exhibit to the Pre-filed

Testimony of Charles Levesque. The much-touted conservation easements will not diminish the

impact of this industrial use and will not go into effect until after the 'Project is decommissioned

- a date presently undetermined. As previously indicated, the nature of the terrain begs the

46

DOHAB'OB, TtJClCBR &: CIAimi:LLA, PLLC - AT'l"'RHEYS AT LAW OrPJ:CBS IH lWn'!:R, PORTSMOI11'H, llli:REDri'JI a COiiCOl!D, 1lBW DNPSHJl!B 800-566·0506 - lilnl.lJ'l'CLIIIIlllmS.COM

App. 263

question as to the level of risk the subject areas are to development, particularly given the

varying and steep slopes and various wetlands, and -calls into question the ·value of the

conservation easements proposed as part of the Applicant's mitigation package.

126. Moreover, the Subcommittee does not appear to give any consideration to any

neighboring municipalities. Indeed, even small-scale ·~d proj~ts require reviews of regional

impacts, notification of abutting municipalities, and consideration of the input of affected

municipalities. See RSA 36:57; RSA 674:66. Notwithstanding that these structures will impact

the viewsheds of surrounding communities such as Deering, Bennington, Windsor, Stoddard,

Hancock, Washin~on, and Hillsborough, the Applicant did not submit, and the Subcommittee

did not consider, the land use considerations and planning goals of those affected communities.

In that regard, the Subcommittee's determination is fundamentally insufficient Further, no

information was submitted by the Applicant or considered by the Subcommittee pursuant to Rule

Site 301.09(b)(l) which requires an assessment of the "economic effect of the facility on the

affected communities." The PILOT agreement negotiated between the Town of Antrim and the

Applicant, particularly its reliance on an understated agreed-upon assessed value, will have an

economic impact on the ConVal Cooperative School District which includes Antrim and nine

other New Hampshire communities. 10/20116 PM Transcript at 41-42.

127. The Subcommittee should grant rehearing on the issue of views of municipal

boards and officials and give due consideration to the master plans and zoning ordinances of all

impacted municipalities.

47

DOJtAJmB, Tl7CltBR & CJ:ANDBLLA1 PLLC - AT'l'ORDYS AT LAW OPFJ:CBS Dr BKErl!:lt, POaTSIIOI7rll, IIDU!DITB ~ CONCORD, l!IEII BAMPSIIIJIB 800·566-0506 W11W .DTCINIYBRS .COM

App, 264

2. Impact of proposed facility on real estate values.

128. As reflected above in Section ll(a), the Subcommittee acknowledged that the

Project may have adverse ·effects on property values but still gt'$lted th~ Appli~t a Certificate

of Site and Facility and declined to adopt a property value ,guaranty to protect the residents of

Antrim. The SubcoJXimi~'s-decision on this matter is unlawful and unreasonable.

129. The Subcommittee stated that it was ''not convinced that the Project will not have

any effect on value of some properties, the Subcommittee received no evidence indicating that

this imp~t;. if any, will have unreasonable adverse effects on the orderly development of the

entire region." Antrim ll Decision at 8(). The Subcommittee's decision to grant a Certificate of

Site and Facility in light of being "unconvinced" of adverse effects to property values was

unlawfui and unreasonable because it impermissibly s~ the burden of proof as to adverse

effects from the Applicant to the Opposing Intervenors.

130. The burden of proof with regard to establishing no adverse effects is on the

Applicant See N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 202.20 (noting that Applicant typically bears the

overall burden of proof). The Subcommittee, as the trier of fact, "may accept or reject, in whole

or in part, the testimony of any witness or party." See Brent v. Paquette, 132 N.H. 415, 418

(1989). The Subcommittee was ''not required to believe even uncontroverted testimony." See

id.

131. The Subcommittee's determination ignores this principle and indicates that the

Subcommittee held the erroneous belief that, because Mr. Magnusson's real estate analysis was

not rebutted, the Subcommittee was compelled to adopt his conclusion that there would be no

adverse effects to real estate values. See id. That is simply not the case, if the Subcommittee

48

DONAHOB, TU'CXBR & CIANJ:IBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''RDlCB A'l' LAW Ol'FlCU Dl BXBTIIII,, 1'011TSMOOTB, IIERIIDr.r& &. COitCIDD, Rill IIAMPSIIDtl! 800•566-0506 · lllni.D'l'CI..AIIYIIR.CCN

App. 265

was not convinc~ the Subcommittee should not have granted the Certificate of Site and Facility

·or, at the least, reopened the record to consider further ·evidence to satisfy its concerns. See N.H.

CODE OF ADMIN. R Site 202.27(b)e'[i]f the presiding officer determines that additional

testimony, evidence -or argument is necessary for full consideration of the issues presented in the

proceeding, the record shall be reOpened to accept the offered testimony, evidence, or

argument").

132. This analysis, however, assumes that there was no contrary evidence of real estate

impacts. The Subcommittee heard comments from interested individuals that wind projects have

an impact on· real estate values. See 10/3/16 AM Transcript at 108-11 (comment of Justin

Lindholm regarding flaws in Mr. Magnusson's analysis and the reality of the real estate market

surrounding the-Lempster Wind project); see also Comment of Justin Lindholm dated October 3,

2016. Mr. Lindholm's comments, and the submitted map reflecting properties that are still for

sale around the Lempster Wind Project, struck at a fundamental and documented. flaw in Mr.

Magnusson's analysis: Mr. Magnusson did not analyze properties that were still for sale or had

been taken off of the market The deficiencies in Mr. Magnusson's analysis should have led this

Subcommittee to reject that analysis and rule that the Applicant did not submit sufficient

evidence to carry its burden that there would be no adverse effects on orderly development in the

region. See N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 301.09(b)(4). At the least, it should have compelled

the Subcommittee to reopen the record for the submission of additional evidence as to the impact

to real estate markets.

133. Even assuming, without conceding, that the Subcommittee had sufficient

evidence to find that the project would not 'have an adverse effect on the orderly development of

49

DONABtJE, TUC!tBI. &: C:I.AHDBLLA, PLLC - Aft01UI1BY'S AT LAW OPPI:CZS IR EXl!'l'lllt, l'ORTSIIOUTII, !<JIIRBDJ:Ti! f< CONCOIII), 1111111 IWCPSIIIRI£ - BDD-566·0506 - IIIIW.D'I'CLIIImWI.CON

App.266

t

the region, the Subcommittee acted unlawfully and unreasonably with regard to· its determination

of the property value guaranty. Throughout the Subcommittee's deliberations, the Subcommittee

frequently noted that intervenors did not submit any evidence or proposals with regard to

property value gu8ranties. However, in making those comments, the Subcommittee completely

ignored that the intervenors did try to introduce evidence of a property v_al~ guaranty related to

a Massachusetts project, and the Subcommittee excluded the_ evidence. See Letter from McCann

Appraisal, LLC attached to Supplemental Pre-filed Testimony of Annie Law and Robert

Cleland; Order on Motions to Strike at 5-6 (dated September 19, 2016). The. Subcommittee

noted the McCann letter was ''not relevant or material to the issues before the Subcommittee."

See Order on Motioll$ to Strike at 5-6. Additionally, Mr. Block, during his cross-examination of

the members of the Antrim Board of Selectmen, submitted a letter previously delivered to the

Selectmen from ten intervening property owners requesting support in ·the establishment of a

Property Value Guaranty as a ~ndition to be added to the agreement between the Town of

An1rim and the Applicant See 9/29/16 PM Transcript at 104-21; see also Exhibit NA-18.

134. The Subcommittee's deliberations regarding the property rights guaranty, and the

Subcommittee's ultimate rejection of such a guaranty in light of the fact that no evidence was

presented regarding the guaranty and no testimony was elicited regarding the guaranty, reflects

that the Subcommittee's order on the Motion to Strike was erroneous.

135. Consequently, the Subcommittee unjustly dismissed the concept of the property

rights guaranty because of a lack of submitted evidence arising out of the Committee's unjust

Order on the Applicant's Motions to Strike. The Opposing Intervenors respectfully request that

the Subcommittee grant rehearing on this issue so that they may be afforded the opportunity to

50

DONABOB, TO'ClCBlt & CIAXDBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''QZYS A'l' LAW OFF.ICBS D IIXBTllll, POKTSM0171'11, IIKRBDI.'D! 5 CDI(X)lll), lUll IIMPI!IaRl! - 800- 566-0506 111111.171'CLA1rY!:RS.COK

App. 267

present a proposal on the property value. gUaranty and to have that proposal fully vetted and

considered.

136. It is only fair that the opposing Intervenors be given this chance - after all, if it

was not for second opportunities, ~ Application would not be before the Subcommittee.

Vll. CONCLUSION

137. The Subcommittee's decision granting a Certificate of Site and Facility is

unreasonable and unlaWful. The Subcommittee should have ruled that the Project is substantially • similar to that raised in Antrim I and denied the Certificate on the grounds that the Project would

have an unreasonable effect on aesthetics. The Subcommittee's decision is further unlawful and

unreasonable because the procedure in this case was plagued with irregularities, most notably the

absence of a public member throughout the virtual entirety of the proceedings, that materially

impacted the presentation of the evidence, the full development of the record, and the

Subcommittee's deliberations. Lastly, the Subcommittee's decision is unlawful and

unreasonable because the Subcommittee made factual determinations that were unsupported by

the evidence, relied upon unreliable evidence, or impermissibly allowed the Applicant a reprieve

from the Committee's own rules. The Subcommittee must, in the nature of equity and justice,

grant a rehearing in this matter.

WHEREFORE, the Opposing Intervenors respectfully request that the Subcommittee:

A. Grant this Motion for Rehearing;

B. Schedule this Matter for Rehearing;

C. Deny the Applicant's Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility; and

D. Grant such further relief as is just and equitable.

51

DONAHUE, Tti'CICBR. & C:I.UIDBLLA, PLLC - ATTODEYS AT LAW O!Tl:CliS Dl BUI'rE!l, l'Oil'l'SIIOUTI, I'IIIJIBI)I'fU 5 OONCORD, IIBW DNPSIIIIUI - 800-566-0506 • lllllf. I:I7CLIIII'llll.caM

App. 268

Dated this 14th day of April, 2017.

Respectfully submitte(f,

The Abutting Landowners Group, the Non-Abutting Landowners Group, the Levesque-Allen Group, the Stoddard Conservation Commission, and the Windaction Group,

By and through their attorneys,

~7KER&CIANDELLA,PLLC

Eric A. Maher NHBA#21185 225 Water Street Exeter, NH 03833 ( 603)778-0686 emaher@dtclawyers.com

Certificate of Serviee

I hereby certify that l served a copy of this Joint Motion for Rehearing pursuant to Site

202.07 to the current service list in this Docket this t«t'day of April, 2017.

Eric A. Maher, Esq.

52

DONAB'Oll, Tt1CUJl & CXANDBLLA, :PLLC - A'l"l''RDYB Nt LAW OPriCBS Dl IXB'l'Bil, POJIISMOU'l'll, III!:IIIIDX'l'll ~ COIIlOOJI), IIIII BIIMPSI!IRB 800·566·0506 • IIWII .I7I'CLMIYIIRS.t'OIC

App. 269

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE

In the matter of the Application for Certification Pursuant to RSA 162-H of Antrim Wind Energy, LLC

) ) ) ) ) ) )

Docket No. 2015-02

MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC FOR REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION

NOW COMES Counsel for the Public, pursuant to RSA 162-H: II, N.H. CODE OF ADMIN.

RULES SITE 202.29 and RSA 541 :3 and hereby moves, for rehearing or reconsideration of the

March 17, 2017 Site Evaluation Committee Decision and Order Granting a Certificate of Site

and Facility with Conditions ("Decision") on behalf of the Applicant Antrim Wind Energy, LLC

{"A WE"). As_ grounds the following is set forth:

1. In its decision, the Site Evaluation Committee Subcommittee ("Subcommittee")

made a number of rulings including: that proposed project would not have an unreasonable

adverse impact on aesthetics; 1and that the Decommissioning Plan submitted by A WE was

acceptable. 2 The Subcommittee also waived the health and safety requirements in N.H. CODE OF

ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (f) as they affect the cooperating landowne~.3

2. The Decision was unreasonable and unlawful because:

a. The Subcommittee failed to follow its rules related to adverse effects concerning the impact of the project on aesthetics;

b. The Subcommittee misapplied the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as applied to the issue of aesthetics;

1 See, Application of Antrim Wind Energy, LLCfor a Certificate of Site and Facility, N.H. Site Eva!. Comm., # 2015-02 ("Decision"); Order on Certificate of Site and Facility, 3/17117, p. 121. 2 Id. at p. 175-176. 3 Id. at p. 168-169.

1

App. 270

c. The Subcommittee failed to follow its rules related to the requirements for the decommissioning plan submitted by A WE;

d. The Subcommittee failed to follow its rules and improperly granted a waiver of health and safety regulations concerning sound, shadow flicker and setbacks for cooperating landowners; and

e. The Subcommittee failed to follow the statutory requirement of having a seven member panel including 2 public members to adjudicate this matter.

A. THE SUBCOMMITIEE FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS RULES RELATED TO 1HE CRITERIA UNDER WHICH IT WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE PROJECT'S UNREASONABLE

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON AESTHETICSi

3. The Subcommittee's ruling on aesthetics was unreasonable and unlawful because

it failed to follow its rules establishing the criteria under which the Subcommittee was required

to consider in making a determination as to whether the proposed project caused unreasonable

adverse effects on the aesthetics of the region. N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(1)-

(7), eff. 12/8/17. Under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14(a) the Subcommittee was

required to consider: 1) the existing character of the area of potential visual impact; 2) the

significance of the affected scenic resource and their distance from the proposed facility; 3) the

extent nature and duration of public uses of affected scenic resources; 4) the scope and scale of

the change in the landscape visible from the affected resources; 5) the evaluation of overall

daytime and nighttime visual impacts of the facility in the visual impact assessment submitted by

the applicant and other relevant evidence submitted pursuant to N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES

SITE 202.24; 6) the extent to which the proposed facility would be a dominant and prominent

4 Counsel for the Public joins in the arguments made in the Joint Motion for Rehearing of the Abutting Landowners Group, the Non-Abutting Landowners Group, the Levesque-Allen Group, The Stoddard Conservation Commission, and The Windaction Group, ("Intervenor Groups") filed on 4/14/17 with respect to the following issues: IV. Res Judicata, and V. Procedural Issues, a. The Subcommittee was not Lawfully Constituted; b. Waiver of Requirements; c. Procedural Fairness; VI. Substantive Issues, ii. The Subcommittee's finding that the Project wilt not have unreasonable adverse impacts on aesthetics is unlawful and unreasonable; and VI, iii, 4. Decommissioning. The instant Motion for Re-Hearing will contain additional arguments related to these issues raised by the afore-identified Intervenor groups.

2

App. 271

feature within a natural or cultural landscape of high scenic quality or as viewed from a scenic

resource of high value or sensitivity; and 7) the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed by

the applicant to avoid, minimize or mitigate unreasonable adverse effects on aesthetics and the

extent to which such measures represent best practical measures. ld.

4. The record reflects that Subcommittee's analysis of that character of the region

under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(l) consists of a cursory finding that the

affected area was located in the Town of Antrim's rural conservation zone and contained a great

deal of conservation land. 5 Under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(2), the

Subcommittee made no determination as to the significance of the affected scenic resources

except to note that there was disagreement between the two experts on the subject. 6 However,

the Subcommittee determined that two of the resources identified by Counsel for the Public's

aesthetics expert as having unreasonable adverse impacts were private resources, and therefore

should not have been considered. The two resources the Subcommittee addressed were Gregg

Lake and Black Pond- both of which are public resources. So the Subcommittee's dismissal of

the visual impact analysis for these two resources was error. Moreover, even if the photo­

simulations from these resources were taken from a private property vantage point, 7 visual

impact studies are also required by regulation to include visual simulations from a sample of

private property observation points to illustrate the potential change in the landscape. N.H.

CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.05(b)(7). As such, the Subcommittee's outright dismissal of

these resources from any kind of consideration was error."

5. Under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(3), the Subcommittee's

5 Decision at p. 117. 6 /d. at p. 118. 7 Only one simulation -the photo-simulation taken for Black Pond - was taken from a private property vantage point

3

App. 272

discussion as to the extent, nature and duration of public uses of affected scenic resources noted

that the resources were used for activities such as hiking, fishing and canoeing. 8 The

Subcommittee described these as activities as limited in time or transient uses and therefore less

likely to be impacted by the proposed project. 9 However, the Subcommittee's dismissal of so-

called transient uses is unreasonable given that under Site 301.14, it is authorized to analyze only

public resources 10 for aesthetic impact, and most public uses are likely to be transient. Further,

the Subcommittee failed to consider evidence that visits by local users of these resources were

far more frequent and regular and therefore far more likely to be impacted by the proposed

project. The Subcommittee made no further findings regarding this criterion to support its

finding that such uses would not result in an unreasonable adverse impact.

6. Under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(4), the Subcommittee did not

directly address the scope and scale of the change in the landscape visible from the affected

resources. However, under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(6) -the extent to

which the proposed facility would be a dominant and prominent feature within a natural or

cultural landscape, the Subcommittee looked at all ofthe visual simulations and stated whether it

thought the impact was dominant, prominent and/or unreasonable. 11 These qualities address

"scale" because "dominance" and "prominence" are terms of art used by aesthetics experts to

indicate the "scale" of a project in relation to its surroundings. 12 Therefore, a finding that a

project is dominant or prominent in a visual simulation equates to there being a scale issue. This

criterion is significant because the primary finding ofthe SEC in Antrim I was that the project

8 Jd.atp.l18. 9 ld. 10 N.H. Code of Admin. Rules Site 102.45. l.lJd. 12 App. Ex. 33, Appendices 9a, p 24. Tr. Day 6 AM, 9/28/16, p. 21.

4

App. 273

was out of scale with the regional resources. 13 The Subcommittee looked at visual simulations

for nine scenic resources and found issues related to "dominance" and/or "prominence" with

regard to five of the resources (Willard Pond, Franklin Pierce Lake (prominent), Gregg Lake

(dominant and prominent), Meadow Marsh (dominant and prominent), Goodhue Hill (prominent

and industrial but not dominant) and Bald Mountain (clustering). 14 15 Even though the

Subcommittee made fmdings that were nearly the same as the SEC in Antrim I as to the scale of

the project, it found the effects on these resources were not unreasonable. 16 In this regard,

neither the deliberations, nor the Decision contain any rationale as to why the Subcommittee

found these scale issues reasonable in this docket 17

7. With regard to N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(6), the

Subcommittee did not address nighttime visual impacts except to state that A WE was seeking

FAA approval of radar activated lighting AWE's visual impact expert did not conduct any

analysis of nighttime lighting except to indicate that is was seeking FAA approval of radar

activated lightling.

8. Under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14 (a)(7) the Subcommittee

determined that the mitigation package offered by the applicant was sufficient to mitigate the

adverse impacts of the project. 18 The mitigation proposed did not significantly differ from the

mitigation project in Antrim I. The major items of difference are as follows: approximately 100

additional conservation acres added to a package that included 800+ acres of off-site

13 S/12/13 Decision and Order Denying Application for Certificate of Site and Facility, Site Eval. Comm. No. 2012-01, pp. 51- 53. 14 Decision at pp. 118-120. 15 The Subcommittee did not conduct a similar analysis of Black Pond because the point at which the simulation was taken was not a "public" resource. 16 /d. at p. 21. 17 /d. 18 The Subcommittee actually took up mitigation before it had done any analysis as to whether there were any unreasonable adverse impacts on aesthetics. Typically this type of analysis is conducted after determinations are made as to adverse impacts.

5

App. 274

conservation; a one-time donation from Antrim Wind to the New England Forestry Foundation

of $100,000 for off-site conservation to be determined at a later date; a $40,000 payment to the

Town of Antrim to offset the aesthetic impacts on Gregg Lake, and a $5000 scholarship to. the

Town of Antrim for some worthy students. The Subcommittee's acceptance of this mitigation

package was unreasonable and unlawful because as indicated, infra., it was bound by the SEC's

decision in Antrim I as to the use of off-site conservation land as mitigation for aesthetics.

9. In addition to failing to follow its rules under which the Subcommittee was to

determine whether the project posed an unreasonable adverse impact on aesthetics, the

Subcommittee also permitted A WE to submit a visual impact study that did not comport with its

rules. N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.05 (b)(8}e, l - 3 & (9). Further, the Subcommittee

made inconsistent and arbitrary evidentiary rulings that prevented Counsel for the Public's

aesthetic expert from rebutting AWE's expert's critique of her report. 19 Finally the

Subcommittee erred in failing to consider the opinion of Counsel for the Public's other aesthetic

expert, Jean Vissering who also determined that the changes made to current project did not

sufficiently mitigate the unreasonable adverse impacts posed by the project to the surrounding

region.

10. Dismissal of these two experts reports while permitting the Applicant's expert to

submit a visual impact report that did not comply with the SEC rules was also unreasonable and

unlawful.

B. 'fim SUBCOMMIITEE MISAPPLIED THE DocTRINES OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AS APPLIED TO THE ISSUE OF AESTHETICS.

11. Counsel for the Public first raised the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res

19 See Counsel for the Public's Motion to Reconsider Evidentiary Ruling and Request to Reopen the Record, 11114/16, and hereby incorporated by reference within.

6

App. 275

judicata during the jurisdictional phase of this application.20 Even though the parties conducted

discovery and their respective aesthetics experts submitted testimony relative to the issue of the

materiality of the changes between proposed project in Antrim I and the current docket, the Site

Evaluation Committee ("SEC'') ultimately detennined that the question of whether the

differences between the were material enough to require a different result or even survive claims

of issue preclusion or res judicata "cannot be detennined on this record because [the

Committee] does not have a complete application before [it]."21

12. In the current docket, Counsel for the Public again raised the issues of res

judicata and/or issue preclusion with regard to the prior ruling of the SEC on aesthetics,22 the

identification of scenic resources being impacted by the proposed project and the ruling of the

SEC concerning the value of off-site conservation land ~s appropriate mitigation for aesthetics. 23

13. The Subcommittee's analysis ofthe applicability of res judicata in this docket is

flawed for several reasons. First, the Subcommittee relied on the decisions of the New

Hampshire Supreme Court in Fisher v. Dover, (holding that the Zoning Board of Adjustment

("ZBA") erred in granting an application for a second variance without considering whether the

second application contained a material change of circumstances affecting the merits of the

application, or the application is for a use that is materially different in nature and degree from its .

predecessor)24 and Morgenstern v Town of Rye, (holding that the ZBA erred in refusing to

consider a second application on the merits where the changes to the application no longer

20 See, Counsel for the Public's Memorandum in Support of Objection to Petition for Jurisdiction, Petition for Jurisdiction, Diet. #2014-05, pp. 15 - 19, July 7, 2015. 21 Id., 9129115 Jurisdictional Decision and Order, p. 38. 22 Counsel for the Public raised claim preclusion with regard to the Subcommittee's determination on aesthetics because in Antrim I the SEC denied the certificate to A WE on the basis of its finding that the project posed an unreasonable adverse impact on the aesthetics of the regions. However, the doctrine of issue preclusion is also fully applicable to findings of the SEC on aesthetics issues as well. Daigle v. City of Portsmouth, l29N.H. 561,510 (1987). 23 See, Post hearing Memorandum of Counsel for the Public, 11/21/16, pp. 3- 13. 24 Fisher v. Dover, 120 N.H. 187, 190 (1980).

7

App. 276

required a retaining ~all to protect the wetlands). 25

14. The Subcommittee stated that a third case clarified the holding in Fisher and

Morgenstern wherein the Court held that if the Board "invites submission of a subsequent

modification to meet its concerns, it would find an application so modified to be materially

different from its predecessor, thus satisfying Fisher." 26 Hill-Grant Living Trust v. Kearsarge

Lighting, 159 N.H. 529 (2009). Based upon this legal framework, the Subcommittee identified

certain differences between this docket and the project proposed in Antrim I, and noted that there

had been changes to the controlling law and SEC rules. 27

15. Regarding the changes to the project, the Subcommittee made no independent

finding as to how the changes to the project related to the aesthetics impacts on the region.

Further it is difficult to conclude that the changes were actually responsive to the SEC's concerns

in Antrim I because, for example, the SEC ruled in Antrim I that off-site conservation land was

not suitable mitigation for aesthetics impacts and a significant part of the changes in the current

docket included off-site conservatjon land.

16. Further, the Subcommittee relied on the finding of the SEC in Antrim I that the

changes proposed by A WE (after a decision had issued) ''were material differences such that

they could not be considered under the auspices of that Application." 28 Based upon this

statement by the SEC in Antrim I, the Subcommittee concluded that this statement was akin to

an invitation for submission of a new application. 29

17. The Subcommittee's determination that this finding by the SEC in Antrim I was

an invitation to file a new application is flawed for several reasons. The deliberations in Antrim

2S Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. SS&, S6S (2002). 26 /d. at 41-42, 49. 27 /d. at49. l& /d. 29 Jd.

8

App. 277

I reflect that SEC members expressed concern that re-opening the record at that late stage may

set a precedent for applicants to try a case under one set of facts and substitute facts after they

didn't prevail. 30 There was also concern expressed that about how the changes would impact the

financial capability of the A WE. 31 Further, the SEC did not fmd that the changes proposed

amounted to material changes that would impact aesthetics, but rather the entire application. 32

18. Moreover, the SEC addressed the issue of whether or not its prior ruling in

Antrim I constituted an invitation to file a subsequent application in the jurisdictional phase of

this proceeding and it concluded that the SEC in Antrim I did not invite the second application. 33

19. The Subcommittee has identified no evidence in the record or any other rationale

for making a finding contrary to the SEC's finding in its Jurisdictional Decision and Order. The

rationale discussed by the SEC in its deliberations in Antrim I, as well as the late stage at which

the changes were proposed provided sufficient grounds for the SEC to deny AWE's Motion for

Re-hearing and to Re-open the Record, and they provide no basis to conclude that the SEC was

"inviting'' A WE to re-file it application.

20. Beca':lse the Subcommittee relied upon this finding to support its finding that the

changes between the projects were material and responsive to the comments by the SEC in

Antrim I, the Subcommittee's finding that res judicata does not apply to these proceedings is

unreasonable and unlawful.

21. Similarly the Subcommittee made no finding as to how the changes in the law or

rules affected the outcome such that they would be an intervening force negating the doctrine of

30 /d. See, Counsel for the Public's Memorandum in Support of Objection to Petition for Jmisdiction, PetiJionfor Jurisdiction, Dkt. #2014-05, p. 10. 31 /d. 32 /d. 33 Jurisdictional Decision and Order, Docket 2014-05,9129/15, p. 34

9

App.278

res judicata or collateral estoppel. 34 To the contrary, the new rules appear consistent with the

rulings of the SEC in Antrim I. For example, in Antrim I, the SEC disagreed with AWE's

aesthetics expert as to his identification of important scenic resources because AWE's expert had

an overly restrictive definition of scenic resources that demonstrated a bias to federal and State

resources; whereas the SEC identified a number or local and regional resources as important

scenic resources and also found that were unreasonably adversely impacted by the project. 35 In

furtherance of the SEC fmding in that regard is a rule defining "scenic resources" that include a

variety of federal, State and municipal resources. N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 102.45.

22. The Subcommittee's ruling that the doctrine that collateral estoppel did not apply

to the SEC's ruling in Antrim I regarding the identification of sensitive sites and the value of off-

site conservation land in mitigation of aesthetic impacts, is unreasonable and unlawful because

the matter was fully and fairly litigated in Antrim I, and there is insufficient basis to conclude

that was a case-specific holding.

23. In this regard, as noted in paragraph 20, both parties submitted visual impact

assessments that included a determination of sensitive sites and the impact of the project on those

sites. A WE submitted a mitigation package for aesthetics in Antrim I that included over 800

acres of conservation land. The record contains nothing indicating that A WE was prevented

from submitting evidence in support of its proposition that its proposal was suitable to mitigate

aesthetic impacts. After the Decision and Order issued, again, A WE was afforded the

opportunity to address the suitably of this proposed mitigation for aesthetics and it did not do

that. Instead, A WE offered an additional l 00 acres of conservation land. Finally, the record

reflects that A WE was aware of its right to appeal the decision of the SEC the New Hampshire

34 See, Post hearing Memorandum of Counsel for the Public, 11/2l/16, pp. 14

35 5/12/13 Decision and Order Denying Application/or Certificate of Site and Facility, Site Eval. Comm. No. 2012-01, pp. 51-53.

10

App. 279

Supreme Court and it did not file an appeal. Thus, it is unreasonable to conclude that the matter

was not fully litigated.

24. Regarding the Subcommittee's finding that this ruling by the SEC in Antrim I was

case specific, Counsel for the Public submits there is insufficient basis to make such an

interpretation of the SEC's ruling. In its ruling, the SEC stated as follows:

In addition to physical mitigation, the Applicant submits that its overall environmental mitigation for the project consists of dedicating in excess of800 acres ofland in and around the Facility to conservation easements. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at 12. After consideration and deliberation, a majority of the Subcommittee found that the proffered mitigation does not appropriately mitigate the unreasonable adverse aesthetic impacts of the Facility. The physical mitigation efforts as described by the Applicant, while appreciated, are comparable to what is the standard design of any wind turbine facility in the region. The Applicant refers to the standard features of a modem wind turbine facility as mitigation. These features were considered by the Subcommittee in its review of this Application. A majority of the Subcommittee finds that the physical mitigation program cited by the Applicant is insufficient to mitigate the visual effects of this Facility on the regional setting and on the Willard Pond­dePierrefeu Wildlife Sanctuary area.

Similarly, the Subcommittee finds that the offer of more than 800 acres of conservation easements in and around the proposed Facility is a generous offer by the Applicant. However, the dedication of lands to a conservation easement in this case would not suitably mitigate the impact. While additional conserved lands would be of value to wildlife and habitat, they would not mitigate the imposing visual impact that the Facility would have on valuable viewsheds. 36

25. A review of the SEC's finding on off-site mitigation does not support the

conclusion that this finding was case specific. There is no such statement in the SEC's Decision

and Order. Further the Subcommittee's identification of three words "in this case" does not

36 5/12113 Decision and Order Denying Application for CertifiCate of Site and Facility. Site Eval. Comm. No. 20 12· 01, pp. 51- 53.

11

App. 280

J j

warrant the conclusion that the SEC intended these words to mean that was a case specific

context, and there is no rule of statutory or literary construction that would warrant such a

conclusion. Those same three words have been used is hundreds, if not thousands of New

Hampshire Supreme Court cases, without such an interpretation. The Subcommittee's ruling in

this regard is unreasonable.

26. Finally the Decision references its deliberations citing "numerous changes" from

the project that was proposed in Antrim I. 37 But the cited-to pages contain almost no discussion

as to what the changes are and how they affect aesthetics. There is one sentence in the 15 pages

cited that makes the conclusory statement that there are numerous changes from the "number of

towers to lighting issues to conservation issues to differences in the amount of land impacted." 38

The number of towers is one less tower. The lighting issues referred to above presumably refer

to the radar activated lighting for which there was no aesthetic analysis, (and which was required

by the SEC in Antrim 1). The conservation issues and amount of land impacted presumably

refers to the additional I 00 acres of conservation land. However, there is no articulation or

• findings as to how these changes materially impacted the aesthetics issues such that the doctrines

of res judicata or collateral estoppel might not apply. See Hill-Grant Living Trust, 159 N.H. at

536 (allowing submission of modifications that meet [the SEC's] concerns)

27. Based upon the foregoing arguments, the Subcommittee's determination that res

judicata and collateral estoppel are not applicable to this case is unreasonable and unlawful.

C. THE SUBCOMMITIEE FAILED TO FOLWW ITS RULES ON Tiffi REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN SUBMITIED BY A WE

28. The Subcommittee also approved the Decommissioning Plan proposed by A WE,

which did not comply with the SEC's rules requiring removal of all infrastructure at depths of

37 Decision at p. SO. 38 Tr. 12/7/25, AM, p. 24.

12

App. 281

less than four feet. This detennination was unreasonable and unlawful.

29. The Subcommittee's (and AWE's) rationale for this divergence from the

requirements of the rule was based on AWE's testimony that described this practice as typical in

the industry, and documentary evidence of a Department of Environmental Services("DES")

"Fact Sheet" issued by the DES Solid Waste Division describing burying concrete at a

construction work site as a "best management practice."

30. As noted in Counsel for the Public's Post Hearing Memorandum39 the SEC

enacted new rules governing decommissioning that became effective in December 2016, and as

noted above, these rules require removal of all infrastructure at depths of less than four feet.

There is no exemption for concrete infrastructure. This rule is specific to decommissioning of

energy facilities as opposed to DES general solid waste rules. Under the cannons of statutory

construction, the SEC's rules apply to decommissioning- not the DES Solid Waste rules.

31. Moreover, the DES Fact Sheets relied upon by the Subcommittee are for

infonnation purposes only; they are not authority. Under the Solid Waste Jaws and regulations,

this spent concrete infrastructure would fall wjthin the definition of solid waste, and burying on

site would constitute activities that would qualify as disposal for which a Solid Waste facility

permit would be necessary. There is an exemption to the pennitting requirement under the solid

waste rules for concrete under certain conditions, those being that there is an assurance that there

are no constituents of the concrete that would pose a threat to groundwater, and that the buried

concrete be actively managed. From a practical standpoint this solid waste permit exemption

may apply to a general construction site, but that is not to say that it should apply to a ridge top.

Of concern is that the area of Tuttle Ridge is part of a valuable watershed. There was no

39 See, Counsel for the Public's Post-Hearing Memorandum, 11/21/16, pp. 44-50 and hereby incorporated by reference.

13

App. 282

consideration of whether the constituents of the crushed concrete would leach out and

contaminate the groundwater. The Subcommittee did not undertake any analysis related to these

conditions under the Solid Waste rules. So the Subcommittee disregarded both its own rules and

the DES' Solid Waste rules. As such, the approval the Decommissioning Plan submitted by

A WE was unreasonable and unlawful.

D. THE SUBCOMMITIEE FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS RULES AND IMPROPERLY GRANTED A WAIVER OF HEAL 'Ill AND SAFETY REGULATIONS CONCERNING SOUND. SHADOW FLICKER

AND SETBACKS FOR COOPERATING LANDOWNERS

32. In the course of its deliberations, the Subcommittee waived its public health and

safety rules related to sound, shadow flicker impacts and setbacks to avoid injury from ice throw,

blade shear, and tower collapse as these health and safety regulations impact cooperating

landowners. 40 N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 30 1.14(f).

33. The Subcommittee found that its rules do not differentiate between participating

and non-participating landowners. 41 But it detennined that landowners have a right to

voluntarily agree to subject themselves to "different environments." 42 As to the "different

environments," the Subcommittee was presumably referring to exculpatory agreements between

A WE and the cooperating landowners that purport to waive liability for possible health and

safety impacts related to sound, shadow flicker and setbacks.

34. The Subcommittee's waiver of this rule was unreasonable and unlawful for

several reasons. First, these types of agreements are generally not favored in New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that ~ew Hampshire law generally prohibits

exculpatory contracts. In an injury case, a party seeking to avoid liability must show that the

exculpatory contract: I) does not violate public policy. Barnes v. N.H. Karting Assn., 128 N.H.

40 Decision at pp. 168-169. 41 Jd. at 168. 42Jd.

14

App. 283

201, l 06 (1986). In tum, the Court defined the public policy as indicating that no special

relationship existed between the parties and that there was no other disparity in bargaining

power. ld. In Barnes the Court held that "[w]here a defendant is a common carrier, innkeeper..Qr

public utility or is otherwise charged with a duty of public service, a defendant cannot rid itself

of its obligation of reasonable care." ld. (emphasis added). These agreements can also be found

to contravene public policy when they could be injurious to the interests of the public; violate a

statute; or tend to interfere with public welfare and safety. Serna v. Lafayette Nordic Village,

2015 US. Dist. LEXIS 92669,2015 DNH 138, p 4-5, citing Barnes, 128 N.H. 201, 106. Based

upon the factors the Court outlined in Barnes, the exculpatory agreements A WE entered into

with the cooperating landowners violate public policy because, at a minimum, one of the parties

is a public utility. Further, among the liabilities being waived are the health and safety standards

established by the SEC regulations.

35. However, under the holding in Barnes, 43 once the agreement is found to be

objectionable as a matter of public policy, it can be upheld only if it appears: I) that the releasing

party understood the import of the agreement or a reasonable person in his or her position would

have understood the import of the agreement; and 2) that the releasing party's claims would have

been within the contemplation of the parties at the time of execution. Id. at 108. Also, the

exculpatory contract must clearly state that the released party is not responsible for the

consequences of its negligence. ld.; See also, McGrath v. SNH Dev. Inc. 158 NH 540, 542-543

(2009).

36. The Subcommittee did not undertake any part of the above-described analysis

43 The Serna case implies that once an agreement is found to contravene public policy it is not enforceable, but there was no holding in either Barnes or Serna that the exculpatory agreements contravened public policy, so that appears unclear at this time.

15

App. 284

with respect to the exculpatory contracts. 44 It also does not appear that the Subcommittee

reviewed or examined the exculpatory contracts. The Committee simply waived its rules on its

own motion under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 302.05 (waiver) sue sponte during

deliberations.

37. Moreover, the SEC did not follow its rules for waivers. The Committee may

waive its own rules under N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 302.05 upon a motion or its own

motion if it finds that: it serves the public interest; and (2) the waiver will not disrupt the orderly

and efficient resolution of matters before the committee or subcommittee. N.H. CODE OF ADMIN.

RULES SITE 302.05 (a)(l) & (2). In determining the public interest the committee shall waive the

rule if compliance with the rule would be onerous or inapplicable given the circumstances of the

affected person; or (2) the purpose of the rule would be satisfied by an alternative proposed

method. N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 302.05(b)(l) & (2). The Subcommittee made no

such analysis.

38. As noted, in the Decision, the Subcommittee dismissed the noise and shadow

flicker standards as "different environments." Under the SEC's regulations, those standards fall

under the category of not simply "different environments" but "public health and safety." N.H.

CODE OF ADMIN. RULES SITE 301.14(f) (unreasonable adverse effects on public health and

safety). The Subcommittee did not make a finding that this waiver was in the public interest and

it did not consider alternatives. It is difficult to reconcile the Subcommittee waiver under

circumstances where they have made no determination such agreements are in the public interest

particularly in light of the fact that these types of agreements are generally disfavored under New

Hampshire Law as being against public policy. Serna, 2015 US. Dist. LEXIS 92669,2015 DNH

138, p 4-5, citing Barnes., 128 N.H. at 206.

44 Tr. I2/09/16, PM, pp. 2I- 25,44-45. 16

App. 285

39. Because the Subcommittee did not undertake any such analysis of the agreements,

alternatives or the public interests involved the waiver of the public health and safety

requirements for cooperating landowners is unlawful and unreasonable. Id.; N.H. CODE OF

ADMIN. RULES SITE 302.05(a) & (b).

D. THE SUBCOMMITTEE FAILED TO FOLLOW TilE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF HAVING A SEVEN MEMBER PANEL INCLUDING 2 PUBLIC MEMBERS

TO ADJUDICATE TillS MATTER.

40. Further as noted supra., Counsel for the Public joins the Intervenor Groups in

their argument in their Motion for Re-hearing, to wit: the Subcommittee was not authorized to

adjudicate this case or issue a decision because it was statutorily required to consist of seven

members, two of whom are public members, and one of the public members was absent from

thirteen days of hearing and the deliberations. RSA 162-H:4-a.

41. In addition to the arguments made by the Intervenor Group, Counsel for the

Public submits that it cannot be said that the parties acquiesced to proceeding with a depleted

panel because the Subcommittee made no mention of the absence of the public member from this

panel or the reason therefor, 45 and the parties could not have known that the public member was

not being provided with transcripts of the proceedings and would not be participating in the

deliberations until the record was closed and deliberations were concluded.

42. For this reason as well, the Decision by the Subcommittee granting the certificate

of site in facility is unreasonable and unlawful.

WHEREFORE, Counsel for the Public requests that the Subcommittee:

a. Grant this Motion for Re-hearing and Reconsideration

b. Deny AWE's Applications for Certificate of Site and Facility; and

4s Counsel for the Public was not aware that the public member was on maternity leave until the close of the proceedings.

17

App. 286

c. Grant such other relief as may be just.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of April, 2017.

COUNSEL TO THE PUBLIC

By his attorneys

GORDONJ.MACDONALD ATTORNEY GENERAL

~~ Mary E. Maloney, Bar# 1603 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau 33 Capitol Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397 Tel. (603) 271-3679

Certificate of Service

I, Mary E. Maloney, do hereby certify that I caused the foregoing to be served upon each of the parties named in the Service List of this Docket.

Dated: April 17, 2017 ~~ Mary E. Maloney

18

App. 287

MCLANE MIDDLETON

April 24, 2017

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & HAND-DELIVERY

New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee Pamela G. Monroe, Administrator 21 South Fruit Street, Suite 10 Concord, NH 03301

Re: NH Site Evaluation Committee Docket No. 2015-02:

BARRY NEEDLEMAN Direct Dial: 603.230.4407

Email: barry.needleman@mclane.com Admiucd in NH, MA and ME

II South Main Stn:ct, Suite SOO C4ncord, NH 03301

T 603.226.0400 F 603.230.4448

Application of Antrim Wind Energy, LLC -Objection to Joint Motion for Rehearing

Dear Ms. Monroe:

Please find enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter, an original and one copy of Applicant's Objection to the Joint Motion for Rehearing.

We have provided members of the distribution list with electronic copies of this Objection, pending addition of the document to the Committee's website.

Please contact me directly should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

BN:rs3

Enclosure

cc: Distribution List

McLane Middleton, Professional Association Manchester, Concord, Portsmouth, NH I Woburn, Boston, MA

McLane.com App.288

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SITE EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE

Docket No. 2015-02

APPLICATION OF ANTRIM WIND ENERGY, LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE OF SITE AND FACILITY

APPLICANT ANTRIM WIND ENEkGY. LLC!S .. OBJEcTiON'Tb THE JOINT MOTION FOR REHEARING

Antrim Wind Energy, LLC ("A WE" or the "Applicant") by and through its attorneys,

McLane Middleton, Professional Association, respectfully submits this Objection to the Joint

Motion for Rehearing (the "Motion") filed on behalf of the Abutting Landowners Group, Non-

Abutting Landowners Group, the Levesque-Allen Group, the Stoddard Conservation

Commission, and the Windaction Group (the "Intervenors"). Applicant respectfully requests that I

the Subcommittee deny the Motion because it fails to set forth good cause for a rehearing. ~

Specifically, it does not raise any issue that was overlooked or mistakenly conceived by the

Subcommittee in its Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of Site and Facility

nor does the Motion present any new evidence that was not before the Subcommittee or could

not have been previously presented during the adjudicative hearing.

I. Background

On October 2, 2015, the Applicant filed an application with the New Hampshire Site

Evaluation Subcommittee ("SEC" or the "Subcommittee") for a Certificate of Site and Facility to

construct and operate a 28.8 MW electric generation facility consisting of nine Siemens SWT-

3.2-113 direct drive wind turbines in Antrim, New Hampshire (the "Project"). The

Subcommittee accepted the application on December I, 2015.

The Subcommittee presided over thirteen days of adjudicative hearings, during which

time the Subcommittee heard from fifteen witnesses proffered by the Applicant as well as nine

App. 289

intervenor groups~ and Counsel for the Public~s visual expert. In total the Subcommittee

received 220 exhibits~ oral and written statements from interested members of the public, and

written post-hearing briefs from seventeen parties. Upon completion of the adjudicative hearing,

and after closing the record pursuant to Site 202.26, the Subcommittee began deliberations.

The Subcommittee deliberated on December 7~ 9~ and 12,2016. During the

deliberations, as the transcripts illustrate, the Subcommittee reviewed the complete record

including affirmative testimony provided by the Applicant as well as rebuttal or opposing

testimony provided by all the other parties. On March 17, 2017 the Subcommittee issued its

Decision and Order Granting Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility and Order and

Certificate of Site and Facility with Conditions (the "Decision"). The Subcommittee's Decision,

which addressed each and every concern raised during the Adjudicative hearing and again in the

Motion, was well-reasoned and thoroughly supported by the comprehensive record. The Motion

fails to meet the standard required to grant a motion for rehearing and ignores the extensive

record in this docket and thorough deliberations undertaken by the Subcommittee.

ll. Legal Standard

The purpose of a rehearing "is to direct attention to matters said to have been overlooked

or mistakenly conceived in the original decision, and thus invites reconsideration upon the record

upon which that decision rested." Dumais v. State of New Hampshire Pers. Comm., 118 N.H.

309~ 311 (1978). RSA 541:3 provides that the commission "may grant such rehearing if in its

opinion good reason therefor is stated in said motion." The Subcommittee may grant rehearing

or reconsideration for "good reason" if the moving party shows that an order is unlawful or

unreasonable. RSA 541:3, RSA 541 :4; Rural Telephone Companies, N.H. PUC Order No.

25,291 (Nov. 21, 2011). A successful motion must establish "good reason" by showing that

-2-

App. 290

there are matters the Commission "overlooked or mistakenly conceived in the original decision,"

Dumais, 118. N.H. at 311; or by presenting new evidence that was ''unavailable prior to the

issuance of the underlying decision." Hollis Telephone Inc., N.H. PUC Order No. 25,088 at 14

(April2, 2010). A "good reason" for rehearing is not established where, as here, the movant

merely restates prior arguments and asks for a different outcome. Public Service Co. ofN.H,

N.H. PUC Order No. 25,676 at 3 (June 12, 2014). A motion for rehearing must be denied where

no "good reason" or "good cause" had been demonstrated. 0 'Loughlin v. State of New

Hampshire Pers. Comm., 117 N.H. 999, 1004 (1977); Order on Pending Motions, Docket 2012-

01, Application of Antrim Wind, at 3 (Sept. 10, 2013).

The Motion should be denied because it fails to identify how any finding made by the

Subcommittee is unlawful or unreasonable, it fails to identify any issue that was overlooked or

mistakenly conceived by the Subcommittee, and it fails to identify any new evidence that was _

not available and could not have been introduced during the adjudicative hearing. The Motion

almost exclusively rehashes the arguments previously made in pre-filed testimony and during the

adjudicative hearing. The Subcommittee correctly determined that the Applicants met their

burden of proof pursuant to Site 202.19, and established by a preponderance of the evidence that

it satisfied all of the requirements ofRSA 162-H:16 to receive a Certificate of Site and Facility.

III. The Motion Fails to Identify Any Procedural Issue That Was Overlooked or Mistakenly Conceived by the Subcommittee and It Does Not Introduce Any New Evidence That Was Not Before the Subcommittee During the Adjudicative Hearings.

A. Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata has been raised several times in this docket and the

Subcommittee has thoroughly evaluated it. None of the arguments presented in the Motion

provide sufficient basis to grant a motion for rehearing.

- 3 -

App. 291

Counsel for the Public first raised the issue of res judicata in the jurisdictional docket.

See Jurisdictional Decision and Order, Docket No. 2014-05, at p. 34 (Holding that "[n]either the

doctrine of collateral estoppel nor res judicata, relate to the issue of jurisdiction in this

case ... these issues will be determined in the context ofthat application not as an issue pertaining

to jurisdiction."). On November 21,2016, Counsel for the Public filed her Post-Hearing

Memoranda, which contained an argument that the doctrine of res judicata should apply in this

case. The Applicant filed its Post Hearing Memoranda on November 30,2016, and specifically

responded to Counsel for the Public's argument regarding res judicata. The Subcommittee

considered these positions during deliberations, see Deliberations, Tr. Day 1 Morning Session, p.

9 - 17, and concluded that the doctrine did not apply. Decision and Order Granting Certificate

ofSite and Facility, Docket No. 2015-02, p. 49. As noted in the Order, the Subcommittee

specifically considered "whether the Project is substantially or materially different from the

project proposed in Antrim I (Docket No. 2012-01)." Decision and Order Granting Certificate

of Site and Facility, Docket No. 2015-02, p. 49. The unanimous decision of the Subcommittee

was that the changes made to the application are "so numerous that there had been a substantial

change precluding the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel." Decision and Order

Granting Certificate ofSite and Facility, Docket No. 2015-02, p. 50.

As a preliminary matter, Dr. Boisvert, the only member of the Subcommittee in the

current docket also to sit on the Subcommittee of the prior 2012 docket explained that "we were

unanimous that this would have been an entirely new application ... We said it would be a wholly

new application, we would have to start over." Deliberations, Tr. Day 1 Morning Session, p. 13.

Moreover, the Subcommittee concluded that the "Application contains substantive and material

changes from the initial Application." Deliberations, Tr. Day 1 Morning Session, p. 16. The

-4-

App. 292

c

arguments raised in the Motion are the same arguments Counsel for the Public previously raised

in her Post-Hearing Memorandwn. The Intervenors disagreement with the Subcommittee's final

conclusion does not change the fact that it was thoroughly considered and correctly decided.

The Motion improperly concludes that the Subcommittee's decision was based on "the

mitigation measures proposed." Motion, at p. 5. This assertion is inconsistent with the

Subcommittee's deliberations and Decision. The changes considered and addressed by the

Subcommittee include both physical changes as well as modifications to the mitigation package

proposed.1 In addition to the physical changes, the mitigation package now includes: (1) an

additional 100 acres of conservation land that will conserve the entire ridgeline, (2) the donation

of $100,000 to New England Forestry Foundation to acquire new permanent conservation lands

in the general region of the Project, and (3) the Applicant has further entered into an agreement

with the Town to provide additional public benefits. Many of the changes made to the current

application were directly in response to the list of mitigation measures proposed by Jean

Vissering, Counsel for the Public's expert in Antrim I.

The findings required for this docket involve issues that could not have been brought and

were not brought during the prior proceeding. For example, in the prior docket, the

Subcommittee declined to consider the Applicant> s modifications to the project as part of the

Applicant's request for rehearing and to reopen the record, which included only a portion of the

changes now included in the current Application. This was because the Subcommittee

determine<\ consideration of these material changes "would require re-evaluation of the entire

Application." Order on Pending Motions, Docket No. 2012-01, p. 11 (September 10, 2013).

1 These changes include: the elimination of Turbine 10, the reduction in height of Turbine 9 so that the tower and nacelle are below the tree line when viewed from Willard Pond, and the use of Siemens turbines, which are quieter and smaller in other dimensions.

-5-

App. 293

The Intervenors rely on the decision in Antrim I regarding the use of "non-aesthetic

related mitigation measures." Motion at ~17. The Subcommittee addressed this, however, and

noted that they "do not need to be bound by [the prior] decision ... it is a different project on a

variety of topics ... we are a different Subcommittee and we have our own responsibilities. We

need to make our own decisions based upon the evidence in front of us." Deliberations, Tr. Day

1 Afternoon Session, p. 70. The Applicant was not seeking to have the Subcommittee reconsider

its decision regarding the mitigation package in the prior docket or "call the Antrim I Decision

into question," as the Motion suggests. Motion, at 1f19. Rather, the Applicant expected that the

Subcommittee would evaluate the present application on its own me.rits in light of the significant

changes made to the Project as well as changes made to the statute and SEC Rules. The

transcript of the Subcommittee's deliberations and the Decision reflect this approach.

The Intervenors are also incorrect in their assertion that the changes to the SEC Rules do

not provide an additional basis for restricting the applicability of res judicata. An exception to

res judicata exists ''where between the time of the first judgment and the second ... there has

been an intervening ... change in the law creating an altered situation." Fontes v. Gonzales, 498

F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U.S. 154, 162

(1945) (holding that res judicata is no defense where between the time of the first judgment and

the second there has been an intervening decision or a change in the law creating an altered

situation). The New Hampshire Legislature and the SEC spent significant time developing and

revising the statute and the SEC's Rules to ensure that projects are evaluated under the

appropriate criteria. Key aspects of the framework the Subcommittee must use to assess the

Project, including many entirely new criteria related to aesthetics, are different and new findings

are now required under the SEC's newly adopted rules.

-6-

App. 294

In addition to not satisfying the elements necessary for res judicata to apply, the policy

rationale for the doctrine is also not served in this case. Judicial economy can only be promoted

if res judicata and collateral estoppel claims are raised in a timely manner- something the

Intervenors have failed to do. By waiting to raise these claims until after vast resources have

already been expended litigating this case, the Intervenors not only undercut the very purpose of

these doctrines, but also arguably waived the claims. The New Hampshire Supreme Court's

decision in CBDA Dev. v. Town of Thornton, is consistent with the assertion that the appropriate

time to raise the applicability of res judicata is early in the process- in this case after the

Application was accepted. In CBDA, the Supreme Court held "[a]ccordingly, before accepting a

subsequent application under the Fisher doctrine, a board must be satisfied that the subsequent

application has been modified so as to meaningfully resolve the board's initial concerns ... An

administrative board 'should not be required to reconsider an application based on the

occurrence of an inconsequential change, when the board inevitably will reject the application

for the same reasons as the initial denial."' CBDA Dev. v. Town of Thornton, 168 N.H. 715, 725

(N.H. 2016); citing Brandt Dev. Co. v. City of Somersworth, 162 N.H. 553, 556 (2011). This

holding supports the proposition that res judicata and collateral estoppel should have been raised

at the time of acceptance and before the administrative agency considers the merits of the

Application. The Intervenor's argument, filed at the last possible moment of the proceeding, is

inconsistent with the law and completely undercuts the clear policy goal of preserving judicial

economy that is the foundation of these doctrines.

B. ·The Subcommittee Was Properly Constituted

Fourteen months after the Intervenors and Counsel for the Public were aware that the

alternate public member had been appointed to the Subcommittee, and seven months after they

-7-

App.295

were aware that the alternate public member was not sitting for the hearings before the

Subcommittee, the Intervenors now challenge the Subcommittee's composition. As a remedy

for this alleged failure, the Intervenors suggest that a new public member must be appointed by

the Governor and Council and must "consider the evidence and testimony and participate in

deliberations anew." Motion at ~ 31. It is unclear whether the Intervenors' are seeking to have

an entirely new hearing conducted, effectively a "mulligan," or rather, to have the new public

member participate in entirely new deliberations after reading the transcripts. Whatever the

proposed remedy, it is unnecessary and a waste of time. The composition of the Subcommittee

was consistent with RSA 162-H:4-a and any claim that more than a quorum of the Subcommittee

was required has been effectively waived.

First, the Intervenors have confused the requirement for appointment to a Subcommittee

with the quorum requirements in the statute. The Subcommittee was properly constituted. RSA

162-H:4-a, II provides as follows:

When considering the issuance of a certificate or a petition of jurisdiction, a Subcommittee shall have no fewer than 7 members. The 2 public members shall serve on each Subcommittee with the remaining 5 or more members selected by the chairperson from among the state agency members of the state agency members of the Subcommittee. . . . Five members of the Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the Subcommittee's business.

As is evident from this language, although seven members must be appointed, of whom two

must be public members, only five members are required to carry out the duties of the

Subcommittee. It would be illogical to require seven members to be present to satisfy a five

member quorum requirement. Moreover, the statute includes no requirement that the quorum

must specifically include any of the public members.

In this case, Chairman Honigberg appointed Roger Hawk and Patricia Weathersby as the

two public members of the Subcommittee on October 20,2015. In January 2016, Mr. Hawk

-8-

App. 296

died, and on January 11,2016, the Chairman, acting pursuant to RSA 162-H:3, XI, appointed

Rachel Whitaker, the alternate public member, to serve on the Subcommittee. Member Whitaker

attended an informational session on February 22, 2016, but thereafter did not participate in the

hearings relating to this docket. Hearings began on September 13,2016 and continued over 13

hearing days, with the written Decision being rendered on March 17, 2017.

The Intervenors concede that Ms. Whitaker was appointed to the Subcommittee but then

"did not preside over any proceedings." Motion at~ 24. As a result, the Intervenors

acknowledge that the Subcommittee consisted of seven members. Their complaint is that Ms.

Whitaker simply did not serve. Nothing in the law required her to do so. And nothing in her

failure to do so voids the Subcommittee's Decision.

As long as a quorum is present, as it was here, the Subcommittee has the authority to

act. See e.g. Appeal of Plymouth, 125 N.H. 141, 147 (1984)("[T]here is no authority for the

proposition that the presence of only two of the three members appointed to the board constituted

an insufficient quorum."}; Appeal of Net Realty Holding Trust, 127 N.H. 276,278 (1985}

("Other states that have addressed this issue appear uniformly to hold that the action of a public

body lacking the authority of a quorum is void."} (emphasis added).

The Intervenors argue that because the statute requires two public members, those

members must sit to hear every case, even though there is no requirement for the public members

to be part of the quorum. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has squarely rejected this

argument. In Appeal of Keene State College Education Association, NHEAINEA, 120 N.H. 32

(1980), the Court considered a challenge to the Public Employee Labor Relations Board's

decision based on the composition of a panel. Id. at 34. The statute in question required that two

of the five members of the board come from organized labor. /d. at 34-35. The statute also

-9-

App. 297

provided that "[t]hree members of the board shall constitute a quorum" without any requirement

that labor representatives be a part of the quorum. /d. at 35 quoting RSA 273-A:2, III. When a

panel of three members, none of whom came from labor issued a decision, the court upheld a

challenge to the composition of the panel on the same grounds the Intervenors make here,

stating: "There is no ambiguity in RSA 273-A:2; the board's total membership must be balanced

between management and labor, but no such balance is required of a quorum. We therefore hold

that the PELRB was properly constituted in the present case and that its decision was valid." /d.

The labor members in Keene State are directly analogous to the public members here. The

statute provides that two public members must sit on the Subcommittee, but not that two public

members must be part of the quorum that decides the case. The Subcommittee's decision is

therefore valid.

In attempting to write the quorum requirement out ofRSA 162-H:4-a, the Intervenors

assert that mere appointment to the Subcommittee is not enough since the statute requires that

vacancies be filled. Motion at~ 26, Fn. 2. The failure of Ms. Whitaker to be present for the

hearing, however, is not sufficient as to constitute a vacancy and, as a practical matter, is a case

of "no hann, no foul." Once appointed, Ms. Whitaker could have decided to decline to

participate for any reason or no reason, so long as her absence did not prevent a quorum.

Second, the Intervenors have waived any complaint about the failure of the

Subcommittee to have seven members present. Since the hearings started in September 2016,

the Intervenors were well aware that Ms. Whitaker was not attending the hearings and thus that

the Subcommittee hearing the matter consisted of six members. And if they were not aware of

that fact at the first day ofhearings, they certainly were aware of it as the hearings proceeded.

While they did not have a right to a Subcommittee of seven members to actually hear the matter

- 10-

App. 298

(i.e. a quorum of seven), absolutely nothing prevented them from asking for one, or asking

whether Ms. Whitaker was available to participate. This was never done.

The Intervenors argue that the Subcommittee erred by proceeding with six members, and

they point to a 3 to 3 vote on whether to provide a property value guarantee as evidence that they

were harmed by the absence of alternate public member Whitaker. However, as their motion

makes clear, the vote on the property value guarantee occurred on December 12, 2016. Motion

at~ 27. The Intervenors provide no explanation as to why they declined to challenge the absence

of an odd number of members on the Subcommittee beginning in September, or why they did not

raise the issue on December 12th when the specific issue raised in the Motion arose. Arguably, if

the Chairman had wanted to postpone proceedings to address that issue, he could have done so.

The failure to raise the issue then is fatal and effectively constitutes a waiver.

"Interested parties are entitled to object to any error they perceive in governmental

proceedings, but they are not entitled to take later advantage of error they could have discovered

or chose to ignore at the very moment when it could have been corrected." Appeal of Cheney,

130 N.H. 589,594 (1988). "[T]rial forums should have a full opportunity to come to sound

conclusions and to correct errors in the first instance." Sanderson v. Town of Candia, 146 N.H.

598, 602 (2001 ). In Fox v. Town of Greenland, 151 N.H. 600 (2004), the Plaintiffs objected to

the participation of a member of the zoning board of adjustment because he had missed two of

the hearings. /d. at 602. In Fox, the member's absence was announced at a January 15 meeting,

but the petitioners did not object to his participation until they filed a motion for rehearing on

May 22. /d. at 604-05. The Supreme Court ruled that the petitions had failed to seek the

members disqualification "at the earliest possible time" and thus could not raise his participation

as grounds for error on appeal. /d. at 605.

- 11-

App. 299

The same reasoning applies here. If the Intervenors thought it was critical to have seven

members, or to break the deadlock, they could have raised it at an earlier time. And if the

Chairman had found their arguments convincing, he could have delayed the proceedings until the

Governor and Council appointed a new member sufficient to address that issue (or others) even

though he was not required to. do so. It is now too late to raise this argument for the first time.

What the Intervenors are asking for in their request for a complete "do over" is a significant and

unreasonable waste of Subcommittee resources and inconsistent with the requirements ofRSA

162-H "that undue delay in the construction of new energy facilities be avoided".

C. The Subcorilmittee Thoroughly ConSidered and Properlv Determined that the Rules Pemut them to Grant a Waiver Relating to Participating Landowners.

The Intervenors assert that the Subcommittee's decision to waive the rules relating to

noise and shadow flicker as they pertain to participating landowners was unlawful and

unreasonable. Motion at ,32. This same issue was raised several times throughout the

adjudicatory hearings. The Subcommittee fully assessed it both in their review of submitted pre-

filed testimony as well as during cross examination at the adjudicatory hearing. See Tr. Day

2/Moming Session, at p. 103-105; see also Tr. Day 4/Morning Session, at p. 130-131; see als Tr.

Day 4/Aftemoon Session, at p. 44 (noting that "even for the participating landowners they are

below the 40 nighttime limit of the SEC."). Further, during the course of the proceeding,

Presiding Officer Scott expressly asked "[d]o I understand correctly that [the participating

landowners] are waiving health and safety regulations in some respect with regard to shadow

flicker and noise?" Tr. Day 7/Moming Session, at p. 129. In response, Mr. Kenworthy noted

that "if we were unable to reach agreements with private landowners that allowed us to do things

on their property, then we could never have a wind project." !d. at 130.

- 12-

App. 300

The Subcommittee also discussed this issue at length during deliberations. Deliberation

Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 24-38; 43-45. Ultimately, based on the Order and conditions

set out in the Certificate, the Subcommittee interpreted the rules to permit the Subcommittee to

grant such a waiver. See Order and Certificate of Site and Facility with Conditions, at p. 11

~13 .1-13 .2. After discussion regarding the applicability of the rule to participating property

owners, the Subcommittee concluded that landowners should be permitted "to do what they will

voluntarily." Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 44.

This decision is consistent with the Subcommittee's authority under Site 202.15. Simply

because the Subcommittee did not use the express words noted in the Motion for a finding that

such a waiver would be "in the public interest," does not suggest that such a finding was not

properly made. It is clear from the deliberations that such a condition would be inapplicable in

this context because it would limit the ability of a private property owner to use their land as they

deem appropriate, contrary to their legal right. The Subcommittee's Decision codifies this

determination and expressly states that "to the extent it is necessary, the Subcommittee waives

noise and shadow flicker restriction set forth in N.H. Code Admin. Rules, Site 301.14 (t)(2)a and

b, as applied to participating landowners." Decision and Order Granting Application for

Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 168-69 (March 17, 2017); see also Deliberations Tr. Day 3

Afternoon, at p. 65-66. The conditions in the Certificate expressly note that "[a] Participating

Landowner or Non-Participating Landowner may waive the noise provisions ... by signing a

waiver of their rights, or by signing an agreement that contains provisions providing for a waiver

of their rights." Order and Certificate of Site and Facility with Conditions, at p. 11 113.1.

Further, the Motion argues that the Intervenors were not given opportunity to comment

on this waiver. The transcripts demonstrate otherwise. Numerous intervenors did raise this

- 13-

App. 301

issue throughout the hearings and were able to introduce testimony concerning this matter. The

Subcommittee was able to consider this testimony and ultimately concluded that the waiver of

these requirements for participating landowners was consistent with the public interest.

D. The Subcommittee's Procedures with Respect to the Use of Friendly Cross Examination and Deadlines for Filing Supplemental Testimony Were Conducted Consistent with the SEC Rules and Ensured the Fair and Otderly Conduct of the Proceeding.

The Intervenors assert that the Subcommittee's, allegedly, disproportionate limitation on

the use of friendly cross examination by opposing intervenors was unfair. Motion at ~0.

Further, the Motion alleges that the requirement by the Subcommittee that all supplemental

testimony be filed on the same day created a procedural unfairness to opposing parties and

prevented a "full and true disclosure of the facts." Motion at ~40. As a preliminary matter, the

record does not support the assertions made. Moreover, the issues raised do not satisfy the

requirements necessary to seek rehearing. The Motion asserts that the Subcommittee relied on

an "undeveloped record." Motion, at ~43. The thirteen days of adjudicatory hearings and

extensive testimony given by both the Applicant's experts and the intervening parties do not in

any way support the assertion that the record in this docket was undeveloped.

The Intervenors claim that "friendly cross-examination" was limited in this case. That is

expressly contrary to the record. During the final pre-hearing conference, Attorney Richardson

raised the issue of friendly cross and sought to have it limited as part of a stipulation for the

hearing. See Tr. Final Structuring Conference, at p. 106. The presiding officer rejected this

request and noted that a request to limit such cross would likely be rejected "because of due

process concerns." Tr. Final Structuring Conference, at p. 109. Without providing any

- 14-

App.302

c

(

examples from the transcript, the Motion asserts that intervenors were not permitted to engage in

friendly cross examination. In fact, the record squarely undercuts this claim.2

The Motion fUrther asserts that the requirement that all supplemental testimony be

submitted on the same day limited the ability of intervenors to respond in the same manner to

testimony provided by the Applicant. As a preliminary matter, the Applicant is the party that

bears the burden of proof. See Site 202.19. Therefore, it is appropriate and necessary to allow

the Applicant to respond to any testimony put into the record. In addition, the intervenors were

not disadvantaged as they had a full and fair opportunity to respond to any supplemental

testimony sponsored by the Applicant during the course of cross-examination of witnesses at the

final adjudicatory hearings. This testimony and cross-examination was considered at length by

the Subcommittee in reaching its decision.

The argument raised in the Motion that Counsel for the Public was prejudiced by this

procedure was raised during the course of the hearing and during post-hearing motion practice.

The Subcommittee adequately reviewed the same evidence presented in the Motion and

detennined that a reopening of the record was not required for a full consideration of the relevant

issues in this proceeding. Order Denying Motion to Reconsider and Re-Open the Record, at p.

10 (December 2, 2016). The Subcommittee was not prevented from meaningfully weighing and

considering Ms. Connelly's testimony because Counsel for the Public had an opportunity to

cross-examine Mr. Raphael on the issues raised. Counsel for the Public could have also have

sought leave to elicit the same testimony as part of her direct examination of Ms. Connelly

2 For example, Ms. Linowes was permitted to question the Audubon panel for an extended period, Tr. Day 8/Afternoon Session, at p. 8-47; Mr. Block was petmitted to ask extensive questions of the abutting property group despite having very similar interests, Tr. Day 9/Morning Session, p.l48-175; and the Audubon Society was permitted to question Geoffrey Jones from the Stoddard Conservation Commission at length, despite the fact that both parties sought to address and protect the same general interests, Tr. Day 10/Morning Session, at p. 8-22. These examples are not exhaustive and many other examples of friendly cross examination are present throughout the record.

- 15-

App. 303

(something she chose not to do). Finally, Counsel for the Public was permitted to submit an

offer of proof, which outlined the key points she wished to place into the record.

In the context of all of the procedural issues raised, the Motion fails to satisfy the

statutory requirements for rehearing. The Intervenors have re-stated their prior arguments

without providing any information indicating that good cause exists for rehearing. The Motion

does not identify any error of fact, reasoning, or law. Rather, the Motion simply outlines a

disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Subcommittee and therefore the Motion should

be denied.

IV. The Motion Falls to Identify Any Substantive Issue That Was Overlooked or Mistakenly Conceived by the Subcommittee and Does Not Introduce Any New Evidence That Was Not Before the Subcommittee During the Adjudicative Hearings.

A. Aesthetics

The Subcommittee heard several days of testimony from the Applicant's expert, David

Raphael, Counsel for the Public's expert, Kellie Connelly, and from numerous intervenors on the

issue of aesthetics. The deliberations were thorough and comprehensive, and took into

consideration the specific criteria outlined in the newly-adopted SEC rules. See Site

301.14(a)(l)-(7). The Intervenors have not provided any basis in the Motion to suggest that the

Subcommittee failed to adequately consider the evidence presented and reach a well-reasoned

determination. All of the arguments raised in the Motion simply reiterate arguments raised

throughout the adjudicatory proceeding and do not meet the threshold requirements to succeed

on rehearing.

1. Viewshed Analysis and Identification of Scenic Resources

The Motion asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel should apply when determining

the "scenic resources" that may be affected by the Project. Motion at ~51. The critical issue that

- 16-

App. 304

(

the Intervenors ignore is that in order for collateral estoppel to apply "the issue subject to

estoppel must be identical." Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peck, I 43 N.H. 603, 605 (1999)

(citing Appeal of Hooker, 142 N.H. 40,43-44 (1997)). As explained previously, as a factual

matter, this is fundamentally a new Application and consequently, the essential predicate for

claim preclusion is absent. See supra Section III.A (summarizing changes to the Project design).

All of the essential findings are therefore fundamentally not identical. The substantial

modifications made to the proposed Proje~ require the Subcommittee to evaluate the Project in

its totality under the newly revised statute and under the Site Evaluation Subcommittee's newly

adopted rules and criteria.

While changes made to the Project may not have changed the importance of scenic

resources that were identified in Antrim I, the Motion fails to take into consideration the changes

in visibility at the sensitive resources based on the changes made to the proposed Project.3 The

issue is not the value of the resources; the issue is the effect of the revised Project on those

resources, and the evidence shows that these effects are dramatically different. This issue is not

the saine as the one litigated in the prior docket. Moreover, since the last docket, the adoption of

new SEC rules, which contain new evaluative criteria, also precludes application of collateral

estoppel. See Brandt Dev. Co. v. City of Somersworth, 162 N.H. 553, 558-60 (2011)(holding

that ""doctrinal changes, taking place in the fifteen-year period between Brandt's applications,

create a reasonable possibility -not absolute certainty - of a different outcome" and therefore

"constitute[s] a material change in circumstances with respect to [a prior] application.")

3 For example, the Motion asserts that the Subcommittee did not consider the impact to such resources as Highland Lake or Lake Nubanusit. In fact, these resources were both considered by Mr. Raphael and included in his VA. See LandWorks Visual Assessment, p. 56-57. Due to the changes to the Project, however, Mr. Raphael concluded there would be no visibility of the Project from either of these resources. If the Intervenors wished to raise additional concerns regarding these resources they had the opportunity to do so. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from Ms. Connelly regarding visibility of the Project from Highland Lake. See Tr. Day 13/Morning Session, at p. 96.

- 17-

App. 305

In addition, as referenced above with respect to the applicability of res judicata, one of

the purposes for the doctrine is ''promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation."

State of Pugliese, 122 N.H. 1141, 1144 (1982). The Intervenor's argwnent, filed after the close

of the record and conclusion of the adjudicative proceedings, is inconsistent with the law and

completely undercuts the clear policy goal of preserving judicial economy that is the foundation

of this doctrine.

The Intervenors assert that LandWorks improperly relied on hub heights to determine

visibility. This is incorrect and contrary to the transcribed record. See Tr. Day 4/Afternoon

Session, at p. 96-97. Mr. Raphael expressly testified when asked whether he determined

visibility based on hub height that "[n]o. We didn't use hub heights only to determine visibility.

We have four visibility maps to determine visibility. So we state and in terms of understanding

overall visibility, we find that the hub height and hub visibility is an important consideration

because of the scale of the hub itself ... but it's not the means by which or the only criterion by

which we evaluate visual effect." Id. The four maps noted by Mr. Raphael are described on page

10 of the Visual Assessment ("VA"), which the Motion specifically cites to in support of its

assertion that Mr. Raphael relied solely on hub height in determining visibility. This is clearly

not the methodology that was used. Mr. Raphael again reiterated later in his testimony "we don't

just base our analysis on the hub ... we're really looking at the whole structure, the whole project

and not making the differentiation between hub height and blade height or blade tip height." Tr.

Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p. 99. In addition, the Motion fails to provide any new information

regarding this issue that was not already raised, discussed, and considered by the Subcommittee.

See Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p. 10, 14, and 17.

- 18-

App. 306

The Motion ~er critiques Mr. Raphael's methodology for evaluating scenic resources

and reaching his overall conclusion. Motion at ~55. The Intervenors raised similar, if not

identical, issues during the adjudicatory hearings -- the Subcommittee heard a lengthy critique of

Mr. Raphael's VA from Ms. Connelly as well as other intervening parties. The Motion also

mischaracterizes the methodology employed by Mr. Raphael. With regard to Gregg Lake, for

example, Mr. Raphael acknowledged that the resource was identified as having local importance.

See LandWorks Visual Assessment, at p. 69, Table 5. As Mr. Raphael explained, however, his

assessment also took into consideration the purpose for the designation and whether the primary

purpose was for the resources aesthetic value versus some other importance, such as for its

recreational value or its ability to provide habitat. See Tr. Day 6/Morning Session, at p. 11-16.

This is reflected in the VA, which specifically notes "no scenic designation" for Gregg Lake.

Similarly, Mr. Raphael did not evaluate the Meeting House Hill Town Cemetery noted in the

Motion, at p. 20, Fn. 7, because the primary significance of that resource is not for its scenic

quality, but for its historical value. Tr. Day 6/Morning Session, at p. 72 (discussing his exclusion

of White Birch Point Historic District, Mr. Raphael identified a distinction between historic

resources noting that he did not believe that resource was a "historical resource primarily

because of its scenic values. I understand it's perhaps a resource, because it represents an

historic, you know, private summer camp development.") This distinction between resources

that are significant for the aesthetic value versus other values such as historical or natural was

discussed and accepted by the Subcommittee during deliberations.4 The critiques of Mr.

Raphael's systematic methodology were raised repeatedly during the hearings and the

4 Tr. Day I Morning Session, at p. 99-101 (Dr. Boisvert noting that a "particular archeological site might be within 200 feet of a turbine. But the characteristics that make that property important are not damaged in any way by the presence of the turbine." Dr. Boisvert then provides an alternate example of Canterbury Shaker Village "where the setting, the landscape, the feeling is integral to the history of the Shakers.")

-19-

App. 307

Intervenors have failed to provide any new evidence that was not already considered by the

Subcommittee.

2. Viewer Effects

The intervenors claim that Mr. Raphael's methodology is based upon a "specious

analysis predicated on faulty assumptions." Motion at ~59. The Intervenors conducted lengthy

cross examination of Mr. Raphael, however, specifically relating to his evaluation of the number

of turbines visible from particular scenic resources. The argument raised in the Motion asserting

that the methodology used by Mr. Raphael is flawed, simply revisits the same points raised by

the Intervenors during the hearing. Tr. DayS/Afternoon Session, at p. 118-120; see also Tr. Day

4/A.fternoon Session, at p. 155-160 (comparing the 12 projects in Maine for purposes of scaling

as opposed to the 3 projects in New Hampshire). Moreover, the Subcommittee asked additional

questions about Mr. Raphael's consideration of this criteria. Tr. Day 6/Morning Session, at p.

119-120. Mr. Raphael explained that this was only one of many of the criteria he considered for

both visual and viewer effect. This issue has been fully evaluated by the Subcommittee.

With regard to viewer effect, the Motion criticizes Mr. Raphael's assessment of extent of

use and remoteness. Motion at ~62. Again, this exact argument was raised by the intervenors

during the course of the proceeding and Mr. Raphael explained his methodology, even giving

examples of instances in which bOth of these criteria could be met. Tr. Day 4/A.fternoon Session,

at p. 162 (noting that "one is dealing with activity and the other is dealing with the quality of the

landscape and its position in the overall landscape.") The Intervenors' further criticism of Mr.

Raphael's application of percent of visibility does not provide any new information or assert any

error oflaw in the Subcommittee's evaluation of Mr. Raphael or his methodology. The fact that

the Subcommittee chose to apply many ofthe same methods used by Mr. Raphael, as noted in

-20-

App. 308

the Motion, does not create sufficient grounds to grant rehearing. The Subcommittee is entitled

to evaluate the evidence presented and give it the weight it feels is appropriate. The

deliberations were thorough and comprehensive and took into consideration the specific criteria

outlined in the newly adopted SEC rules, contrary to the assertion stated in the Motion. See

Motion at ,80; see also Site 301.14(a)(l )-(7). The Subcommittee's final Order reflects this

thorough review of the record. See Deliberations Day 1 Afternoon, at p. 4-141. The Intervenor's

characterization of the Subcommittee's deliberations, see Motion at ,80, fails to take into

consideration the Subcommittee's thorough review of the existing character of the area,

Deliberations Day 1 Afternoon, at p. 26-30, 32, the significance of scenic resources, p. 63-64, the

public's use of those resources, Deliberations Day 1 Afternoon, at p. 30-31, 38-39, 43, the

overall daytime and nighttime visual effect, Deliberations Day 1 Afternoon, at p.53-54, 61-62, as

well as consideration ofthe proposed mitigation, p. 69-72 and 132-141. In contrast to the

Intervenor's assertions, it is unclear what criteria the Subcommittee failed to consider under the

SECRu1es.

3. Photosimulations

The Intervenors claim that the photosimulations developed by LandWorks are

"unreliable, un-credible, and underserving of any weight." Motion at ,64. These arguments

relating to the photosimulations presented by LandWorks were all raised during the course of the

proceeding and extensively evaluated. For example, the same argument regarding haze (see

Motion at ,65) was also raised by Mr. Block in the proceeding when asked Mr. Raphael "can

you honestly state that absolutely no haze or fog effect has been applied to any of these

simulations?" Tr. Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p. 134. Mr. Raphael explained his method and

his interpretation of the SEC Rules noting that "a clear day [is] a day in which you can clearly

-21-

App. 309

see the project. It doesn't, the rules do not say cloudless. The rule says clear view. And these

are all clear views." Tr. Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p. 119-20. The Motion mischaracterizes

Mr. Raphael's approach in asserting that he took photographs under "anticipated weather

conditions." Motion, at ~65. While Mr. Raphael did note that he felt the conditions reflected

weather in New England, he also believed that the simulations were in compliance with the rule

requirements. Tr. Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p. 120 ("I believe we conform with those

regulations, with those rules.")

Similarly, the argument asserting that the simulations improperly include objects in the

foreground was also raised during the hearing and evaluated during the deliberations. Tr. Day

4/Afternoon Session, at p. 127-129. Mr. Raphael explained that, when feasible, LandWorks did

avoid objects in the foreground, which is consistent with the language in the SEC Rule. See Site

301.05(b)(8)(a). As the Motion notes, over sixty pages of the deliberation transcripts are devoted

to the Subcommittee's evaluation of the photosimulations- both those produced by LandWorks

and by Terraink. Additionally, the Subcommittee conducted two site visits; one as required by

statute, but the second pursuant to the Subcommittee's discretion to ensure the Subcommittee

had a full and complete understanding of the resources at issue as well as the surrounding area.

The same issues and concerns raised again in the Motion were also raised and considered by the

Subcommittee in their deliberations. It is unclear in what way the Intervenors believe the

Subcommittee's thorough, documented, assessment of the aesthetic impact of the Project was in

any way unlawful or unreasonable.

4. Mitigation Measures

As a preliminary matter, the premise of the Motion as it relates to mitigation is incorrect.

While the Motion asserts that many of the mitigation measures will not be realized for at least

-22-

App. 310

half of a century, see Motion at ~1, in fact, the 908 acres of conservation land proposed by the

Project will be placed in conservation within 180 days of the commercial operation date of the

Project. Tr. Day 7 /Morning Session, at p. 21. All of the other mitigation measures listed in the

Motion, s~e Motion at ,71, will also go into effect after commencement of commercial

operations. In addition, the Motion fails to cite several additional mitigation measures the

Subcommittee considered in determining that any potential aesthetic effect would not be

unreasonable. The Subcommittee also considered the use of radar activated lighting, the

elimination ofturbine 10 and lowering of turbine 9. Decision and Order Granting Application

for Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 121 (March 17, 2017). The Subcommittee further

acknowledged that the use of conservation land is an indirect form of mitigation. !d. The fact

that the Intervenors disagree with the Subcommittee's determination that these proposed

mitigation measures are relevant and effectively mitigate aesthetic effect, does not mean the

decision is unlawful or unreasonable.

The Intervenors rely on the decision from Antrim I to support their errant assertion that

conservation land cannot be used to mitigate aesthetic effects. Motion at ,73. The

Subcommittee was presented with that same argument and evaluated it during deliberations. The

Subcommittee concluded that the finding from Antrim I was specific to that Application as noted

by the use of the phrase "in this case" in the final Antrim I Order. See Deliberation Tr. Day 1

Morning Session, p. 20. Ms. Weathersby noted that the use of that phrase demonstrated that "it's

not applicable to every single subsequent case." !d.

Moreover, the Intervenors' assertion that the prior determination in Antrim I should

collaterally estop the Applicant here is, again, an improper application of the doctrine. As noted

previously, this is a new project and the mitigation package in this docket is not the same as the

-23-

App. 311

one proposed in the prior proceeding. All of the changes made to the Project must be taken into

account collectively, consistent with the findings required by the Rules. Additionally, unlike the

issue outlined in the Motion, see Motion at ,74, the question that must be considered here i~

whether indirect mitigation measures relating to the aesthetics of the Project can be considered

by the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee has concluded that this consideration must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the specifics of a proposed project. A

blanket rule cannot be applied.

With respect to the assessment of the radar activated lighting system, there is extensive

evidence in the record relating to the use of this system. Attorney Reimers sought to make a

similar assertion that "there is no evidence in the record as to what visual impact this system will

have." Motion, at ,77; see Tr. Day 51 Afternoon Session, at p. 59. As noted during the hearing,

however, Mr. Raphael did evaluate project lighting. Tr. Day 51 Afternoon Session, at p. 57-58.

Ms. Von Mertens also raised nearly an identical argument that "there's been no visual analysis,

impact analysis of night lights." Tr. Day 13/Afternoon Session, at p. 51. The VA contains

details regarding which turbines will be lit, the type of light that will be used, and reaches a

conclusion based on professional judgement that the use of a radar activated system will

essentially eliminate the impact. LandWorks Visual Simulation, at p. 37. Counsel for the

Public's visual expert, Kellie Connelly, shared a similar view regarding mitigation of effect on

nighttime lighting if a radar activated system was installed. See Terraink Visual Impact

Assessment, at p. 10. The Subcommittee considered all of this evidence and concluded that,

subject to certain conditions, "[t]he radar activated system will minimize the impact of the

Project on aesthetics." Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of Site and

Facility, at p. 121 (March 17, 2017). In order to address concerns about the timing for the

-24-

App. 312

installation of this system the Certificate includes a condition that, prior to construction, the

Applicant receive approval of the Aircraft Detection Lighting System. Decision and Order

Granting Application for Certificate ofSite and Facility, at p. 156 (March 17, 2017)(Noting that

"the ADLS shall be installed prior to the operation of the Project.") Since the conclusion of the

hearings, A WE has in fact received approval from the FAA to implement the system. See Letter

from Antrim Wind to the SEC-FAA Approval of Night Time Lighting (December 14, 2016).

The Subcommittee further noted in its Decision that it received no reports, or scientific evidence

that would suggest that the Project's lighting will have unreasonable adverse effects on health.

/d. at 156. The Motion does not provide any evidence that was not already considered and

evaluated by the Subcommittee in reaching its conclusion.

B. Public Health-and Safety

With regard to public health and safety, the Motion fails to identify any findings made by

the Subcommittee that are unlawful or unreasonable. None of the issues raised identify any issue

that was overlooked or mistakenly conceived by the Subcommittee, and it fails to identify any

new evidence that was not available during the adjudicative hearing. The arguments presented by

the Iittervenors simply rehash all of the arguments previously made by the Intervenors in their

pre-filed testimony, post hearing briefs, and during the adjudicative hearings.

1. Noise

The Motion asserts that the Subcommittee's determination with respect to public health

and safety and particularly noise is "essentially based on the Applicant's promise that the Project

will not exceed sound levels." Motion at ~83. This is incorrect. This claim fails to take into

account the extensive work completed by the Applicant's experts, the reports submitted, the days

of testimony relating to noise, and the lengthy cross-examination that was completed. The

-25-

App. 313

Applicant submitted a comprehensive Sound Level Assessment Report that evaluated both

existing sound levels and the predicted noise levels associated with this Project, consistent with

the rules. See Application, App. Exh. 33, Appendix 13A; see also Supplement to Application re:

New Rules, App. Exh. 34, Attachment 9. The Applicant also submitted extensive expert

testimony from Robert O'Neal demonstrating that Epsilon complied with and followed all

requirements and standards set out in the SEC rules.

The Intervenors focus on the use of Noise Reduction Operations ("NRO") to support

their contention that the Subcommittee is solely relying on promised mitigation to reach its

conclusion of no unreasonable adverse effect is misplaced. First and foremost, the Applicant

performed extensive monitoring and assessment of the site and existing sound levels, collecting

wind speed data that exceeds the level of data typically collected for a project, and performed all

necessary modeling to determine predicted sound levels. Based on Mr. O'Neal's extensive

experience as an acoustical expert, he has found that the conservative set of modeling

assumptions implemented by Epsilon for this Project yield accurate results. Mr. O'Neal

concluded that because the predicted worst-case sound levels for this Project will be well below

45dBA during the day and 40dBA at night, at all occupied buildings, the Project will easily meet

the required noise levels established by the SEC rules. Regardless ofNRO, or any other form of

mitigation, Mr. O'Neal opined that he had a high degree of confidence in his findings. He noted

several times that ''the modeling is conservative. We are several decibels under the standard to

begin with. And there's several conservative assumptions that we use in the modeling that we've

done according to the rules. And our experience in the past has shown that to be true. Those

model results do hold. So we're confident of them." Tr. Day 3/Afternoon Session, at p. 47-48.

-26-

App. 314

In addition, the assertion that the Subcommittee's detennination "impermissibly shifts the

burden to abutting property owners" is incorrect. Motion at ~84. The SEC rules require the

Applicant to complete post-construction compliance testing. Site 301.18(e). Based on the

conservative modeling assumptions employed, the Applicant believes it is highly unlikely that

the Project will exceed the maximwn sound levels. The Subcommittee considered the use of

post construction modeling and felt "comfortable with what Mr. O'Neal did." Deliberations Tr.

Day 2 Morning Session, at p. 104. In part, this comfort was predicated on the completion of

post-construction monitoring. Id.

The assertions made in the Motion that NRO will reduce the Project's production

capabilities was raised during the course of the hearings and evaluated by the Subcommittee.

See Tr. Day 1 /Morning Session, at p. 99-100 (Dr. Ward asked whether curtaihnent for noise was

factored into the financial analysis and Mr. Weitzner responded"[ w ]e're very confident that we

will comfortably meet the SEC requirements for noise." Mr. Weitzner further noted that with

respect to curtailments for shadow flicker, ''we have a very good idea of what that's going to

cost, and it is absolutely irrelevant, in terms of the revenue of the Project."); see also Tr. Day

1/A.ftemoon Session, at p. 92-93 (Attorney Iacopino specifically asked whether curtailments for

noise and shadow flicker were calculated into net capacity factor. Mr. Weitzner responded that

"[t]here is no curtailment for sound because we're very confident we will comfortably meet the

regulations.")

The discussion of the use ofNRO is completely distinct from the proposed mitigation in

the Antrim I docket. As Mr. O'Neal noted during the hearing, NRO is an option ''that everybody

has." Tr. Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p. 38. Contrary to the characterization of the NRO mode

by the Intervenor's as a "half-baked proposal," Motion at ,88, this feature is in fact readily

-27-

App. 315

available for the equipment being proposed by the Applicant. The use ofNRO would be

considered a standard procedure the Applicant would choose to take, should such action be

necessary to meet the requirements under the SEC Rules. In Antrim I, Counsel for the Public

proposed modifications to the project's design. The Intervenor's comparison in this case is not

accurate and fails to properly take into account and characterize the type of''mitigation" being

proposed. Unlike in Antrim I, there is testimony in the record demonstrating that the Applicant

has considered the use of this technology and concluded that this type of mitigation poses no risk

to the financial viability of the Project. Tr. Day 1 /Morning Session, at p. 99-100. Further, it

requires no alteration to the design or any other aspect of the Project.

The assertion that the sound report prepared by the Applicant's expert is "unreliable and

not entitled to any weight" is not supported by the record in this case. Further, the same

criticisms raised in the Motion were fully vetted during the course of the proceedings. There is

no dispute that Mr. O'Neal employed the ISO 9613-2 standard as req¢red by the SEC Rules in

his evaluation of the Project. The Intervenors have raised concern with the ISO 9613-2 standard

- such as the fact that the model assumes a facility operating on flat ground or that certain

atmospheric conditions are not accounted for- however, these concerns with the model do not

create a basis for rehearing. The model requires certain limited inputs to be determined and

applied by the expert. The specification of how these inputs should be determined are not

expressly defined by the SEC Rules and instead are left to professional judgment. Mr. O'Neal

used several inputs and assumptions that he felt, in his professional judgement, were

conservative. The Subcommittee properly found, based on the evidence presented, that the

sound report was prepared in accordance with professional standards and with the administrative

-28-

App. 316

rules. Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 153

(March 17, 2017).

There is lengthy testimony in the record with regard to the applicability of the+/- 3 dBA

accuracy factor. Mr. O'Neal testified to the fact that this accuracy factor is not a "buffer" that

needs to be applied and in any event does not apply to this Project as the conditions related to the

accuracy factor as set out in the standard are not present here. See Robert 0 'Neal Supplemental

Testimony, App. Exh. 13, p. 3-4. While Mr. James did provide testimony that this factor should

have been applied, Mr. James also testified that he would have "thrown in another 5 dBA" but

could not point to any place in the SEC rules or ISO standard that requires or even talks about

including this additional assumption. Tr. Day 11 /Morning Session, at p. 32-33. Instead, Mr.

James appears to base his assessment on his own extreme and unscientific views, which have no

basis in any standard, agreeing that "some would say 10 or 15 as an adder." Tr. Day 11 /Morning

Session, at p. 70. Mr. James methodology does not appear to be aimed at evaluating worst case,

but rather would result in an unrealistic, unjustifiable evaluation. Moreover, Mr. O'Neal has

noted that post-construction monitoring has demonstrated, for example at the Stetson Mountain I

project, that the methodology employed by Epsilon in this docket, using the same assumptions,

yields accurate results. The additional +/- 3 dBA results in over-predicted noise levels. See

Robert O'Neal Supplemental Testimony, App. Exh. 13, p. 5. The Subcommittee heard the same

evidence reiterated in the Motion and chose to give each piece of testimony the weight it felt it

was due. The Intervenors' disagreement with that decision does not in and of itself provide any

basis for rehearing.

Throughout the proceeding, several parties cross-examined Mr. O'Neal regarding his use

of a 0.5 ground attenuation factor or G-factor. The Motion again rehashes these same arguments

-29-

App. 317

without providing any new evidence that was not presented to, and considered by the

Subcommittee during the hearing. The NARUC report noted in the Motion as well as testimony

provided by Mr. James were all presented and considered. Mr. O'Neal, based on his

professional judgment and substantial experience, chose to use a conservative assumption in

using a G-factor of0.5, which reflects an assumption that the ground surface within the project

area is partly reflective and partly porous. See Robert 0 'Neal Supplemental Testimony, App.

Exh. 13, p. 6-7. The Subcommittee reached its conclusion based on a careful review of the full

record and ultimately agreed with Mr. O'Neal that "the G factor of .5 seemed to be reasonable."

Deliberations Day 2/Morning Session, at p. 98-99. The Subcommittee discussed the testimony

provided in opposition to Mr. O'Neal's use of a G-factor of0.5, but ultimately concluded that

this professional decision made sense given the circumstances in this docket.

The Motion fails to satisfy the statutory requirements for rehearing. The Intervenors

simply re-state their prior arguments without pointing the Subcommittee to any information

indicating that good cause exists for rehearing. The Motion does not identify any error of fact,

reasoning or law. Rather, the Motion simply identifies disagreement with the conclusion reached

by the Subcommittee.

2. Shadow Flicker

The Subcommittee considered a thorough and complete record with respect to shadow

flicker and concluded, subject to certain conditions,5 that the shadow flicker associated with the

Project will not produce an unreasonable adverse effect on public health and safety.

Notwithstanding the Subcommittee's exhaustive evaluation of this issue, the Intervenors reiterate

5 The Subcommittee required the Applicant, on a semi-annual basis, to submit to the SEC and the Town a copy of the report generated from the SCAD A System that shows the amount of shadow flicker experienced at specified locations within one mile. Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 162-63 (March 17, 2017).

-30-

App.318

the same argument raised multiple times in testimony, post-hearing briefs, and at the adjudicative

hearings - that the Applicant should have assessed shadow flicker beyond one mile. Motion at

~1 02. Evaluating shadow flicker beyond one mile is simply not required under the SEC Rules.

Moreover, this issue was thoroughly addressed by Mr. O'Neal during his testimony. Tr. Day

4/Afternoon Session, at p. 12-15. Mr. O'Neal testified that, in his professional opinion, if the

SEC wanted an assessment of shadow flicker beyond one mile, it would have been indicated in

the Rules. Tr. Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p. 15. In addition, it his highly unlikely, as the

Motion suggests (Motion at 1[1 02), that shadow flicker will exceed the modeled values at any

receptor as the modeling is based on a "bare earth scenario ... So it's just a possibility that these

locations could experience that It doesn't mean they will." Tr. Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p.

13. Mr. O'Neal testified that in his experience he has not "seen [flicker] out to a mile before.

It's diffuse enough at that point, you don't recognize it." Tr. Day 3/Afternoon Session, at p. 50.

The Motion illustrates a lack of understanding as to how shadow flicker modeling is

completed and what the results actually mean. As described in Mr. O'Neal's supplemental

testimony, the model essentially maps "line of sight between a receptor and the turbine/sun"

' under bare earth conditions. Robert 0 'Neal Supplemental Testimony, App. Exh. 13, p. 16-17. It

does not mean that actual shadow flicker will occur, but rather the conditions are present, i.e. a

sight line, to allow for the potential for shadow flicker. Increasing the distance beyond a mile,

will result in potential changes in the hours of shadow flicker to locations located within a mile,

not because in fact additional shadow flicker will occur, as the Motion suggests, but because of

this "artifact" of the model. Robert 0 'Neal Supplemental Testimony, App. Exh. 13, p. 17.

Testimony relating to this issue was provided and considered by the Subcommittee in reaching

its conclusions regarding shadow flicker. Tr. Day 4/Afternoon Session, at p. 8-14.

- 31-

App. 319

The SEC Rules require that ''the shadow flicker created by the applicant's energy facility.

during operations shall not occur more than 8 hours per year at or within any residence, learning

space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area, or other occupied

building." Site 301.14(f)(2)(b) (emphasis added). The Applicant has provided substantial

testimony establishing that during operation of the facility, the shadow flicker requirement will

not be exceeded due to the use of a shadow flicker control technology. The Subcommittee heard

significant cross-examination on this issue and thoroughly reviewed this during deliberations.

Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 8-18; Deliberation Tr. Day 3 Afternoon Session,

at p. 40-57. To the extent issues were raised during the proceeding, which are now reiterated in

the Motion, relating to the efficacy of the shadow control technology, the Subcommittee's

condition requiring the Applicant to provide a report with the SCAD A data effectively eliminates

this concern. In addition, as stated above, the effect of this control technology on the financial

viability of the Project was raised during the course of deliberations and addressed by Mr.

Weitzner.

The Intervenors had a full and complete opportunity to make their case. The positions

articulated in the Motion have already been presented to the Subcommittee for their

consideration. The Subcommittee is entitled to evaluate the evidence presented and give it the

weight it feels is appropriate. The Intervenor's disagreement with the Subcommittee's

conclusions does not provide sufficient grounds to grant a rehearing.

3. Ice Throw

The Subcommittee considered an extensive record related to ice throw. The Intervenors

do not identify any errors of fact or reasoning oflaw that resulted in an unlawful or unjust

decision. Rather, the Intervenors again simply disagree with the conclusions the Subcommittee

-32-

App. 320

drew based on its assessment of the totality of the record. This does not satisfy the standard to

grant a motion for rehearing.

The "self-serving assertions" and "off-the-cuff remarks" noted in the Motion were

provided by experts m the field and individuals with extensive experience constructing and

operating wind turbines. Motion at ~107, ~110. Mr. Stovall is employed by DNV GL, which has

been recognized as the world's leading technical authority in wind power generation for the past

three decades. Darrel Stovall Pre-Filed Testimony, App. Ex. 2, p. 2. Mr. Stovall testified to the

fact that ''the maximum ice throw distance is 250 meters, plus or minus." Tr. Day 2/Morning

Session, at p. 144. Mr. Stovall further testified that this was "somewhat of an industry-accepted

number." /d. Mr. Stovall further noted that there are approximately 67,000 turbines that are

located in conditions where icing may occur and there have been no reported or documented

injuries. The Subcommittee also received testimony from intervenors on this issue. The

Subcommittee has discretion to weigh the evidence provided and give it the weight it feels is

appropriate. To the extent the Intervenors disagree with the Subcommittee's reliance on Mr.

Stovall's expert opinion, that does not create a basis for rehearing.

The Intervenors further rely on the Bredesen Report, Abutters Exhibit 52 (see Motion at

~1 09); however, the Subcommittee heard extensive testimony about this report specifically. Tr.

Day 13/Evening Session, at p. 5-1 0 (Attorney Richardson pointed out that based on this report

"at 175 meters, [ice throw] would be once every 10,000 years."); see also Deliberations Tr. Day

2 Afternoon Session, at p. 72 (Director Rose noting "I recall a conversation with Ms. Linowes.

The likelihood of having an ice throw even equal 650 feet in the winter heavy conditions was

once every thousand years." Further noting, "the system and the technology is in place that -

and the backup systems are in place ... the risk is very minimal.") The fact that the Subcommittee

-33-

App. 321

did not reach the same conclusion as the Intervenors in connection with this report does create a

basis to grant rehearing.

4. Decommissioning

The Intervenor's argument that the Subcommittee misapplied its rules as they relate to

decommissioning is simply an attempt to again pursue arguments that were already raised and

addressed during the bearing. Motion at ~112. Several parties, including Counsel for the Public

in her closing brief, providing the Subcommittee with testimony regarding the treatment of on­

site, inert, concrete rubble. Mr. Kenworthy testified that the rules do not require benign, concrete

rubble to be removed and notes that once it is processed and used for fill, there will be no

infrastructure remaining at the site, which is consistent with the rules. Tr. Day 2/Morning

Session, at p. 63-64. Mr. Cavanaugh provided additional testimony that his company bas been

"disposing concrete on all of our projects, whether the state projects here in New Hampshire,

wind projects that we built that's inert material that's just standard practice in construction." Tr.

Day 2/Afternoon Session, at p. 17. The Subcommittee noted the "considerable back and forth"

on this issue during deliberations. Deliberations Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 112. After

considering the evidence provided and applying the Rules, the Subcommittee determined that

reuse of the material as fill was not inconsistent with the Rules and will not cause an

unreasonable adverse effect on hmnan health and safety. Decision and Order Granting

Application for Certificate ofSite and Facility, at p. 176 (March 17, 2017).

C. Natural Environment

The Intervenors' assert that the Subcommittee's determination that the Project will not

have an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment is unjust and unreasonable.

Motion at ,115. The Subcommittee heard several days oftestimony both from the Applicant's

-34-

App. 322

experts and from intervening parties associated with the Project's potential effect on the natural

environment. The Subcommittee considered this thorough and complete record in reaching its

ultimate conclusion that there would be no unreasonable adverse effect. The arguments raised in

the Motion are the same arguments the Intervenors raised during the course of the proceedings

and no new information has been provided which the Subcommittee failed to consider.

The Motion reiterates the same inaccurate argument raised during the course of the

proceeding- that the Applicant's evaluation of impacts to large mammals was somehow

deficient. Motion at ~115; see Tr. Day 2/Afternoon Session, at p. 95. In fact, the Applicant did

prepare a wildlife habitat assessment, which was discussed during the adjudicative hearing. Tr.

Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 153. Additionally, the Subcommittee heard substantial testimony

evidencing the fact that there will be no significant impact to bears or other large mammals. Tr.

Day 2/Afternoon Session, at p. 116-119. As the Applicant's experts testified, consistent with

standard practice, after consulting with the agencies, the Applicant completed all the studies the

State and federal agencies requested with respect to potential effects on wildlife and habitat. Tr.

Day 2/Afternoon Session, p. 95 ("We followed the guidance ofthe agencies on what surveys

they're interested in."); see also Tr. Day 2/Afternoon Session, p. 146-47. In addition, contrary to

the assertion that the Subcommittee did not consider potential effects on large mammals, the

deliberation transcripts illustrate that the Subcommittee did discuss impacts on mammals. See

Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Morning Session, at p. 30; Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Morning Session, at p.

70 (Commissioner Rose noting "I think there will be impacts as a result of the road in particular,

but there was, as it pertained to mammals, there was no concerns.")

The Subcommittee was provided with substantial evidence on the issues raised in the

Motion relating to natural environment- including the testimony by Mr. Jones and the Audubon

-35-

App.323

Society noted in the Motion. The Subcommittee is free to weigh the testimony provided as it

deems appropriate in reaching its final decision. The Subcommittee received sufficient

testimony from the Applicant to demonstrate that the Applicant's process in its review of wildlife

species within the Project area was consistent with standard practice, and complete. To the

extent the Intervenors raise concerns that the Applicant did not provide evidence relating to the

Project's potential impacts on bears, this is inconsistent with the transcribed record, which

includes substantial testimony from the Applicant's experts regarding the minimal effect of the

project on mammals including bears, bobcats, and moose. Tr. Day 2/Afiernoon Session, at p. 96,

116, 146. In addition to the evaluation of large mammals, the Subcommittee also received

significant testimony on the issues associated with the boulder formations on the ridge. This

issue was discussed at length during deliberations and the Subcommittee made a determination,

after a thorough review of the record, that the condition language imposed was sufficient to

address any concerns raised. Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Morning Session, at p. 65-68; Deliberation

Tr. Day 3 Afternoon Session, at p. 25-27; Decision and Order Granting Application for

Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 143 (March 17, 2017).

D. Orderly Development

The Intervenors assert that the Subcommittee's determination with respect to orderly

regional development was "predicated upon erroneous considerations of municipal land use

regulations." Motion at ~121. The Subcommittee received substantial testimony from the local

community, including direct testimony from the Town of Antrim Selectmen, and a former

member of the Lempster Board of Selectmen. In addition, many of the Intervenors are residents

of the town of Antrim. The Subcommittee also received a letter from the Town ofDeering

expressing concern with the Project. Deliberation Tr. Day 3 Morning Session, at p. 43-44.

- 36-

App. 324

While the Subcommittee has discretion as to how much weight to give testimony received, all of

these views were considered -in addition to the Subcommittee's consideration ofnumerous

public comments. Deliberations Tr. Day 3 Morning Session, at p. 45-47.

The assertion that the Subcommittee failed to consider the Antrim Zoning Ordinance

does not reflect an understanding of the SEC process. Motion at ~123. As an initial matter, the

SEC process preempts local authority. RSA 162-H:l. Despite this preemption, the

Subcommittee did hear testimony on the issue of local regulation. Tr. Day 6 Afternoon Session,

at p. 154 (Mr. Kenworthy noted "you typically don't see something like major industrial

development listed as a principal permitted use. So if you're asking me iflarge scale wind

projects like Antrim Wind is a principal permitted use in the Rural Conservation District, no, it is

not. However, it's not required to be in order for this project to be consistent with the orderly

development of the region.") In addition, the Subcommittee ackno~ledged during deliberations

that such a use, under local regulations, is not permitted. Deliberation Tr. Day 3 Morning

Session, at p. 15-16.

The Intervenors further assert that the Subcommittee failed to adequately consider

proposed zoning articles. Motion at ~124. The Subcommittee heard lengthy testimony and

received extensive pre-filed testimony, both from Mr. Kenworthy, Mr. Levesque, and the Antrim

Board of Selectmen, on the issue of the town votes that took place relating to wind projects in the

rural conservation district. Tr. Day 6Aflernoon Session, atp. 155-156; Tr. Day 7/Morning

Session, at p. 26-32; Tr. Day 7 /Morning Session, at p. 133-135; Tr. Day 9 Morning Session, at p.

32-35. The Intervenors have not provided any infonnation that was not already presented to the

Subcommittee during the proceedings and evaluated by the Subcommittee during deliberations.

Deliberation Tr. Day 3 Morning Session, at p. 16-17. In that same discussion, the Subcommittee

-37-

App.325

also acknowledges, and did not "ignore," as asserted in the Motion, (Motion at ~125) the fact that

portions of the Master Plan speak to preservation of open space. Unlike the Intervenors,

however, the Subcommittee concluded that the conservation efforts associated with the Project

promoted this goal and were not contrary to its purpose.

The Motion also incorrectly notes that the easements will not go into effect until

decommissioning. Motion at ~125. Rather, the Town of Antrim will enjoy the benefit of this

conservation within 180 days of commencement of commercial operation of the Project. Tr.

Day 7/Morning Session, at p. 21. In addition, the Subcommittee received testimony from Mr.

Kenworthy and Mr. Levesque specifically addressing the impact of the Project on surrounding

communities and the Con Val School District. Tr. Day 11 Afternoon Session, at p. 41-44, 141-

144, 153, 155-157. All of the information included in the Motion regarding views oflocal

municipalities was provided during the hearing and thoroughly considered by the Subcommittee

in reaching its conclusion. The Intervenors have failed to establish sufficient basis for rehearing.

Finally, the Subcommittee deliberated at length on the issue of potential impacts to

property values and thoroughly considered options for implementing a property value assurance

program. The fact that ultimately the Subcommittee chose not to adopt such a program does not

present an error of fact or law and does not provide sufficient basis to grant rehearing. There is

no need to reopen the record or grant rehearing on this point since the Subcommittee has already

fully considered the issues presented.

The Subcommittee acknowledged that they received testimony contrary to the testimony

provided by Mr. Magnusson from several intervenors. Decision and Order Granting Application

for Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 86 (March 17, 20 17). In the context of orderly regional

development, property value is just one consideration. The Subcommittee's decision reflects

-38-

App. 326

their conclusion that even assuming there are some impacts to property values, these limited

impacts will not result in "unreasonable adverse effect on the orderly development of the entire

region." Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 86

(March 17, 2017).

The assertion that the Subcommittee's decision with regard to the property value

guarantee was unlawful has no basis. Motion at ~128. The SEC Rules in no way require the

Subcommittee to develop a guarantee program. In fact, such a program has never been

implemented by the SEC.6 Further, while the Subcommittee ruled that the McCann report was

not relevant to the proceeding and therefore could not be considered, the Subcommittee did

consider the letter some of the Intervenors submitted to the Antrim Board of Selectmen

requesting a guarantee. Tr. Day 7/Afternoon Session, at p. 104-105. In addition, the

Subcommittee considered the testimony given by Justin Lindholm, also noted in the Motion.

Deliberation Tr. Day 3 Afternoon Session, at p. 103. The record in this docket reflects the fact

that the Subcommittee did not dismiss the concept of the property value guarantee, but rather

gave it significant consideration. Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 155-171;

Deliberation Tr. Day 3 Afternoon Session, at p. 67-142. The Intervenors had the opportunity to

introduce relevant evidence into the record relating to property value guarantee, and to some

extent, did provide such evidence. This evidence was thoroughly considered by the

Subcommittee in reaching its conclusion. The Intervenors have not satisfied the standard

sufficient to grant a motion for rehearing on this issue or any other issue presented.

6 Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 166 (Counsel for the Committee noted that in no other docket has there been a property value guarantee, but in the Londonderry docket there was a buyout provision.)

-39-

App. 327

V. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Intervenors have not met the standard for a rehearing

pursuant to RSA 541:3. The record in this docket is extensive and the Subcommittee's

deliberations and final Order reflect an intense, thorough review. The Intervenors have failed to

present any issue that the Subcommittee has overlooked or mistakenly conceived. Moreover, the

Motion fails to articulate any new evidence that was not before the Subcommittee during the

adjudicative hearings. The Motion merely asks that the Subcommittee reach a different

conclusion on the same evidence and therefore it should be denied.

WHEREFORE, the Applicants respectfully request that the Subcommittee:

A. Deny the motion for rehearing; and

B. Grant such further relief as requested herein and as deemed appropriate.

Dated: April 24, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

McLANE MIDDLETON, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

Rebecca S. Walkley, Bar No. 266258 11 South Main Street, Suite 500 Concord,~ 03301 ( 603) 226-0400 barry.needleman@mclane.com rebecca.walkley@mclane.com

-40-

App. 328

Certificate of Service - -

I hereby certify that on the 241h of April2016, an original and one copy of the foregoing Objection to Motion for Rehearing were hand-delivered to the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Subcommittee and an electroriic copy was served upon the SEC Distribution List.

~~

-41-12120959

App. 329

MCLANE MIDDLETON

April 25, 2017

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & HAND-DELIVERY

New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee Pamela G. Monroe, Administrator 21 South Fruit Street, Suite 1 0 Concord, NH 03301

Re: NH Site Evaluation Committee Docket No. 2015-02:

BARRY NEEDLEMAN Direct Dial: 603.230.4407

Email: bany.needleman@mclane.com Admitted in NH, MA and ME

II South Main Street, Suite 500 Concord, NH 03301

T 603.226.0400 f 603.230.4448

Application of Antrim Wind Energy, LLC -Objection to Counsel for the Public's Motion for Rehearing

Dear Ms. Monroe:

Please find enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter, an original and one copy of Applicant's Objection to Counsel for the Public's Motion for Rehearing.

We have provided members of the distribution list with electronic copies of this Objection, pending addition of the document to the Committee's website.

Please contact me directly should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

.R:-J Barry Needleman

BN:rs3

Enclosure

cc: Distribution List

12122051

McLane Middleton, Professional Association

Manchester, Concord, Portsmouth, NH I Woburn, Boston, MA

McLane.com App.330

(

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSIDRE

SITE EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE

Docket No. 2015-02

APPLICATION OF ANTRIM WIND ENERGY, LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE OF SITE AND FACILITY

APPLICANT ANTRIM WIND ENERGY. LLC'S OBJECTION TO COUNSEL,FOR THE .PUBLIC'S MOTION FOR REHEARING OR

RECONSIDERATION

Antrim Wind Energy, LLC ("A WE" or the "Applicant") by and through its attorneys,

McLane Middleton, Professional Association, respectfully submits this Objection to Counsel for

the Public's Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration (the "Motion"). The Applicant

respectfully requests that the Subcommittee deny the Motion because it fails to set forth good

cause for a rehearing. Specifically, it does not raise any issue that was overlooked or mistakenly

conceived by the Subcommittee in its Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of

Site and Facility nor does the Motion present any new evidence that was not before the

Subcommittee or could not have been previously presented during the adjudicative hearing.

I. Background

On October 2, 2015, the Applicant filed an application with the New Hampshire Site

Evaluation Subcommittee ("SEC" or the "Subcommittee") for a Certificate of Site and Facility to

construct and operate a 28.8 MW electric generation facility consisting of nine Siemens SWT-

3.2-113 direct drive wind turbines in Antrim, New Hampshire (the "Project"). The

Subcommittee accepted the application on December 1, 2015.

The Subcommittee presided over thirteen days of adjudicative hearings, during which

time the Subcommittee heard from fifteen witnesses proffered by the Applicant as well as nine

intervenor groups, and Counsel for the Public's visual expert. In total the Subcommittee

App. 331

received 220 exhibits, oral and written statements from interested members of the public, and

written post-hearing briefs from seventeen parties. Upon completion of the adjudicative hearing,

and after closing the record pursuant to Site 202.26, the Subcommittee began deliberations.

The Subcommittee deliberated on December 7, 9, and 12,2016. During the

deliberations, the transcripts illustrate, the Subcommittee reviewed the complete record including

affirmative testimony provided by the Applicant as well as rebuttal or opposing testimony

provided by all the other parties. On March 17, 2017 the Subcommittee issued its Decision and

Order Granting Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility and Order and Certificate of Site

and Facility with Conditions (the "Decision"). The Subcommittee's Decision, which addressed

each and every concern raised during the Adjudicative hearing and again in the Motion, was

well-reasoned and thoroughly supported by the comprehensive record. The Motion fails to meet

the standard required to grant a motion for rehearing and ignores the extensive record in this

docket and thorough deliberations undertaken by the Subcommittee.

ll. Legal Standard

The purpose of a rehearing "is to direct attention to matters said to have been overlooked

or mistakenly conceived in the original decision, and thus invites reconsideration upon the record

upon which that decision rested." Dumais v. State ofNew Hampshire Pers. Comm., 118 N.H.

309, 311 (1978). RSA 541:3 provides that the commission "may grant such rehearing if in its

opinion good reason therefor is stated in said motion." The Subcommittee may grant rehearing

or reconsideration for "good reason" if the moving party shows that an order is unlawful or

unreasonable. RSA 541:3, RSA 541:4; Rural Telephone Companies, N.H. PUC Order No.

25,291 (Nov. 21, 2011). A successful motion must establish "good reason" by showing that

there are matters the Commission "overlooked or mistakenly conceived in the original decision,"

-2-

App. 332

(

Dumais, 118. N.H. at 311; or by presenting new evidence that was ''unavailable prior to the

issuance of the underlying decision." Hollis Telephone Inc., N.H. PUC Order No. 25,088 at 14

(April2, 2010). A "good reason" for rehearing is not established where, as here, the movant

merely restates prior arguments and asks for a different outcome. Public Service Co. of N.H.,

N.H. PUC Order No. 25,676 at 3 (June 12, 2014). A motion for rehearing must be denied where

no "good reason" or "good cause" had been demonstrated. 0 'Loughlin v. State of New

Hampshire Pers. Comm., 117 N.H. 999, 1004 (1977); Order on Pending Motions, Docket 2012-

01, Application of Antrim Wind, at 3 (Sept. 10, 2013).

The Motion should be denied because it fails to identify how any finding made by the

Subcommittee is unlawful or unreasonable, it fails to identify any issue that was overlooked or

mistakenly conceived by the Subcommittee, and it fails to identify any new evidence that was

not available and could not have been introduced during the adjudicative hearing. The Motion

almost exclusively rehashes the arguments previously made in pre-filed testimony and during the

adjuc:Jicative hearing. The Subcommittee correctly determined that the Applicants met their

burden of proof pursuant to Site 202.19, and established by a preponderance of the evidence that

it satisfied all of the requirements ofRSA 162-H:l6 to receive a Certificate of Site and Facility.

III. The Subcommittee Completed a Thorough Review of the Record Regarding the Issue of Aesthetics and the Motion Fails to Identify Any Issue That Was Overlooked or Mistakenly Conceived by the Subcommittee.

Counsel for the Public asserts that the Committee's findings regarding aesthetics were

unreasonable and unlawful and failed to comply with the SEC Rules. Motion at ~3. Counsel for

the Public has not provided any basis in the Motion to suggest that the Subcommittee failed to

adequately consider the evidence presented and reach a well-reasoned determination. All of the

-3-

App. 333

arguments raised in the Motion simply reiterate arguments raised throughout the adjudicatory

proceeding and do not meet the threshold requirements necessary to grant rehearing.

The Subcommittee heard several days of testimony from the Applicant's expert, David

Raphael, Counsel for the Public's expert, Kellie Connelly, and from numerous intervenors on the

issue of aesthetics. Counsel for the Public relies solely on the conclusions in the final Decision

to support her assertion that the Subcommittee's review was "cursory." Motion at~- The

deliberation transcripts in this docket, however, illustrate that the Subcommittee's deliberations

were thorough and comprehensive, and, contrary to Counsel for the Public's assertion, took into

consideration the specific criteria outlined in the newly-adopted SEC rules. See Site

30 1.14( a)(l )-(7). Counsel for the Public's characterization of the Subcommittee's deliberations,

without any citation to the deliberation transcripts, fails to take into consideration the

Subcommittee's thorough review of the existing character of the area, Deliberations Day I

Afternoon, at p. 26-30, 32, the significance of scenic resources, p. 63-64, the public's use of

those resources, Deliberations Day I Afternoon, at p. 30-31, 38-39, 43, the overall daytime and

nighttime visual effect, Deliberations Day 1 Afternoon, at p.53-54, 61-62, as well as

consideration ofthe proposed mitigation, Deliberations Day I Afternoon, at p. 69-72 and 132-

141.

A. Scenic Resource Assessment

Counsel for the Public fails to accurately characterize the Subcommittee's evaluation of

the two private property locations included in Ms. Connelly's visual assessment. Counsel for ~e

Public asserts that the Subcommittee made a determination that Gregg Lake and Black Pond

should not be considered scenic resources because they are private property. Motion at ,4. This

is incorrect. The Subcommittee did not make a finding that Ms. Connelly's assessment of Gregg

-4-

App. 334

Lake was improper, but rather her assessment of White Birch Point Historic District was

improper. Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p. 90-91 (Dr. Boisvert noting that the

"[p ]ublic does not have access to White Birch Point. They do have access to the lake.") Counsel

for the Public's own expert admitted during the hearing that the public does not have access to

the historic district.1

Due to Ms. Connelly's professional decision to produce a simulation for Gregg Lake

from a private property location, White Birch Point, the Subcommittee determined it was

necessary to "discount" Ms. Connelly's simulation of Gregg Lake. Deliberation Tr. Day 1

Afternoon Session, at p. 90. In contrast, Mr. Raphael provided a simulation for Gregg Lake from

a public resource - Gregg Lake Beach, consistent with the Rule requirements, which the

Committee also considered. Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p. 90-92.

In addition, the Subcommittee did not take issue with Ms. Connelly's assessment of

Black Pond as a scenic resource. In fact, LandWorks also performed an evaluation ofBlack

Pond. See LandWorks Visual Assessment, at p. 60, 67, 69, 70, 71, and Exhibit 22 at p.7. Rather,

the Subcommittee felt it was improper for Ms. Connelly to have prepared a visual simulation,

which the members of her rating panel relied on to come up with their ratings regarding visual

effect, from a private amphitheater that is not open to the public. 2

In fact, the Subcommittee acknowledged during deliberations that both Gregg Lake and

Black Pond are public resources. Deliberation Tr. Day I Afternoon Session, at p. 43 and 91

1 Tr. Day 13/MorningSession, p. 137; see also Tr. Day 12/Morning Session, p. 141 (Discussing Ms. Connelly's simulation from White Birch Point, Ms. Connelly was asked "why was it from a water view? Why didn't you do it from inside the historic district?" Ms. Connelly responded "I was not able to contact the property owners in a timely enough fashion to get access to the land." In response, Ms. Connelly was asked, "In other words, you didn't have a legal right of access .. .is that right?" To which Ms. Connelly responded, "Correct.") 2 Tr. Day 12/Morning Session, p. 149-50 (Ms. Connelly first agreed with the statement made by Mr. Cleland earlier in the proceeding that the summer camp is private property. Ms. Connelly was then asked "lfl go set up my beach chair by the amphitheater, doesn't somebody who owns that property have a right to come and tell me to leave?" Ms. Connelly responded "If you're there without permission, yes."

-5-

App. 335

(noting "as to Black Pond ... that does have a public boat launch ... so you can go out there without

paying a fee" and that the "Public does not have access to White Birch Point. They do have

access to the lake."). The Subcommittee deliberated extensively over whether the amphitheater,

which is available to the public for a fee, should be considered a scenic resource and ultimately

concluded it should not.3 In contrast to the argument raised by Counsel for the Public, the

Subcommittee's concern was not with the assessment ofBlack Pond and Gregg Lake, but the

methodology and vantage points used to evaluate those resources.4

Counsel for the Public attempts to resurrect the same arguments regarding these two

resources, which were already thoroughly evaluated by the Subcommittee, by asserting that the

Rules require photosimulations from private property vantage points. However, the Rules do not

require the same assessment of private properties as is required for scenic resources, which by

definition are only publicly accessible resources. The development of photosimulations from

private property locations is not something the Committee must consider in reaching its ultimate

decision.5 Additionally, this after-the-fact explanation does not accurately reflect the purpose for

which these photosimulations were included in Ms. Connelly's report, which was clearly to

represent public scenic resources.6

3 Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p. 40-43 (Commissioner Scott noting "that's private property you have to pay somebody to get on. That's kind of the- one of the definitions of 'private property' in my opinion.") 4 Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 45 (Mr. Clifford noting that "[s]o while the pond's under consideration, I don't think we ought to be talking about viewpoints from private areas, even those for which you might pay a fee."). 5 Under the SEC Rules for "Criteria Relative to Findings of Unreasonable Adverse Effect," the Subcommittee is required to consider seven criteria. These criteria are focused on the evaluation of impacts from scenic resources. Site 301.14 (a)(2), (3), (4), (6). None of the criteria require the Committee to evaluate the effects of the project from private property. 6 Terraink's own Visual Impact Assessment asserts that "it is our practice to include views from the study area that are publicly accessible lands and/or public right-of-ways in order to offer the largest number of potential public viewers with in the study area from sensitive resources." Terraink Visual Impact Assessment, at p. 39. Further, White Birch Point is included as a "resource with potential visibility'' further demonstrating that its inclusion was intended to depict a scenic resource and not a view from a private property. Terraink Visual Impact Assessment, at p. 55.

-6-

App. 336

c

(

In addition, the Subcommittee did not "outright dismiss" the resources identified as

Counsel for the Public suggests. Motion, at ~4. In fact, despite its ~tatus as a private resource,

the record illustrates that the Subcommittee did consider the visual simulation taken from White

Birch Point. 7

B. Nature and Duration of Use

Counsel for the Public asserts that the Subcommittee improperly considered the nature

and duration of use by characterizing activities as ''transient." Motion at ~5. Counsel for the

Public does not reference the deliberations at all to support this assertion and relies solely on the

language in the final Decision. In fact, the Subcommittee extensively considered the types of

uses by the public and did not dismiss so-called transient uses, as suggested in the Motion.

Motion at ~5.8 Dr. Boisvert further noted that the Subcommittee should consider whether

individuals would go to a resource and "be very disappointed, and maybe [they] don't go back at

all." Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 49. Given the Subcommittee's extensive

review of all of the scenic resources identified, it is unclear what findings Counsel for the Public

believes the Subcommittee failed to make.

C. Scope and Scale Assessment

Counsel for the Public's characterization of the Subcommittee's review and conclusions

regarding scope and scale do not accurately reflect the deliberations in this docket. Counsel for

the Public begins by asserting that the Subcommittee did not directly address the scope and scale

1 Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon, at p. 90 (Director Forbes comparing the two visual simulations taken of Gregg Lake notes "when I look at the view from Birch Pond- I mean White Birch Point is so different, I find it striking." Commissioner Scott then clarified "when you say White Birch Point, you're looking at the Terraink picture."). 8 While Director Forbes initially noted the "transient nature of an individual enjoyment of any of these resources is transient," he further noted that ''because of the nature of these resources, it can be year-round. I think we should look at it in the context of duration that is continual. Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 42-43. Director Forbes, and other members of the Subcommittee, even went so far as to say "I would not agree with the characterization of a 'transient' duration on these, or temporary impact." Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 43.

-7-

App. 337

of the change in the landscape visible from affected scenic resources. Motion at ~6. However, as

Counsel for the Public then goes on to note, the Subcommittee went through each

photosimulation one at a time and evaluated whether the change was dominant or prominent,

which directly relates to the issue of scope and scale. Counsel for the Public asserts that at five

of the resources, the Subcommittee "found issues related to 'dominance' and/or 'prominence."

Motion at ~6. Counsel for the Public misses there~ issue: the Subcommittee's goal in reviewing

each of the photosimulations was to reach a conclusion as to whether the impacts to any scenic

resource would be unreasonably adverse. Counsel for the Public's assessment that there were

"issues" related to dominance and prominence fails to draw a distinction between an impact to a

resource as opposed to an unreasonable adverse effect. The Subcommittee's assessment of each

of these resources was much more comprehensive and nuanced than the summary provided by

Counsel for the Public.9 The Subcommittee closely examined each simulation while considering

all of the factors set out in the SEC Rules in order to evaluate the change in the landscape from

those scenic resources.

Before going through each of the photosimulations, the Subcommittee spent significant

time discussing other aspects of the region and the resources, as noted above. Taking into

consideration all of these factors, the Subcommittee then reviewed both the existing condition

photographs and the photosimulations for prominence and dominance in order to reach an

ultimate conclusion regarding whether the effect was unreasonably adverse. In so doing they

also necessarily evaluated the scope and scale of the change in the landscape visible from the

9 For example, in reviewing the simulation from Bald Mountain, Ms. Weathersby noted that she saw "the turbines as being a prominent feature in the landscape but not a dominate feature in the landscape .. . But I don't think it makes it rise to the level ofbeing unreasonable." Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p. 81-82. Commissioner Rose expressed a similar view in evaluating the simulation of Gregg Lake noting "the turbines are more prominent in this photo and more dominant than in previous photos. I'm not sure that they rise to the level of undue." Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p.94.

- 8 -

App. 338

affected scenic resources precisely as the Rules require. Counsel for the Public mistakenly relies

on the Committee's determination in Antrim I as a comparison to the present docket. However,

in Antrim I, the Committee did not have the same defined criteria for evaluation. The

Subcommittee's review in this docket reflects a methodical evaluation of each of the criteria

required and then an ultimate conclusion based on all of these individual c0nsiderations. Just

because some members of the Subcommittee may have considered the turbines to be dominant or

prominent in a particular photosimulation, does not mean that the totality of considerations rise

to the level of an unreasonable adverse effect. In fact, to the contrary. After considering all of

the elements required under the Ru1es and the facts presented, the Subcommittee found that there

were no unreasonable adverse effects. This consideration of various requirements is reflected in

the deliberations and consistent with the procedure defined in the Ru1es.

D. NiglittimeLighting

Counsel for the Public again raises the argument that nighttime lighting was not

adequately considered by the Subcommittee and that the Applicant's expert failed to assess

nighttime lighting. Motion at ~7. This issue was thoroughly evaluated by the Subcommittee

and, to the extent there was any issue with the use of the radar activated system, the

Subcommittee included a condition requiring the installation of the system. Decision and Order

Granting Application for Certificate of Site and Facility, at p. 156 (March 17, 20 17)(noting that

"the ADLS shall be installed prior to the operation of the Project."). During the hearing,

Attorney Reimers sought to make a similar assertion that ''there is no evidence in the record as to

what visual impact this system will have." Motion, at ~77; see Tr. Day 51 Afternoon Session, at p.

57-58. As noted during the hearing, however, this is incorrect: Mr. Raphael did evaluate project

-9-

App. 339

lighting. 10 Ms. Von Mertens also raised nearly an identical argument asserting that ''there's been

no visual analysis, impact analysis of night lights." Tr. Day 13/Afternoon Session, at p. 51. The

VA contains details regarding which turbines will be lit, the type of light that will be used, and

reaches a conclusion based on professional judgement that the use of a radar activated system

will essentially eliminate the impact. LandWorks Visual Assessment, at p. 37.

Counsel for the Public's own visual expert, Kellie Connelly, shared a similar view

regarding mitigation of effect on nighttime lighting if a radar activated system was installed. See

Terraink Visual Impact Assessment, at p. 1 0. The Subcommittee considered all of this evidence

and concluded that, subject to certain conditions, "[t]he radar activated system will minimize the

impact of the Project on aesthetics." Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of

Site and Facility, at p. 121 (March 17, 2017). The Subcommittee noted in its Decision that it

received no reports, or scientific evidence that would suggest that the Project's lighting will have

unreasonable adverse effects on health. Id. at 156.

E. Offsite Conservation Land as Mitigation

Counsel for the Public further asserts that the Subcommittee was "bound by the SEC's

decision in Antrim I as to the use of off-site conservation land as mitigation." Motion at ~8. The

Subcommittee has heard substantial testimony on this topic and Counsel for the Public raised this

issue during the hearing and in post hearing briefing. Tr. Day 6/Afternoon Session, at p. 145-148

(Mr. Kenworthy reading the 2012 Decision and noting that "[m]y read of this language is it

applies specifically to this case. The 2015 docket is not the same as the 2012 docket."). In

addition, Counsel for the Public's expert, Ms. Connelly, submitted pre-filed testimony on the use

10 Tr. Day 5/Morning Session, at p. 59 (Attorney Needleman objecting to a question from Audubon Society alleging a failure to comply with the rules regarding assessment of lighting and noting that "there is a portion in the VIA entitled Project Lighting." Mr. Raphael went on to explain the section noting "I think we addressed the lighting and then we represented the fact that it was expected that the radar assisted lighting system would be employed and that the intent has been to do so all along, and, therefore, that was incorporated into our approach.")

- 10-

App. 340

of conservation land as mitigation for aesthetic impact and provided testimony at the final

hearing relating to this issue. Tr. Day 12/Moming Session, at p. 41.

The Subcommittee expressly addressed this point and noted that they "do not need to be

bound by [the prior] decision .. .it is a different project on a variety oftopics ... we are a different

Subcommittee and we have our own responsibilities. We need to make our own decisions based

upon the evidence in front of us." Deliberations, Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, p. 70. The

Motion does not contain any new evidence or information the Subcommittee failed to consider or

overlooked. Counsel for the Public's disagreement with the Subcommittee's decision on this

matter does not satisfy the criteria necessary to grant a motion for rehearing.

Counsel for the Public's vague argument that the Subcommittee impermissibly permitted

the Applicant to submit a visual impact study that was not consistent with the rules is

unsupported by the record. While Counsel for the Public does not cite any specific examples,

this issue was thoroughly reviewed by the Subcommittee and addressed. Similar claims were

raised in a Joint Motion for Rehearing filed with the Committee on April 14, 2017, critiquing

Mr. Raphael's Visual Assessment. The Applicant filed an Objection to that Motion for

Rehearing on April 24, 2017 and herein incorporates by reference the arguments made in

connection with the issue raised by Counsel for the Public regarding the Applicant's visual

assessment.

Similarly, Counsel for the Public asserts that the Subcommittee "made inconsistent and

arbitrary evidentiary rulings that prevented Counsel for the Public's aesthetic expert from

rebutting AWE's expert's critique of her report." Motion at ~9. This same argument was raised

previously by Counsel for the Public, as noted in the Motion, and thoroughly considered and

rejected in the Order Denying Motion to Reconsider and Re-Open the Record (December 2,

- 11-

App. 341

2016). In addition, this same argument was raised in the Joint Motion for Rehearing and the

Applicant herein incorporates by reference the response to this argument included in the

Applicant's Objection.

The Subcommittee was not prevented from meaningfully weighing and considering Ms.

Connelly's testimony because Counsel for the Public had an opportunity to cross-examine Mr.

Raphael on the issues raised. Counsel for the Public could have also have sought leave to elicit

the same testimony as part ofher direct examination of Ms. Connelly (something she chose not

to do). Finally, Counsel for the Public was permitted to submit an offer of proof: which outlined

the key points she wished to place into the record. Counsel for the Public further asserts that the

Subcommittee should have considered the views of Jean Vissering in reaching its conclusion.

Ms. Vissering was not a witness who filed testimony and was not subject to cross examination in

this docket. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee did in fact give some consideration to Ms.

Vissering's views. II

The record in this docket illustrates that the Subcommittee performed a thorough review

of all the information presented. In contrast to Counsel for the Public's assertion, the

Subcommittee did not dismiss any of the reports, testimony, or opinions provided. Motion at

~1 0. The Subcommittee is entitled to evaluate the evidence presented and give it the weight it

feels is appropriate. To the extent Counsel for the Public disagrees with the Subcommittee's

assessment of the evidence presented, that does not create sufficient basis for rehearing.

11 Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Morning Session, at p. 18 (Interestingly, noting that "it was even suggested by Jean Vissering that some mitigation- conservation land as mitigation might be reasonable."); Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p. 61-62 (referring to a table in the Terraink Visual Impact Assessment, which included findings from Raphael, Connelly, and Vissering.); Deliberation Tr. Day I Afternoon Session, at p. 103-104; Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Afternoon Session, at p. 136 (Noting that "Ms. Vissering said 9 should be removed, not shortened So there's obviously some large differences.").

- 12-

App. 342

IV. The Motion Fails to Identify Any Issue That Was Overlooked or Mistakenly Conceived by the Subcommittee Regarding the Applicability of Res Judicata and Collateral EstoppeL

As noted by Counsel for the Public, the applicability of the doctrines of collateral

estoppel and res judicata have been raised several times in this docket and the Subcommittee has

thoroughly evaluated them. None of the arguments presented in the Motion provide sufficient

basis to grant a motion for rehearing.

A. Res Judicata

Counsel for the Public first raised the issue of res judicata in the jurisdictional docket.

See Jurisdictional Decision and Order, Docket No. 2014-05, at p. 34 (Holding that "[n]either the

doctrine of collateral estoppel nor res judicata, relate to the issue of jurisdiction in this

case ... these issues will be determined in the context of that application not as an issue pertaining

to jurisdiction."). On November 21, 2016, Counsel for the Public filed her Post-Hearing

Memorandum, which contained an argument that the doctrine of res judicata should apply in this

case. The Applicant filed its Post Hearing Memorandum on November 30, 2016, and

specifically responded to Counsel for the Public's argument regarding res judicata. The

Subcommittee considered these positions during deliberations, see Deliberations, Tr. Day 1

Morning Session, p. 9 - 17, and concluded that the doctrine did not apply. Decision and Order

Granting Certificate ofSi~e and Facility, Docket No. 2015-02, p. 49. As noted in the Order, the

Subcommittee specifically considered ''whether the Project is substantially or materially different

from the project proposed in Antrim I (Docket No. 2012-01)." Decision and Order Granting

Certificate of Site and Facility, Docket No. 2015-02, p. 49. The unanimous decision ofthe

Subcommittee was that the changes made to the application are "so numerous that there had been

- 13-

App. 343

a substantial change precluding the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel." Decision

and Order Granting Certificate of Site and Facility, Docket No. 2015-02, p. 50.

Counsel for the Public states that the Subcommittee improperly applied the applicable

law by failing to make an independent finding as to how the changes to the project relate

specifically to aesthetic impacts. Motion at ~14. The applicable case law does not require such

an assessment. 12 Counsel for the Public's effort to draw a distinction between material change to

the entire application versus to impacts on aesthetics, Motion at ~17, is irrelevant. There is no

requirement under the applicable law that an administrative body must make a determination

that, as a preliminary matter, the material changes made will materially change the impacts on

certain criteria. The question for the Subcommittee is whether the application is "materially

different." It would be backwards to require the Subcommittee to effectively make a final

determination regarding the ultimate impact on aesthetics in order to decide whether or not they

should take up a new application.

The Subcommittee heard substantial testimony regarding the changes made to the

Application. It was noted several times throughout the proceeding that many of the changes

were made in direct response to concerns raised by the Committee in the prior docket. 13 This

satisfies the threshold requirement established in Morgenstern that the new Application

"allegedly addressed [the] concerns." Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 565 (2002).

12 The procedural fact pattern in Morgenstern is nearly identical to the present case. In Morgenstern, an application for a variance was denied primarily due to concerns the structure would impact wetlands. The Court notes that the ZBA decision did not suggest that the ZBA would never grant a variance for the lot. Morgenstern v. Town of Rye, 147 N.H. 558, 566 (2002). In response, the plaintiff submitted a new application "in an effort to meet the town's concerns." Id. The Court in Morgenstern did not require the ZBA or the lower court to determine, as a preliminary matter, if in fact the new proposal would have no effect on wetlands. Rather, the critical consideration was that the flaintiffsubmitted a new application that "allegedly addressed these concerns." Id. at 565.

3 Tr. Day 7/Morning Session, at p. 120; Deliberation Tr. Day I A.flerno_on Session, at p. 134-135 ("Ms. Vissering suggested certain mitigation measures. And by and large, this Application seems to have incorporated those.").

- 14-

App. 344

The Subcommittee already considered the effect of the Antrim I decision on the present

docket at length. None of the arguments offered by Counsel for the Public are new. The

Subcommittee carefully evaluated whether or not the Antrim I decision effectively served as an

invitation to file a new application and the Subcommittee concluded that it did. 14 Regardless of

this conclusion, and contrary to the assertion made by Counsel for the Public (Motion at~ 1 ), the

Subcommittee noted that "even absent the invitation to file a subsequent application, I think that

the changes are so numerous that you can't help but find that there has been a

change ... eliminating the collateral estoppel and res judicata effects." Deliberation Tr. Day 1

Morning Session, at p. 16. The fact that Counsel for the Public again disagrees with the

conclusion reached by the Subcommittee regarding the applicability of res judicata does not

result in an unjust or unlawful decision. Counsel for the Public's arguments were rejected by the

Subcommittee after careful review and the current Motion simply serves as a reiteration of

effectively the same claims.

In sum, the critical fact for purposes of applying the doctrine of res judicata is whether

the same law applies. Counsel for the Public does not deny that the statute and the SEC Rules

have changed since the 2012 docket. Therefore, the Motion does not provide sufficient basis to

grant rehearing.

B. Collateral Estoppel

The critical issue that Counsel for the Public ignores when raising collateral estoppel, or

claim preclusion, (Motion at ~22) is that in order for the doctrine to apply "the issue subject to

estoppel must be identical." Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peck, 143 NH 603, 605 (1999)

(citing Appeal of Hooker, 142 N.H. 40,43-44 (1997)). As explained previously, this Application

14 Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Morning Session, at p. 15, 24 ("I do think I agree with Dr. Boisvert and Mr. Forbes that the prior docket really did invite submission of the new application, calling it 'materially different"').

- 15-

App.345

is fundamentally new and consequently, the essential predicate for claim preclusion is absent.

All of the essential findings aie not identical, which, in turn eliminates any collateral estoppel

argument.

The substantial modifications made to the proposed Project require the Subcommittee to

evaluate the Project in its totality under the newly revised statute and under the Site Evaluation

Subcommittee's newly adopted rules and criteria. The fact that Counsel for the Public disagrees

with the Subcommittee's determination that this is a new Project (Motion at ~26) does not

change the fact that the Subcommittee was presented with significant pre-filed testimony, direct

testimony, and additional memoranda addressing this exact issue.

While changes made to the Project may not have changed the importance of scenic

resources that were identified in Antrim I, the Motion fails to take into consideration the changes

in visibility at the sensitive resources based on the changes made to the proposed Project. The

issue is not the value of the resources; the issue is the effect of the revised Project on those

resources, and the evidence shows that these effects are dramatically different. This issue is not

the same as the one litigated in the prior docket. Moreover, since the last docket, the adoption of

new SEC rules, which contain new evaluative criteria, also precludes application of collateral

estoppel. 15 While Counsel for the Public suggests that the appropriate remedy would have been

for the Applicant to file an appeal of the earlier decision, it is clear that this would not have

resolved the issue because significant changes needed to be made to the Project design and

overall proposal, not just an increase in conservation land, as noted in the Motion (Motion at

15 The New Hampshire Supreme Court held in Brandt Dev. Co. v. City of Somersworth, that "doctrinal changes, taking place in the fifteen-year period between Brandt's applications, create a reasonable possibility - not absolute certainty- of a different outcome." 162 N.H. 553,560 (2011). While the ultimate outcome may not change, the New Hampshire Supreme Court's holding in Brandt suggests, at a minimum, that changes in the law require a reevaluation of an application. Based on the SEC's adoption of new rules alone, the current Application before the Subcommittee must be reviewed de novo.

- 16-

App. 346

~23). A new application was necessary and the Committee invited such an application.

Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Morning Session, at p. 23-24.

Counsel for the Public further asserts that a review of the language from the prior order

does not support a finding that the decision was case-specific. Motion at ~25. This issue was

addressed by the Subcommittee during deliberations. Quoting the sante language cited by

Counsel for the Public, the Subcommittee concluded that the finding from Antrim I was specific

to that Application as noted by the use of the phrase "in this case" in the final Antrim I Order.

See Deliberation Tr. Day 1 Morning Session, p. 20. Ms. Weathersby noted that the use of that

phrase demonstrated that "it's not applicable to every single subsequent case." !d. This

interpretation of the decision is consistent with other SEC orders that have held that the

Committee is not bound by any previous decision. Additionally, the Subcommittee further noted

that the other key phrase was "suitably mitigate the impact." Ms. Weathersby explained that

"when the impact changes, because of reduced turbines, etcetera, that will change it, and also just

subsequent cases that the conservation easement as mitigation doesn't necessarily-isn't

necessarily barred forever." Deliberation Tr. Day I Morning Session, at p. 20-21. Again,

Counsel for the Public has failed to take into consideration the Subcommittee's broader decision

that this is an entirely new project. The mitigation of potential impacts is only one aspect of the

overall Project.

V. The Subcommittee Properly Applied its Rules with Respect to Decommissioning and Public Health and Safety and the Motion Fails to Identify Any Issue That Was Overlooked or Mistakenly Conceived by the Subcommittee.

A. Decommissioning

Counsel for the Public reiterates her earlier argument, raised both during the hearings and

in her post-hearing memorandum, that the Subcommittee's determination that the Applicant's

- 17-

App. 347

decommissioning plan complied with the SEC Rules was unreasonable and unlawful. Motion at

~8. This same argument regarding the treatment of inert, concrete rubble was also raised in

CoW1Sel for the Public's post-hearing memorandum.

Mr. Kenworthy testified that the rules do not require benign, concrete rubble to be

removed and noted that once it is processed and used for fill, there will be no infrastructure

remaining at the site, which is consistent with the rules. Tr. Day 2/Morning Session, at p. 63-64.

Mr. Cavanaugh provided additional testimony that his company has been "disposing concrete on

all of our projects, whether the state projects here in New Hampshire, wind projects that we built

that's inert material that's just standard practice in construction." Tr. Day 2/Afternoon Session,

at p. 17. The Subcommittee noted the "considerable back and forth" on this issue during

deliberations. Deliberations Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 112. After considering the evidence

provided and applying the Rules, the Subcommittee determined that reuse of the material as fill

was not inconsistent with the Rules and will not cause an unreasonable adverse effect on human

health and safety. Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate ofSite and Facility,

at p. 176 (March 17, 2017).

Counsel for the Public alleges that the Subcommittee decision fails to comply with SEC

Rules as well as the DES Solid Waste rules. Motion at ~31. However, Director Forbes, the DES

representative on the Committee, noted that "[i]t's fairly common practice to pulverize and leave

concrete in a place like that without a permit. We do not require that, DES." Deliberation Tr.

Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 114 (emphasis added). Commissioner Rose then separately

referred to the DES Best Management Practices document introduced during the hearing.

Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 115. The Subcommittee's decision was based

not only on the DES document, but also on the expertise of Director Forbes. Counsel for the

- 18-

App.348

VI. The Subcommittee was Properly Constituted and the Motion FaDs to Identify a Mistake of Law or Fact Sufficient to Support Rehearing.

Counsel for the Public joins the Intervenor Group in their argument that the

Subcommittee was not authorized to adjudicate the case because it was statutory required to

consist of seven members. Motion at ~40. This argument confuses the requirement for

appointment to a Subcommittee with the quorum requirements in the statute. The

Subcommittee was properly constituted. RSA 162-H:4-a, II provides as follows:

When considering the issuance of a certificate or a petition of jurisdiction, a Subcommittee shall have no fewer than 7 members. The 2 public members shall serve on each Subcommittee with the remaining 5 or more members selected by the chairperson from among the state agency members of the state agency members of the Subcommittee . . . . Five members of the Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the Subcommittee's business.

As is evident from this language, although seven members must be appointed, of whom two

must be public members, only five members are required to carry out the duties of the

Subcommittee. It would be illogical to require seven members to be present to satisfy a five

member quorum requirement. Moreover, the statute includes no requirement that the quorum

must specifically include any of the public members.

The Applicant has provided a detailed response to this argument in its Objection to the

Joint Motion for Rehearing filed on April24, 2017. The Applicant herein incorporates by

references the arguments previously asserted. Further, to the extent Counsel for the Public

asserts that she was "not aware that the public member was on maternity leave until the close of

the proceedings," this argument is irrelevant. Motion at~ 1. Assuming this is true, Counsel for

the Public cannot claim that she was unaware that only six members were present at the first day

of hearings and every day thereafter. While Counsel for the Public did not have a right to a

Subcommittee of seven members to actually hear the matter (i.e. a quorum of seven), absolutely

-21-

App. 351

nothing prevented her from asking for one, or asking whether Ms. Whitaker was available to

participate. This was never done.

VII. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Counsel for the Public has not met the standard for a rehearing

pursuant to RSA 541:3. The record in this docket is extensive and the Subcommittee's

deliberations and final Order reflect an intense, thorough review. Counsel for the Public failed to

present any issue that the Subcommittee has overlooked or mistakenly conceived. Moreover, the

Motion fails to articulate any new evidence that was not before the Subcommittee during the

adjudicative hearings. The Motion merely asks that the Subcommittee reach a different

conclusion on the same evidence and therefore it should be denied.

WHEREFORE, the Applicants respectfully request that the Subcommittee:

A. Deny the motion for rehearing; and

B. Grant such further relief as requested herein and as deemed appropriate.

Dated: April25, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

McLANE MIDDLETON, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

By.~~ B Needleman, B No. 9446 Rebecca S. Walkley, Bar No. 266258 11 South Main Street, Suite 500 Concord, NH 03301 (603) 226-0400 barry.needleman@mclane.com rebecca.walkley@mclane.com

-22-

App. 352

Public's disagreement with this detennination does not in and of itself result in an unreasonable

or unlawful decision and does not provide a basis for rehearing.

B. Public Health. and Safety

As a preliminary matter, the law cited by Counsel for the Public is inapplicable in this

context.16 In Barnes the fact pattern involves a go-kart participation waiver, which is clearly

distinct from the situation presented here between a willing property owner and the Applicant.

Even if the case were applicable, the New Hampshire Supreme Court in fact held that the

exculpatory contract was permissible. 128 N.H. I 02, 108 (1986). Further, the Court noted that

"parties may bargain for various levels of risk and benefit as they see fit." /d. at 106. Moreover,

the applicable law for purposes of the SEC decision is RSA 162-H and the SEC Rules. The SEC

was required to make findings consistent with the statute and the SEC Rules, which they did.

Counsel for the Public asserts that the Subcommittee's waiver of the noise and shadow

flicker requirements for participating landowners was unreasonable and unlawful. Motion at

~34. This same issue was raised several times throughout the adjudicatory hearings. The

Subcommittee fully assessed it both in their review of submitted pre-filed testimony as well as

during cross examination at the adjudicatory hearing.17 Further, during the course of the

proceeding, Presiding Officer Scott expressly asked "[d]o I understand correctly that [the

participating landowners] are waiving health and safety regulations in some respect with regard

to shadow flicker and noise?" Tr. Day 7/Morning Session, p. 129. In response, Mr. Kenworthy

16 Motion at ,34-35 (Relying on Barnes v. N.H Karting Assn., 128 N.H. 102 (1986) to assert that exculpatory contracts in New Hampshire are generally not favored and therefore the agreements negotiated in this case should similarly be considered against public policy.) 17 See Tr. Day 2/Morning Session, at p. 103-105; see also Tr. Day 4/Moming Session, p. 130-131; see a/s Tr. Day 4/A.ftemoon Session (noting that "even for the participating landowners they are below the 40 nighttime limit of the SEC.").

- 19-

App. 349

noted that "if we were unable to reach agreements with private landowners that allowed us to do

things on their property, then we could never have a wind project." /d. at 13 0.

The Subcommittee also discussed this issue at length during deliberations. Deliberation

Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 24-38; 43-45. Ultimately, based on the Order and Conditions

set out in the Certificate, the Subcommittee interpreted the rules to permit the Subco~ttee to

grant such a waiver. See Order and Certificate of Site and Facility with Conditions, at p. 11

~13.1-13.2. After discussion regarding the applicability of the rule to participating property

owners, the Subcommittee concluded that landowners should be permitted "to do what they will

voluntarily." Deliberation Tr. Day 2 Afternoon Session, at p. 44.

This decision is consistent with the Subcommittee's authority under Site 202.15. Simply

because the Subcommittee did not use the express words noted in the Motion for a finding that

such a waiver would be "in the public interest," does not suggest that such a finding was not

properly made, a8 asserted by Counsel for the Public. Motion at ~38. It is clear from the

deliberations that such a condition would be inapplicable in this context because it would limit

the ability of a private property owner to use their land as they deem appropriate, which would

be contrary to their legal right. The Subcommittee's Decision codifies this determination and

expressly states that "to the extent it is necessary, the Subcommittee waives noise and shadow

flicker restriction set forth in N.H. Code Admin. Rules, Site 301.14 (f)(2)a and b, as applied to

participating landowners." Decision, at p. 168-69; see also Deliberations Tr. Day 3 Afternoon,

p. 65-66. The conditions in the Certificate expressly note that "[a] Participating Landowner or

Non-Participating Landowner may waive the noise provisions ... by signing a waiver of their

rights, or by signing an agreement that contains provisions providing for a waiver of their

rights."

-20-

App. 350

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 25th of April2017, an original and one copy of the foregoing Objection to Motion for Rehearing were hand-delivered to the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Subcommittee and an electronic copy was served upon the SEC Distribution List.

Can;~

-23-12122203

App. 353

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SITE EVALUATION COMMIITEE

))oeket No.l015-02

APPLICATION OF ANTRIM WIND ENERGY, LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE OF SITE AND FACH.JTY

JOINT RESPONSE TO ANTRIM WIND ENERGY. LLC'S OBJECTION TO OPPOSING INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR REHEARING

NOW COME, Janice Longgood, Bruce and Barbara Berwick, and Mark and Brenda

Schaefer on behalf of the Abutting Landowners Group, Richard and Loranne Block, Annie Law,

Robert Cleland, Jill Fish, and Kenneth Henninger on behalf of the Non-Abutting Landowners

Group, Mary Allen on behalf of the Levesque-Allen Group, Geoffrey Jones on behalf of the

Stoddard Conservation Commission, and Lisa Linowes on behalf of the Windaction Group,

(collectively "the Opposing Intervenors") and hereby file this Response to Antrim Wind Energy,

LLC's Objection to the Opposjng Intervenors' Motion for Rehearing. In support thereof the

Opposing Intervenors state as follows:

I. FACTUAL~~ PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On January 31, 2012, Antrim Wind Energy, LLC (hereinafter ''the Applicant'')

filed an Application for Site and Facility with the Site Evaluation Committee (''the Committee''),

seeking authorization to construct ten wind turbines along the ridgeline of Tuttle Hill in the

Town of Antrim, New Hampshire (hereinafter ''the 2012 Application"), said case having Docket

No. 2012-01 (hereinafter "Antrim f').

2. On April 25, 2013, the Committee denied the 2012 Application in a 71 page

decision, following 11 days of hearings on the merits and 3 days of deliberations, wherein it that

the proposed project would have an adverse aesthetic impact upon the area, including

DOHABml:, TOCKD &: CIAHDBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''IUIBYS AT L»f OJ'II'IC8S Ill BXIi'rl:ll, POI.'l'S110l71'1l, HI!REDrl'll ' COIICOJU), M1W JUIMIISIIIRE · 800-566·050' - IMi.D'l'ClNilrDS.CDI

App. 354

"significant qualitative impacts upon Willard Pond, Bald Mountain, Goodhue Hill, and Gregg

Lake." See Antrim I, Decision and Order Denying Application for Certificate of Site and

Facility at *SO (issued Apri125, 2013) (hereinafter "Antrim I Decision").

3. On October 2, 2015, the Applicant filed another Application for a Certificate of

Site and Facility (hereinafter "the Application"), in which it sought to install nine wind turbines

and a meteorology tower along the ridgeline of Tuttle Ifill in the Town of An~ New

Hampshire (hereinafter ''the Project").

4. As set forth in the Application, the Applicant seeks to construct nine Siemens

SWT-3-2-113 direct drive turbines each with a nameplate g~erating capacity of 3.2 MW. The

turbines would run approximately 2 miles along the ridgeline toward nearby Willard Mountain.

Excluding turbine blades, 8 of the turbines would be 92.5 meters tall (303.5 feet) and 1 turbine

would be 79.5 meters tall (260.9 feet); including turbine blades, 8 of the turbines would be 488.8

feet tall and turbine 9 would be 446.2 feet tall. The 9 turbines are to be placed on the Tuttle Hill

ridgeline, the elevation of which.ranges between 1760 feet and 1830 feet, a rise of 610 to 680

feet above the valley tlQOr.

5. On December 1, 2015, the Subcommittee accepted the Application.

6. On March 17, 2017, the Subcommittee granted the Applicant a Certificate of Site

and Facility. See Re: Awlication of Antrim Wind Energy. LLC for a Certificate of Site and

Facility, Docket No. 2015-02, Decision and Order Granting Application for Certificate of Site

and Facility (dated March 17, 2017) (hereinafter "Antrim IT Decision'').

7. On April3, 2017, the Subcommittee suspended the Antrim IT Decision in light of

a Motion for Rehearing filed by Meteorological Intervenors. See Re: Amlication of Antrim

2

DONABUB, "1"D'C1tD & CiutDBL:t.A, PLLC - A'l"rriii:DYS I.T LD OI'Pl:CBS Ill IIXImilt, l'ORTIIMOU'l'll, IIIIIUiliTR • COIICORD, 1111111 IWIIPSRllll: - 8DD-S66-0506 -.IJ'l'CI.oJIIIDU.I:OII

App. 355

Wind Energy. LLC for a Certificate of Site and Facility. Docket No. 2015-02, Order Suspending

Decision and Order Granting Certificate of Site and Facility with Conditions (dated April 3,

2017).

8. On April 14, 2017, the Opposing Intervenors filed a Joint Motion for Rehearing,

and Counsel for the Public filed aMotion for Rehearing on April17, 2017.

9. On April24, 2017, the Applicant filed its Objection to the Opposing Intervenors'

Motion for Rehearing, in which it contested the various arguments raised in the Opposing

Intervenors' Motion for Rehearing.

10. While the Opposing Intervenors dispute all of the arguments raised by the

Applicant in its Objection, the Opposing Intervenors wish to rebui certain arguments raised by

the Applicant.

II. DISCUSSION

a. Make-up ofthe Subcommittee

11. The Opposing Intervenors wish to rebut two arguments raised by the Applicant

with regard to the Opposing Intervenors' arguments that the Subcommittee acted contrary to

RSA 162-H:4-a when proceeded in this matter without a second public members: a) that this

argument was waived because it was not waived earlier; and b) that the case of Ap_peal of Keene

State College Education Association. NHEAINEA, 120 N.H. 32 (1980) permitted the

Subcommittee to move forward without a second public member in this matter. See Applicant's

Objection to Joint Motion for Rehearing at •7-12.

12. First, with regard to the Applicant's argument that this matter should have been

raised earlier, as Counsel for the Public noted in its Motion for Rehearing, the absence of a

3

DONABUB, 'l'tJ'CltBR & CIAHDBLLA, PLLC - AT'l'OlUIBYS M LUf OI'PlCBS D1 BDI'l'Bil, POB.'TI!IIDiml, IID!lDI'I'II r. coaiCOII), - IIIIIIPIIBIIIB - !D0-566-050& - Wllll.ll'l'CINIYliiUI.CCII

App. 356

public member could not have been known until dehDerations. See Motion of Counsel for the

Public for Rehearing at •t7. Indeed, up and until the close of deliberations, a public member

could have reviewed the record and participated in deliberations with the other members of the

Subcommittee. It was not until the close of deliberations that the absence of the second public

member was realized and the claim of error could have been raised. For that reason, the

Opposing Intervenors did not waive this argument.

13. Moreover, the requirement that all subcommittees of the Site Evaluation

Committee have two public members is a measure to ensure that the general public's interests

are represented on the Subcommittee and thereby protected. The Opposing Intervenors cannot

waive a right that exists for the protection of the entire public, and, therefore, the Applicant's

argwnents regarding waiver lack merit.

14. Additionally, the Applicant's reliance upon Appeal of Keene is unpersua8ive and

should be rejected by this Subcommittee because the administrative body in that case, the

PELRB, is subject to a different statutory and procedural regime than the SEC. The statute at

issue in Ao.peal of Keene was RSA 273-A:S. See id. at 35. That statute provided that the

PELRB shall consist of five members, two of which shall represent organized labor, two that

represent management interest, and one to represent the public at large, with three members of

the Board constituting a quorum. ld.

15. Unlike RSA chapter 162-H, there is no statutory authority for the creation of

subcommittees under RSA 273-A, nor is there an analogous provision of RSA 273-A which

requires the Chairman of the PELRB to seek to fill vacancies when a public member is absent.

Compare RSA 162-H:3 with RSA chapter 273-A; see also Schiavi v. City of Rochester. 152

4

DOHABtm, 'l"''Cnut & ClAHDBLLA, PLLC - A'l'TORliiBYS AT LUI OPl'lCBS Ill' EXJ:1'1111., PORTSMOtlt'll, ICI!Rml'l'll II< CDIIQCIRD, Dll IWCPSIIIRB IOO·SU·O!i06 • -.ll'l'CLUIYDI.CXlll

App. 357

N.H. 487,489-90 (2005) (use of the word "shall" in a statutory provision is a command). RSA

162-H:3 was enacted as part of a statutory overhaul of the SEC, a fundamental purpose of which

was the protection of the public's interest in matters that can impact the public health, safety, and

welfare in a fundamental manner. See RSA 162-H: 1. Appeal of Keene, therefore, is

distinguishable in this instance, and, contrary to the Applicant's assertiosn, the SEC had ·an

obligation to fill the vacancy which existed on the Subcommittee due to Member Whitaker's

unavailability.

16. Lastly, while a quorum of five members may be sufficient for a subcommittee to

meet on a particular day, this should not in any way be construed as sanctioning the failure to fill

a vacancy when a public member has not attended a single day of hearings or deliberations due

to a major life event. It would be one thing for a public member to be absent from one day of

proceedings or deliberations, but for a public member to be absent from all hearing days and

deliberations (with good reason) and for that vacancy to remain unfilled throughout the

proceedings, that is a violation of RSA 162-H:3 and is expressly contrary to intent of the

Legislature,~ RSA 162-H:l.

b. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

17. The Applicant argued with respect to the Opposing Intervenors' res judicata and

collateral estoppel arguments are that a) the application was substantially and materially different

from the application presented in Antrim I; b) the amendment to RSA chapter 162-H precludes

the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel; and c) res judicata was not sufficiently

raised early in the proceedings and was, thus, waived. Sec Applicant's Objection to Joint Motion

for Rehearing at *3-7.

s

DONAII'O'B, "fUCJU!lk &. CIANDBLLA, PLLC - A'l'TOUBYS AT Law OPPXCES Dl ll:ltBTBR, IIORTSMCtll'll, MIRJIDrl'B r. OCIIICORD, JDIO llliMPSIIIRB • 800·566-0506 • -.D'l'Cl.\lrfDB.ClOM

App. 358

18. The Applicant'~ claims that the present application is substantially and materially

different from the application in An1rim I is without merit. While the applicant removed one

turbine, reduced other turbines by approximately 3 feet and in one case by approximately 45 feet,

and .included more money and more conservation land in its mitigation package, these changes

are not material such that the application of res judicata shOuld be foreclosed. The SEC was

clear in its 2011 decision:

the dedication of lands to a conservation easement in this case would not suitably mitigate the impact. While additional conserved lands would be of value to wildlife and habitat, they would not mitigate the imposing visual impact that the Facility would have on valuable viewsheds.

See Antrim I Decision at *53 (April 25, 2013). It strains credibility that additional monetary

compensation and a 10% increase in conservation land are material or sufficient to offset

aesthetic impacts, when the SEC already stated that additional conservation lands would not

mitigate the aesthetic impacts in Antrim I. Antrim I Decision at *53. The Applicant has not

submitted an application materially different from that presented in Antrim I to preclude the

application of res judicata or collateral estoppel in this instance.

19. Moreover, the amendments to RSA 162-H are not sufficient to preclude the

application of res judicata or collateral estoppel because the change in the law is not such that it

would have altered the SEC's analysis in Antrim I. As reflected in the SEC's decision in Antrim

L the analysis · employed by the SEC followed the analysis that is now required by Rule Site

301.14(a). Compare Antrim I Decision at *48-55 with N.H. CODE OF ADMIN. R. Site 301.14(1);

~also Monarch Life. Ins. Co. v. Ropes & Gray, 65 F.3d 973, 981 (1st. Cir. 1995) (noting that

"changed circumstances will preclude the application of collateral estoppel only if they might

have altered the decision the court made in the first proceeding'') (emphasis added).

6

DOKABOB, 'l'UCXER & ClAHDBLLA, PLLC - M"l''RBBYS A'l' LA1f OPPICBS lll' I:ICE'ri!R, I'ORTSNOD'l'll, MBRZDITJI • CXIICDRD, liRW R»>PSIIIIU! - 800-566-0506 - IMI.In'C1Nmi8S.CI;IN

App. 359

20. Contrary to the Applicant's assertions, the Opposing Intervenors did not waive res

judicata or collateral estoppel because Counsel for the Public raised the issue of res judicata in

Petitioner for Jurisdiction Over Renewable Energy Facilitv Proposed by Antrim Wmd Energy.

LLC, Docket No. 2014-05 (dated Sept. 29, 2015). Counsel for the Public was told that the

record would need to be developed prior to the Subcommittee deciding such issue. See

Petitioner for Jurisdiction Over Renewable Energy Facilitv Proposed by Antrim Wind Energy.

LLC .. Jurisdictional Decision and Order at •38 (decided Sept. 29, lOS). Many of the Opposing

Intervenors were parties to the jurisdictional docket and were aware of the SEC's position that

res judicata would only be addressed after the record was developed. The Opposing Intervenors

could not waive res judicata or collateral estoppel if they were under the reasonable impression

that the SEC would not consider it until a later time. 1

c. Aesthetics

21. The Applicant addressed three points in its Objection to the Opposing

Intervenors' Motion for Rehearing to which the Opposing Intervenors wish to respond with

regard to aesthetics. See Applicant's Objection to Joint Motion for Rehearing at *16-25.

22. The Applicant claims that Mr. Raphael relied upon viewshed maps based on blade

and hub heights, with and without vegetation. See Applicant's Objection to Joint Motion for

Rehearing at *16-18. While it is true that maps reflecting various scenarios appear in the

appendices to Mr. Raphael's report, Mr. Raphael's report is clear that he only considered hub

1 The Applicant is further inconect that the Opposing Intervenors waited Wltil the "Jatest possible moment'' to raise res judicata and collateral estoppel. For example, the issue features prominently in the Richard and Loranne Block's Final Brief, not to mention the Post Hearing Memorandum of Counsel for tbe Public.

Notwithstanding, there is no provision in the law which precludes raising res judicata even after debberations. See Tsiatsios v. Tsiatsios, 140 N.H. 173, 177 (1995)

7

DOHABUB, TUCDll 6i CIANDBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''BDYS AT :t.IIJf OFnCBS XII' I:XJil"lll, POitTIIMCll7rll, IIIIIUIDXTB • CCIICOJID, - lllUOSIIIRB - 800•566•0506 - . I71"Cl.liiiYI!R.COM

App. 360

..

heights when determining impacted scenic resources and percent of visibility. See Appd'x. 9a to

Application at 10. lnd~ed, when discussing his hub height map, Mr. Raphael stated in his report

that the map "represents the most reasonable approach to potential visibility" and further stating

that ''the number of turbines visible and percent of visibility represented in this analysis are taken

from this viewshed map." Ml. (emphasis added.) That Mr. Raphael testified in a manner

completely contrary to his .report, as suggested by the Applicant, is certa,inly a basis for this

Subcommittee to question Mr. Raphael's credibility and the reliability of Mr. Raphael's overall

methodology, .and further supports granting rehearing on the issue of aesthetics. The Applicant,

however, cannot credibly state that Mr. Raphael relied upon blade heights when determining

impacted scenic resources.

23. With regard to photosimulations, the Applicant contends that Mr. Raphael's

photosimulations complied with Site Rule 301.05(b)(7), citing to Mr. Raphael's own testimony

that he believed that he conformed to the SEC's rules. See Applicant's Objection to Joint

Motion for Rehearing at *21-22. Aside from the fact that Mr. Raphael's commentary on his own

work is self-serving, Mr. Raphael is not responsible for interpreting and applying the SEC's

rules, and, therefore, his commentary should have no weight on this matter. Moreover, the

comments of members of the Subcommittee regarding Mr. Raphael's photosimulations suggest

that the photos were not taken under "clear weather conditions" at times to provide "optimal

clarity and contrast'' and without objects in the foreground. See ~.g. 1217/16 PM Transcript at

82; 1217/16 PM Transcript at 92; 1217/16 PM Transcript at 80; 1217/16 PM Transcript at 125-26 .

The photosimulations prepared by Mr. Raphael tainted the adjudicative process, and the

8

DODKtJB, TtJCICD & CIAHDBLLA, PLLC - A'l'TORDYS AT LAW OFFICU m lrXE'l'IIR, POllTSMOtlTII, MIIRBDrrH "'CONCX)JW, 11ft~ - 800·566·0506 · WM.JI'l'CLAirYIIRS.COII

App. 361

Subcommittee should grant hearing on the issue of aesthetics to properly consider compliant

photosimulations.

24. Finally, with regard to the Applicant's reliance upon Mr. Raphael's statements in

his report that the radar-assisted lighting system "wiU essentially eliminate the impacts of

nighttime lighting on potential users of the Project area resources," see Applicant's Objection to

Joint Motion for Rehearing at *22-25; see also Appd'x 9.a of Application at 37, this evidence was

insufficient to support the SEC's finding that the Project's lighting will not have unreasonable

aesthetic impacts or adversely impact public health. The .fact remains that Mr. Rap~l's

conclusory statements could not be vetted or tested by the Subcommittee or the parties. The

Subcommittee had no evidence by which to scrutinize Mr. Raphael's assertion: there was no

evidence as to what would trigger the radar assisted lighting, how often it would be triggered, or

how often and for how long lights would be anticipated to be illuminated using this system.

Without this scrutiny, the Subcommittee's findings lack an evidentiary basis and the Applicant

did not carry its burden. l

d. Shadow Flicker and Noise Mitigation

25. The Applicant argues that the Subcommittee's· decision was lawful and

reasonable despite the Applicant supplying no evidence or information by which the parties or

the Subcommittee could analyze, scrutinize, or vet the feasibility of Noise Reduction Operations

("NRO'') or Siemens' shadow control protocol. Indeed, there is no discussion ofNRO in Mr.

O'Neal's Sound Level Assessment Reports or his pre-filed testimony. See Sound Level

1 The Applicant suggests that the Opposing Intervenors should have produced evidence cballenging Mr. Raphael's assertions. However, considering that only minimal details were disclosed regarding the radar-assisting lighting, it would have been impossible to scnrtinize or chailenge these assertions. The Applicant had the burden to demonstrate that the project would not have adverse impacts to public health or aesthetics, and the Applicant did not submit sufficient evidence with regard to radar-assisted lighting.

9

DOKABOB, TUCKER &: CIANDBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''itiiBYS A'l' LAW OJ'FICES Dl BXBTBR, PORTSMOtl'l'll, MIIIUIIDITB r. CCIIICOll!), liBW II»>PSBDUI - 800-566·0506 · liii!I.J:7I'CLNIT1IIIS.CQII

App. 362

Assessment Report, prepared by Epsolon Assocs. (dated February 17, 2016); Prefiled Direct

Testimony of Robert D. O'Neal. Mr. O'Neal only addresses Siemens' shadow control protocols

in a general manner, providing no det$b or corroborating information regarding the protocols

and what impacts those protocols may have. See Pre-filed Testimony of Robert O,Neal at 13-14.

2~. The Applicant cites to Mr. Weitzner's testimony to support its claims that

sufficient information was submitted such that the Subcommittee could reasonable and lawfully

find that NRO and shadow control protocols would not impact the Project's financial capabilities

or other factors relevant to the Subcommittee,s determinations. See Applicant's Objection to

Joint Motion for Rehearing at *27, •32. However, Mr. Weitzner's statements are self-serving

and are, at best, conclusory. With regard to Shadow Flicker, Mr. Weitmer stated that he did

"some analysis" and that the shadow control protocols would "have a very, very, very small

effect on capacity factor'' without any corroboration or data to support that statement. 9113/16

AM Transcript at 99-100. This statement is wholly insufficient to allow the Subcommittee to

reach any conclusion as to the potential operational and financial impacts associated with the

shadow control protocols.3 Mr. Weitzner's statements with regard to NRO are limited to "[w]e,re

very confident that we will comfortably meet the SEC requirements for noise." 9/13/16 AM

Transcript at 100. This statement did not answer the question and, again, did not provide the

Subcommittee with any information sufficient for the Subcommittee to properly analyze the

3 Further, at the time when Mr. Weitzner made his claims, be was relying on Mr. O'Neal's 2015 shadow flicker report that identified 24 locations as experiencing shadow flicker in excess of 8 hours per year with a total cumulative impact of approximately 60 hours per year. In reality, many more hours of shadow flicker may be experienced that were not considered by Mr. Weitzner's statement. ~Antrim n Decision at •164. The Committee took specific note of inaccuracies in the modeling due to a failure to account for various meteorological conditions. See Antrim D Decision at *164.

10

DOHAB'Dll, TUCltBR &: C:IANDBLLA, PLLC - A'l"l''Rlml!'S A'Z LAW OPPJ:CBB IR I!:XIITIIR, 1101l"l'SM0111'11, MmiBDinl I< CDIOORD, Dll JWCPSBDUI: - &DD-566·0501 • lllllf.DJ'CLNmlllS.COII

App. 363

feasibility of these mitigation measures.• On the contrary, Mr. Weitzner's statements appear to

suggest that no analysis was done und~r any scenario where NRO was used

27. In Antrim L the SEC acknowledged the impact mitigation measures could play on

a Project's financial feasibility, and effectively precluded consideration of mitigation measures

raised during the adjudicative hearing due to the need to study the impacts of those mitigation

measures on the Project's financial projects. See Antrim I Decision at *54. The Applicant did

not provide the requisite level of information for the Subcommittee to study the impacts of these

mitigation measures, and the Subcommittee's decision to find no adverse public health and

safety impacts based upon these un-vetted mitigation measures was unlawful and unreasonable.

e. Ice Throw

28. The Applicant dismisses the Opposing Intervenor's arguments regarding ice

throw, citing the testimony of Mr. Stovall. While Mr. Stovall did testify to his understanding of

the industry standard, the Opposing Intervenors remind this .Subcommittee that Mr. Stovall

expressly stated that he is ''not an expert on ice throw." See 9/15/16 AM Transcript at 144. The

Subcommittee should not give Mr. Stovall's uncorroborated testimony any weight and should

reject the Applicant's arguments.

4 This statement is also erroneous in light of Mr. O'Neal numerous methodological flaws, which drastically understate sound impacts to various properties. The Applicant claims that Mr. O'Neal exercised proper professional judgment in declining to make various adjustments to his analysis, notwithstanding the fact that many industry publications and studies (some of which Mr. O'Neal cites) state that such adjustments should have been done. Further, since the ISO 9613-2 standard for predicting noise is explicitly incorporated into the Committee's rule, the Applicant's argument that Mr. O'Neal's professional judgement takes precedence over the plain language of the standard is contrary to Site 301.18(cXI). For example, Section 7.3.1 of the ISO 9613-2 standard clearly states that a ground factor other than 0.0 is not supported under the ISO 9613-2 unless the terrain is "approximately flat either horizontally or with a constant slope." The Project site is at elevation and will above sWTOunding residences.

11

DOHAJmB, i'tJCltD & CIANDBLLA, PLLC - A'1".l''JUm'YS AT LAW OJ'li'ICBS Dr I!XIITI!Il, PORTSIIOim!, MEREDrrH ~ COHCORil, DW IIAHPSIIIIIB - 800-555-0505 - WIIII.D'l'CLAWYDB,COM

App. 364

8l'A'l'B ~ - -IIIDJIB 8:t'l'B l:9ai.UU'%CIIf ca.aftllll

:I ~ -.r 5, 2017 - 1125 •••• l'Ul:l.c! ftiUUu ~haem

t I 21 8011&111 ~t 8t1"Mt: • lhl.i'ta 10

I. --· ·- ._..hlzooo : IDAliv.~4 Yi& &•a&i1 5/24/17)

) !

10

11'

12

1J

:til U I ll&e DOC:Itllr 110. 2015 •02

- lfDID -· LJ.c: -.uaau- Df Alltri.a WU>d., ..,_, LLC f""' a O.rtificata Df alta &D4 PaaiU~. (.:r.,:Uat lloU- £o.r a.ba&diiiJ)

C.UO~. aabert a. ICDtt l'lllllio lft:ili.Ue• ~••icm 1t (h11•£4illlr •• P,..i4£a!J OUio•rl

:I 11

I

11·

1t

20

1

'

10

11

13

lJ

14

11

11

17

Dr. aioUrd aoi ... rt: (D&dfiiiM) Jolla •• C1i:ri:Dd (:Dad-) :ltr • ..,._. Pozllae (:De.tp .. ) l'at,..ioia -thar.t>v

Dept. Df ea.J.t:..-J. 8.&110111"D­Dh•. of IU.•~oal b•ouro•• l'ublio ~1it:i.. ca.aie•icml

L-1 DI.Yi8iou IIQt. Df -· lei:Vioee/

water DiYi•icm l'ublia ...._r

I!Cialoaal .:r. laeopl.ao, ••~· (-••• ) P ... la ~~Dan•• Slle Adldala~a~

{SIIC 2015-02} IJODIT lmnllllll :roa IIJDIIWIDIQ) {05-05·17}

SVIIOiliiC'.l'1 PUIILIC IIDI4'B AIID IIAPiftr-mZBB &0 :D~CUI8:t0. 11

SVIIJJIC'r• I'UIIL1C DU.'ZX loiiD &uar • IS

-- IPLICSBII

~~ :tCII'l'llllll)1f MIICll88:tllll

" " "

IVII~I - BWIIC'l 1111 ~ 70 D:t8CV88:tllll 70

IVIIJJIC'r t CIIIIIIIIIL'If u.fti:.O.,_ OP IIIIG%Gir 73 VIR OP xnJC:tPU.:t':'ZD

:D:EICOIJ8J:OII

IIVIIa.Cl!l'1 ~:teaL Glla.JP -:1:1111 D:t8CUI8:t011

JUI'J:CIIf ft) :Darr ~CAl. IIIIO:W'8 11 JUI'J:CIX lrUil JIDRDIG

lJ

20

21

22

- 1llr Jl&". CU:Efol<d IIICICIIIDII:II ll'lf k. ao:L ..... rt D:t8CV88J:OII Clll '11'111 -IOif "ftl:rll '1'Aialll

JlOT%CIIf "1'0 Dlllllr JO:II'1' IIOnCIIr :roa ~

, .. JS J5

.. •• ,.

1

3

' ·~I C'nf f 1 TftU· Jllr.na!P.K£. :DI8CII81J:CIIf

-~ 1 U'PIIIIPilU.D aaoaa N

~ ... -10 DUCV88ZDII

11 -.-=1 ~ OP 81Cl llVZoU BY BIIB~fta

:1.7

11

u

.u

:n

24

1

, •

7

lllDoJBC'l'a VIaaiiii:D ADL'I'II8 AliD l:DIIII'r.IFJ:CU'l:Gir OP 8CDJ;CUSOl1&CII8

D:taC:USS%011

BUa.mc:t1 ~ lln'SCT8 DUCUIII:tDlf

811BolZC11 11110"1'0 a~'lfiiHIS DJ:BCIIIIII:ECIII

J: • II· Jl X

-IOif m IDanr CDIIIIIIKL JICa DIS IIVIIL1C:' B IDI"IC. ftllt a-•11,...

11AD11 B'r II&. JIOlll"t'Ka IIICOIIDIID ll'r X.. W-t:Mrlaby vo:nl :EIIXD

IID'r:tCIII m LJ:rr mama IIUftaDDG :a.c:nc:ar AliD OI:DD GIIUI%:tn A C'.Bft:tnCAD raR IZD

10 AIID FAC'J:LJ:Tr, JIPI'IIc:!'ZVB 5/5/17

11

13

13

- ll'lf DD. 1'CIIUIU BllllllmiBD ll'lf .... CU.ffo..t :D:tiCUI8%Qit 011 llll'l!:tl* vo:nl ~

14 :DIIIIJ:ZD • a.gua8'1' B'lf 'rDIIIII Dl' All"l'RDI "1'0 IIJIOPD UC:OBD Uo LO:t/-

15

l.l

17

11

:u 20

!

:a• 25

30 31

33 3( ... f.S

t7 48

, " ••

" J9 .99 100

101

2

{BBC 2015·02} (JOx.r ~ICIIUI raR ~I {05•05•11}

App. 367

:1.

3

• 5

f

10

11

:1.2

1J

14

15

11

17

11

lJ

ZD

1

3

4

7

10

11

12

l.3

14

15

17

11

u 20

21

2:1

3l

24

. PROOIIRDtiiCIII

P1111.-IDDU OJI'I':EClJIII. 800ft1 Goool

~. -r~- Wel.a-. ~ 1""" for

a....s..sr. &lid _:LA, tllU 1a a pablie -t:iag of

u.. lluba...ait:t:aa :I!Dr ~ •- ._ldoiz:a 8it:a

h'al.uatt.icm c:-Lt:- -s-=U:I.eel.l'J' ,....._..IDg t:ha

.1\ppl:l.aat::l.oa of tlla ktda 1liad -.r.r fo"' a

ca...t:l.fioat:. of 8it:a aod Paoilii:'J', wlaJ.ob. :La nc Docket 2015•02. Tha pr~ pgqooaa e- ..a&"

-•t::Lq t:odQ' :La t:o u ...... a P&R.U..V ,._ata

l!o"' "'U.u:lllg, Rafoz:e tazldalg t:o U.. qeada,

t•ll .a tlla Sub-tt:ea -..,. l:o iat:...o4oaco

-a:~. ..... , •""""'illlr w:lt:h !k. ro.:~ou.

DDt • .aJla8• '1' ... ::t•a bge:lw :Po~.

r~o-tiag t:ha ~-t: of -ri-t:al

a ..... .:Lou.

----·-~· Pat:....:lcia ._t:haray, pui>Ue .-• .,.

=· sox.-. Clooll ...,z:m.q. alcllazJl Roi.,.rl:, •- ~.,. Divio:l.oa of Bbt:o.,.:loal

a.•ourc••· D. CLIFPOIID1 Goool -:aaiq. Jolm

CliffoiO<l, Staff at:t:o..._,. f- t:ha 11- ._bire

Publia Vt:.:l1it:lao ca..:lao:I.OD.

0:1.5·0:1) [JODft mr.IOIDI PC1R RDRUIDGJ {05·05·1?)

:rou• .... -· bapel!ully, ~ ~-.a t:a dt:e

aod a-I:EIIat: ll:I.Aa ~ t:llld>:I.Au a.pabla of

•-l<al:lq ......ply 3.2 -t:t:o aaob.. !l'ha

JIJ:'CI~act :La propooaol t:o ba loeat:eol :l.a Aatda,

- hl:tla Bill rtdge l.:laa -.paod:I.Ag --•t ~ tiJa aoa'1:ll.,... alope of: W:llla...ol

-ta:l.a. ~ PJ:'CI~aat: :baa E"&-ot:aol t:o ba

.,...,.t.,..ot:acl P"'::.-rll:r Gil tlla riqe l:I.Da that

ot..,t:ll ___.t.ely t:bl<ee -"-• of a aU.a

oout:h at Rout:& t 10104 rwa.o aoothwaot for

~roaiaata1:r a .£1••· - Pro~aot ia to be

l.aeat:llol :LA a II:'IIZ'a.l ...... _....u.- KOA:I.Dg

4:1.atr:lct: DD P"':l-ta lao.tla ~ br o.l.x

l........_.ro 10104 l ... aol by Alltz:::la W:I.Dol, AAtz::la

•-lot a eart:Uioata of lite_.. rae.:I.Ut::r

eppz::oviag a:l.t:o aod e-at:zuct:~ aod op..,.t::I.OD

of ~ Pro~aat:.

Oil oct:obar 20t:h, 10:1.5, ....,.....,.t: t:o

liSA 11216, t:ha Chair of tlla c:.-:Lt:t:..,

-U.t:llol tlla sl>b..-.t:t:- ia t:b.:lo daalcet:.

OD --..bu llt:h, 201!1, t::ba

luo.-:Lt:t:aa ren....S u.. .llpplioaUoll aod

... ~ it: -· ouff:l.c~t: eo ... t::ba

Subo-'tt&e to aan:y out tiJa -·•• of tlla

011-03} I.JOD'I' ~01111 PC1R ~~ {05·05-17}

5

7

1

2

4

5

' • J

10

11

12

u

14

15

1(

11

11

lt

20

21

2:1

2!

:14

1

2

3

4o

5

' 7

• t

10

11

11

11

lf

11

15

17

11

19

20

21

21

.23

24

PUIJ:DDD OJI'I':XClJIII. SCOfta AD4 ::t•a .....

Saot:t v:lt:h t::ba •- --.•l>il<• Publ:lc Vt:ll:l.t::leo

c-iao:I.GD aod Prao:l.ollag Off:loar for t:bia

doakat:.

I • II l.tl<a to a.J.•o ~ • ....,..

at:t:onaay, liz-, Iaaop:l.llo, IIDil u.. ~otral:ce'

fOil: t::ba IIIC, wh:l.al> l>opafal.l.y :rou all - bJ'

DOW, Ateoat:-r JIGIU'Oe ..

so, juat l:or a~t:y, t:bio U¥ ...,t

.. •• :1:-..lrt11:lllg foz- --~ -t:Cibi.llg ....

J>ut t:lli• b -:La &DOI::bar ca .. wbara - ..Ul

:be olel:ll>..,.t:iaa' -t: DurtJ&l.Y&o, lo :r w£11

DOt: ba aolr.iag fOl< app-•• or t:alc:I.Ag

otat.-to r..- tlla &uo~:~. .......

:ro p.,. a l:l.t:t:le blt: of loao""""ll!l4

•:l.acta :lt•• b..a. a wb.ll.e a:l.Da.a.,. .. t. -­

obriouoly, -"" of - ..,. --=1" fuili.az:: ut:h

t:bB dDabt., l"'t l:or tlla z:acoN, &llol UJ7I>od:r

,_, ::r•11 g:l.,.. a J.:lt:t:la bit: of t:l>o

loac:kgroua4.

OD OCt.obaz:: 2114, 3015, Allt:r.l.m WI.Dd

-...,.. LLC f:l1acl .,. .lppUoat::I.OD for

cart:ifioat:. o:l: Sit:e aod :rac:I.U.t.:r uti> t.l>e

Bit:• BYa111ati.cm c:-itt:ee. Allol aaa:I.Ja, u

015-0ll} [OOD1'1' IIO'l'J:Clllll JL'OR -'P'"'CI] {05•05·17}

otat.ut.a. A4:1'114Leat:i,. ... ..,lqo ...,. IIJ.e14 -

~~~ 13, 15, 20, 22, 2Jrd, 21, 2,,

Ootobar :1104, 18t:h, Uti>, 201:1>, aod

-- lot: _.. 7t:h of 2015. ~ tba

l>aarilllr•• tlla Appl:!.oaat.a p,.••-t:a4 t:aot::laoay

tllz-oogb w:l.tzoan•• who _.,. .,... ... -..... !>)'

--· of tlla SUba.....:Lt:t:ae, Ct>aual for tlla

hbl.io aod ~ ralat:llol -- .....,... - -- aod

t:bB :tllt:er<reDOro, of cour••. CouDoal fo"' tlla

Pulol:l.c P"''•-taol teat~ of tba:l"' _.:t.

v:ll:lla.. aod ot:hu ral.at:llol ...tl:li>:Lt:• :La tlai8

dDabt. ~ J:al:erftelo"'o aod w:t.tDeo•u a.J.•o

praa ... ta4 t.aot:iaolly ca4 -z::a croao•--u..4.

:Ia t:otal., t:ht: lluba.....:Lt:t:ae r-a:L.....s 220

~t:o. Tha 1-.....:Lt.taa al•o raea:l9e4 a

=-- of pl'bl:la o-t:•, az:a.l aod ,.,it:t..,.,

f.,_ :l.at:erut:llol - .... of tlla p\lb1i.e.

on.. 111Jbooa.it.taa a.loo clal:l.b..,.taol

for ~· cla:ro :LA --· Daa- 7tb,

tl:l> 11114 Ut:h of 2016. A clac.:L•:l- aod cmler

....,.t.:I.Av tl>a Cert.if:l.cat:a .,.. f:lllally 1••-4

Oil ........ 17tb, 2017, J'ollow:l.ag t::ba :t.-·· of ~ olea:I.•:I.Oil _.. o...sa.., t::ba 8\lba...:l.t:t:aa

.,..,at.,... Jlot:i- for a.ba..,:I.Ag aod

01&·03} IJODft ~01111 JrOJP. UIIRAIIIIIQJ {o!-05·17}

App.368

'

III. CONCLUSION

29. The Applicant's arguments in its Objection to the Opposing Intervenors' Motion

for Rehearing are unpersuasive. The Applicant has relied upon distinguishable cases, self-

serving statements, and conclusory assertions, none of which withstand scrutiny. While the

Opposing Intervenors' Motion for Rehe~g sufficient addresses many of the arguments raised

by the Applicant in its Objection, the discussion provided in this Brief Response is submitted to

highlight just some of the inaccuracies and flaws in the Applicant's Objection.

30. The Subcommittee should grant the Opposing Intervenor's Motion for Rehearing.

WHEREFORE, the Opposing Intervenors respectfully request that the Subcommittee:

A Grant this Motion for Rehearing;

B. Schedule this Matter for Rehearing;

C. Deny the Applicant's Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility; and

D. Grant such further relief as is just and equitable.

12

DOKABUB, Tt1CDIR 1: C:IAHDBLLA, PLLC - AT'l'ORNBYS A'Z LAW orna:s nr BXm'ER , POilTSII0111'B, MIIIISDI'!'B • ~. 1VB!I UMPSHIRI: aoo-s&&·OSO& - 111111-ll'l'CUIImiRB.COM

App. 365

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2017.

Respectfu11y submitted,

The Abutting Landowners Group, the Non-Abutting Landowners Group, the Levesque-Allen Group, the Stoddard Conservation Commission, and the Windaction Group,

By and through their attorneys,

DONAIRJE, TIJCKER & CIANDELLA, PLLC

lsi Erie A. Maher

Eric A. Maher NHBA#21185 225 Water Street Exeter, NH 03833 (603)778-0686 emaher@dtclawyers.com

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I served a copy of this Joint Motion for Rehearing pursuant to Site

202.07 to the current service list in this Docket this 2nd day of May, 2017.

lsi Eric A. Maher Eric A. Maher, Esq.

13

DONAlroB, TUCltU & CJ:ANDBL:t.A, PLLC - AT'l'O:RBBYS AT LAW OPPICBS IJ1 IIXIITER, PORTIIIIOIITII, JIIZRJ!DITE r.. I:DNCORD, IIIDI IWG'SI!Dll - 800·566-0501 - -.D'l'CLUIYI:RS.CON

App. 366

4

5

5

10

11

ll

13

14

1S

1f

17

11

lJ

JO

21

a2

23

2t

7

•· 10

11

12

13

14

11

u

17

11

lt

20

21

n :n 24

.._.idanLt.iCIII -ella ~l.ogist:­

ot Iat:o~•• the .rou.t. CJroap o~ Abutt.illlr

,.. .. ,._., %oot.-n, tb. --lllnattLag

,.. .. i.s.at ~ o! Iat.,_., tb.

t..ftlo--All• ~ o: :r:......,_.,., tile

s~ eoca...,.,..u .... ~••lea. Ul4 u.. lfilodaati- IJl<oop £ol' ...U."'i'"lr• :r:. lllldit:iCIII,

1a•t, ~t aot laa•t, o~ta£.1y, eouaaa1 ro,..

tile ....,uo also riled a ... uaa l'oz llalwu"iJie'

aa4 ........ , ..... u .....

It _...,... ellat tiLe llot:L_. 1'01:'

a.u.r.t.av - ~>•• -- -~ :c ..... t:ha

:r:.~ - eo.m.e1 :c ..... ella ..... u.a are

•a!io•taaUally a:l.ai1u:, •• z •-••t t:hat: -

,...,... tllzcNglo, stal<t::L._. v.lt:ll- of t:llB -joe

legal. lll•uu ellat ~ ~•ad, laok:L_., at

-· wv IIJ"'CDP• :c:L ... st, ella Joiat: :z:at:a,........,,...

- Coalulal :l!oz t:lla Pub1io' • ..,t::Loaa fo,..

~- ......... idal'&tioa.

11o at t:h:L• poi:.ot I thiJsk ..t.at I'd

lika 1:0 do :la start agai:.o v.l t:h •- of tiLe

~ lDIJIIl s.. ....... o:ad t:haa lt!Dd af _,..k .,..,..

- -· z thiDk -t -- to do ia addr-ess ella -taoz:o1011Jf.at- -- .,.., Waz1l'• 015•02} ~~~ MOrZQIS rca RBRPla%1GI {05-05•17}

&hiei.•1cm. ... 'lllll.awful, 1111juat ozo DIIZ'e-GIDUle.

b. GOilll.ldarlllg t.~w~•e IIOt:.lOD.,. it•• ~-t:

vpooa tJia 1""-ittM to _,..,.. ..t.a~ az­

""" c~~a -u- •"" ~ ,.._ai:.og .... ....,.s

....... to o:e~ae ... - -t-. I'Juo ~ c:oact

baa Z"Ulad. that t:lla P=P•- oil tha .......,.bg

pl<Oa .. • ia fooe t:ha pa.,t.l.aa to ba al>1a to ,u.,....,t

1'01&&" nt:-tiCIII to -tt;.,.a wbiob t:llay b&U..,.

... _ b- ......,loakall or .U.atiOk..J.y aoaaa.t-4 i:.o

YDII"' ol'iiJ.t.aal dadaiCIIl Ul4 tnftta

,.._~ti"" "" tb.ta. Tou an aut!lal:ised to

pAAt ......,...idant::Loa if; you ll::i.ad tb&l: t:hazoa :L•

good ,...._ oz IJOINI aa .... to do ao. "Z:f you

Uad tul: U...... 1.11 no ~ .,..._ ""' good aau ..

to do so, t:ha l:ba -t:ioaa albou14 l>a ._:1.84.

Ia ellat '• l>aa:LoallF tlle ·~ t:llat yoc. .,...,

t:o .CU..Z.. to - cou:l.da"'iag t:llaaa ~·

.otiaa..

Plla8ZDDG OftP:Z:Clml BCD'rTr 'l'baak you

f..,. t:hat. 11o - :t•ll at:a...~: rit:h ,.. :1114:1.-t:a ......... 'the Iat:a.,._,..• aa4 eo.m.a1 foz- ella

Publ:lo b&va aa•arted that ~· p,....~aat••

-t•rially s:l.ailar _. ella •- .. Alltd.111 1,

11

015•02} !oJ'ODII'r .ar:tCIIIII FOil ltBII:BAaZIIUl {05-05-17}

4

5

' 7

lt

11

12

1J

14

J.l

15

17

11

11

20

21

22.

23

24

1

2 , • &

' 7

I

' 10

11

12

13

14

15

:.f

17

11

u

20

a:. :a:a

23

24

........ :t ·- -- -~ - -.. - ._d.lq -

luow - Z"Ula, t:ha ~·• •- ·­adld.at.•uat;.t._ tl>lagw t.Mt ... ....S to

.~ ... so, 1/!:L..st - e-t -- aot

:c-t. ln&t. e~Wta£aly 1/!:Lnt, agd.a, •- of

t:ha .1.,.._ l..,al i•-•· ft. ia._ ol! ....

~ad.loat& waa ...ala ad qa£. i:.o -· -ti_..

Alld ::t •• IIJOill!r to ..... a4l.y .-n. ••. Dlrriaa•l:r you• .... all ,.. .. 4 t.&\a ...a.aia•i-.

lo, &IJB.ID, to ata..t oaa ellal:, I'""

goi:.og l:o .. :t -- - --"• :r.•ll - ap •

11.tt1• bit. ~·• goiag to ••k oar acnuw•l,

Attonay ::t&oopino, to -.J.y gi- .,. 1:1>8

._...... by wbiob - WD1I14 1oo1< at: tb.

-t'- -ally, ..t.at .... ella ·"­

ball:-• ... al:u:t wf.tl> t:ha n• ~ad.laat:a, lout

saaa,..ally ..t.at -•4 l>a look.IAg at .It:­

<he.t4a t:a tAka 'liP tb.sa -tiODB.

•• UCC!Pnl01 'fu, .,.., Clla.i:noao.

•= of t:l>a ~· -~ .... ra,.. Ia!>aari:.og are

IJ09U"DCd lay !:he • ....., ·- UIU!o% lUIA 5~1.

.... l:l>at u t.Mt: ella ........ t •• - -1• .aki.Dg

t~o. -u- to you, .... t .s-.t...ata that ,.....,..

10

o1s-o2) 1ao~ ~CIII8 raa ...... rwcu {os-o5-17)

t.M :c:Lzo•t: ~act tut -• ... ad ..,4 4aaiad,

iD t:llat t:he plo,ya:l.aal a...,..aat&riat.tas of ella

Pn:l.et --...,. ......._. .... ,... 4.1 .wu.a.. All4

ta..r ... a...~: t:hat it:•• .....,. .. -1. to

dataadaa ellat t:ha Pn:loat 18 allb•taatial1y

.sue ...... t • ...,.1r l>aa ..... t.&\a Applie•t

Pft'»C'Bad addiUoa&l llit:l.gati- -1111Z"aa _.

tb.t u.o.. _ ........ 4.14 DOt ......... -

u.aata a:l! tl>a aastb.Uaa. .114Jda, :t•a :l.,.t

-i.•iDIIJ· ::t•a DOt IMkiDIJ all ., ... point•

fo,.. •11 tbe pazott••· Coaaaaal 11:00: - l'llbU.o azvua• t:hal:

t:ha ~1:1:- t:a:l.lad t:o ~t.t:ry, aga£.,

-l:oda1 .......... to t:J>a ~:laat .... luow t:haaa

=-•• -ta...ial.ly alt.,... t:ha ~act of t:ha

Pl:o:leat "" aeatl>et.toa, 1111ot a~ l:llat tile

...a.a~tt•• -"""lF .,_.,1_ t:b&t t.M

llul>...-ittaa in .aatr.f• 1 ii!Witad t ...

-••:1.- of - -dad .lppli.oal:iCIII.

'!'luo Ial:e,..,.....,... _,...,.., t.b&t a abaop

to tt.a cc.o.ittM'• s:ul•• did -t ,..-.. tl>a

P,...:laet -l:u:ially 4:Lffal:'811~. lo, aga.ta, t:ha

law Ul4 t:ha l:lll.aa load c:!uuap4 i.D t:ha

.. aa.tm.,. DZ' other ru1- WW.C'8 er-t•ll frca.

015-02} !JOJ:BT ~IORB ro& P .... P~! {OS-05-17}

App. 369

1

J

4

·~

s 7

I

10

11

!2

13

:.• 15

!f

17

:11

:u 20

21

:1.2

23

24

2

• 10

11

12

13

1(

15

1f

17

11

1P

20

21

22

23

24

tM aatn.a :P""':Iect:., IID4 -.rore,

aff-d.YW.l.F, tb.y we.-a t1ae •-·

fta ~Rol:l.aant: aquM t:laat:. tile

ll>t:.e~"'" :l!dlad. t:.a :1-t:.:l.fr """ .1.-• of

••ct: ~ law ~t: we o.erl.ooked ozo

si.Na~Pr•~· ltwy ~tluaZ' at:.at:.e t:Jaat:.­

·-~4 tlua -.,.. to tMo :P,.,.~..,t:.. whi.le

.. ~ f:.llat it:.' a DOt:. f- fzom tile

DoctZ':I.Da of ~ j'IJ4ieat:.a, - we ap..U.f.l.aaJ.1r

.-.aaetl tlaa d..iffe.--cea bet. .. .,. .aau:la %

IUI4 1:.!18 ~t pro:laat:.. ftay aho -- t.ll1a

u tJul .Appl.S.cumt:. -- ohm tllat:. Colalulel fa%

tJul 1'1abl:l.e -ly acmc:ladall t:.bat:. t:.ba

~t:.t:.ae 001&14 d.at:.azas.•• t:.bat:. tbe h'ojeat

ia all!>atllllti&Ur 4.1.:1!1-t rna Allt:r:la :.:

p~eat Clll1y aft:.ezo c_.,.:.iaCIII :b•- iaptu:UO

Gil aeal:bet:.laa. Be t:.lwy took .l.aa11e wit:.b t:.bat:..

- l:b~ r:-'ad.aol ... -ill tlaat:. t:.b..,. ....

-.. ill 1- --- Aat:.ria 2: ..... Aat:ria :u. Bo, _:l.n, :t•a DOl: :l.nt:...s:l.a!r t:.o

fa11y wl:l:I.Da, ~ aaZ'I:.a!.Dl.y you aan and.

we auo, all t:.ba ....,_t:.e ...S. oto tbla UlaGe.

Bat: % .,.... 1dlat :1•4 l:llr:e to do :Ia k1lul of liD

~ t:.baae bZ'Oaol 1aa.....,, atop 2aaZ'a f- Z'N

01S·03) [00~ ~EDBB ~ PWBW~] {05•05•17}

b"Cftlltll" to ... :l.n t:.ba tt.&riq, - :r doa•t: -·

~ - to ~ t:.bat d.ea:ldoto.

PPIIBJ:DIIIGI OftiCD 8~1 lt.t:.taney

D. CLJPPOIIDa Lt-.a, :r tbllllt -

pe:l.natak:l.ngly W81lt t:.blrouglr. t:.lw d..I.U-ea

IM- -Uia % and. -U:Ia :1:1:. Mol - -t:.ad.,

:11 t:.baugb.t:., t:.ba dgl>:lfia-t. tirr..,..... •• :1.n taD~a

of t:.ba -u of tarl>:Lna•, t:.ba baight., the

...... _.,et1 .... eu-t:.. l:t -• a t:.ot&lly

ollff..,...t aniaa1 .... .,. acmaid.aZ'i.DII bani, :l.n

-.:r Ulldarat:.OIDd..I..Dg.

PIIIIIJ:DDIG OftlllBIL BC'Ofta :r --. 11y ltaaoll...UCIII ia .. t&~ .....,.t t:.ba ohanpe

~iaally t:.a t:.ba ho:l..,t:.. ':be 1- olleagad.; -

lllao,..aad. tlaat:. Y01> ""'-• t:2aaZ'a•a a d.iff-1:

~~eat:. -•"' .. t.e:.- aboRt: t:.bat. DJ.ffeZ'-1:.

ait:J.pt:ICIII, IO I feel_,.,. tia...,aaed tbia

:l!eu1y .. u ..,. t:.lw .-aoo.-4 and. :l.n t:.be

t:rllllaeZ'ipl:..

:1: 1 11 alao DOt:.a t:.het on t:.be origiael

d.al.ib .... t:.J.- to UJta ~url..U.ctlon, - a1ao

1la4.,..,.., aLai~ -.at:.J.ou alao, ill t:.hel:.

the full ~f.\~ee TOt:.ad. f:.a taka

15

1

10

:u 12

11

14

15

u

17

11

1J

20

21

22

2J

24

1

2

J

• i

J

I

t

10

u 12

13

14

15

.u 17

11

1' 20

21

:aa u

24

jud:loata, .ali :baaiae11y .-~ paopl•'•

tJooutr!ota, ~0 t:.he -1:-1:. you ..... ~.

All4 firat:. ot! all, ltafw:e :1: gi.,. :r­-.:r ~~~GuPta, d.oea ~ _ _, t:a talk Ural:!

o.. :.: oea -- »:r. aof.,_.t,

IQl, BOJ:IIIVD'r 1 Yea. It:. luqopaDa thet

E aat - the Aatria l: -.._tt:.tea. Azul -

r..,J._. thet ia •- detail. n .._.... t:.bat

:1 -- ia tile aej~ty. tllat t:.lw pumit ~·

DOt be -........S .,.. the :a. ... :l.a or aaathal:.ica. J:t

-• l>zeught f- agaill t:.a aa with c:h.iooapoa,

.ali :r ..n.- thet. tile =-- t:.bat -r• ofh,...d.

:l.n Aatda n _.. :l.nd.aed. a111>at:ant:.J.al. 'l:bia ...

a<~t t:.ba - p~acot. Aad. :r•a b&a:I.Jle tlaat -

-.:r ~i...aa aitt:I.Jle t:.b£ougb the fbat -t:.~ia

~ -.s than ai~l::l.ng ---- oal.1ad. t:.o

t.ll1a ..,.., loakiDg at tha -- of 1111&1:. wu

P""'P'&ad.. Md. :In II,Y e>p:l.niGD, it:. -• ...,1: t:.be

_p...,jeol:.

PllKSJ:DJXJ DD'l:CIIIl IIODZT: D , :Por!oaa,

DDI, :P'ORBIIIa I -14 jut c-t

that % doa•t ••e - 8IIJ"':.bi"9 :La~ -ti­

tlaat -· D- :l.nfozaa.l:.iOD ba.... l tlaJ.nk f:.bat ...

o...,.id.altad. aJ.l ar the •-t• that """"'

ou-oa) IOODI'I IIIO'r%0115 I'Oa UIIIIAIWIQI (os-os-17}

:!a:riatiat:l.oa. tta.r _,.. ...-y e:lailu

-t& meda Oil thai: -·

11o let - ulu - Ulfbo4Y feel

~·• • ..... .,.. to ,....,_id.aZ' loeaad.- t:.bill

t:ap:le7

u. 11DJ:BB1111n1 Jla.

PDimJ:WG on7c:mt 8CDftr Z'• ••aiDtJ vna:n:I'PO"a bead aoU •aD.• ~ ~ r.co~ ..

All. r:lpt. - :r '11 _,. oa I:G

aollat..,al eat:.Dppel. JIIJ&U. -r :l.nt-t:.ioa

ban ia :1,..1: t:o :ba>ad.ly CNtl:I.Da t:.ha i•.,..•• ...... t:.G ><•ia• .veey point t:.het: -· :l.n t:.ba

Z'80DZ'4 -- :l.n !:1M 1110tiaaa. llga:l.n, %'"" k1lul of

grauplDg t:.ba :tll.b.-.-=a - C!omlaal filS' tlaa

J'Ulia ~t:.bar ....... ftaaa part:iu _.

t:.bat, wbUa 4etezal.a.l• wb.loh aa-.io

.... ~.. wvul4 ba a!:l!eet.ad. ~ t:.be :Project,

- att....ltl h.,. -lhd t:.he Doct:r:l.ne of

CDJ.let:.e:ral. :a:atoppel - .... J.ysad. t:.ba •iaoal.

~acta of tha P...,:lact OD acaaic raaa~••

t:.hel: weza id.Ult.!.fied. :l.n Aat:."ila :r. They aqua

t:.bal: t:.ba - perti•a .,.,. laYol,..d, :1£ t:.bla

doakat u tn aa.t:.ria I, ~ i .. ae fD&' tile

PZ'Ojeat • • affeot GD Hatllet:.i.,. ,.. fRlly

ol!-oa} wo:mr ~01111 ~roa ..... nnml {os-o5-17}

App.370

1

a

'

' 7

1S

11

17

11

11

20

21

u 23

2t

1

1

3

' 5

' 7

:.1

:.7

11

u

20

21

22

23

2&

ad;I....U.eat.ol iD tlaat t:iDal. .S.IlidDil DD .lal:da

I 1. 111141 tJaa os:t.c.zo:l.a ~to .S.tezmaa

aceDia .,_. iD t:llia docket :La :l.deat:laal

t:o th8 IO<ll:i.teri.& foe .1.-t:lt:ioat:iem ol: aD-to

,....ouraaa la !:lao .latria I doaket. 'ftaey alao

_. tlaat: - •llmal.d aot: ._ coaaidol'.ol

pl.-t of 1Ul4 iD l:laa CIOI&8anat:iem

•••-•• u a aAUpt:lem _ _. .....ser l:laa

Doo~ of Col1a-.al .. ~al baoaaao t:ba

auba-il:tH la Allt:da I .S.t:azaSAad t!wt ..,ala

pl&Cl-t ......,. aot ut:Lgat:a - •zoo:lact•a

effaota em .. al:laatic..

'1'ba .llJpl:LOIIAt ........ t.hal: th8

lilt-...... u .... t:a azs-t• &lrea~ l'&:l.a.ol dudQIJ l:laa ad;twlicat:l ........ rialaa lOAd

did DOt •••-t ""¥ faota l:laat: -..14 va=aat

.. ~illlr- - t2aq -" ... art: t!wt::. l:laa 8U..-it:taa ... DOt.,~,.... tc e-.tder !:lao

Jllzo~•a~t• J.JIItaat:. OD tiMJ - •ceaJ.a J:"a8011Z'C18•

•• ldalltifl.ol iD l:laa Urst .Ia tria •-~ act

IIOCl&aaa l:laa ~-t lOAd ita aUaot:a GD

aaatJwt.l.ea, iDClladi.ag :Laopact:a em ao-to

.... ....,..., ••• 11aa ~- ZOMr .:lao -· l:laat

tile c-itt .. •a &Uopt:iOD of D- :nalaa

1'7

ou-oa} [.mllft'-- roa aJ~B~W~D~Jl {os-os-u}

110 !:bay tall< !Oboul: t.ha 1-•

about l:laa -tCl&tiDD at ~ to CODa~

•••-ta '""'lcl110t: aait:ably Uipact ·­

aaitably al.tigau l:laa aaiii:Jaat:io -...1:. ftay

••:r l:laa .s.dtoat:i.,.. -- lOAd t:llia ia a qaota -­

"'l'lw 4.-licaU- of 1- t:o a ooaoouvat:lou

aaa-t iD l:laia oua• -- ao l:laay'll'& tall<.f.IIIJ

abO'Dt l:laat p&l't:iOI>lU doaket ~d llOt

allit:ably ut:ipt:a l:laa illp&ct.• -vi- of

l:laa r-.u... Of l:laa -1:& UO tl>at iD DO

eaaa ....ald ODD&IU'Y&t:l- -t:a lluioally

lla uaad aa llii::I.!J&t:loa. '1'ba ~· of tlaat:

ordal' aald it woal4 •allit:ably. • Bo l:laal: t:o

aa ia -..y apaoif:l.o. '1'.,.. ~~Dow, wlull:laall' yoe

:bali.,. - _.,. :bouad by l:laat: f:il'&t ordall' ..,..

J>Ot, I'a- l'eadillll l:laa- .hB&lf a

little bit diUa,_t p-~· l:laaa l:laa ol:laar

~··· 11a. -~. I atad:ad ta:u.t.ue

- yeo -.. -~- Bo ycu•rs ~UXt.

U. WU.TIIDIIIITc So I l:laougbt I'd

o!d.ae iD becaua I «U.do • t for l:laa ·-

coaearlliD!J l:laa rea ~udieat:a .

C:.....arllill5' col.l.atoral eatoppel, :r

1

a s t

5

7

• '

:1.0

u 12

1.11

lA

15

11

17

11

lt

ao 21

1

3

• I

l

I , 10

u 12

1.11

15

u 17

11

lJ

20

21

za 23

24

""''ucl!>ltr tba .S.fiDi t:ioa ol • aeeaio

raaou&'aea• lOAd - orit-ia ,_ -•1aat:I.D!J

l:laa affaot:a OD -l:laatiaa b ... ~taat:

IIODIIidaratiDil. All for llitipl:iOD ....,......,

l:laay _. l:laat l:laa em.!ttaa ... DOt

r~ to flD4 t.hat tba pl-t of

............ u- liiAd All4 --t• -· DOt

doaa DOt: r_.a•t liD effaati,. lll.t:igatt­

-"- tJa:La docl:lolaa Mid t.hat _.,..DDt ~4

apiD by th8 Allt:r:la l doekat -o:l.flaaUy.

lo lot: - &all: api11. A :l-ot of

then S.a.aaa are -rr a:lailer t:o wbet: - ~uat:

d:l.aouaad. - .. aoqoloo4y wiall to off- .,...

-"' !llo .,ad>al reiiJHIIUia]

PUIDIDIQ OI'I'ICER Ban"T: X 811088 :1:

will at:arl:. ll:'a aorzy, •at:t:y.

I'll aot:a l:laat •- I loobd al:

th8 • • iD fact, it _. iD l:laa -1 for th8

~lie• • ·- aluo poa11a4 • fliiOI:& CNI: oil! l:laa

ori.giaal. &nulla 1 c ... tUic:ata ~

......... - -- it -·t • o-uuoat:a. It ...,

a .s.a:l.al of oenifieata. X nad it

pera-.lly a lil:tla bit diffaroat.

Ola·D2} [o10~ ~ala lOa •IRK•PTRO] {05-05-17}

lla.,. tba •- aDDClari-. I tbialt t.hat -

~bl:r aODai.S.I'.ol t:llia ia- d:w:.t..ag ouz­

.S.ll:barat:iDD& lOAd l:laat l:laars are d.iffa....,t:

ia .... a ill Alltrla :1:1 duo to DbaD!Jaa iD l:laa

lnllaa aa4 -- ia l:laa .llJpUaati-. J:

l:laiDI< t:ba affaot:a of t:llia •-~•ct .,...

d:l.frarmlt t::b&a tl>a affact:a of l:laa Alll:rla :r-· P"""a"t' - If it•• llaa!.aally 1:1aa •­

ae-te reaoazoea tl>at ars affact.ol. .lad I _ -·t l:billk _,,.. bCNDd by a poaail>le

daoiai- .La &al:loSa x l:b&t .,. .._,t: u• aODIIarvaU.Qil -•-t:a u lliU.pt:i-. I

l:laiDI< - laa4 a lOD!JCIII' di•au.oaiaa. -1: tlaa

••lt:abUit:y of l:laat. - !Ji,_ I:Jaat :1.1:••

liard 1:o ao,...... -· mtipt:i- for a wlad

pro~ael: i• diUa...,.l: t::b&a mt:ipU.Dil tar, ·~

a niiAd-alcma IJIIAOI'1'UDIJ facility, ...,... you

.. .., pt up r ...... aa4 -- lOAd l:b&t tn>• o:l!

tl>ia!J. 'I'CN llava to be abla to be a 1itt:1a

_,_ cr-ti,.. I ~:laiD~<- l:aa4 full

d:LacnuoaiDD Dll !:bat ia.,.. aa4 l:laat wbat:e.ar

l:laa dao:l.aiDD waa ill .latrSa :t DDilaarD.I.Il!r

20

015·02} t30~ ~IGal P0a ~ {C5·05·17}

App. 371

2

4

' 10

11

12

1S

14

15

11

17

11

20

21

22

21

• '1

.. ,,

.I I

) i

.u

II

15

1f

17

11

n

I

... .

Bo~ ..

DJI. IIOXSVD'ro Again, ~al.llDg - IIIJ'

p:r:eri......, a-.e, )'OUZ' intezpnu.u- o~ thA

-~ .ba thA -&1 b av u:a<larat....u..g -

z _ .. .ba tllat -~. wbicJl la to • ..,.. it ....

aot a :b1aok·u4-hite dt:uat:l.aa., .l.t: waa a

-tte~ of orvJ.tab.1.1U:ya Waa it: ......,Pt ADd :I.D

t::ttat: :I.Dat.&De~~, ar ap:I.D.f.aa. aa. t:bat, nicll ,.. :I.D

thA -:lo.,.l.t:y it happeDa, ,.. 111101: that

oou.,..UOD 1u4a ~·t. aa e aet:.....r

aa:L-1e, l>ut t::bat partiaulaz: o~t:i- ...

DOt: au.l.tabla ~- that: :I.Da-.:e.

PIIBSmDIIJ OPnc:lll aCOfto AD¥ otha.-

TCN -· again :1:'11 DOt.a J: t:lli.Bk

- aeZ"u..baly d.l.d d.l.aOWIB l:bia ... tiler

t:.bo,...ghly x t:hiDll: :I.D the 1:~.-aripta.

Ol>ri.ou81y, naaODal>la paaple .,.,. d:Laegzae

rit.ll ....,. .S.C:iaiOD. llut: aa lor aa -et.IDg !::be

cr:l.t:al'.l.a that At:t:o~ Xac:apiAa ... t.I.CDad, Z -·b ~~ly aae, lll'I0&1f, t:llat: t::ba

-uo..,. hit: tloat: U<nallold. lloaa -""'dr

21

015·02) (iJODft IIDnCDIB JrOJt PBQIIIDIQI {05-05-17}

-- - 6o you. .. - t.lla 1-. z t:biM

pa"aplu:eaiolg ,...., of t::be -t:a, x t:hialo:

tlluw'a •a.e ti•au.•icm o~ tU ~r1.t or

:I.Dt.ellt: of t:11a law. ~ - -t:ll aa.

IIIW'rual At:t:onar Clil!tom •

a. CLZI'I'OIZII Z ~uat: ned !::be loriefl

I'Olea, AD4 :t t.lliDll: t:llat: - aat:laf:l.ed t.lla IIIW',_

~...-t: - t.llat - _,. law&all;r • 1awlal

,.._ t;llat: aat: .. pzope~1:r iA t.11a ac:ape of """"

jllri.a4.1.oe.I.OD. :z: 4idJ&• t: aee ...;rt:hiorr t:o rrf..,. -

PIIBSmiJIG orncmt lOOft• ADot.lle~

foot: tllet: wea brought: up 1>;r t:lla App1ieaot: wea

-.. wea t:hia ha ... ~t: up. 8o t.ilel'e'a

&1ao a aqgeaef.OD t!aat: it:•a lat:e t:o lorlDg l:bia

la1111a "'P• - U: llllcNldJ&•t: 1>a aaa.aldered

l>ac:aWI• of t!aat: &1ao. •o :z: -·t- :1.:1: t.llat:

l:aot:ora :I.Dt:o U7bodr' a 4lacuaeioa.

a. _..,, z -uu :Suet aay,

"egard1eaa of-- it: waa I>~ '"l'• z t:hialr.

tlJa at:ata1:41 - t1>e rulea ba- o...eaiA

:l:"affld~t•, aDd. ... ,. .. t: ~·• r-aa,:l.~t•·

You -· WQald it l>wWI l>a- Dioa t:o bavoo IIIDZ"O

1

2

• 5

•

1i

17

11

1S

1

2

l

• 5

7

• 10

11

12

13

11

15

16

17

11

1t

20

:u 22

23

24

DZ' •••

lifo ...,,.&1 ,.._..)

... smDIIJ onl:I:IIR BCO'r'ro ••••4 011.

tl>et:, .,.. will _,. to t.ba 1....., t. ......

ADot:lla~ l&lf&l lana t.bat: waa "eilld .l.a d.l.d -

....,. .., -,ppzopriate qaDZUa to 1~1J' -e. 'l'be :rat:a.-.--a eod eo-ae1 ru.. t.lle

lhl!>lia _.. that:, aff ... t:l:w•1y, aliA U2•B

~rea, WJ.ol> :U: doaa, t:Mo pu:blla -H •• ...,. 011. aac:l> -..-.:~.t:t:aa. Bat X t::bl.r:k

-· .,.. 4.1.Uc p~l:lap• ia t:lwy a1ao ..,,_

~t t:11a _.. l'a'IQ.I.,_t af fi..,. -- :I.D

pu:ttlio .-.,. ta 1>a ..-qui,.. 011. t!aa

ll>oba-'t:t ...

t!aa Appl.iceot: ~ ua t!aat t.ba 1- fo" tlJa

IIIW'Z'IIIl se,ya, •n,., -r• aba11 aaa.atit:ote a

~ fo" t.ba puqoosa• of -.s..ct::Uo!J atet:a

l>aa:l.aeaa, • w:l.t.ll DOt.lliAg .f.a tlle at:atute

.-a41'dl'i.nrr po!IU.o -•r• oo t!aat

s..,.,_t:taa.

So :t gu.aa 1 .ould aak if aatDad¥

llaa - •-t.a - ~t. ~ -· t:hia ia

015·02) !.nmn' JIO'r%01111 1"0.11. UBDJtDIQI {os-os-17}

- dls..,..aioa. But :t t:hiDll: tllet legally ....

-t t:ba reqm...--t:a of t.ba 1- iA t!aa I'Ola.

PRUmlliGI OPPXCD. SCO'r'rs AJ1¥ -r

d.l.s..,..•i- of t::bla ianaY .Aaytoody faa1 .,.. ,_.

,. ....... ta ~eaoaaide~ OD t:hia l>ea.l.a7

lifo ....0&1 ... _..! niiiU>DIIJ OPr.tc:lll IICOft• :t•a aaai1111

:baad ooda, ao 1•11- oa.

ADot:t>ar 1 .. ,. .... t:apl.e :t •u tzy t:o

puae cnat. a lltt:la :bit:. 'll>eo:a waa -.do

4houa:L .... - ...., U!Ut:r to W&i.v. .....,. -

I'Olea azul - t:llat: waa oz- -• oot 6ooa. 'rl>a

%Dt:az:9eDOra aod CV!maa1 fo~ t.lla Pui>Uo _.

tl>et our 4Miia.t.aa.a .....,. ~1• l>ao.,..a

~tz'ictiaa.a, part:.t.calarl;r •• tllay -,pJ~liiOd t:o

put:ia:l.pat:f.nrr lao-a, w:l.t:lulut ~ a

clatuain&t:lOil t.llet t.lle wai.,.r waa iD t.lla

poll1:1.a iDt:e~ut aod w:l.t:lulut !Ji.v:l.aa"

::OterveDC>ra ~ appo~t::r t:o addraa• t!aa

-opaat: for a_,._,., ea o:aqu:lr!Od iA BBC lblla

202.::.5. Dey--- t:ba)' ol.da tile dada:Loa

26

015-02} (JODIT ~IOIIS II'OR UIIU.JIDQI {05·05·17}

App. 372

1

2

6

s

' '

10

11

12

11

14

11

15

17

11

11

20

::11

22

:u

2•

1

2

10

11

11

lJ

1t

15

u

1'7

lt

lt

20

21

22

2J

26

llpeo:l.:fio fUad:l.aga ia.U.oauq that: tha -~,_.

w:l.l.l ••- t:l&a pld>l.la :l.at:..,e•t:· • Bo J: l:lsilllt

- of l:ll&t: .la .U.4 - -• l:hoaa _...., :l.a .....,

4el.:U.aratioa. 11114 did wa ~:l.et:al:r

aoa.:l.dar t.b.a.

"rbe:r tarl:har ._ t:J>n we allolald

ba,. -licitly pi:Drided aa ~~ t:o

o-1: 011. aDJ' wa:L-r hqgaat: :bdar. l:ba

-~l:l:aa.

"1'llol .llppl:l.caat: .... .,t:a U..t: t~>are•a

-1• -tdaaca :l.a u.a ""'*" wlaara U..

:Ill!:_,. -~··ad t::be les:l.tiaaar o:l! ·­

W&:I.,..,.. AAd ~::bay -· !:bat U...,. waa

app-:l.al:a aad coa8:1.4e.,a:bla d:l.ac:u .. ioa 011

oar all4. Sa 1: 1 11 -- h-4 em that. aga1a,

:Saat: ao ~odr .....S...al:allda, :1:'• 1101: t:~

t:o arti-laea ..-..:rem••• -" :l.a f.t.aa

dat:aU .•

&a.y .U.a..,..dou oa U..t 0114, 011

wa:l.,..,a of our .:ulaa aa !:bar -l:r to

pa:t:ic:l.pat::l.q 1~ ... ,

MS. WD'ftlmtBIIY2 S'II.Z'el, % 1 11 ch:LIM ill.

Wa ooaoludad. U..t. U.. put:.loi.pat.:l.q 1""""--.,. oaa aaa.t:oraot: ..,..,. tl>ai" dgll.ta. .:raat. baoauaa

25

015-02} [JO~ ~~ .a& pwpzap%BGQ {05-DS-17}

I'D81DDIG or.'Xc:ml Scorl's lo, tD

pa...phraaa, wa - a gea8"a1 f:l.ad:l.q of pul>U.o

:l.at:e.,.at: - •• la ..... tl>a eu-t:Uiaat.e. .IDd 1

agfta w:l.t:h tll.at:.

"1'llol aaooad. PA"': of l:bia :I.e tlaa

abili~ f-. ia IJ" .... I:iag • wai...r, fa.. l:ba

~-:1.~ 1:0 c-1: oa l:ba ........ ., ba:l!ora

ba:l.q lr".,.t:ad. Doaa aapod.y ba,. ear

r-:L:I.qa oa t:llal:?

P1a •-1 .,.apoaaaJ

PDB:ID:DIG orr%CIIIl BCO'f'l!; Jllr,

1111. CloU'I'OlmJ Wall., J: woul.d. :l,..t: aa:r

l:ba :l.aaua waa :ba-aa l:ba put::l.a:l.pal:iag

1.uldolea.ara Uld ~ _!..,.~. lo J: 4Da•t; •• %1a

""" pU•:I.q l:ll& ....,.. h- U.. d:l.a.,....daoa

abaut: t:ut: iD t::ba .._t:_t: of l:ba :lat........,.,•

u,....ag ... :~.a .. - iaaua to ia;laot: -el.-•

iat:o what -t:a to lla, what: ••..., to ba a

l"'i•ata OOBt..aat: batw- t:lla l'&"tic:l.pat;:l.q

~ .... aad l:ba panoa look:l.a!r :1!= t::toa ait:e

11114 facility •-t. :t -· !:bat:'• t1aa

kick at:...t:ar t:bat: .. t:a t::ba Appl:l.oat:loa RlD4 of

..oll:l.q i.a t::ba fuat J.Dat:aae>a, IIIOF'fiiY, ia !:bat:

27

015-02} [JO~ JIDnCDIS Pml UIIIW1Dit;J {05-05-17}

1

2 , " s

1

J

• 5

5

7

• •·

1.0

11

12

13

14

11

11

17

11

1J

20

21

22

23

2t

wa .U.ciiD •t: ~ae>J.:I!loa11y aq !:bat: &l.lowi.ae t:ham

to d.o ao - ia l:ll& public iat:a...•" :I.D l:ba

oODt-1: Df our .UeOU8e:l.aoa --·t aasrata l:ba

wa:l.,..... % t::b:I.DII: :!.DII,a.,eat: ia ....,.. ...,idoa t:o

IJ"&at: l:ll& cKt::l.:l!icat::l.oa, -·- made a

USI4:1.11!1 !:bat graaU1111 a c...t:U:I.oata waa :l.a U..

pl:l.a .l.at:..,.•"• tbal: t:llat ~ :l!:bul:l.atJ t::bat

t:lla JTo:laot: .. • wbola waa .:l.a t::ba pa:bllc

:l.at:e.,eat: :l.aaoEPC~.,.t:aa l:ba laiiUII ooaaeJ:D:I.Dg

p....Ueipat::l.alg ~ ••

PDSZDDICI OJ71CIIIt SC!Oft• k.

D. CL:I:I'J'Om)• J: woul.d - t:o ~

wa mad.a - ..,..,.11 flD4:1.q !:bat t:lla .appU.eaUoa

oa t:lla wbola at: tba - of t:lla ~ -1: tlaa

pa:bl:l.d .:l.at....aat at:.aodari. A1ul t:o do eo, 1:

-·t t::bb>k wa aou14 ba,. d.oaa !:bat v:l.t::bout:

allowiJIV - PA"'::I.d:l.pat:l.q l~a t:o wa:l.,.

e-ia rLIJitt:a1 otberalaa, bow -..14 lillY

faa:l.l:L~, wbatl>OK :Lt:•a wlD4 oro- v--•t:ia.v

faaU:I.t:y, .,.,. get: l:nl:l.ltt I juat -·" •aa :Lt.

lk> J: t:l>.:l.alr. wa add...aaaa4 '" ...,..,.11, aad. !:bat

parU.aul.U" :La.,.. waa aull•-" 1>7 t::ba o....nll

:l!.:l.ad:l.q. Diet'• where z .,_ out.

015·02} [JODI'l' IIIDnCDIII roll UIIDIIDIQ] {01-01-17}

a e.......,.ct: ba- a part::l.ci.pat::l.q 1--..a.:

vlt::b - •t:l.ty or a ,..,.,..., !:bat w:I.O.. t:o o"

d.aa:l..,.• t:o :I.Det:el.l a ....-ratiag faoil:l.tr aa

that par•cm 1 • ~rt:y. So z d.DA•~ •- -- J: -·t aaa wban t:lle"a raa11y J.a &II¥ at:aadiAg,

for ._la, for ....,tl>ar part:r t:o .:l.a,..l,.

t::to...al,.a :La tbat: -iUa .,.l.ati..,..hip. -·

ov.ral.l., wa ba,. • eat: af r:ui..a l:ll&t: acllb:eaa

l:ba a:l.te 11114 :l!aa:I.Ut:y, you a.-, t:lla

Appl:l.aaU• :l.t:aalf. But •• t:o t:Ut poi.at, It

4ft 0 t aaa tU 0-CtiOD.

l'DBDIDIQ OPI':tCBJI. IICIO%T1 Let: - aaR

:rou tb.i•• ..,_ wit::b :roar op:l.a:l.oa :rou :1,..1:

up,..aad, wauld Y"''l &IJ"88 U..t -- d.o :r- faal

!:bat - d:l.d. baer -1: :l!na 1:U :late.....-n

OD t:b.ia ~J."'

D. CloU'l'OJID • Yaa:b, % tll.t.aR - d:l.d..

I d.cm•t. ha..,. .mtr -.aas.rt.a reaal1ectt.i.cm. J:

caa•t: poi.at: t:o l:ll& Z'Kori. But: :t l:biDk all tha

part:lea -.,a ll.aard.. Bo I dtm•t ••• 1mY M&:l.a

t:o ........ to&ci, at la&at iD !OF api.a:I.OD, 01U"

dach.l.oa.

PRIIIIDIIBII Dl'P:tCIIR 8C0ft 1 Att:oo:aey

·--a~o:r.

21

015-02} [JO~ ~018 lOa ~] {DS-DS-17}

App. 373

1

2

4

5

' 7

10

11

13

:.J

14

15

11

17

11

1t

zo

n 22

23

a•

• 5

• 10

11

lZ

13

u

15

u ;L7

1.

u 20

31

zz

n

24

... --.... ~-......,....a­....... u. fa&' pa&'tilllpaU~~e" ~. t:o ba -­

for al1 ~ .... tritloia c-taio -.a, a11

affaauul 1~ara, to be treated tbe •- ••

razo •• aa:fet:)" i•eaaa. a.ut wbml. - .. r.

draft:I.Dg -· ...a .. , 1: belt_., :t ..., ooe of

tba prapcm...ta tbat arguM. for tbat, l.D tbat if

tbq _.,. to -i- their aafety, it -• al:i11

.....- ;jaru.U.otiou t:o - aur• tbat tbay ...,,..

~aot tgo ~~D:Waf•. .ldul tbat •aJ.d.. ::t wa• t.he

cme -- :t a•l'tai.Dl7 ..... t:..s fbtizos' tbat allowiag

tba p&&'tl.a.t.pat:I.Dg 1~ :i.D th:l.ll bat:aAce

to be alll>j•ot t:o .U.ff•,.._t ataDdardl! ,..

--iat• - !a tba ~l.ia illt..,.at. Azul J:

t.1l.iU tbat it -· a- .....,ly Oil wllo tba

partiaJ.patillg 1...-..ra wer•• wll1ab

pa:opa&'tl.aa, - tbat •• ball_. .UcsuaaiOIUI

aOilcanaillg tbaaa PE'GJIB&'t:l..., - - tba ll'&'a~act

aUeatd - lllld, of courea, - tba P&'ojaat.

affected otba"a. 11o J: ~air. tbat .... .._., all

:l:llt....,_o.,a, all pa.rt:l.ea, 111&4 an appart111lit;y t;o

uplon tba :l.aaue CIODOU'O:I."'J tba -Uaabilit:r

of •-- fa" tba part.idpat:.I.Dg 1-•· PltBB:tJ)DG 017%Clllt S~: A1Qr otba..

02.!1-02} lo10DIT IIO'I':&:OU 1'0A ~I {05-05-17}

qata, speaU:iaall7, Cououlel fo" tba Pul>U.a

a&'guad tbat tba P~ai41.ag Off.l.oa"'• 4aaiaioa

to p,_,.a4a ,._,. f,._ ulo.I.Dg ailc!:l.tioaa1

,.-.a.uttal qg .. I:!OJUI fft' :a.... _...t ......

ad>it~ - amra&TIIIlt:ed. llotll. tile

J:otarv'BDO&'a - c:uomaal for tba J!Uio1Le

,......eat tbat - reapen tba r•COM - all­

tba :tllt-ra to raM:biUtat:o tba:l.l:'

rim.••-'rile .llppli6-t ua....ta tbat tlae

:rnt:o~r• fa:l.la4 t:o i<hDt:l.f)o ...,. •nozo of

f-t. n ... ~ ozo 1 .... - .. tal>l:i.ab tbat:

the c=-:l.tt.-•a 4ach:l.oa -• ~mr-•-1•

baaa,. .. :Lt. l'a11ed-- UD4ard....J._.

&'aaoM. 'riley fulrt.M&' aaaarl t:hat t.ba

;rnte,_..or., _,.... oat pra~...U.o .. loy tba

zoa¢,__t to fila 'talE' ONppl-'tal

p&'a~.l.led t:aatilooDy at tba •- tt&e •• tba

Appl:l.a.,.t lbaoa,..a tb&7 :bad tb<l apparbml.t;y to

addrella UlY - a11 .lana• E'&:l.aad ill tba

.llppl:i.o~~~at•a t:eat!aoa;r cbdog

oi'Oaa-~1:!- of t.ba App:I.:Lo ... t•a w:l.toaaa.

eo, _, oliae_a:L_ - t.bia :La .... ,

pro .... d>al. reap-.al

011-C1} [JO~ BDTJ:088 70a ~~ {o!-OI-17}

a s 4

5

I

10

11

12

13

14

1S

15

17

18

u a a 11

22

23

u

1

2

• $'

' 7

• •

10

1:1.

12

12

16

15

15

17

18

u 20

21

u 23

2.4

-tat Dou ""'71i1ody faal. tba oaed to

raGOilllidal:' ~ aartifiaa'ta ~ad Oil ~a i•auat

•-iav Ma4 D04a -vain• :l.f t:bat:•a

the a-•· r 1 11 _,.. em.. &gaiD., th:L• ia a

!Jroad t:ap.1a, tha J.•.u• af: proaada%a1 azul

:!a:lm•••·

na :tot:o...,_.,:r:. - ccnmaal for tba

J!Uiol.l.a argue t:bat t.M&'a were proaadural

Vllfai=a•••• to tba P"'•:l...U.Oa of t:ba ccnmaa1

~o" IP\1bllo IUI4 :rn~... t.Mt ... aal.ta4 :La a.

c:Ull:l.ag all:fae't ..., t:ba :IA~a •

illftl1,_t Bll4 tba.lzo Loabillt;y to fuUr

-lop tba facotaal raeoM. Dre

a~aifiaally, t.h.zw va• cct~~c•za abov.t. ~

.,...,.i:r:~t to ha.- wr:l.t.tao p:r:afila4

'taatiaooy INblllltt:ed at t:ba •- t:l.me. '1'11&7

.. aert t:Jaat pE"Oae~ waa GODI:razy to tM

IIP:I.rit of 5'1-A, All4 it: ... COil~,."Y to tba

Adm.I.Diat.rativa Rulaa, ....,.. alta 202.02,

lbaoaaaa it ....._f:l.'tta4 tb& Applia ... t: 8114 did

DO~ a11ow fD~r adm.la•!1.011. ef rel~'t. .. i4Afw:•.

'lhq fw:t.bal: o1&1a tbat t:bay wu.

aot a11..-4 to l'ababili'tat.a 'tloei"' witaua Bll4

gODduct. f:i•uU7 c:ra••-~ti.cm. &ad,

30

015-02} [JDIBT IIO'I.'J:OJlll JIOll IIIIIIIIAIIDIGI {05-05-17}

nBSDIIJIQ OPPJ:Clllt SCOfto Bae._e ll

wil.l oa'ta -. tba -- ~ovaly, •• rou':l.l

:r:-. - 'tloe b .... of Colmllal for tba

l'ablic• • .._.t: to p....n.lla addit.l.ooal rebu'tt:ol

qa .. tloDa, I d:id -k her ta prcrri.da an of: fer af

pZ'OOf for t:ba ....,o,.. ll,y op:i.a:i.011 :i.a zoa..Uasr

t:bat, pra'tty IIW>h all tba ia1111ea :r:a:Laed :La t:bat:

offer of pZ'OOf ....,... :La tile ....,oM. ao :t gaa ..

tbat -.ald. ba DOe -t:l.- for yaa t:o eooai .. .,,

)'Oil lalow, wu t:bat efl':eol:i,.1:r ea. :I.a._.

llo, aga:l,,., ~ baTe u,r

CGIIIIMDt•t

llll. CLJ:II'l'OIID • 11r reoo11aet:i- of tbe

,.....,.~ ... t:hat; t.baO"a -· a hll ua4 l!a:L"'

opport..o:Lt,. fa" _.,"'701W to =oaa w:l.ta•••••.

Azul : -·t aaa •• ozo 4:1.cllo•t feal 1lka .._.

41411'1: pi: ... opport:,...:l.ty to I>• Jaaal'd W..I.DIJ

t.b& proeaedbiJ•• f...,. ..,. ataodpotnt:. :r t:loo1Sght

it. ..,. a fd.,ly fa:l.&' ao4 rolhaat 41.aou•a.l.oa b7

all _u ••. •• -u •• ...,., ... -~u..... 1

t.hizak x•a cc.fortUl• with what ... ,.. d.cma •

J'IIUil)DIG OrPZCIIR SCOTTo llh:l.la

-it::Latr foE' •-.t:r alea, :r•11 oota alao 'tloet

:Lt.•• ill ....,.. nla•, too, uplio:l.t.ly, tbat tba

011-02} [JOIBT ~:taNS rca ~I {DS-05-17}

App. 374

1

2

3

' &

1

• J

1D

11

u 13

14

u 1f

17

11

u

20

.11

12

24

11

u 17

:: li

·n I

n i 1

:J :

-.., of: pEVOC h DO> t:!>a JlppU.oUII:. ADd tluat

.zvu-• efCeet:lYely Co~ tJua Jlppl~a~t, iD

P"""'il>g tl>ailo -. - ol! p~ol!, l>uieally

~11'~1a·t.-.

liDy -"• - l:laatt •. ra-•· nra. :I'OIRDio :1:•11 -.J<e- pain~.

:1: evr- tl>at. -o:y<me - tal" - a;>l•

oppo.,Qm.t.ty to bring' tart.h wbat:e,.r ---~

t:llq au.. to -a, aDd :z: doa. It ••• or Mar UlJ"

.,.. ccmaal:'lle l:laat: wva1d be ~· that: ..

IH.dD• 1: -- 0~ fldlell to CHIII8idao:. :1: .so t:hi.Dk

tbat: ~·· DO e-1: ...,. I:Ut ill lilY

apiza:L.,.. :I.e ......,e tor a ~.

PJIIIIIZDDIG OI'J':tcmt SCOT'l'o Doee

IIIIo .,.ICbal ,.._..J PDB:a:JIDIO Oft':I:CIIIl IICOT'l'• loll "t!Jhl:.

Wit:.h t:hat:., %1 11 acnre OD t.o t:.t. ~road. t:apJ.a at',

apia, tba •ffaatll oa. aeatlaetJ.a•.

'1'hll not:e"""""n and •wain OOimaol

Co~ tl>a Pllbl:Lc -- l'a Plat::L..,.ly ~:I.Dg

!:h.- ill tl>aee t:opice •• &"ll"e that: CDD~&q"

to our ILale S01.14, wta.l.le doot:uaillill!J t:he

eCCect or tJua P%0ject DD aeetl>atice, tJua

-•t.hat;:l..,., - 4:Ld _.,:Lately COD8lllal< t:he

a:l.ei:!D!J CIM&"aot:er oC t:he •~• t:he

dp:I.I!:L-. of tl>a eceDic ., .. ouroee, pablio

.... of ,.. • .....,., •• , doly ad algbt:t:~ riaual

ef:Ceat:e, Ul4 t2aa P"'pGeed IOlt:ipt:Loa

.... urea, ait:iag 011r dellbentiOD t:.,...aa.,ip~

Ul4 tba ~- dooye ot: .t.J.ibant:I.ODe. '!:he

App1:1.aUit: al.ao ....,.....S. t:bat: t!>a lluba-t:t:aa

.....,.ida~ell t:ha ec:opa Ul4 acale ol t:he P-~ect:

-it: ..,.aluat:ell eac:ll Ul4 ..,."Y photo

e:laiiSl.at:iCIII, •••••••d t2aa p~e aDd

~ca ot: tJua P:oject: :l.ll our

dool.ibe.,at:i-.

'1'hll7 c.az-t:bel' •••~ that: t:lae

lhd>c.-.it:t .. ......., dat:eJ:I&iaed that: t:he

.,., • .......,., • ..,. prbate ad that: tllay 414 DDt

aOD.aill&l:' t.be C'Dulwe1 far tla.e PublS.a • •

eu...lat:l.aa. "'-t"at:l.ao tba effect ot: t:he

P=:l-t :beaau.e :Lt C.......S !:bat. t:he pl>ot:o

e:t..ul.at:.l..,... ..,. p-a>ez'ed - privata

p'"""'rt:y - ,.uect:ad t:he eff:ect oC tba

~~ty o:. -- the Projeot, rather, on U.

pd-!:e -artl'· lila, agaiD, I'• ~'t ta:yiag to

ll

1

2

~ .

•

7

10

11

12

13

11

15

1&

17

11

11

20

21

1

2

•• J ·

10

11

12

1l

u

15

1(

:1.7

111 1' 20

21

aa 23

24

lhlba-t.tee t:ailad t.o ...al.yee tho eoopa U14

e...,_e o! tba ~· ill tba l&nda.,..a. '~:hay

...... ., tluat: t!>a 4acieiooo -.. -.-..a-le

P-jeo:rt to •- 1!8g1'- will be a -...at.

a..4/o .. ~t: c.a~ •• v:L..-4 c,_ t:ba

.1.-tif.t.ad aoeaio naourcee Ul4 dat.~d

t:!lat:. t:he ~.at:•• eUeGt:.a em •••t:b.at:.ia• ri11

be nae-le w:LI:IIcNt -.eaing' tba

•-:laat.•e acale illld .oopa ..,4 w:Ltlaout: ot.at.t.1>11

1111¥ :l.t ... olat--w.ad that t:2aey uo

"aaeOilUla. ~ at:at:e t:h&t- -da a

.,.. ... .,. fill4i~~~g Clllly ad t:bat - aiat:aloellly

OllllClllda4 tluat: GZ'e!l!f r.eko Ul4 •1aak Pillld -Z'e

p~i9a~• ~•ouca••·

Couaaeel t:or tba Publ:l.a !1a:t:heZ"

azgued t:h&t - 'IJDila"eetJaat:ed tba axt: ... t:.

,..~;..,.. Ul4 ....-at:lCIII of t:2ae pabUo uaa ot

idallt:i!:Lad aoeaia reltOIIftlaa ad aalla ao

f:l.lld:Lu8a that: would -rt: tba ........ l ... :l.oD

~ne b;oaat.

7he Appl.t.oaat. aeae.,t:a t:h&t wh:Lla

ad4noea:l.lllg t:he bapact. ol! l:laa l'rojaat•a

015·0~) [alllX'r IIO'l':I:OBII l'OJI P!!BBIIUWW!J {0&•05•17)

outUao ill datoail •'"'"Y part:iaul.alo -1:. .... CaD .so that: :1.1! you !!eel t:he ... a.t. '~:hat

-• :b~d brue'h tJua poe:l.t.t.oooa o! t:he part:l ...

liDy d.l.eau.a:I.Oil oza t:h:l.a ieau.7 DJ:. lloi.....,t; •

Da. BO:tBVBRr• :t gueea % feel

oblitJata4 to apeak to t:hie baea11ee :1: _. -· I

voted tluat the p,aj-t IH.d -... - wore .. -le

adw'ar•• af':f.at: em ... t~:wt:.ia•.. %D. ~ to

tbat: """"laa:I.DO>, :t wil.l coaaada tbat: :t ba4 t:a

t:hiU a:baut: :l.t: '"'"Y aardu11y, Ul4 :1: _. OR t:ha

o..ap ,.,.. •- t.:laa. 1 ...... t...ur .._ to t:ba

cC>IllOl.,..:I.Oil t:hat it: did JI'D ~ t:he liRa. &.e :1:

Btat.ed ill IIIII' opilliOD vazt>&l.ly, it. .... all

~t:. but: :t IH.d -t: fael :1.1: wae ......,.to

of ao. ~t: to aay -· waa ...,

----1• .-. .... eCCaat.. l t:hiU -addad

ill tbat Ia lilY ~ova:l.t.:I.Oil tba.,. _.

tzhi• wa• DD~ -- -r opiDJ.GD waa

DDt. U1d by t:he ot:Mr• !lara.. 7: a1111. mutezo•t.a214

that. :t t.biDk that t.be :Lnfo~tioa provided

.,.. cailo alld juet. l wil.l aliad.t tbat. • .........

o:f t:laa pbot:o at.en.lat:ioae p,.._tad lor t:be

3&

o15-o2) taomr MOr:ta.a l'OJI ~~ {o5-0I-17}

App. 375

1

2

3

•

• 'J

10'

11

n :3

14

15

1&

1'7

11

1t

20

:u .22

.23

24

4

I

' 10

11

12

13

14

15

" 17

11

1J

20

21

2J

21

24

b4 J • 4 like to - tllia

oppoz-t:=it)' to CI-t that fOZ' all tbe ol:llar

aal:8goriaa that Daa4 to he -- M.f...,.

tMtl BUI>..-t:ua, - s.a a atata -o:r that loaiU at :l.t. uul EeD4ca .., op:l.a£orl. Xt.

m.pt. '" na~a • -· CUltural .............. .

lleal.t:h .,.,s -.a llarricaa uul ao .fOZ't:h,

aowe.er, for ae.t:h8tia•,. ~ ::L• DO •tate

asr-c:r that. buull .. autllat.:l.oa _,1,..:1.'"'1)'.

~·• a lit.t.la b:l.t of Dar lack:l.ae at ac.nic

big~•. W. ha.,. a Ccnmoil fo" tbe AftB,

:but that:•a qui.t:a 4:1.U-t:. 11o- ~a<>iva

tlos.• 1Jl1-t:I.DD wit!> .... Jl"lo" ... ti::I.IIIIJ, ....S

S.t•a left = ....,.. doontBOp to judge fzaa t11a

!>togUm:I.Dg. 'rl>eEa :h DD azahao1.at DE

r:ul.t~ r&aDI>Z'Caa ..,......., - h&• lookad at

the effeata aa4 t11a :l.deat:l.f:l.cat:l.aa af

k:l.atoll:':l.c ,. .. ~c•• Oll:' arob.o1o,r:l.oa1 aitea.

'l'laa o.mlttaa -uld be :lroard·-•ed to a­to & -ladgNI>Ie DGDC111Bs- oa that. v:l.t:haut

·- .,.tti"''J b:r that. aa-cr -- :t.t ~aapp .... to

:ba .W...

Wa'n pna81lte4 ritll a 4:1.ff1D1lU .

a:t.t.uati-.,.. aaatllat.:t.aa. -. l8 ao ,_,,_.

37

015-aa} IJODIZ 110'1':1011& I'Oll ~I {05·05-17}

~ .. cu do ahout :t.t. xt would tau

1ag:l.alat:t.cm. But :t.t ......, t:bat: - ha,. to

_... • dec:l.ai.,.. let:e ill. t11a .,-. Alul :l.t:...,.

ba that fDI:un nl>coalitt: ... -:r look at .............. ~-.s.--. .,. :l.t ...... u,. 4oa•D'~ meat: tim a~rda. rena De..S to go

l:l&alt ....S • t:azt ...,.,,. • rhat wou14 l>a •

lata-:l.a-th&-- daob:l.oa 'llb:l.oll. wou14 hava

all .art• of zoep•rcua•i.DII8. lhlt lt: • •

paaa!llla. Bo tll.aaa ...,. .,. t!l01111JII.te.

PIIU:mDIU 0117XCD II:COfto I<> -·11

pllt ill. t11a "eeOZ'4 that DID! WO!lld l:l.ka to pt

lag:l.alat:t. ... autll.a.,:l.t:r oa a .. t!lat:t.c•t

IDa. II0%11VD'l'o llo. llo. llo. Bo.

PRBBI:DDIG DFrXCBII IICD'l'T: J~

••ide, baaed DD yoa.r •tate:~Mm.U,. .. aia,. 1: thiak

t:ha ar:l.t-ia .. •...sed to aaa ll10ra is do )'OU

faal that: ... ..., ovall:'lookad _. .S..takalll:r

aORa•~ve4 obeokGbeak ~ on aeatbetioa ia

ouz Ol<'igillal .S.c!aiaat 1'11 p~a :rou a lit~l•

I:I:Lt.

IDa. BOIIIV1QIS'o 1 -• ..,. t:lla loa:l.111r

aida, bat: I doa't tloillk :1.1: -• -fair.

015•02} IJO~ .oTIORB .aa RRRR~I {05-05-17}

1

2

3

4

5

' 7

• I

10

11

::.2

13

loll

15

11

17

11

1J

20

21

22

23

24

1

2

" 5

7

8

10

11

1.2

1S

u 15

16

17

11

u

20

n 2a

~3 ,.

Wa 1-k at: .,. appliaat:i- ~o dao:l.de :La :Lt:

e-.1•~•- 8a.Ya all ~ q1tuza1 &"e•cnmu••

,._ :l.d81ltif:l.ed7 -.•a DO"-'- of tha

•twlia• em. -•tllat1.aa to aay pa. t:Uy dJ.d

illeaed U.... all t.ha pll.oto aiaulats-a doDa

aa1011Z'Btely. •• U.... that k:l.ad af nvs.- ill

k:l.atorical ,.._....,..... ••

80 .. ,~ left t:o .... a 4•ci8iDD

-zr late !.a tha -· :r kl:i..,. - .a4o

goo4 dacla:I.Oila :I.Do tlal• ....S at!lall:' oa.d.ttea•.

Wa :ba'"' lloaaat d:l..f:f..,_caa af opill:I.Oil, wtdcll.

i• wily .. llava .ore tl:aaa ODe pe~aoa OD a

aal>..-:l.t.t:aa. I~ .l.a • :l..._t I0&4a I>)' a

- &lld t!la -~OZ'it)' p.....Ua. llut I'd

ja10t like to po:l.at 0111: tllia 4:1.fUINlt)' f­

th-. .Ucs.c:..it:teea. ADd it: put:a ..v.ryana at:

rtalr. hacauaa t!lali:'B .l.a llD pli:'B-,.t:MJ>g. ADd x

gues• X '• t:ak:I."''J ·-· Of - U.. juat to

-••• tll..l.a fl<'llatll:'a~!ODo ha'\"::..IIIJ b•- DD t11a

Ollly orub.....U.tt:aa that d81l:Led tll.a pe&Dit for

aaathatloa aa4 tbeD h&nD!f b- t11a Olll:r

perJIOil - thla ......... ~~t·• ..tao ..... ted to daD)'

it 011o aa•tllat:iea. :E h&""' •• .,. tloia &lld

t!lO"''Jilt: ahout :l.t, aa4 t.ll.la la wbat rlaaa t:a

015•02} [JODI'r IIO'l'Xmnl - pwp...,.q {05-05-17}

PJIU:ID%1111 OJ'J'lcaJI l~t Oka)'. ~

othato 4:1.aau.adoa Oil t.ll.la s. .. aat Attozaay

Cl:l.ffOI:'d.

Jill. CLll"PPm)o -· X haall:' wbat

Dr. Bo:l..,..,t.•a aay:l.ag, aa4 X -·· ADd fDl<'

bette.Z" OZ' WOZ"ae, tba zul.ea ba'vw l.aid autbatiaa

,.. cn:I.E' Mvr•tep. ADd a• you DaD •••• that ia

011a of tlla t:anut that h aot. .S.f:l:lla.S, So X

t!l:I.Dk that t!lB :l:ll~..,.t wu to leave 1t 11p to t!la

eo-:l.ttaa to 4ataDI:I.aa wl>at:haz that at ... olu:d.

that opalitr aaat:batica -• -1:. ADd ill t!lla

oua, :1: tll.l.ak- 4:1.4 do a tllozoagl> ;loll. &1>4 it

~uat: !lapp_. to l>a a 4:1.Ua,_.,a of op:t...i- at

tha - of t:ba eay. Bllt :r. tlloo&IJII.t that oa.a of

tlla ka:r tllizaga .. 4:1.4 do waa to p&iaat:aka -­

- tha Urat :l.an• -- t!la fili:'Bt t:ilul that:

ian. c-up, :z: can•t. ~~ thll exac:e

looaticm of tlla pll.oto as-J.•t:l._, l>ut tha :l.d­

-• 1at' • liD t:ba:ough all oC tllaa, aU tll.a plloto

a!Ju filM I>)' l>ot!l tha A;ppl:l.caDt: •• -.. ....

- -· :raah· t!le .ll;pplioallt'a vi•ual _t., .. -.11 aa dDuc.el ~or ~ Public••·

So X tlunsallt t:ha~, gi,_ -t -

:bad, - did a FA"t:r tll.o....,.P nvs.-. ADd X

015-02} (JODft' IIIO'fZOIIS IPO& UDU:r!IQJ {05·05-17)

App. 376

r ...

1

a , .. 5

7

I

' 10

l1

13

ll

1C.

15

15

17

11

1!

31

n 23

.2t

1

2

l

4

• c 7

10

11

12

ll

14

11

lf

17

11

.l.t

20

.21

22

Zl

24

..,. rl-. •• ll.a4 & '*'""~ .. - ..-11y 1111114

of - ~ll ~" pJ<et.t.y -11. f- attllr

DE' WOK' ....

lllii:B:IDDIII om~ ~= &t.l:a,.,..,.

·-~-1111. -·Y• % woul.d ._ with

tlllat.•a ba- aal.4. % ~ ~1: cnzr -t.aau ....

nth -•theUoa ....., -nloela•S.-. n. a44ii:J.""

l:a VOWs ~aU. oc U.. p!aoto aj.o:u].atioaa,

.,. e1eo ll.a4 a:l.t:e YU:i.ta. W. ,_.fully la.u4

...... ~ - --..... _ ... ., .. &hoal: t.lle:L ..

rl..,..l ..... lyeie aul .._,....., Da:l.ther of wh:Loll :1:

!o.....S pezfeot., loy 1111¥ •-· ..,." barl1111' the

t- yJ.IN&l. blpaat ·····-"- - u.. .uu-.....e of apiai-. :1: tla:Lak u~ell ue to

:l!oo:a """' """ apia.icme caacena1.Dg' the .S...act on

•••~Uce.

We llall gvo4 tia..,..done oooaN11:1.Dg

1J.ght~ ....S U..htl,.. oa. ~ u:Lpt.t:&.e

lJ.ghUoog. h 4:Laoueae4 .s-ilumt. au4

~t ... .s pd.•ate ,...wzcaa aD4 plio

,...._.,. &ali :t tlliAk U..t - 4:1.4 • gOod

~ob aaalya~ all of thet :!.Ia -u.w to what :t

~:~ao...,..ll. lllaat :1: ..... ae- b the IIIOt:I.Oilll ... ,..

ie ~-1: badc&lly ti•aF-" w:l.th ......

<leciaioa., uot. tbat. - fo....,t. or failed t:a

aou&:l.dezad oz aa ~et; !:bat. -• uot. ........ tely

....n.-d. :tt wae a .... .,. -...aua.l. .... z-J.-.

ADd % tlliAk thet tile IIUb'eativa DAI:Ure of

aaathet.i.,. :I.e oa.a whaz& t.baza w:l.l.l be

tiaagra_..t. &ad I tlliAk J.t. :I.e •--tete

for • group aoadl u t!U.• Ma%4 to liMe l:Mt.

dao:Ld.on after ~1111' &11 of the •-te.

&ad - u...d ell l:lloee -"•· % waa1d DDt

th:l.lalt t.bare•e - ca11ee :l!o" -izlg. l'DI:I:DDIQ Oft':I:CD BCO'l'To &ayl>od;v

&lae7 Bo, ... :I.a. ltbe e-..4 :I.e - - to

fi&d thllr& waa.lll H gOocl r&&&Oil fDI' & l'&ba-£1111'

~"" tbat - .....-loobd oz Dt.et&lt-ly

......aa:l.....S ~-tiOD iD """' orf.giD&l l!l&aS..iOil.

So, -)'II• baall uo4a agda. Lf y011

4DD't WilDt to aay ~- 8a i.t -~

lilt& - ,.,. a.ot. feal:I.D!r a ue&d co reacmaider

~ed on tide :l.eeue9

llll. CL:I:PPOBo co ..... ot..

l'llll•x~ orn:CII:Il •=: lo ~ •11

015·03) (JDDft ~01111 roa PftB'I&DIG] (05-05·1'7}

1

.2

• 5

7

' 10

11

u 13

14

11

17

11

u 30

n

22

.23

Jt

1

2

a

" 5

7

I

J

1t

ll

12

13

14

11

11

17

11

1t

20

21

22

n 2t

..,... ao 1111lNUOIIIII>le .....,. •• ~t.•• ftelN

·~•iBl.r ...,. -ree s.paau. ADd :.: l:bJ.alt

- all e~ladp tbat.. :1: e~y foal

badly ......... tbat.. av.t % tbialt t.b&t: tbat:••

uot ~ a-.m. 'l'lul etllllll&r4 :l.a .,... t.ba

:Uopacte •....,..aa011U1111e. • &ad J: t.b:I.Dit t.bat oa.r

......:~.- aD4 daliberatt.-.. o...........U.g tbat:

iane-t.lao....,........sc._,.., a'L .... ....s­

z&&ollad tba c_,..ct. .....,lueloa •

:rod>ea.

J)JIR, IPOUJ!flla 'l&eb, X -..14 agr:ea. %

th:l.lalt tba t:aot. tll&t: ltbeza ia ao at.&t.• agqqr

thet. La t.ba a~~l:llod.t.y .... l:bJ.e :I.e - :i.ap>l'taat:

.,_,:l.d&l:aUon. Bat: 1C :I.e pointlq to the fact:

l:b&t: tbJ.a :l.a a .... .,. au!>~oai:J..,. ie811e. YCN

-· tdlalt ,.. beard here ....,.,.. tba o..,.,..a of t.ba

baariaga -. .....,. .,_-e:l...... ...,,.. -· t.ba

etandard of, yoa ltD-, tod&y•a 4al:I.Hrat.I.OA t.o

cODa:l.d&l: wlaet.ber oz aot: wa aaed to reba&r t.ble

,..,.. 011 -t.laot.lCia ia !-.led La. wl&e- ""

DOl: t.laez'e • • •-t:JaiDa ..... l tlo.:Lult tbat: the

-ly .. e ._. vary coq~...-...:1...... 'riley,.....

G15·D2} ~~~ ~:I:ORI roa ~I {05•05•17}

t:&lte !:bat aD4 _,. to t.ba- top:l.a.

ne Deat. - ..... :~,...,.. .._,..se rl-ba<l &D&l.yab aul t.b& i-t.Uiaat.:l.ooo of

•oea.Le ,..._... &114 -:!.Ia a :brief B1IIIIOAry

........ Tba :J:at:e.....-a"" IIZ1III& t.bat: t.ba

&Dbe~~e&1B llac.l.aiOD b 1ml.whl. end

,...,.. ......... 1• l>ea&118e it ia bead OD bae.l.aally

a 1::1.- Yl-&1 ••• .. -t:. &ad taat'-1'

c..- the Appli.O&Dt •• _ ......... lapb&ool,

~ ala:bo be """""'ecnaaly eliloia.atad a alllllb-

-r ba -t.ell IlL• u&lyaie.

co-ae:L !or ltbe J'abll.o ooa.e=e with

tbat -4 .... .,t:e ltbet tbeF 4:1.4 a.ot •• -

-lyaia- -· a.pb&el faz ltbe App:l.lo-t

d1.4 a.ot ~ with t.be llab.,_j_t.t:ea • 11

Z'1ll••·

'l'be Appliaaat: 4:1.8811:1'8... at&UIIII:

tll&t ... • llapbeel teet.Uie4 4udii!J ~

-izlv -- ill part.lelllar, •• aa. --le,

t.laez'e .,.. 001>1:-ray :l.a ltbe -"LOBe oa the

... lyab lloaa&d oa llub ar :b1&4a t:Lp. 'riley

eagveat: tbat: be epeaifically te.Ufled ~iag

015•02) [JOINT ~ FOa PZIBIR:I:JGI {05·05·17}

App. 377

1

3

4

5

10

u

12

1J

14

1!

.24

1

10

11

:a.a lS

14

15

1&

17

11

1t

20

21

ll2

liJ

24

- beari.av• t:het. M d:l.d aot ..... 11:1.•

111Ully8.1.8 oa t:he 1w1> but: Z.'at:her 1ooka4 at t:he

"""1• proj- lm4 t:he wbD1a •uooetura.

'rllll ~1:1.eaat: ~ .... ,..u !:hat

t:1ae %At•....,._,.. -ra~r z-Ut.erat:ad l:be •­

~t:a !:hat ~:~~ey•..,. a1nadr' ra.l.aad durJ.aw

t:1ae ~· uu! iA t:he:lz p:t'afUed t.aa~.

~ d.l. ....... :l._ - !:hat: :~. ......

qaill, oa vi- a.l.J'tlh, .._ t:he U>a1ya:l.•

... c:.....SW.t:.d uu! t.M :l.oS.Dt::I.Ueat::l.oa o~

aeeD:I.a raa~oaat A 1ltt:la bit: D'n:t'lap f~

t.be 1 .. 1: d.l.a.,..d- X l:b:l.ook. ,.t:t:o~ __ .,., a. ~-8Yt lluZ.'e, %'11 •tart:. X

l:b:l.»>t tbat our daot.:l.- !:hat: l:be PrDjac:t: wi.ll

""t ..._ aa -...u-1• -... •• llopact DD

aaai:Juot:l.o• vas DOt l>aae4 aolely, loy llDY .......,,

DD Dr. Bapbae1'• ,.._rt: or teat:t-y. :t l:h:I.Dk

t:he pa%1:iaa .. a -1• 414.., ezcall8Dt: :Jab of

p.,u.,.tl.Ag l:b:l.a 1~,_tioo. ADA! we Mar4 •

lot: of t: .. t::i.aoDF c-a.£ag • .,..u,., ,.. •• ....,.... .. uu! aaat.bet::Lc•. 2: tb:l.ook - - • l l:b:l.llk Ccnmaal

fo:t' t:M PQbl.l.e 4:1.4 a gao4 jab of point:iag out

pcol>l- 'lril:h DZ.'. ~·· ,....,..,.a:. 11:1.•

IUiyl:b:I.Bg .....

I'DSmDG Oft'J:~ sc:orro .b.]II>D<Iy

want: t:o 41.-a• l:h:l.• :1. ..... f11rtb.rt

blo ...... :bal. .... .,_..]

DUmDRil OPPJ:CD BCOn'J Sael.Ag 11 .. 4

ao.t.. -·11 _,...em. Aga.la. t.Jw•• u:. ce1a~

!. .......

'rllll ll>t.......,...,a elaia !:bet: t:lae

Prc~aot:•• :l.lapaat on 10 idant:l.t::l.ad Z.'uo-..oa

~~4 ha vi•~1• .ad .. ~• ~ »rojeat w~11

-- a b:l.gh U~>ac:t: DBJ.y - ................ f,_

wbic:h a -" of 1:\IG:I.naa will ba Yidb1a.

'rile .,.,..., ... t: of v:l.db:tli ty for l:he t:ra:l.la in

l:be area :1.• -•4 oa l:be ..,t:l.&'a foot:aga of

t:1ae t:o:a:l.l z:at:hiOZ.' l:han a part:l.oc1ar v:l.- thiOy

u .. rt:. 'l'her failed -· tJwr e:l.te l:ha

Appl:I.C81Jt f&L1a4 t:o ocaa:l.de&' the axiaUDIJ

P&"D:I•et• rit:bJa the rievahad of Pl.l:obe&'

IIDimi:&Ln. 'l'ho analyda of l:be ... t:ent: of ..-:lew

015-02} [JOXRr ~%DRS ~ ~~ {05·05•17}

1

ll

3

' 5

' 7

I

10

11

12

13

16

u

17

11

19

20

21

22

23

:u

u 2t

olaaa.l.f:l.oat.:l.an ayat:a., t:he photo at.u1at::l.aa.

'lril:h 1•••- :1.4aa1 ald.•• and ~o-4

ab:Jaota. liD4 :1: t:b.l.llk al.l of !:hat: ,.. tal<ml

iAt:o ae-t. - ,. baaed our dac::l.aion •• ,.

- ow: 4ac:l.•:l.oa _.,.,.....~.ag ... l:bet:iea.

l'liUmDIG OPPl:CIIR sc:orro ll:l."'aot:or

I'DI:II•• .. Dill. POJIDI• ll: lllte t:lae way you :p11t

:Lt hero,..., l:het it• • a ...U.terat::Lon of l:be

--~- J: feel !:hat:•• wluat _,,... lwOI&"d iA

-· -1::1...,. .,..,. an l:h:l.a J..wa.

C!lUI!oZ.'cl.

IIR. C!LIWOII:II 1 :1: • 4 ~-t: lU. to -­

z•- raza&d al1 l:he :to.-iafa agaiA 1 .. 1: n:l.g:bt,

-4 :1 c- t:o l:ha •- ..-clua:l.oa, !:bet

., .. ..,t:lally - '"'" -- !:hey• n jaJit l:be •-

~·· '1'11• _,_ k:l.nol .. c ci:I.•IIIJ&'O• 'lrit:la

t:he ,....,.lt. .,.1: :1 l:!l.euglr.t tbat ,. tiel do a

aompl.at:a -tt:.l.ag of t:ha loppliaati021. en ..,

aeat:laet:l.ca :bub Ul4 va lookecl at -- - 1ooke4

at the .. ..._.. !:hat ..., pt: :bafo&'a ,.., and ,.

d.l.cl a Ya&'J' l:ho.._h :lab of !:bet. llo t•a

oa.:I!O&'t:abla 'lril:h wluat: - d:l.4 to .-.- l:be

015-02} (JDXRr IIIDTJ:OIIB IPOll JtDUaDIQ] {DS·OS-17}

- l:be .--..-•• -t:...ad.l.ot .. all o- l:her

elala. - !:her alaia l:ha analyai.a ig11orad

l:ha acmt:rilnlt:ory U~>aet of t:he aaOJDia Yi-•

aa4 tba Z.'Dla of • .,~ :l.llpuot:• - out4oo:r

aat:l.v.l.t:l. ...

&a4 Coaa••l ~o:r t:laa Pabl:l.e, in her

br:l.af, furt:he:r aaaarbad ma&"a explicitly !:hat;

t:lae App11aant'• Yiaual u•••saeat again 414

1001: .. _.<*t w:l.l:h - &'111••. '1'ba Appl:l.c-t • • ......,.t:t:al ill !:hat

- and -•EY orlt:l.qua of l:be dal:ead.Jlat:f.on

ot! l:ha v1- aUaot: loy JIZ.'. llapbaal ,..

aclciZ.'aa•ed and ad:lud.l.cau4, eit:l.ag l:be

t&'_..,,..:l.pt:•, 'riley t!~ at:ata !:bet, again,

l:he J:nt•.,...-• h:l.la4 t:o prcY.I.4a mqoo .,..

ill1cu:.at.lcm or auazt aa:v az'a)r o~ law :lD our

...,.luat1on of a. Jlapbaal•• -tbaclalogy.

lv, agaila, t.he•• &E• .,...ay r•lat...S

t:op.l.oa :t t:la:I.Dk. ~ lwYe llDY dad,... to

p:Lolc tb:l.a liP• - 4o - -t l:o aer •cl:l.tto,.

guaaa1 &faia, i~•• aD iaport.a~ ~a.ue, •o ~

clon•t: -1: t:o -.. - of t:M-8.

U, -.-sBYt I l:b:l.»>t :l.t•a the

•- &Aalyai.ll. If• d.l.da•t accept: Kr. llapbael••

App. 378

1

a

6

10

u 1a

1J

J-4

15

1&

17

11

1t

ao 21

33

2'

1

10

11

n 13

u

15

1&

17

11

11

zo

-:~.¥•.1.• -~ ...... •• ual'CJ &11 lciad8 o!

.t...f.._.t:.:l.- :e .. - -l:I.Dg _u:t.. ...... -looked at a:l.t:ea 11114 - looked. at pbot:.oa. ••

-..4 the- 11114 .,.,... ...., fault:.a of -

our ~ia of a11 of eloat: ild:o.-UOil. so :1:

l:hiDk eloat 011'&" deohi= ..., the -z:opdat:e ...,.

aa4 took :I.At:.o aocD>mt -t:. waa ttuu:oo ad -t:

&. CL%1'1'0Ba J: :l...t:. -t to _. ••

% tllougbt: - ti4 a full 11114 fa.i&" llll&1}'8b. ...

polaMl botll v.l.a-1 -rt• - pzoab ... -t:qr

wall. :t ..-r tllal: waa • ka- .,.... of

.,..,..ide,..at:l.cm. lo :t: doD.'t:. l:hiDk ttuu:oo•• utr

""a ~ tllllt ;IUIIIJII• out at - tlaat:. -·· oJa,

'!fOil m••d eloat:. &lld tllat: gi-.. .. pa111e to •II', .. 11, l.•t•• Z'•ap.a tll8 :r.cord... x•a ~Drtabl•

rie.b_t: __ - --- di4.t.t:.

PUU:DDIGI OPI.'ICBR IC!In'ra Aeytlod;r

elaa7 D:l.'&"ect~ •oi~t:..

DR. IOUIVD"l": A c-t. OU'&"

lll>:l.l:lqr t:.o look at: l:lla aaat:Ut:ica dapollda4 a

great: deal - t:aebolG!IY, .tU.clt. :La to aq tlla

lll>ilil:y to acow:at:al:r po•• at.&lat:I.ODI of e.ba

015·02) [aD:I:Rr KOTIORB POR ~~ {05·05·17)

1<1Wiai01U .ba e.ba lnllea o1< at:-...s. aa4 ao

:l!o1<t:b.. llut: J: t:lt.:l.llk tllllt waa a podtift at:ap.

:t tlt.iDk tllat wa ,...4 to ~oa ........ good qaalit:r

aoatro1.

~ a pbo~-br-pl:e~ ...... _t:

of -cit. OZMI. Wa looll:aol at it. AD4 :lA a

oarta:IA •-••• wa•r• &11 0i11&1:1.fie4 t:o :ludv•

.. at:Utica. ftet .t.a e.ba - cOD.Ilil:lOD..

AD4 :1: tlt..t...k - did a eoo4 joJa. :tt -· t a

•1- dullk. •• laa4 to l:laillk at. oat: :l.t. "l2aallk

lf"N·

PRBBJ:DDIG OI'J'Icmt BCOrfo bd %111

:l .. t: D.Ot:a eloat: at 1 ... t: IIIli' op:l..la.imL - t:lae .I.a.,..

of t:U rideo .,_ _,... diac111aia§ :Eo&" t:b.e

fut:uze. ..,._ tllat, ot: COQZ'ao. at: 1eut. in tbJ.•

caaa, :t didll•t tr:I.Aol perfect:. •• lbad ...,.ill!J

:blaolaa, if l: ....-.,., :but: D.OI: ......tq wat:.,. 11114

DCt. .aviDg tzaea. Sa :I thiDk i.f, U yea •ay,

U! - • ,... go:l.q to "-• ~ ..W.aa :lA t:b.e

fal:llra, j'Gal: lill:a ..,.~111111' eloa, - a.ota4 to

prvY:i.de ._. gu.l.dellca aa to -t -W&D.t to .... 1111. 111D.'l'IIIIJIBIIY a V.l.1<tllal l<eal:i. q-

0~·02} [JO:I:IT ~~0.~ .aR ~~ {OS·DB-17}

1

7

10

11

11

1J

u 15

11

17

11

1f

ao 21

zz

23

2'

1

' ' •

10

11

12

13

1'

15

11

1?

11

11

ao 21

22.

23

24

1:-se• 011 the lall4acapa 11114 lmow tllat. t:bey we,..

t:U l<lglat p~<......,.U.Oil .... t:U ~i- l.I.De, t:U

poaai:bla l:!lzougll .,.. aopla.t.at:i.-t:d aoft:wal<a.

zt 1 I All at:"-1: I:D brilog Ul:o e.bJ.a :...ar.t...g -­

I:Joe --i&D.c• tlaat ea.. OD.llf' :ba :C111l.J"

.....s.,.at:oool ill t:b.e :1:\lt:u...a by :ba:I.Dg ttuu:oo aft:.,..

:l.t•o IN.:I.lt:. Cllbrlou•1l'• - caD.•t: 4o tll&t:. :Ell

tlaat U.D.a, tJt.e rideo a~at:I.CDI % l:bo\lgll.t: _,...

• ... al •tap fczwu4, - u % _,... - a

•a:bc-'tl:aa la t:laa f11t=e l:ol:" a wiH l:u:a, I

WOII14 ba p1aaa ... t:c •- good ri4ac a.t.-1at::lCD.a

t:~ 1:ha ..- otap a:l!l:e.. t:U pbet:o

a.l.oaul.at:i-• 'tii>!CIIl an •tatic. :arav - • ,..., ..,..illllll'

11p to .....,U.. AD4 :t fall: eloat ga.,.. - • -.alt.

:bat:t:a1< ~o1:11114i11111J. % ....... •- wiH fllDIII

tlaai: ..... a1r.ady COIIIII:seUDI:ell 11114 J: C&ll ·- ella

:blaolaa t...,.,U.g - oo f- 11114 eloat: i• 'IU.it:a

diftr ...... l: t:Uil o:&.alat:iCIIUI that: I •- bafon

t:bey _,... bu£11:. lfot: -··· D.Ct: :batt: .... :but:

diU..,_t: b--• t:bey _,... ....U..t:d. % -.14

1-11:. fo:a:wa>:ol t:o aaa:l.q l:llat: ltillol of iDfoa:aatiOD.

bai.Dg p,..a ... l:al! t:o t:U o~tt:aaa ill t1t.e

50

0111-0Z) [JO:I:Rr I&OT:tCDIB POa UIIJWIDIIlll {011·05·1?}

-J:DDnJ onoxcaa 51CDns IIAlf' ot:b.el:" I

dia..,..a:l.aa 011 tllb :L .. uat •- lin it:•a --

lilY • ....,. of t:b.e c..ail:t:aa i• tlaat: !:hare•• ao

d.e8ire t:.o ~DDDILi4ar :ba••d Dll that:..

- ..,_1: -- 11114 Di,.act:o .. llo:l.....n,

you ltillol of ._I: tllara al....ady, l:ha p:bcto

•~timu~ I:Uulllfta. wa Jbaya :1.11 the

,...COilli«-atiOD. :bacauoa tba p:bct:o o:s....l.ati­

_ ... D.Ot ~ 11114a&" cl_,.. -at:lac

a-1:~, al: a l::laa of dey eloat: p....,:lolaa

opl:.l.aal Cl ... iqr- -l:l<aal:- did D.Ot:

a'V'Di.d. a11 a.d.l.i1:y pol••• f.-a••• waU•,

.~., •&ilboau, uad w.ze i:.&ka., •aae Df

aaa..,tiOD. :La t:bey -·t: .._..-t rit:lt. .....,..

ruJ.••· Tl>a .lppU.c ... t: aoa ... t:ed to t:U

OOD.t:.l<ary, tlaat t:bey did ill4aa4 -t 0\IE' li:'W.a

"~"·-- iaot:ant:. lilly diaC1111dOD. Oil the photo

BiJiul&tJ.mul t:lt.eslael-17

App. 379

52

1

2

' I

' 7

10

.1.1

12

ll

u 15

1.5

17

11

lP

20

21

22

)3

24

1

2

4

I

' 7

10

1:1.

12

13

14

15

1S

17

1t

u 30

a1

22

23

24

blo ..,.,..Jo.l ..... _..J I'IIIIIIDDG On'ZaJI 8~• :E -•• 1:

WDU14 ..,llo Dr. lloi..,..rt. x doD•e l:hillk aJ:tF of

thea vas., ycna. kaow,. pez-:!eatioa. % thiak, yoa

- -- :ba.t t:beoNI'a a l.ot. ol -..!>~ect.:l:rit.y :Ia

· al.l. t:IIJ.• i .. ua. X I:IIJ.Dk. ll1qr 4ia.,...aioa?

lilt. cr.XI"POIIlh llu&"e. X doD• t: - if

t:Uy - Jlll&'f&et. IIIUt: -· &gab, t.be &'llla

ba•t p&&"faat eit:b8;o-. % _.,., it ... clear. I

doD't: leo.- bow al.ear •cl.e_. -~ t:o b<o. IIIUt

w. cau.l.d •- the tunille•. %a. _, 'V'i-,. -

coul.4 ••• - :Ia OOD4iticma t:hat we vou14

p~1:r IUMl if - -t out t:ha&'e OD. tllal:

p&&"t::l.oul.a;o- 4ay. U- ,.,.ta4 t.o •- t.1wm :Ia

4iffareDt. OOD.411:.t.oaa, - l: t:bJ.ak U.. Z'\lle•

•llaul.4 •o •~ta,. ~t.,. wou14,. fo:r .xm~Pla,

ha- ~ Pft>'ri4e4 oa a cloully 4ay, a l>righl:

._ 4a:y, a eleaz- 4ay. But what ,. got ....,

:!aJ.rly :~ra~pz:e•ea.t&ti..-. o:f wbat - WDU.ld Jaav.

a&eD.. AIUl I UJ.IIl: t:b8:r -1: t:ha Hqa1r-u of

tl>a &'lll.e, ia IIQ" op.t.D.illll, aD.4 X doD•t ••• a aee4

tO&"&-,

JOUBIDDIG Ol'I"J:C!Za BCO'n': X 4o tllilll:

it.'• Ulport:ant: that: we ~4 oU'ael....,a t.bet:,

015•0.11} [.:10~ 110'1:1:0111 1'011 •znMDGI {05-DS-11}

U.. Pai>Ua ua4 :tDtan.ao:o-a qaiD. :!.a that. t.be

Jdi::I.JI'&I::I.OD -uura• will. ""'1: a:lt:l.pta tha

Pr:o:lact. • • elfaot.a OD. ae•l:l>eUoa. lll14 l:l>8y

o:l.ta tllal: aula 301.14 re~:l~ ... to aOD.a14or

t.be affaot::L..._. •• of tlaoo _ • ...,.. .. .....,....&4 1>r

t:ha appl.ic&D.t: t:o • .....,!4, lli.JWd.se or ail:igace

unreucmUle and ~•• effeat• Dll

aaat.hatioa. • na:y cl.aioa t:hat. t:ha ~t:a t:o

U.. t:cnm ua4 t1aoo aaa-t• u part of tile

mt.i.gati.ml paakqe will DOt llit:l.gat.a l:ha

a!facl: or t.ha ..... ~ ... t: Oil autllat.:i.o•. Tlaa:r

fa&"l:hall: al.afa t:hat t:ha J:a4ar·4eC&ot:loa

llgbtiag a:rn-. t1aoo l:aato tl>at • • el&S.. t:hat:

that: ... a14 mt:l.gal:a •••t:llat:l.ca ......

-~-. na lllppl:L ...... t: ....... I:IIJ.a ...

_ _,i,.ly 4iacu .. a4 ua4 UUgat:a4 ua4 that:

:l.t ... -- .. llpaDt: a fa:S.,. -t of t~

4iaa.,.a:l.,.. l:b:i.• h ..... llo l:l>8y t:ab :1.•.,. with tile•• aaaart:l.011a. All4 tha JlllpU.aut

further ._.u t:llat t:llare•• DO - II'O':I.clalooe

ha&"e that: ... a...-•t. alrea4)- c-.:Ldera<S ua4

..... luata4.

55

ou-a.a} (JDXlft' IIM'J:OIIS roa li&IIDJIDIQJ {os-os-17}

1

2

, 10

11

12

1ll

14

J.l

u

11

11

1J

20

21

22

23

.at

2

4

7

10

11

12

1ll

14

11

l'

17

11

1t

20

:1.1

u

23

24

:ra•• - 1-4 el: -, llaplaaa1• • pllot:o

•Dall.atillllB. aut ... &lao loa- at: ~--&1 flo"

t.be J'ul>l.:l.a•a expert:• a pllot:a a.f.-Dlat.:l.011a &1-.

Ia I -14 ._ it:•a ,...t l.Ua va vart1 ·- X'• :aat: ·~I~· witlll:ha at:at:-t.. llut:

.t.t:•• DOt: l.:l..ka- -..a D1ll:r lDOitt.a!J at: ·-• ai4a

of t:11a cab, • U :ruu w.t.ll, an t:IIJ.a .t.awa.

111Qr otllar 4i...,.aB1oa t

u. -..n. Joaart. that it.....,

poiata4 out 4ud.zag taat:J.my U..t; til• ~1-

tollat 4iff,.._t part:iu fOUD.4 with t:l>oaa

p:l.cturea -· ao .. baa&'4, yau -· 4iacu•a:l.­

of wb:r :1.• t:lla -•t: :!.11 t:ha p.l.ctt:ura, w1a:r !a tile

•k:r oloally, wily U'Cl 1 t :rau GDwiDg U.. Jaal>t

Tau bow, we haaz-4 dJ•au•aiOJL acmaa:a:I.Dg a11

l:ha pucal....t falllta wtt:l> tile•• pl>ot:aa ua4 t:ook

that: iato aeaOUDI: U. our .... ll.'ll:i.IJ,

PU:SmDili OI'I'ICD •=• AD.:r ot:har

4i ....... s.- 011 pllot:o 8S.Iaul.&t:iaas7

[lro .,....1>&1 ni8PQD8el

nil II DIM OI'I'Ic:D 1\COft: S•ailllr Ja.a4

D04a, people -14 Ua to_,. 011 I'm baariJio,

llaotbar larger ia•~~a -..

llit:igat:I.Cil. ftaoo ...... t:.t.oa r:raa a. ...... d for

5f

015·02} (o1011l'l IIOTIOIUI 1'011 UIIIIAUliOI {DS-05-17}

~

[lro .....:bal. ,.. • ._..)

IPJIUmma aJPri:cmt IICC!ft• :t ...., ••

I'll •tart. I t:bJ.ak a:l.tigat:o.- :La a-1:

Ulta aeatllat:Lc•. J:l: • • relatacl. It • • all .l.a

t:be eya of the b.halMr l: t:ll.ink. 'rhat • • DD• of

the i••u• .. •r• ... f.Da' ha::re, z tb!Dk.

Atto~ Cl:l.ffo&'4.

IIIL. CL%J'POIU)o Wall, I :j,..t -ta4

t:o •• :E t:h:i.Dk •• a t:bra-14 matter, - f:l.nt.

I:OUD.4 that: thare .. ,... DO UDn .. oaal>le ~·

al:l:act:a. wa ta1ke4 ~out: WDUl.4 t.be w:la4 fu::a

U.a - effaet:. Tea, it _,.14, ua4 :i.a it.

uaraa•oaal>la, wlaicla ... 011&' eball:p 'lllldaor l:ha

&'lll.u. loll4 t:baa aft:&" f:I....U..V that, - -

looka4 at tha llit::Lgau- paall:aga, :ruu lalow,

1Japall"at.a1:r. - that ••U•fie4 ....., .,_., _

that ttaa.a •:f!eet:• -r. ~ :Lato aoooaa.t

t;Jazoough 4inar-t llcmu of a:ltigat:l.-: 'lba

pa-1:8, for -la, to tba t:owar tile

dtit.iOA&2. ccna.arw'&t:.iDD. ar ... , ~ coa.•.rv•t.icm.

araaa tb_al....,.. lo :r tobJ.IIl: wileD. :rau look at

it;, •• a whole, £.~ ••-4 to .. t~ wu

DDt:l>iDg •• t.ll.:y • ...,.. t:, :l.zt. Oil' a:1.zu1, a rea1100> to

015•02} !JOIBr ~ PaR .... ~J {05-05-17}

App.380

1

2 ,

f

., • .,

10

11

12

1!

14

l$

11

1~

:u

u

10

21

22

23

2 ..

1

3

'

10

l1

n 13

14

15

11

17

11

1!

20

n

22

23

24

,..._ - ,.,..._. % t:l>illlt an th<tae faau.ra

weze OOIUI:I.dal'ed :bJ' \18 •

:ru8mDIG WJ'IC!D IICQft, A1q'

U11011aall.oiD 011 mt:1g'aU0117

l)la vm:ba1 .,.._.]

PIIU:IDZJIQ cmr%aat SC!Oft: ll .. :..:l.oqr

-· :t•J.l. ~ t!lat: &II IIObociF wuu:a to

ra-J.dar baaetl 011 Bit:.t:lot>.

AIIOt:bal' :a.-adal' t:ople :raiall4 -•

dac-aaiooaiiiiJ• 'nle X..t:..........,ra ....S COUQ8e1

for !:he PablJ.o azvga tbal: ou,.- aula IIIC ~01.0.

,..IIIIi"' .. t:ba app11.aaDt•a Dea-alliaaiDg l'laa

-...t:rat.ed t.hat. al.l. \1114e~

illfraat.:ruot:..... at: a o&.p~ 1••• t:bml 4 feat:

loal.ow p:a4e w:l.ll :be .. ---s. fter ,..f.., too

.._ Uaoll•aiOII alo0111: Depa,.._..t: ol:

I:D.Yi~t: Bazvi.aea ru.1e•, aad. t:bq -·~

that: - •..,.. aot:ad eoat:r..., t:o t:ba d..,.

l&II!JIIaga of..- zul.a- ~ttad a llliat:ob

fta .appU.o8DI: ......... t:bat.- ••

t:bat: our .S.oS..lOII ,.. fu1ly wppol't:ad ill u.. .,.cord, -.l ,. Ud ,.._.:~...,.. &vi.....,• &.. t:ba

~t of ~i,._tal lluTLcaa that

57

015-0~} t~:tHT MDr:toa& PO& RBRBaRTIQI {05·05·1~}

illf~<&at:n&Ota:re at a deptlo of 1e.aa t:laul t f-t

:below gE&da • '!'bay t:alce t:ba o.,...,,..t:., D1lt:. J:t: • •

goaa. :r.bay pal,.ri•• it: ... d pat: :1.1: :back la.

At t:bal: poillt. it:•a llOI: illf:r&BI:Z'IIGtll&'lll J.t:•a

o1eaa UU. azul :1: daa•t. t:l>illlt that: -- ao 1

t:l>1lllt by 1aiiV:I.oqr tJaa pul._rt..e4 e011cral:a ioa tJaa

t:r..ah tbal: t:bat: aatiafi .. t:ba rol.a.

llR. c:r.DPOJID• Apill, wa bad a pretty

t:bonruglo .U.aeuaai011 011 t.loia.

ill -1:1.-oa wil:ll tba :rule.

oat. - pul,.....f.•a4 .s-a :bal.ow, ....S - -- ill

81)' aputara, if tlo..,. wano • ....,tbiag left: :bel­

t feet -- tal.kiii!J about. tloe Gooaral:a footiii!Ja,

J: ._oaa -- J: daa•t: 1or>aw U that: lUll' 1-r

-t.• tba d&Uutioa o! •:l.ofrut:l'oetar~o.• so I

t:Jw rill••. X cloD• t ••• ~ to •• gabled

:bJ' no~IIIJ t:o Uaeuaa l::bia i..,.a IUlJ' fa:rtloe:r.

We Jlad a ~at.r aad. ralna.•t'. CGD'Y8r•atJ.OD. U.CMSt

what. ,.. !aapp&UIIIJ, wlaat tloa :role --1:.

PlllrB:tDDIG OJ'IP:I:CJIR BCD'l:'l'o A1q' ot:loar

[lro ,...:bal. ra•--.1

PRIISJli:IIICI CIPP%Cilll IICD1'ro See:I.Dg

:1.

2

3

' s

' ' I

10

l1

11

u 14

1&

11

2t

:1.

2

• 5

'

~0

11

11

1!

lt

11

1l

17

11

2.0

21

22

23

24

_,... GOIIai-1: witlo thai&' &'&fl'd..,_t:• &lld

w:l.t:lo our- n.laa.

Bo, uy dleCNea:L- oa

4a-s.a.ioo:l.q7 .llfJ&ill, t.loia la a:bo1at tha

& feet, what:bal' - all.ow tba ~

coaarel:a to be :b.:olwD ap, ad <loa• tloat -•t

oar rul• •

DD. IJ'QIIIIBSt 8pellkiag for t:ba

:Dolp&rta""t o! ...,l,_l:al. s....noea, I w:l.1l

•aJ" t.loia :La a •~ PI'OC•..,... for WI too

&Uow tlaat type of :INI:'i&1 of ialaa:r GGIIUII:'8ta.

Aa fe:.. •• -t:bar t!lat: "R'....-1 :I.e ,...l..tv.].,

1•11 ~.e. ... that: to t:ba 1a_. to d&c:l.da. s .. t:

Z do foMl it - aaraai~ - oartalaly t:akaa

ut:o ..,., ...... .,, -.tbar it•a G_.idared • wai'Nr

of ~ 1~ of ~ Z'\11• OE' 110't, 1~'•

aanaialy, I l:h:I.Dk, ..,...thiq tloat: ia

iJl4i•pu.~y aD. ar•• l:.ba.~ - d:l.4 cDD.II:lder and

...... ~htflll t:. .... to tbal: .t ......

PIIIISJ:DDIG ot7XCilll 8COft 1 A1q' ot:loar

d.f.aauaa:l.cmJ a.t:t:o....,. w-t:bal'llby.

K8 , Da.'DIIIIUIB'l'o I t:bink t:loay

-1:1.114 wil:ll tha rill a. I t:l>illlt ~ are

propoeiag u. .,...,.. a11 ....a.....,.........s

,..., :t•d like t:o ........ - to pulo1ia hea1t:lo aod

-fat:y, p&rt.ielll.arly aoue.

fta ZD"-e Na&O'tad that -

........,1.f.alo1a aOIIDd aaae•-t:• t:bat:. Ud DOl:

-.s.1 -..t-eaae •e-rloa for aoiae l:bat:

will loa aaaaei.at:ad wil:ll tha lPre,aat, ad that

- ~a.,. aoaept:iii!J lllr. o•weal•a grOIIDd

bator af , 5, ....S that: :bia Ul&lyaia ,..

Clawad, ill that :l.t !ailed u. :I.Jogluola tha

tole,_• r.qulrad :b)' %80 'n.3-l -1 for

t:ba Yariall.I.Ut;y of aOIIDd p-t:Lcm aa

a-.phazlc cOilclit:lcma ...._. at. t:ba l'ro~act

a:l.t:.a. A1l4 rurt:Joer u to aoiea, tJoer •••art: t:bat:- felled Ul a-..:l.dar tloa P:rD:Ieat:••

ao:Lea wiU be ..-. 40 dBA at: ~ lluati.lltr

aaloill t:bat t1oa lit:• c-itt:ee •=--""1y, ia

t:hair ~. fOUD4 to :be d&lapidatad.

'IIIla Jl&lpl:l.caat • • ,..........,. to t:bat la

that JIJ:. O'Ba&l P"'"'idad ....t...,.iva l:a8t~y

regerolicg tloa ... uooiii!J Cor ......... l:lle .5

gzouzuS factor ....S tha d&GidOil DOt. to iaolllda

tolar....,& t:o tloa UA ta:I.G] ~ •

8o, U1J' d:l•cu.aa:laa. Gil 11.0:l•a a• it:

51

015-02) t~IMT .ar:tOHB .a. ~I {05·05-17)

App. 381

1

2

.,. 10

11

12

13

1t

15

16

17

11

11

20

21

22

2J

24

14

11

ral.•~·· to~- o••••1•a ~-·~- -­

.ill: abGUJ.d 1>ta -..,~ad• D.iz:eotoz: I'Ou ...

DDt. PCDD:Io Yeo, X -..14 aay wit.h

ra-e~ to all¥ Jdllcl ot: -1, All4 .,...,Moul.arly

:l.IL t,hj.a aohe -a!, t.ha ... az:a gaiDg to be

.... n.ulaa t:Ja&t Dead to be eat~tool b .. acl oa

pz:o~•·a:l.~ ~~t. Tba -"• .,_ -··

oz: Ilia~ OD -~ t.he •• ._u_. might ba

t.hat: ga :l.ILto a .oclal. .,.~ :1: t.hiaak, :rvu ll:aow,

t.he ...aea ~· t.hj.a parl.ic:v.laz: -.1 t:o be

,..ad aD4 &11- ~-. :1: t:b!Dir.. t.ha pz:ot:aui~

~ ........ t: of t:ba•• who put t.ha -.1 tav-t:baz:.

Alul :r t.h.iDir. t.ha~ :l.IL t,hj.a eaae, t.ha ._.,_. or

fl..,. :1..11. t:be -.1 were - "-•11:1."'11 to ue.

•• t:albd llbout: - a lot:. We haam t.ha

_.,c:. OD both dclaa about: t.baaa ...r:l......,

Y&z::l.ab1u t.hat: -tor t:be -el. We al.ao lbeaz:cl

~·~"- llbo\l.~ lb.iatod.aal. ac~aey d ...... d

t.ha -.s.:L:I.JIV t.hat 11&4 lb•- - by t.ha

.loppl.:l.a-~•• -az:t: aJI4 wluot:bar or ao~ t:bey were

........... .,.. ....cl :r !oomcl i~ ........ 11illg to -~·

t.ha wttr - clid. ..... :r tld.ak t:ba~. •IJ&:I.D•

clha~ta OYer all¥ :I.DcliYi-1 part ot: t.ha~

-.1 -. OYar:wha~ by t.ha ._..,t.a t.hat:

015-02) [JOXRT .arXORB PDR •B'B1P~J {05-05-17}

JQ. ~'r!IQD'Io X'd a:i.oopl:r aDDcn&r

wit.h -t:•a b- aaicl. Tba OD1y t:lb.i"''l x baYB

to add ia t.hat: - alao beard t:eat:ilacmy t.hat: it:

t.ha -li"''l, wbich :r eODaidar ratba<'

........ ...,.u.... if j.~ :p!OOYad to ... :I.D&e ....... ~·

'IIDclar eert;aiD eODclitlODa, t.ha t:aelmolOIJ:r -•

ava:l.labla to cnart;ail t.ha uai .. &D4 t:ba~ t:bey

WDUJ.d D-ly rit:b t.ha aOUild aaa&a-t. -­

&.......t·l--1 .,...u~~·.

I'UIJ:DDIU on%C!ID IICOft: ADd I thiDlr.

t:bat•a a gaod po:I.D~. Tbare waa • lot. at:

cliaCIUIIaLCD ia t.ha -uoaa -t. t.ll.e

"":l.aa-raduct:iCD taelmol<>gy alao. b4 -

eart;aialy -~tad t.hat :r t:biDir. alao. w. hall

tiao-•i.cma La 01aZ' dal.:Lberatiaaa.

&t:t:oz:Day Clifford.

1111. CL~o :r -• jao~ IJOia§ t:o

aey - -" a lot: of t'-a OD t.lb.ia ..,. - lbeaz:4

two mr;Je&"U. W• uked • lot o£ ~•ticma.. ••

btoerd a lot. o~ quaatioaa &D4 ......... by t.ha

paz:t::l. .. b t:lb.ia procaadia§. &Del X t.b:l.ak at. t.ha

....S of t.ha clay X t:elt t.hat tl>ay- :1..11.

a-lb...,• rit.h t.ha ~.. Alul •• Ka.

w .. t:bar!Oib:r :i.,.t ll0ta4. t.haz-a :1.a t:lb.i• a44:1.tLOD&l

1

a._. l

' <I, I

10

u 12

1J

14

1-·i

II "i "'

17 1 11

21

~ad t.ha FQfa .. :l.oaal ~,.._1: a t.ll.o•• doi"''l t.ha -li"''l •

PUsJ:Dxm on:rca 800ft, ~odi:r

alae?

Dlo .... ual. .... _..,

PDBJ:DJ:IIG on%CIIR BOOftt X - a

a:La:l.lU' a-.a. Alld :J:•U pt to ... •-~

next.. y..,. bow, I aara• t:bat ..... -1• peopla

~4 cli•asz-•· !lat. Z tJaj.aJr. t:bue .i.BIIU&II .....

pretty -11 clia ...... .a. b4 yaa -· -

...... clODe wit.h t:ha :blt:er.re.oz:• &D4 Colllo&el foz

t.ha Pahlla, -·11 t:alk elbou~ .... wu.s•• -t:l.oa

lhlt, :rou -· :r feal ..

ae:rt:.a.ill.ly -- aJ.1 at: us ware -..ry a-are of

w!lat: t.ha a nct:or ia, for !Dat:aDae, .ad t:ba

p.-oa IIJicl DOD& of -t: allol&1cl All4 bow it:

aho111d be 1J8ad. lo X feel X fael -- tllat

- YBrY wel:l. vett:ad t:bia. II<> it:•a -" t.hat:

- aert.a:I.Dly. :1..11. IIIJ' op:I.D:I.oo. t.hat - dido•t

.......,;~.~ t:lb.ia. '&'o -· it ••- -r• o:C }'011

clidn't coaa:l.a ... it :I.D t:ba _,. x """14 lih

li"'il t:o aOD8i4er it:, :I.D IIIII' opJ.Di.oa.

sa. a.tta:naay w .. t~w~E"•br·

bail!: iat:o t:hia :paz:ti~ -.1 of t"=J.-. 10 t.hat. - - at: l-ot a l:l.t:t:la bit: -r•

cCIIItorl t.hat t.he:r -ra :I.D oaqoli....,e, aad t.hat.

if t.haz:a ... a ...,..u .... -t: t.hat, ta.ere•• at:ill. ,...,.. far turt.har acljaa-.t daono t.ha

road. So X ~t. of it •• :l.t ... elao a

b&cll:atop lll;lad o:C bailt bto t.bia ~. t:oo,

.mieb IJ&Ye ,.. _,.. caafort: t.haD ~,...,_ •"YiDDI•

wel1, here U th8 •DUDd. •••••-.a.t.. We aaD' ~

DO~ ••• ~. t:o:r ~1•, roa aw., taaL tll­

off. 8o t.hat II'&Ya- • ...,. eCII!tort. Azl4 X

elmo.. t: t:lbiDII: t.hara. • IUI}'tlLiq hare ...,s.a tllat.

.arruo.t:a reopeaia§ ~ tbtot: - •-14

rellaar iD t.hia ... tt.er, X thilllr.. 'rllat • a rq

opb:Loo.

DDI.. roPBS!It :1: 'a glad ye\1 b1/011Sbt up

t.ha id .. of aol•ias t.ha prolbl-. !hot l would

alllo remia4 t.ha c:-it:t- tbat - beard

t:a•tiaatoy llbo\l.t: bow t.ha .Appl.ioa~~t aad t.ha Towa

GlS·t~} TJO~ JIOJ701f8 ~ UHIL\UJOO) {D5• D;--l?)""

App. 382

1

2

3

4

5

' • ' 10

11

:u 13

:4

:.a

17

11

u 20

21

2J

23

~·

1.1.

U ' I

:0.7

liS

-.ipl; &44¥.•• -l&iate. Al>d :1: tbiaJI: tJaat DOt

m>J.y h -. a •oluUoa t:o -••L.,. :ao:l.ea, lt

th:I.Dii: U..Z.• • --u.. :I.D pl.aaa m b8ar

.......,..,... aDd t:o brii>IJ ~ fo.:tll ae tllat tbooaa

Hl.ut.t..,.. -•· 7"11 -· t&Ua aou- oa. llo 1:

... -zr ..-fortabla wl.tll t:be Uaal daoteicm :In

thi• araa.

I'IIUXD:mll Oft'l:CD. ll~r &ga:I.D, ~

et~ 4i•~•ioa7

lifo ,_bal. .,.._.1

PDIID:DIIa DPnCI:Il 8C!Dft'r &1.1. 101g!at.

J: • • !IOilltr t:o • - % ·- t:be ·-· .. ~ t:be

C!claolll.tt:a. MI:D L• .. - -·

'!:be -t L••ua l'cl like ,.. to

:ba&IOcl •:LpU!J.,_t. t.ea.a-y OD tll:La ,....,. ••

'l'!ul uaart:t.oa :La t:bet .. Kra4, :I.D

tllat: t:be -ll"'h cli4 DOt ...,..ida~: t:be affagt

of • ...._ fl:Lckezo out•ide ODe a:l.la f,._ t:ba

EGDe of ~aat, - tbey u•azte4 t:bet oar

IN1a 301:oa I:D'I'I:I.I:aa t:bet. ~ ~ c:l.te

tbet ....... DZ"Z"<Ool. :In clateni:I.D:I.Ds t:bet tbe

.llppl.iG&Dt will be able to GODt,..,l abaclow

e-.....:t..asr t:be ..... aile, :t.t -..lei

beva b...,. a:t.ca to a .. :I.Dfo:c.aUOD ae t:o

_l:h.,. there -• ...,- flicker OD _.,tie•

b~- al.le. But % doD•t thiak t:be IODla

requJ.racl t:bet., - % th:I.Dii: to beva II

rebearllltr OD t:bet ia.,.. WODlcl be

iDapp-:t.ata.

PUIIDDG OI!'PlCIIIl •=• J.tt:oZ"IIey

-· C!LIDIDID• Agaia, like ...

Waa-e~>r :aotacl. liD Boba, .. addreaa..S tba

eba4ov f1:t.oluor h.,.. t:be......ply. J: l:h:I.Dll: ..

-ttaiS it -.! -1:: t:ba Z"~-1:: -- t:ba

IODl... - agaia, •• witb t:be ao:l.•• •:t.taat:t.OD,

u..z.•a -:In &lao t:be b-f:l.t: of t:bet aye-,

tllat ae&D& ayaeaa :I.D pl.&- t:bet. coulcl ca..tal1

tbe abadaw fl:l.aker. lie l th:I.Dii: ... ae-1adgecl

t:ben wiU be ala&dow :C1:1.cluor. AD4 tb•

zo~t -. wbet do yog do :l.f Lt• • .,....,

aJ.abt lloura. Al>d tbQ - a plaa -.! a pro~­

tbat :1.• go:I.DIJ to, J: tll:Lak, at 1aaat !:hey

p,.a .. tecl .,lclallea aa euah, S.a !10"'"- to aol,..

t:bet. - ... •ball ••••

a• , PDII%DDitl an:I:CIIIl scorr. :1:'4 lik• to

----1)3-c~:---a""':t-:-) -f:-:/Q:--Dn'--~--OJ0-.8-P-.D-.-IID--IWU----:l-;(,-D,I:--D----:li:=:.-:-1:-., _;"} -'

1

5

f

'f ,.

10

11

12

1J

1t

15

u

17

11

1t

20

a:L

22

2J

24

lt

15

1&

17

1G

n '

t:be ecmt....la ba:I.DIJ p-aacl - DOt t-t..s

:I.D t:be UBi tDcl statu •

'!:be .llppl:l.aaa~ aa-rta !:hal: l:ha

rulDB ci.OD't ,....,;uira ea &DD~5.8 MliOild -

aile. IUicl tbey qalll uaa~:t: t:bet t:baaa !&.,..• -ra rabacl IUicl OODII.f.cl- cluriq t:ba

adju4iaau,. :baar.t.-- t:bel: _ • ..,.

alr884r •• bulaally, tl>era•a 110tb:I.Ds ,_

bu-., t:o :parapllrua.

X. !:hare ....,. .u. ....... s.- - tb:l.a

baua or ·- fU.ckel07 lllld IIQ&iD,

olwi.oll81r :11~~:. wal:d ~au a -tl• - .........., £1:1.-. - fl:l.cl<oor i.• &1Bo adcl.z--••1! ill

._.taly. ~

JIB. WD.'rBIIIUIBII Ul ~~:ipt:. % think,

l!lce DO:I.ae, tbb .t.•aue -• tllo:rougllly

tav.al:igatacl witb expart t:aat~ ~eatiaaLDIJ.

ADd. :1: tld.lllri ~ dac1aicm wa• cozorect CODCendDSJ

t11a :ClJ.abr. I tb:I.Dll:, 1lluo .... :~.... ~:hare -•

abo teolaaolavy ill :plac:e ~ yog CIGuld •• I

th:I.Dk J.t -.. tb• BOo:DA er•t:- tbat !:hey could

•ll:luat t:ba .....,..., of fl.:l.au .. .,.4 .... ~~aaa t:be

_ .. of n:t.all:ar.

llli

015-oa} IJO~ MDTiaa. .aa •WRW••x.al {05·05-17}

aot:. lazo alaadaw fllalaz- 111111 aa:l.a• tlaat: ..,. •re

JIOt wah•illtr ~ :I.D IN1' ru1&8 fo.:

--~t:ieJ.pat:I.Dg - .... ow. 10&1•• ~~a-

--.. Bllcl% tb:I.Dll: it•• \mclaratooiS t:bet ..

-•ot t:ba .llppl.L-t to -•t tbaaa. So ... .,.

DDt: •• J'O"l Jmcnr. that:'• ~ ~C~&tJ.GD. 8o

it:.•a • mat.~.r of' haw~ aa.alywi• i• ..... W'bat

yaa. bal.:l......, oat of t:bet, % •liPP"se. But I taka

•- -~t t:bel: .,. do ba,. ber4 - fast

INl.ea, aDd l aiel at tba u- - •• aacla tba

claaiai.Oil.

D. CLU70itD: :r j,..t V&Dta4 te aay,

y.&, ao~l~ i• O'I:IC' d.i•cu.~~•~ ~· ... 01: ~ ..

tbillll;, t:ba op:l.a:t.oa aa & -la l:aPZ"DIDDI:I 11111'

wa:L.- of tboo rille. l'lley• r1 •1::1.11 requJ.red to

ca~~P1r witb oar Z"'lllaa. Aa4 wbet .. ,.,. clODa s.o

aDalya..S - taluoll tbat ~ .. - - -

nrlawacl tbe AJ>pUeat.loa. AD4 .. tb:I.Dll: tbey

will II• • • c._lieac• baa beea -t o:~: will be

-t. PD:IIDI:I:lKI DnlCD. aeon-: Aa)' ot:ber

4iaaues:I.Oil7

:;.o ..,.rba]. .,..._..]

PJIIIU:DDIG Oft'%13a •=• Ul rlSJbt.

App. 383

•••

1

2

s

•

' 7

10

:1.1

12

13

14

15

15

17

11

lJ

20

21

22

2J

a•

1

2

2

5

7

• t

10

:1.1

u

u 1f

15

:u 17

11

l!

20

21

22

23

a•

Let•• DOW oa to .to• ~ ..

.1181lia. ~·• u ... ~:t.oa :1.11 tJaa

-t.l."" tlaat - :I.IIGO&Teot17 aaa.:l.dend the

t. ..... -sraz41.• tlaa di•t:aDD• of :1.- t:=ow

- f&lled tD ...... d ..... ..,., ........ -·-!:eel by

tbe mt......,.,.. All4 i• pal<t:t.eulaz-, tloa.-.

-• •- d:l.•auaai"" :1.11 the -t::t.a.. ,....erdi,.. - ....,. f .. t: - - tlaa _,....,:t.t,y U..t: ....

tlu:owa ~ z.aU•t:l.a at uul tJaa _....,Lt:y of

tJaa at:a--t· ll&de uul OW: OOIIII:I.4a&'&t::l.- of

~-

n.. appu ..... t: areue• t:Jaat: tJaa

-t:t.oa :ta:l.1e4 to i-t:i!y any • .,_.,,. of f-t:

or ,_ • ..,.;,,.. of law uul .,.. •U;olr :!a•t,

qa:~.a, • diea..,._t w:t.u. """' u..:t.•l.oa.

So, any dl•cna.•.lDD oaa iae t.~:~zvw•t

Att:o.,..Y Clifford..

IIR. CLJPPOllllt 1 1 11 Y01'11!1toer, %

thi.llli: u.:l.• -. dieawt•..S aDd .,.tt:ecl. X doa•t

thialr. ~'. llll)'t!a:I.JIIr - ~~. • .,. t:a wazzaDt:

ro~. l tlwagbt: U..t we t:ba"""''hlY

diaDIUI•ed dr.a i•- - fcnm4 t:laat: Lt -- -

waraa't: couc.eaw4 •• we tidzl• t b&ya aGy

........ .,.... :I.D t:M• part:l.aal.&l: --··

o~-oa} [JO~ ~oaa rca •YPP~l {05·05-17}

vi1dlifo. All4 fen- 1...,. of a loattor -· ..

au •poka tlae beaz• Oil tb!• GD.e. ••

orp10C1Uiaal1y tallrAicl abcNt: u.-. liAd l .-.oall

t:Jlat. • ...... al•o toUted uout tlaa U;ooot 011

l:l.aaalu:, whtoh. U• t:lae o~, you. bow, !oza8 of

Ufa Jle&'a. All4 l'a ~oz:Ub1a w:t.U. ..taoz. -­

w:l.th Wbat:. .. did., and. X -· DO re&8DD to r8Dp!US

loaao4 - t:Jlie ~cu.l...,. .,..... X didll•t •••

~ 11- tlaat 11. .. IHIBD ll"""'JJll: t:o ow:

att-t:l.oD- tlaat ~-• .. a ggo4 ,___ to

""""P-·

:~a. JIOl~• 1'4 ; ... t lUte to

a-t that: CNt of all tlaa ol>joet:Loo., u.:t.•

eaa •- to .. to :be tlaa eaa tbat t:Jley didll't

l:Lito OIJIL' f:I.D4t.,.. - didll•t !>l:illllr fozwu-4 011¥

new avidea.ce ui.cle fn:. •yoo• ~ tn:OIIg'. • X

woul.d hov8 oxpeot..S _,. •upJOOZ't fo.. u.:t... Xt

••- to .. • BllotFm app........, 01> u.:t.• -..

:tt- .,..,.,_, 'S'IIe :l.llf~i-

-- -J.do4. •• aade 0101: dec:l.eioR. liAd

J.t:•e :l ... t: a -tt:er of oo ,_ :l.llfo.,..tiDII 01:

pl .... 0~ yo .... ld.a4. l .s-•t ·- t:laat

71

0~-02} !JD~ MOI%0RB POA 8 EIB'P%10] {05·05-17}

1

a

1

• 1t

11

u

u

lt

15

11

17

ll

u

ao n 22

23

2f

1

2

s

10

11

12

13

1.

15

15

17

18

11

ao 21

22

23

2'

PIIUXDmD OIPPXCD 8ccn'ro .lllllf o­dieCiallat.... .... J.ae - Attoi:Dq woa-a!>y.

U. --Y: % woal4 --· X

tiWll< - - a t:ba"""'!Jh dieoiUI~ ........ OEBiag

ioe t:=ow &lid !>lade allear &1ld - .. oellap••·

YC>I1 loo<nt, all t:ba•o l•llll•• - ~y

:t.nv.et1pto4 ....S tCND4 t:Jlet tlaa •- .I.D

tile •• t:Jlat tlaa etallllade _,1dl l>o Mt •

Pmlll:tDJB DI'Wl:CIIJI s.corr: x .............

liAd l eee tloa •-•• of tlaa c-:l.t:tee ia t:Jlat

-·u - - to tlaa -t uaaa. OD tlaa 1.....,. ~" of offiOCit Oil --1 _'l"i.._t, tlaa -":l.cme &lao

coata:l.llod DODO- ral•..S miMlt: tJlo ~t of

the J'ro:joot: 011 1 ...... uiaall, part::l.eu.l.DI:ly

...... --·"·· Tile .lppl:I.Omlt qa:i.Jr. .._.... tlaat

~n·• ao DeW ~t:• twre and that ... v.

alrll&~ DOD8:1.~ u.:t.,..

.lllllf 4bDGBiiDD D11 u.:l.• ie.,..7

&UD~mBY Cl.t1fOI:d.

D. CLII'POJah ft1.• -• dieoaeae4. l

--· X'• CIDIIfOIL'I:e!>la wit!> odlat- r .... l.- &lid

OD&lpo4 :I.D c--t:l.oa witll ~ate oa

70

015-02} !JO~ IIO'nCDIII roa ~l {011·05-17}

- .... - .......... to do t:Jlat.

I'UI:tDI!a CD'PXcmt IICOn'l AttoEDoy

W.etbra!>y.

1111. WIIUBDBIIJYo X WOII14 al•o :1'1181:

po:I.Dt oDt that tha IL'OipOI:t: rr- l'iala a - boa

1lD :1.-- coaoOftliag !>...,.• 01: Jlol>oate. All4 x

t:JliJilt U..t u.:t.a COtla:Ltt .. tried val:\' - -- we

tid addrea• be&r8, "-aiq •it.u. et ceta~ra,

....s - ....,ked .,..&'\' - to Jlalp soza•..,.,. u.. bolll.'-•. lo I t:Jll.Dk - t.llorou!Jial:r looked at:

tlaa :~. ......

Clifford.

Q. CLXrPOIIIIo .nuot BIY ......,llact:L­

:1.• t:Jlet - aot-l1:r a4dfto•a..S o,.. of tlaa :t.. .....

-• U.o :l.llit:La1 eita off U.. roll4 Jlod layd<ND

..... - -· -• • -:l.t:orbtf plUl poll: :I.D

pleoe. :1 CDIL1 t Neall. -..ctl:r l:l.gbt: 1lOW 'lllla.t

~J. it -•· Bv.t U..... -• •- level of

1101d.tvzoia.g 1:.J:I.-.t. wa• .-.appo•..S ta oce&&Z at U.

:I.D:Lt:l.&l eit:o - ... .,..... .... vo:I.Dsr to ·- at u.. ltogi.q ... -.

8o :1 d:l.dll. t ••• ""l"tll:l.av - ~~. ....

at all. l ..., .. vi.tll 111:. Bo:l.....,t. :1:1:. jaet

App. 384

72

l

• 5

7

!D

11

l2

:3

14

15

16

17

11

u liO

21

u

23

lit

I 1 !

-· Dlo .-:bal ... IIJI .... ••l

PliBIIIDIBO oJrPXC311 scorr. Olta¥· •­

:t '11 bd.q aa to the ~ &apio, aworarab.i>lg

a.pie of on.>e1:y ,__,_t of ~ ,.~~.

parti~l:r ~-.liq t!ae ri_. o:f t!w

amio1pal1Uaa. liD4 qaia,_ :t•a parllpb:ruilltJ.

So :r "'!'Dlogi ...

Tbe uautiDil ia tb&t wa failall to

.,...,14e,.. tba ....-•4 liOQd ua, t!wt it••

eDAuazy to tluo priodti.a• _. •• ..s iD tba

... t:al< ph.D fDI< the -· It:'a ""t: paftli.ttall

lD. tlla lhlra1 ecm.•arvat!.Dil ZDDA 1lll4ar the

•OOBJ.ag -· of ~· t-. &D4 tluo paopla

of llllt:r.t... :I.Ddlcated thalz- appoa:l.l:iDD l:o t:ha

I'Z'"Ir:l-t: loy YOtlll8 QUDat U -t: t:a t:ha

o...u.z.-ea that wou14 allow aout::rtu~tioa &D4

Op-at~ of t!ae PZ'O;Iact:.

~ raoollaot:iOD alao ia ~· waa

•a.a ti•cnw•i.GD t.bat ,. d.ida • 1: CGDaiclar otla.er

'13

D15-oa) lJO~ MDI%DRI roa JBBB'P~J {as-os-17}

Aat:l<ia .,_ted. ADd -r pa~<acmal. -DGla•iOil

..,. that. the - of Ant.l<ia ..,. opl:l.t. ....S

~ -• "" o1a.,. llil<aeu- ba:I.Dg off.....S Joy

u.-. :t tbl.ak .. al..., aQD8:1.deZ'..S tluo -n.... of llaJ.gllbOI<iag ..........t t:l.aa, part:l.cnal.arly

Stolld&M. :t ~ t:be1<e waa a lett:AZ' fraa

:DaaZ'iD!ro Wa t:al.kad ab"'"t t.P :lapl:l.eat::LQD8

witb raii'A""l to aa!aaol 4buic:ta. Ia :r: tbl.ak

that oar ..,.17111• of tbia waa ODIIPZ"ahand'"'

u4 ~·• c.rt:&Ully DO~ a ~••aa = ha ... a

•DII:t:DDG OJ?:tc.JI ·=· l/aly Ot:haJ:'

4:1.aoaaaiOD7 liZ'. lloia.....rt.

:Da. •o~. MY abaa.--UOIL :1.8 t:hat:

t:baJ:'e ,..re ao ....,. ......u.g taqet:o, .., _,.

.... ,..:Lablaa to ba eollddaH<! e_..,illg ....._ .. ~

.aluu, that it..., v.zy 4iffielllt to id-Uty

wtoez-11 t:beJ:"a ~4 l>a - UllZ'AADODabl.a adva&'aa

aUact for AllY :I.Ddividual. :r .,_ away witb

tba :i.Dt:.rp,....tat.1010 that 'Wi til the pul>lie there

WO\l14 ba ·-· wt: it: -14 """ ba poa•ib1a to

.ll! :l.dant:ify gi,_ tba a .... ilabla O'aaoas-aa• t!wt ..

Q~ a.a...... CCDaaqi.Wiltly, I couldn't: lba appoaecl t:o

-----~--,1$--027} -,-~-nlf-:-III!'UOII-:-_ .... ---,-J'Q=-• -............ lti-:-::IU!-::-DI=r;::-_1 --={--Jts=-.-=-=ils=-.-:-:u:=-J .---'

5

7

I

' 10

11

13

11

lt

ll

u

17

11

1t

20

21

22.

21

2.t

'Zb. &l'Plio.ct •••.rt:• t:hat .. :aa.,.

dQD8 tb:l.• &D4 e.l~•• tba llalib .... Uoau ....S tluo

~a.-.lpt:o of oar dellberaU,..., u4 t:ba~ ..

4:1.4 ~~paoi!:Laal.ly .-aoei- t:aatiamv t:bat

~fiaally ~••4 t:ba t.p&et: of t:ba

Project DD tb1l ~ a-s.t:La• and

t:ba c;:aaVal lld>ool D:l.•~.-:l.et wtoieh -· lorov.gtot

up.

llziT 41•ou••:t.oa OD DliJ:' t:alt1q up of

tba "''t.- of lllllllic:l.pallt:J.u7

... ...__..,, 2: 111 - tbi• ....

l>aoa,... :r tbl.ak :t la4 off tbi• ll:l.•.,..•ioao.

:t ~ - baud ...t:an.J.va

ta•t:L•oJ~¥1 ru4 ,._......,. doe..,._t:o ..,4 durillg

aur 4alJ.-at:i.DD8 t:bon>ughly ....,tta4 wtoat: we

eoll14 deta....S.... ....,... tba "-- of t:ba paopla

of llllt:da &D4 of t:ha- iD t:ha •urro1DUlizag

o~tl••· We oODd4aZ'&d ell of t:ha

ta•t:~ &D4 t:ba ari4uu:a iD a ~iYe

--· 'rbez:a ..- ....m:uou..a ia.to,_ticm

that: ....,. f,.... tba .... ri ..... PZ'OP"•ecl

7t

015·03) [JO:tlft IIO'I:tOID :roa l!'D'I!TI!QI {01·05-17}

blnliaav the paftli.t: Oil that -.b. At: tba •­

t::lae, X tbiak -· -:r be bat:taz- _., t:o loolr.

at thi• .t...... I - llot a l'u.l aatata ....,...t,

bot: .tt aa....S to - t:ba.-. ara •- ....,,.. to

batter •tad¥ it. :t a..v. •- ooac:a ...... alboat

looltizl8 at tba ia.,.a• ill t.,... of a laqa

•-l:I.Dg n:La!l ...,.ld tbaD .._... 4owD t:1>a

affec:t• DD the iall:l.ri4u&l p.-opa.,l:y. .,.t -r

nu!I:!IIBO Dl'r:tCIIa •=: oro iDtar:nrpt, ...., • .,. tallEiag about: tu vi..., of

...,lcipalitiea rip~ ,_, "'J.ght:?

Dll. BOXIIVIIZr1 Oh, :t tbo1141ht we~

em. :r:eal. ••~t:• .. 1oq,u.

tbat.

P.UIDDIIJ OPI':tCBa scan: , 'l'hat. • • ..,

~Z"t&Dt 4:1. ....... ~ •

:Da. BO:tll'nl:llTo 1'• ao,..,..,.. I t:wme4

tba -· t:oo vaic:kl.y.

:P.RBS:mnm orr:rcmt -=• aay o-

4i•ca.••ioa.?

[lllo ......... 1 ... _..]

I'IIUIDIBIJ OPJ':tc.JI Sc:ofto I will •a:r

App. 385

' 10

11

13

13

l<l

15

16

17

ll

Z1

31

2S

24

I 1 ·'

11

:11

2.1

33

.14

U..t. Clbricndly -·-bad •- ti8a-t.:I.111J T.L­

oleu-:l.:y :Ia til. t.a•t.'-T. :1 ._,t. ~ it••

ooateat.oo4 tlo.t. tha - or Belaa- Cor tha

tbt• • \IIDISOII.t:e•Utd• •• f~ .. tllat. t:ll8y•~ bere

:i.Ja t;ha ,...,... Cltrd.ouaq, p-1• o&n .U..agrae

uat. that. ..._ ... u tha wil.:l. of tha wtu>le

t.owll, 8114 tll.t: •• ..... ~ .U..cnusa:L .....

llo, UIJ" at;~aa,. ol:l.ac:,..a:I.OQI oa t.IU•

b8Ve befon - ....,. oa to •• ~ect.cn­

Boi.....n; woalcl .,-ur like t.o talk about: nal

eauu Ya1uaa.

lo :I. at:' • ;1'1111 1: t.all:.a "'Y P"'aT.i."""

at.at.-t - -ly it Ioera. I ~ uat

there i.a all iaau• at: lumd. :t do JLDt. ••• ~t.

.. bave tha al:lllil:y t:o :1.-t:l.f:y it. p..ap..,l:y.

Colure-t.ly, ~ wvuld DOt. •• :t wvuld aa:r t:lial:

we o.ddzoeassll ~· .. kat: we oould. We D<nlld

D.Ot. f:lacl 0~ 8Dlllt.f.OG•• We ..... ~

:Ia 1ookiAv at :Lt. Alul it :1.8 a -"Y· ~ o_l.., prGI>l-. 8114 :1 l:hiall:. - ol:l.d oar ,.."Y

ll-t. 1:0 c:oae:l.cler :1.1: Ca:l.rly, - J: t:hinlr. -

77

015-Dll} [-'ODI'l' JID'l'ICIIIS POa :IIIIIDIUDJCII {05-05-1'7}

......... ~:a... &Jld :t tla:lall:. - all did ~- t:bat.

tlla:r• aou1cl b• •01a illlpaat OD zo.al. ••t&A

Yalu .. 8114 a ~t.y .!gilt:, you -· .._.

..... -.-:Lt.. •• ~bl.y u ......... t:bat: -

- .. _. o.- lUll' -t :a.. able to aae-Uab a

rea1 ••tate guara:a.I:J". ADd. - OOD.Oludecl it: wa• t..p.raet.!.a.al.~ u X racal.l. r~ ..arJ.ou• r .... cma

..praaa•d at t:ba tiaa.

'1'lle -t.£_, :Ia CII:DAt oC u I tl&:lall:.

fail t:o ,...u,. eapla:l.ll wtr:y that -• ... ~.

bvt 4:1.11 PD:lat: to that as .... ......,., :Ia .....,

:l....,.t, that. .. aaun.ld .._., you -·

-lied • ....., lt:lad o! --ty. I i,..t d:l.da't.

aee 1mY -t oC 1&W bare o,. & Z'&t:iooaal

tiaouadoa •• t:o wtr:y that. -14 he .,_ired.

We tid ccmaida1L' :l.t, Uld I tll.t.Dit that - Cell

oa tile right aida Df that <Saeist..... But I '•

....-a t.llst .._.,.,... Df redu.oad pzqoarty v&luaa

:La 0111: the.-. c..., tl&oaa -arty .,_..,a.

I'UIIm:DIG CIFI'Xcat BCO"n'o AD¥ Dtlae,.

tiae ... dOII Clll 1L'8a1 .. t:at.a ¥&1 ... 7

[110 •ezl>al ... ._.e]

PIIIISiriiJIGI OPP:tCD Scon'1 1-iiiiJ

.. _.. aJioOt.lla.. ,..... tlo.t ••a .. ...,....lat 1lp ill tlaa

lE ,

nl 21

1

2

I

' 10

1l

12

13

15

16

17

11

n 20

21

32

31

24

aaa a- by - daeiaiDD.

,.._miDIQ CD7:rac& IICO'l"l'o 11o, ""

~~ t.M pz'OJ'erty, zwal. e.Ute value i.•na a

1itt:la bit. r ~ t~&ara•a • diaagraaaaat

batwa.D tlae lDterv.Dara aDd C!auaae1 fozo ~

Pal>1ia 8114 tl&a JIP.pUe.ot: ,...., •llara•a lliV'

opizaim~ em t.ba ataDd.ard8.• ao, JOU baw, we•we

ruled that U: rill .,.,.. aD uar .. aouab1e ...._ ..

effect oa -arty Yal,..a _..,.].ly. :r l:hiAII:.

a-. are taltillg tl&a fact t:bat. - tiaoaaaed t:liat

tl&ara c:011l4 be •ua eUact cc - JOI'OPOI'U•• •

aa baiAg coatraq. t:o t:liat:. Ia :t • • -t •iaw:Lat

tile two as :lJul-tU.1e. we _,.. t&TiDg t.D

- a -.....s at.a-t -.., tlaa law tlo.t

~·· - _ .. .....,.la t.paot.

·~oDable,• 1B ~ apil:l.ioa. doea't ae111a

t:lia.-.. a 110 UVacl:. But, 1'011 -. J: l:hiZIII:

tl&at. a • good ua ..... atan to l>a h&riq ...... alaa,

you ....... '""""• till wa ~ :La tllat X tl&lall:. :La

,..a11y t.lla - of' til. iaa,.. be,... Dir.atar rorbaa.

Ilia. POIIIQIBo Teall, I tll.t.Dit ralatiii!J

to that.. of eou.r••· :1..• ouzo 1otag ~CftUia.l.~

U>out pr~>peE'ty _.,..,ta••• "'•1-tioa

CIODI:eoot. Of titigats. .... , potellti&l Ut:l.ptioa,

you. -· teabaioa1 uU.gat:t.... fo" abedow Uld

...,, .. fll- -• - lapaot. -· PDt-tial

Bipact on f':i.DaDcial cqoab:l.lity .

baea .. aa - f'a:l.lall to CG~~a:i.cler tba affaat of'

til. 1..,1-t:I.CIII of thoaa :l.aauaa ..,. t:lia

req~~:l.rad r-az:atloaa of aaala 1!1- for tlaa _ ... uoa.

'1'lae IIP.PlioaDt. z:eapDDded by PDint.:I.IIIJ

to t:liai,. rit:Aaaa, II&'. Wuoaar. Uld bia

teat~ tll.t atated tlaat that WDR1d aot l>a

-. u ...... A1ld CUr~, aga:l.ll, tbey •ar ·­~ App1iGaD~ aaaarta that ~•r•'• DO lag&l

or f'aotual. :l.aftA t.Jiat. ~ w&n-..,t. rallaari.IIQ

ill l:hia doololt.

&ar d:l.ac:ua.i.011 - that :l.a11aal ID

l:hia -ld l>a tba illpaat:e ot tl&a no, oz: t1aa

- fliolca.- tealmolOSIY.

At.to~ C1iCfozd.

10

IIR. eL:ti'1'011ZII :1 ,.ac:all tlaat - aall:.ad

that qautiCIII, Uld I tl&:lall:. :l.t -a ....-.4.

llid- do ....,.. ~.,.., rae. A1l4 :1 ._,t - wt.a1:

woal4 be ga:l.llad to .,._. 'l'hay•- atatad t.llat

o1s-o3} lJO:r.r ~Iama rca RBB~aa~l {o5-o5-11}

App.386

' 'I

10

1:1.

1a 1S

1'7

11

u ao

1

10

11

13

13

14.

15

l.l

l7

11

1t

20

u

2J

24

t:!ley ooulol -ly IIIU!. aUll !lave ~b:

f:I.Baaohl oquU.U:y. X .U.da•t :ua .. Ul¥

tllelr ~ claal.l_.ol .., tt. llat :t dozl•t ...

anythUig .,_to offer a pool....- hera. J:

j ... t l: dozl• 1: ... f.t, but Dthe .... .a}' tli&-a.

PliU:tDDIO OI7%CIIa SCOftt Ally

opidaa.. aaaHDU? la ~. • •ea•• tla.t we

•haul.d. EIM:DIIUiiMC' ba8..S OD thi• i• .. e!

Dllo .w:o-l:lal re•-•l

PUI:tDDIG OJ'rl:C!IIa IHD:f'fa ha:blg

!lODe, oUr• :1 bali.- ~t co..,.. ~ ·- 'bold

OIL ; ~ •.aoa.d.

(Diaa,..diJII :a..tve- :rr .. J.4f.Dsr Mfioar

lcett IIIU!. Attonq :taaop.I.Jt.o)

PUBID:DIG 017%<:3a •cona l:e 11A

att-t to be t!ulrougll, ~ -•:L ,..-u.u -thet :t df.&a•t: ccwar cauaae:L ror tba Pal:ll.1c

lor1N1Jial: v.p ~ .iaaua of ou.r coea14erat1oa of

xa. vtaaeriq•a taat~ IIIU!. wbet:bar.,.. .,..,

prop_,..ly CODIIf. ..... ~t- DOt. 8U,... DOt a

rit:a.aa i2> UJ.a pro....,ol:blg ADd llf.4 DOt file

taat~y. .. the .t.pplte ... t: .-..!Dole ua. But

D....rtloelaaa, we .U.ol coaai.S.r •- of U&'

ata-ta i2> our -- 111 the taatiaau¥ IIIU!. iJ>

81

thet. - abcn&l.d pz:W>.t>ly adeaaat

Jill, UCOI'DIO 1 l tbiDk yoa' '9'a

a<kk ... ad app,...,.S..t.aly 11 difl!&ra~~t cl.u- of

al'rD&', IIIU!. :1 tb:I.Dk ,..,..._ pt tb- all. llh:l.t if

you are go.I.Dg to taka a :bl'aalt --

Jill. 'llliJII)a c:au•t ua.. ,....., JUlca.

lla. UCOI'DIOs llr. c:baiz:m ... , if you

.,.. pi.Dg to - a lol'ealt, X will look t:lll'ougto

the -tioDa ovu tJaa lo...U ...ot ..,._ ........

I'RUZDDIG OJ'rl:C!llll SCOfta Oklly,

wa•U t.aM a ft. ... -llimlt.a l>,..al<, &lad wa•U

att-t to do fb .. mf.aut:aa a~~d ba back. 'l'balllt

I~ a raoaaa -• ~at .11•D'

a.m., IIIU!. tbe beuiDIJ ,... • ..,.... at lla:l1 ..... ) l'UJ:EDDIG OPFJ:CIIIl IJCO'rl't BaCik 1J11 the

I'&OO&'d, 1ra rill D-1: -I:Ut&io the KotiOB for

J.ebaarill!l' £- t:ba aetl00&'01og:lat ~ of

J:Rt.arYeRDra. WUI: :1 rill att-t to do :La

a~t fiiZO'IP tba mot:l-.. -- ~ , • .,.... n:Laed.

iD ~t -tioa. ADd aeaia, wa•n all &'aall it,

eo -- p~icll1aa-1y Col' Dr. wa&'d, 'bopafu.l.lr ,..,..

1

2

•

10

11

u

u

u

15

1&

17

1

~-

10

u

15

16

17

l.l

lt

20

u 22

2.1

24

12

~y -t to taU: about t:Ut a

l.lt:tla bit:7

r- ....,.bal. raapllll&al

PIIIISZDDI& OD'J:CI:It s=a :1: lcoOif Z 'm

9011111' to Deed. a ... ~:=e !oreal!. aOIJII. J: '"' ...,...

- .. - a~ak. Kl~ WR•"""PDYt So .... YJ.•••ri..a.tr --·1: a~-· iD Ula Allt:da :tl, we'll call

it. But tU" a&U, - lbea&'d a lot ucnal: laer

OOBCl ... i_. ...ot J:!DtUq8 ill tba p.-.riau.a

docket, parl:iaal.&&'ly ~th ,..~ to lllf.Ug&U011

... aa-.a IIIU!. - .....,. of t1>aa ..,... iDeoq>oftltad.

f.Dto ADI:rim n. ao z tb1111r. tbat, you-· -

.U.cl, co the -1:.&111: aU --·t bare .......

.U.clzr.•c .,..,. a h11 &llalyaia af b.clO report, :1

tb1AII: .. did tocoQOrata - of bar ~t

p:.:oc:••• lDI:o om:' 1U1alya1.•.

PDII:IDQIIJ CW7ICII:8. II:OOft'a Dll:'.

lk>i.,el't W&AI:a to apeak, :E cao taU.

Dll. BO:IBVJIII.T1 110.

PUSIDDIO OPPICIIII SCOfto Attonwy

J:ao0Jji4.Ao. :L• t;bac-e aaytlllag ~~ w.•r• mot.

oo""rillll' tbat: you caa tbiak ot 011 the COUII.ael

015-02} tJO~ ~:t~ raR ~I {os-os-17}

-duataB.d I'a ""'" "":l.t.arat:.l..lls vour llllol.a

-tioD. :1:'• l:l'y1DIJ to pareplaaae.

lo, agai11, t:U -t.&llroloa'iat 0ft>1JP

-·•t• t:llat tba c:c.aitce. fallad to

c01111:l.dm: tba validity of --...ol.ogi-:1.

'"'u-.. • ....:a.on"ut --

lila.-· b~t. PIIIIUDDIG OrPICIIII s=o 'l'haolr. you •

:E app.-.ciata t:Ut.

lila. 111J1Do lfo abarla.

PUIIDlDIG on'ICIIII JCO'rT• -· raleva~~t

to ~ aaau-1: of - f1S...- &Dol eoiae.

l1l p~cml...,.., t!uora• • diacuaaiOIUf .-l>""t

pre-aCIIIUI~~t.oa. aaJ.••• CJ Paator, Yale ~ G

l"aa~o~ ao4 Mdalillg, poat.-eoa.•~ru.ct:.lOD aolaa,

... caciJ:ologiaal ialftlea l'al.at:ed. to &latl.Dg.

TJ.zo•' • ~o, va tlw 1:10!•• top:Le, •UU

4i•cu••ioa of a wazwt•ca•• &Da1r•i• for taEbi.­

II.Oiaa. '1'21el'e'a d1•c,..ai011 ra_.u..r -- wl>iola

b :1: tb1llk tU laal: tap.ic - 1aft. fo&' the ot:bar

-t:I.IJII&, 011 t:ba ,......1: oc the PI'O~IOOI:'a

afr:l.oi- 011 the -- a .... ed. by ait:lgetiOB

...... """'.• b~ fD&' -ba aad ......... fUokar.

••

015-oa) [~~ .orxDBB roa wraw~l {os-oS-17)

App. 387

1

4

1

10

u

12

13

14

15

15

17

11

u 20

a1

2a

ZJ

zt

1

4

t.,__t. of abadaw fUDlutr, .bot.h

~-oaa.~otSOD aD4 po•t-aaa.trua~iaa.

Thera'• .U..cn18•:l.cm abau.t ~ •o1~ ~~·

- ahadDw flillkar ~t.a. -.o•a diaGuaaima

D~ •ZTO;~:a ill. za...-•- COl:' Hz'. o••••:l. ~ --- flicoke&-.

Dader a !>road t:ap:l.o t.Ur. • a

.u.....,.aima al>ou.t !a.il=- t.o c:-i<k"

-~iat.el;r lri.ll4 .u ..... u-. wi2l4 ~..s.

eleva azul o~ -t-ro1ogiaal faat:ora &D4

tl.alr •ffeat. em .aa.M..• aDd ~ aw~uae•

of t.ha • ..,. &D4 - tl>aaa -r• ....,..:l.a.r..s.

Doara' a di.a......,:l._ -t aaCCN~Lt:izlg for tha

zo•~lac:tiaa. iD •:bad.cnr f1idkar. Tbare • •

diaGaaaima ragardiag t.ha .!Jipaat. of .u.tow

flicker GD ~affia aa4 aaaoa:Lat.ed ~arda

zoal.a't.-.1. 'Zbr.•a tU~•iOD •ou.t ic• t.bzvtN

ia tba meteaz:-alog;l. •t• 1 1110t.:lcm... "rb.re • •

.U.cna8a:I.OD of vbual .IJipaat.a - :l.apacl:a GG

••• tJ.tic:a, ZLight.t:.:l.ma ispact• ... - •,.

diaouau4, &D4 t.ha :lapacot: of flaah.i.aQ Hvhu

&Dd t:l>e:l.r effeot.a.

:Ill r.~oa.••• aga!D paraplaruiDg,

,,_ t.ha Applle&~>t, tha ~l.:l.c..,t. aaaarta

"

015-03} IJOIRT MOriORS POa RBIBARlBGI (05-05-17)

we wou14, you li:D.ow, zecaaaidar thi• i•aue. :r

4o ~ .. 1 llka t:ll.t.• 1.• .ia IIA..D.Y re.-paat:.• •Gillie: D~ t.ha•• it- -- all of t.ha•• it- ..... i:A

affaat, rehaah:I.D.g ta•ti>Dmlr t.hat - !lava head

al .. -4lf.

l'IIBSIDJ:RG Ol'l'XCBR ICO'n'a Mlf ot!lel'

dieao"oaLCJD cm t:.he D018e 1•.,..• diaa,..,.ad i:A t!la

-t.:l.ont •o ...,., a aek:I.D!f a llO:I.aa.

.lt:t.o.....y W.at.har~.

10 U. 'IIBIIZKIIR88Ya X ~ast di•&~JN• w:l.t!l

11

u

13

14

15

u 1, 11

u

20

n 22

2)

24

Dr. ward•• -••Hioa. ~t w. fai.l.acl ~ a~j.da:r

_i._..a that: ha P"U-t:ad dariJav IU.a -- that.

he a1:1.e:Lt.ed daJOizlg Ilia ratha" 1ezastt>y, :l.f I

reca11, azo•a-....izaati.cm of llr'. o• .. al. We

haar4 a lot: of :I.D.fo.,..t.:I.GD. - haad

Dr. Wad'• •••••-t: of t.ha P"'O>l- wit!l

g. o•araal'• uat.iaosl;r &D4 -olal.izlg. All4 I

t.hiDk t.hat. - OODaidarlld t.hat ill OW< AD&l.;rab.

I'UICIDRI OPI'ICBR Bco:l'l'a ~ oUier

ti•c•••:Lcm ~ tha DeJ.•• :1.••1&11• zoal•ed. !.a

t.ha -1:-""lOIJiata • group -t.:I.Oil? :t •11 gl.-

• -- :Dl.raGt.or Porl>a• &tJ&:I.D.

:DXR. I'OJtDJ a :r waa 'aat goiDg t:o

ra1M .,... ot:har paiat. :r ... iD. tba ~ir•t.

015•02} tJDZRT ~a&S POa ~I {08·0!-17)

• 5

10

11

12

11

14

15

1&

17

11

1t

ao

n

32

2l

2(

1

1

• 10

:u 12

13

14

15

l' 17

11

1t

2D

21

22

2S

24

t.hat: t.ha -t:aorolaght: group faib4 t.o

••ta!IH•Il .. agai.D, cme of t.he aritez'J.• ~ at:

tJOCHI -••- t:h&t: -=mota a raheariD.g. ADd

tbq IRIII'tJ8•t that tha &a8a.....at• W8J:A daDe

iD. DGIIIIP1.l.....,. with .,.... c-:l.tt:aa rulaa.

so t.hoaa an !>road t:ap.l.ea. :t t.h:t.oak

:t atutetl wit!l, :if I -r wbat :r ;luat ol14

ayaelf, rit!l llOhe. ao, p...:Ju\pa - GOUl\\1

at.art: with t.ha d:l.aauaa!cm ....., l:ha dif~ ..... t:

...,i•e a-t• of the _l:eo...,lOIJicel.

-·• -uou. AD:r oll•auaaLODt

J:JiEWator :.OZ.h••.

D:IR. J'ODUz Z pea• J: 1 11 •t:.art.

BOIIIU!Uig a U.t:tla hH lika a ,,..,_ record. :r

llloR•t: la>ow !:hat. 1 a.... •-~ i:A h_..

tbat'• DaW "14.-aae azo ._. a~:gUa~~~Lta. wa bav.

heard al>out:, ,...,. -· G Fact.o"• :I.D.fluiiiDCiD.g

llOiae. We •va head t.ha lialt:at..t.- .,. •

fa:l.lur- c~, you-· prea.t.•a a..-oy of the

aodelizlg, t.ha 180 UJUJ-2 -.l.iq. You-·

_.,. l:t.aard. al.l t.ha••~ an4 t.ha pr~• af

t:ha av:t.4allae that ~ ll- p,.a-t.e4, 'I'CN

~ao-. it: 1•- ,.. wit!l • .u.u-t o.....,1,..:1.oo.

So :E •~1• to •- a goocl reaaaa. :I.a. ~ wily

015·02} IAJUIRT lmrl:CDIII I'OR llDRAIIllRII {05-05•11}

•-t: ehout. t.ha prep-.-e of av:i.._..e

e1-. if yoa v.l.11, t.hal:- ahou14

IIJiea:t.fillallr acme!.., aDd idaBt.ify ill

.,_..1•= t.a tha av:t.a ..... r,_ t!l• ~u ..... c.

AnCl :r thiJik t.hat, whila - aoDaidarecl &11 t.he•• iaauaa, t.he "•apaa•i~:t.lit;r, aa X ~r•t&llol it,

i• DOt. oaz-• to ccnm~ GIIIHI or tlw ot:la.z' or make

;luo~g~MRa:. Oil aaoh of t!laaa 41ffarallt. iBBueB,

W.t!lar :l.t • • olw:l:.t.Dg ..., Q Pactor or _.,.., .

All4 I thtak !:hat: t.he .._t t.hat. ... -

t.hat - .... t ..X. a <kl:enoia&tioD - all t:laoaa

:t...di'ri41lal f.t:- :1.8 DOt. valid , :E t.hiDII: ill

context of all of the~~· wa''l"a H&:'d • .,.

llaCll!l our aDDala.aJ.cm em ~·• S..•.a.••.. Sa J:

«k:r:a'~ kaew :i.f tbeJ:•'• u azgaeeo~ ia ... OTt ol

t:het pa:I.D.t , IIUI:, :rca lr:llaw. b it oar ;loll t:o

rale GD what!~&~: a G Pa~tor Bboalol ba .5 ""

• ..... , :r 4oR•t t!I:I.D.k :Lt. :La.

PUB:mlliG Ol'PICBR 8CO'rTa At. l. ... t:

f~a. atr po:lJI.t: of "Yi._., I •• ~-~•N ~ ...

..... 4i.da 1 t OCDUiiUzo •U tlM•a i••ge• ..

Asfab. •• w.•re ,.11 awaz-e, ~·· a

diffa..-oe !lat.wa- did - an: laplly &llol 4o -

ha.,. .,.,4 .,....._ to raopen - ia t!lara

••

01!1-02} tJD:an' -lCIIIJ I'OR UIIIIIIRXIIGI {a!S-05•17}

App. 388

1

~

.a

.. 5

6

7

• ~0

11

12

:n

11

11

20

21

:12

13

24

)

4

5

7

10

11

1t

2D

24

•pe-t:. aa4 qa!a, % ~ ia - of t!>eae

s.. ..... - .....:t. "P :I>•!.Dsr .-.bat .u~>~eotJ. ...... -

X thiDk .....aaal>1a -1• dia-e. BUt. l:llat.' a

110t. t11a buu to>: .,........,:lclerat.t.oa.. II!' apU>t. ....

teat.:t.>ar ,..,~ -->:Dlellriata -­

-u..,...1agp waa ol>ollt 1:11a IID4eU.111J, .._

o~ t~a. X 4o t.alat, % dill - atUl do,

!:bat !:bat: wua•t l:ba --&11 ia ..- 4ech:I.Oil,

ia -r opiDJ. .... , ..,. t.:a.eee ~- wa ........

a:ulea. We bad •- poot·c.,...t,.....t:l.cm

-G&lqg ·--tori...- ,...m...-ta. Be

l:ba,... _. - ...,.r&ll paakop ...,..., 8o, -

t:.a IN•l:l.t.l.gate f:.ba .f.a ..... , 1111lt X'a DDt 800Ug

-yt:.b..f..latr ,._ ....... !:bat waa lo>:OIIIIIat. up I..D l:lla

- t:l.oa >:-srazd.1.111J 110:laa.

loDy at:.ba>: apiDJ..,...7 ~ alae

._t to .u ....... t.lain Di.>:eetor JIOS..V.rt:t

IIIL • .0%11VB11.'1't I'a -:l.tiag fo"&" .........

I'IUIBm:tm OlrPXCIIIl BdDft: So, •-iJ>IJ -· X'd like ta go em to, ap:l.a ill the •-

-teo>:Olog:lat IJ"I"010,P -ti.cm, l:.ha .f.aaua of llha4ow

fl:lcll;er, lr.,.. -, aga:l.a, % '• DOt. go!..Dg t:o

.,

015·02} (.:IODIT IIOnCDIII 1"011 IIIIIIUUIIGI {DS-DS-17}

aaz.aaaaabla ~•• effect there.

PD8mDIG Olrl'XCD 800ft 1 llga:l.a X

t,.i .. t.o parae th:l.a CNt ......S..- • ......., fllalrez-,

tba Road eateaoJ:Y for .....,, IIDy ol:llar

4iaoaaa.I.Oil em tlai4l'

[Jio .... rllal. raap .... aeJ

nJISillDIQ on'l:CIIIl SCOft1 All :right.

'11>aDir you. '1'lum J:'ll -- DD t:o -- agai.n,

tbaaa u:a b>:De4 cat:ogorloa •• 4iac1ddcm "" ice

l:.hrawa .....:t. !:bat -u-. All¥-- well, ~

- lwY8D • t &lraa~ aa:l4 % gaaaa wov.ltl be tlaa

qaoat.:I.DD9

[llo .... ..:a.al reapOileel

PUIUIDIG OrP:ECIIIl BCOft1 &l.l right.

..--r4i.lljJ Y:l.aual ill;>aou. Agai.a, ll.l.ghtt­

Yi-1 i.apaota are <>DO of l:.he ...__.,.,.. '1'lae

,.__..t.a of Uaala.f....- Ughu an4 t.he:l.r aU..,I:tl

-• a1ao -t.I.Oilad.

AD¥ ooaoeaL that thoaa wa:ren • t

p~1y c:-.:l.dareil a..- -·- en..S £a """'

ccmaiderati"" :I.D wbat -·- taJo.a upt

Kll, CLD'POJil) I

U. that ..,_ :a..oaua we

doo•t ~- .,...,.,

015-02} [JODI'!' IIOnCDIII roa ~I {05-05-17}

1

2

a

• 5

' :f.

• 10

11

u

11

14

15

15

17

11

11

20

21

5

• 7

11

1D

11

u

lJ

14

15

lf

17

11

1t

2D

21

22

.u

24

INitezata -t % cl:l.tl iD i.ntrocluc:I.D!J -·

tapi.ae. Daaa -rt>ot!V fUltS ~ !:bat. va • .,.,

o:=ad ..,. ar ~daa good e&uaa for ua t.o ._t

to ,._idut liDiF u ....... i_ - t.het uaaer

Da. ao:rsvaTI l: -·t. tlaiDk t.het­

arre4 ..... .._ fl:lalrer. Dr • ....,., b>:Oupt

fanoarCI • ...-.., of .......Uti.,.. or ph--• tlaat OKUt. Ul4 ~ p...,ca..., t:o tq. t:o ..al<e •

ela:la !:bat, laavUag Dot -.s.tSarad l:.h_, tlaat

tlaat i• ni:Ctcd-.~ zoea•aa. 'to ••:r tbaz•' • ua

~•aDDable a6varao a!tact. :r .,_,t fallow

t1aa log:l.c. 11a .,__,, iD -r a:I.D4, Ultlioat.ad

!:bat l:llaz-a -. liD arro>: U. l:.ho aaalya:l.a t.het.

b&a:l.a&l1J' tl:l.tl DOt. properly ~q the ot:t:aet•

of aolar BDlaz:v-t Ul4 ...._ tUalcaZ' Ul4 ao

lortll. :r •a ~,..t. p :Lcld.lllf t.llat out af l:lla 1:1.81:.

.IDd ,. cl:l.d apaod a good da&1 <>f t- ..-.t.llar.t.DII' l:.he :1.,......• that ba brougbt

~--:a::a.au ..... ~:~~at- took l:.hea.t.at:.a

&"""""'t aod % c:cn&ld U...S DO ,. ... ..,. that tllera

waa aa ~......,1a atl9erae affect ..-aLated to

l:llat - he .... p>:Oparl:y c ..... ~ U: aod c.,...

ta a eor>:ect. :!~t !:bat ~. -• DO

that -..... .. tlaa ,_ liglltl.lllf "¥•- t.het

waa -- t.11a aatl .... t..S Ughtiag JIYIII:Oa that: ..,.

ult~t&l:r _.a. •• ....,. va:l.t!..Dg ..,. !:bat

U.fo ... u.... aod - la- at :lt:. % ...... tbaaa

~ do '-" t:o ba 1:1.1: at: ai~ foe ,.....,_.

af a:l.l:cnft.. .IDd it ••- to- !:.hat. !:bat­

taelmolO!JY """:l.da t1aa :t.. .... of he"O'iag l:.haa em

:E~, )"0\1 bow. IIUD8eC: to almZ"i••· So, t.o tlla~ --t, Z bali- thet - GD9U'ad tlwJ" -..-.

cmly """'- t:o :Ugbt "P- or:adar -- _,,...

.. -- - ~·t a.t.roraft ~""-· an4 for a

limited part.oil of t::t.m.. 8a J: UI:I.DJ< -

4hCIUI004 that, an4 ao l: ·- DOI:.hiolg ,._ ura.

PUUIIZJIG OFncmt SCDrr: liD;F ot.he..­

cl:l.eC11aa.l.- oa Y:l.au&l ~t:.a or 1i.gllU111J

Plo TOrllal. r-•1

to

I'IUIBJJ)DICJ Ol"'"l:CKR 8t'0'1"1'1 llga.f..,, f,.._

-r n-. % 6o bali ..... olrr:l.aualy l:.hara :1.8 •

tiffeZ'81LC• b•twaea. dat:oha~ ~· 1••ue• ,.c•

!ul.ly 4i•GDaaad aDd wbathar -·- a..r..S i.e our

dataraiaoa.t.:I.DD. oro Dr. -·• ""'tit, I will

••r :l.t•• llOt ob¥1.,..• t.o .. !:bat- -...ltl -·

-· :I.Dt:o the datai.l that. - wov.ld ....... i.e

01S·D2} [JODI'!' IIO'l'%CIIIB :t'Oa IJIIIDJtDI"I:I {05•05·17}

App. 389

.l.

I

..

Jl

1

J

10

11

u 13

14

11

u

17

11

19

20

--------------------------

.s.~-.u ..... - b. u.. beari.Dtr• at. far b!s

briDIJiag "'' •- of -· J.••-•· 11o J: 4o

t.ll1Dk u..r. ... a -nt OR l:bat. ht: asr&J.a,

~ - -· b tbJ.a fili.Dg.

:Daaa ..,too~ die~e witla tb&U

Doe a &1111bo4:r ba,. ...,. otlaezo :L••-• w.l. tla \:he

-teo.:ol.OjJlata • VZ'OUII -u.... tlaat ... wt.n. to

a-..a? Attoau!J' W.al:barab;r.

•· DA'DIDIIBY• :Dzo. wao:« ucl o~•

rio that. - :bad -.. _,.. ap.o:I.Uo uc1 Dacia

-a:• lfPeait::L" t:.l.adills• OR - :l.eeiJ& tbat -•

ialpo:r~t t:o t.Jae., bu.~ that•• DOt:. wJ:aa~ w.•~•

cll.aZ'ged to do. We'll p-..l:r et111 be b

4el.J.b.raU-. if t:.bat. - t:.ba oaaa. 8o I

UIUiell:"e~ that: t:llq'Z'a ·~ f- a

coac:n~te ~E' aDd • ltlllg'tlqr ti•aa.•:lcm oa

--a::r ieonae that: -· illlport:aat: to them, wt:

\:hat:•a 110t l:ba Datura of t:heaa 4e1:1.berat:L-.

We baari ea:teD8.i.-. t.eetial:toy f~.- ~· :frca

croe•-e:x.aiDat.:l.oa., variou.. raporta, •~ oet:era,

IIDil J: l:laiJall: we ilu>orpcn:at:ed a11 of l:bat. iDto

t.ba filllllllga t.bat. ... - ·

PDIIJ::DDIIJ 0~ lc:oft'a AIQf otllez;

•t• -•1) ~~~~ .. M~ ~ -~l {RJ-61-~7}

Dr. Bai..,.rt:.

.. • <!LUJ'OII!It Jllocl lilt' bu:l.e b -

fiDel 110 -- l: acmaluU t:.bat t.llare'• DO gaoll

zo-•OD to zoeopeD t1aa baar1..lltr -.. AKcma• .. -- bt

Z'&OPe!l ~ for aORaidezat:I.Oil 011 the baele of

wlaat ..,. Uled ill the -t:I.Oil.

PUSJ::DJIIG ~CD 8COTra A1Qr furtllar

dis.,..e:I.OD7

pro v.doa1 ra•-•l

nPJ:DIJKJ C~rnCIIR scorro a.ac~y t:o .. a

....,~;., :o•m •ee:l.og ullll -..

.&11 ia. faYDE ol the .at:loa, pl .. ••

• .,. •Qe.•

()1111 t:l.p1a -•re !.adioat:I.Ag • are • .]

PIUimDIGI on':tCIIIt ICOTrt ~ _ .. ~~., [Ra ....na1 r&apOR&a]

IPIIUJ:DDIQ ornCIUl scorr, .so t:.bat. • •

......u.oua.

·-"· do - ........ -tloD ~ 1:11& .Jobt llot:I.Oil for Ralwad.IIIIJ f..- tlaa

Abut:tillg t..a6owoa.-. Ckoap, tba ·-·Abutl:.f.sttr

LaD-are Ckocp, the Z...a-·A110D GZ'olqo,

015-02} tJD~ MDTXOBB PDR ~l {05-05·17}

5

7

10

11

12

1l

14

15

11

17

11

1t

20

.I.:

diaau.od- ooo the -ta-..:Losri•t poap'• .... u-r [llo ,_11•1 ,. • ._..]

PU8J:DDIG ORJ:CIIR IICOftz Okq.

Beei.Dg IIGD&, 'llhab :1: 14 1:1.1o:oo to .,. .._

procooclalra11r :I.e .,. • f-1 -too oo t:.ba

-t:iou. so 1 will ot:art.

DoiD-&80ti_to__..

n.siii:IDIII OJ'I'ICD lll!Oftt lo I'll

otaZ't wit!a t.ba •• wbeft - left off, l:ba

-uoo 1:"811&Z'd:I.DG t.bau

lllll, CL:ti'POJt:Dt I .,..... yau•z;a loold.q

fol:' • .. uoo. I tlll11lc t.bat ... •bould ~ tu

.. t:eoK"Ological. group1 • .ctti.oll f~ a reheariDg

aDd ~·"' t!aat ... briq t:.bat to a ...ot.e.

PDsmnw orr:ea •=• Do ... baTe

0111·02} [JD:J:Jm IIO'IIOIII roa apwap'DIGJ {05-05-17}

Ckoup' Do we bave a -.t:!OIIl7 :DJ.:r.atoz

S'oZ'll&a.

reco .. ideratian.

PRBBJ::DlliQ OI!'J'XCIIIt IICDT'ro Do we h&,.

111.-.Tz ·--· PDIIII:IDIIJ on':tCBJI 8COft'o A11;r

[llo ... ...,..a1 .,..._..,]

PJmBJ:DDIQ on'!Cial llc:oft'o Bear:I.Dg

DOS:W. &11 :sa f&'f'Oa', pl•••• ·~ ·~ ...

tlll&lt:iplo -ar• :I.DdJ.aat:I.IIIJ •qe•.J

PUIII::DDIQ OJPr.J:CIIR SCOTTo AJ1¥

OPIKI8111l?

[Bo Y&Zbal ... .._ •• ]

PDIJ:II:IJllla OI'P:tCial ICIOft 1 BaaiDg

JI04II, t.bat •• Ull.lm.!a:Aa• 0

J'illa1ly, .,. we 11&,., a -t1DD

ragardiq COUDael for the ll'oohli.e • • llotioo far

llebeu'iDf'l D:I.HDtor Bo:l.rr.rt.

lla. IIOZIIQII'Ia I _... tbab we .-e~eot:

App.390

'·'

...

c

5

7

• :1.0

11

12

1J

14

15

u;

17

11

u 20

21

23

24.

1

2

l

" 5

11

12

11

11

15

17

11

1J

20

21

22

23

24

t:ha aot!.Ga :l!o~ ~-iDe oa ., .. j...Uaat.a, oz

8!uN14 J: :1,..~ doo it :l!o~ -- ll- -..14 :E PII'Cil'•""ll'

phraaa ~., w. ..... ~• jwU.cata -d

co1.1at-al aatappal. Do you 118atl- u. dD ~

:I.JuU.'ri<laallY'

:PU8DI:tm ORJ:CD SCOft: J:t•a v,p to

Y'Dil• Blat \10lleaa,..... -t to~· cn&t.

I>:Le-cate t:ha _te, it•• up to yaa.

!Ill. IOI.avmt.'2:o 11bat-•a t:ha -•t , • .u.e.~. ..... -~

a. -· Tal& C!&D j118t 48D7 t:ha aot.£aa.

na. BOJ:S9all'• lhult "- the -u-til ....

PUIIDIDIU OI'I'J:CD 80Dftt W...t to

.. ap~u-... tllat _,

IDJl. BOJ:BVD.To J: mova that - 4aDy

t:ha lfoUaa to Maoad~ tlla llea:riJov.

PU8ID:DIG OI'I'IC!a 8ca:r'l1 llo- ... ..,..

a.-:r. s---s. PUIIJJ:DDID OrPJ:cml IIJ()Qft; .a..r

015-02} [~x.z KOTJ:ORB PDR ~I {05-05-17}

:PUIIl:DDIII OrPJ:ca aeon. no- ... .,.

PUIJ:DJ:IIG OPFIC!a ICOftr Ally

tiacn•daa7

D. WIIA'Z21131111Tr ""-t a cla~:l.friq

'III&&UO>l. 1fou14 that :be effeat:l.,., todayf J:a

yi>IIZ" -tiDil to

liD. I'OIAio I!:Uac:ti.,. t:CM!q.

PJIBBJ:DIIIa OPFXCIIII 8COft I That I. •

:l!d . ....U:r --t t::b-. liB. IIU.'Z211311111'r o'l\ult '-

alari:Ucat::t.-. J jaat -·t aaza.

PIIUJ:DIIIli OPFJ:CIIII BCO'rll'1 Ally Dth­

.U.•a...aica oa that ..,t::I.Dil7

Dto -1:21•1 ,...~~PGD&el

PU5J:DDID 01'1"%CB 80Dft1 a-:1.104 -·

- tid have a •aoDII4 •~•·

D. c.D'POitl)r Yea. Aa4 I aeood it

with t:ha c:Ja.toe• •• DDtell l>y ... •-~l>y. So

it _,.14 :be offeot!..,. ta4&y al>alllAl t!U.a aot:l.aa

palO&.

015-02} [JDJ:HT MOli'IORS lOR .....al:UQ] {05·05•17}

1

2

5

' 7

• •

10

11 I

121

11

lt

ao 21

22

23

2t

1

2

l

c 5

' 7

:I.G

11

1.2

1l

1ol

11

1?

11

u

20

21

22

21

24

aoa.. all ia la'V'Ok' pl•••• '~~q.. •

[llloltiple -•n :I.JuU.catiq •a.,.•. I

niiB:tDDni Ol'I'XCI:Il 80Dn1 ~

-·&47

IJtD '"""al .... _ •• ]

PUIIDDIG OI'I'IC!a lcor.o A!Jda•

that.•. uauaJmcnaa •

So, hiiY1IIg 4iapetWe4 with the

-uaaa. t:ha,...•• • CVIIJil• :1.- to tvthezo

a4!k .. a fOE" t:ha e-:i.tt- a8 a-~·

la:b..-itt-.

Praa:1.4:1.11§ OfUcazo, - - .... the DE"~

aot::t.aa :f..om t:ha -tao.-o1ogical g%0v,p, J:

~eDdad t:h. cart:I.Uaate. aga.i.J:I., DDt baa.u••

~ ••• ~. -r aatioa that t::be

~u ...... t• • 4aaa, kt l>u:l.aa11y :bacaulla of

t:ba opa,...tioo o~ tloat law. I s-•• I would

••k• Po - ... .,. • -u- to 1:1.rt tllac

-i-7 J:a that -t:h:I.Dg -1• WOIIld

1:1.k. to 4o7 Di~ac:to~ Wozbes.

Dill. WOIIDII1 J'as, I wov.14 make a

..

0111-02} [.:JODill' IIOTJ:OJIII I'Oit RW!IRIP'I'MQ) {05·011-17}

PUIJJIDID on:I:CD IICXIno DJ<.y, llay

ot:be~ 4:1.soaaa:l.~t

lllo Yarba.l r•-••1

PliBIIXIlDIIJ OI!'PICD 8COli'I1 OJcay. All.

:Lit. !a""r p1-.a sar •aye. •

Ollaltipla ....._.. :I.A4iaatU.V •are•.]

PRIIIIJ:DmG OPFXCBJl SCOTll'o AIIJ'

[lfo •erbal re._.,el

PUSDIDIG OI'I'ICJIR IODn: ._.,, l:oet

the .,...ori ~,..t -that's """""'""-·

load 11.0t for the c-ittaa, but ••

Pzoa•t4lq Of:!laaa-, .,. alao ba ... a ~..-••~ ~D

op- t:ha raeori :Ia the coat-t of a latt..,.. -­

.,. LO% - - ... -t 'rith the ~ of 1:_,.

ol! Alat:d•. J:•ll po:I.At: out that~

c~il!iaata .. a aaad:l.t:I.OD zoafar~

llppeD4i.a 10 of t:ha ~1lcatiDil which requ.irea

- •••-t with t:ha - oil! Azotda. :ra that

aGilt-t, :1: -·t ••• -r ~ fo~ -t:I.Av

t1>a -u- to ~-- t:ha ....... ,... ADd x will

••- that, j1111t lU:a any o~ cl>lltit:l.oo in

t.hb C.l'tifloata, lf t:ha ~lia.,.t: vi-• to

4o •-t:hiag .U.Ua...-t:, tiler v:l.ll c-. :l.lt. to

100

015-02} I.:JO:.:.I KO!XOKI WOP RWPB'RJ:IQ] {05-05-17}

App. 391

101

1 - tlla ceni:U.ca~•· so, 1A tbat --· 2 :a: •• ~ tlla req~W•t to .. _ t:lMo ........ !:<!.

3 --.~>era of tlla c-i.t- -d

<1 At.tao:::wy :tacgpiao, are t:lMore IIZQ" o~ :l.a•ae•

~ tllat- need t:o -•o1,.. - llddze•• t.odeyt

f ~

7 [liD ..Cal ... _ .. J

• PUI:Ill:mG Ol'lr:tCJIII. leoftt Wi.tll tllat,

:1 ~ tllat OGDGl....,.• our lnuo!Aee• t.o4ay, -

10 :a: tlumll: :r- tor ooafDs. ADd ~~p:ID, •• :1 tlllllll:

11 I oteDti.-ed at til• ocmcl.,..:l.ola of tlla cn:ig1Aa1

12 procee4ilojr•, :r do -Nci.ata .,.~'• t'-e.

13 •• t11o%oagbly Ullde.-at- tllue .._ .,..zy waighty

14 iaau .. fOZ" ~~ li&Yol,.., eo t1umJ1: yoll t-

15 yau.r tS... - et!!olrt. ...., a good dey.

u

17

11

1t

20

ll

u 23

c.a...,._ the beari"'V -· adjo-.ed at:

11t4.2 •••• )

015·02) IJDXRr .o!%018 POR RKKBNI%MGI {05•05·17)

25:17;33:12;31<1; ,.,.1;0:24;6:1:1~ ........ (IJ -QJ 1:2 'fp,J4",R:IJO,I5 61:1:&.17;'01:2,11; !7:1, 44:4;41.~ ....._ro -~~~~~ 12:2,12;10:20;11:1 .. -ro -(2) 31:1 ... 1:11

1!:22;1~16:1; 12:2211'1:!1$!:9; - 29:6;46:15 -.,[I) 11:1 .. 1,:10;D:2; 1Db4 -(4 ..... (I) 7:>< ll:llfl~IJ~ -(II 57:W!1:2,11,12 .53:11 -(I) <46:1G,II;61:13,11, ~:14 -(I) ..... (!) 11:11;11:7,11; 24;10:18:11':1" .....,QJ 61:1~ 23:1-:5; 22:1~1%: .. :1) !9:14-.G:I! _.,, 65:4;?1:11;'13:7; SJ: l1;6l:llo9):J5 -(I) -(1) 30:21) M:21 -(I)

25:17 JI:U .... (I) totooJo&(l) IIO:J .UO.(l) -QJ 71:2D,24 m --(2)

l7:11 41:!:7;75<21 -(II -(11) 37:3;!11" -11) -ro «1:6;41:l;5D:ll, I-;24:10;30:J; -ro

7S:I 52:1•;55:6 I :llt7ki;'III:2,S Jl:ll;3f:):.f>:f; 21;11;!1114 -ro -(I) ....... Ill 71:14;15:7",16:6: _(I.,

!"17;71:11 ~:7 66:4;'7:4 PI:O,I 11:o,IS,I4~l :ll. -(I~ -(4)

__ .,, -(I) 15;0:J1t'2:f;JI:Jf;

12>4117:10,17; 7:1:61:1>:11:22: ,.,. .. ~7:9;73:20 11:24;90-.l .10;17",11~5;J4:l; N:IJ WI(U) ......,(II _.,, l5:14,C7:21;4t:ll; -~~~ 6elS,IJ;IO:t3; 10:9J .. I6:11 .. :21 57:17;1111:14;66<5 25:l4',69:1:75:2D 11:24<19:17;24<11; -~~~ -I')

-(51 .,.(4) 37~~9:22;45:11:

··~· 2l:21;H: lf;2f:l;

11:2!)41:7;52:20; ,, •• ,., ... .,1:2; l4:4",71>4;12:3;a:J4 ........ (IJ) 51:1$:6 ID:l;ll5:20 100:5 j-=~~) 14:11;15:1;21:14, _...,(U) -(I) .. (41 15,21;64:21;71:9; !1:1;10:6;13~1;

52:17,111;5<:)0; ,.,,.,.,;!11:!: ---(1) 74:1,'W:24;11:11; 21:11;D:II,CZ:l,4; 65~7,&.2;'13:12; 100:6 ZI:T IP:IS;!111:6,11 51:14,17;Q:U,20; 111:>;11:11 -~~~ -(I) 63:14,'75:11

-(1) .. 44a7D:5 11<1 ~(H) 55:20 -~~~ -CI) 5:1;6:2J.'I!JS;

-CI) _., 141:11;51:11 26:21;50:1,20; W;I11:21,Z2,%1; l5:1~1:11%S4:23; ID:12;1J:8:9-.!; ....... Pl M:J,t ~:J;3D:l; 44:15;05~ lkJl,ll 4l:ID;?<:lA;77:3 -IJI 11:16;!1f-.l;IIJO:IT, _I....,..

----~~~ ... (I) li~J 23;10!:1

-(I) 11:15,20 II: I -(I) -(I) 35:11 -...,ro -(I) 51:11 26:5 -(II - 70:11;72:6 -(I) -.(!I) ... ;4U;51:6; loodiJQ) l"trJ 20:11 50:1,l,~,.:liol; ni;64;1J;kl2; G:S -~~~ Pl:2.1 11:U -(I) JOISYEilT~ 22~101:9 a.!< (I) -(I) 45:1

I 5:1P,211;14:!,6; 7:1t

41:1..-.5;16 .. -lUI 21:2,3;31:4.5;Jf:l5, c Ooolrma(l) -QJ ._.:25:15; :ll;4P2o,21~ 10:2D:P:I

«1:1115:10 ~17;41:22: Sl~;'ll~lJ•:71:2A; -Ill ........... (!) -(I) ... 1,2!;45:1,..... I 75:14,15;'111:12J .. 110:17 ti:J

Jal:22 47:1:1,19;4P:5;»:5o 11;17:11,11~ .. (I) -(I) -·1) .,._;61:6:71:1: 11;8:11.1- IZ:!I l:I:Ul;ll:lf; 47:J' 11:1 ~-~ -11) 15:2:51:20;1111:11;

-(1) .... u. 17:t,U,17 14::11 71:24;!1P:22 61:1 n:l~l4:t;19:n: -.w -(4) ..... "' "':'r.""" (I) 20:11:ll:l;0:2 ... :1; .... 36:11;40:17:49:5: 12:2l;15:15;1721

0111:1;90:14$1:18 loo617) 15:20 ...... (II) ..... (4) -(1) ltiZ;SI- _.., Jl:l.14,1S:Ill.'7;

so:>;ll:l6;1l:ll, 14:i4 4!1:U;61:1foi4:2S; 13:21,22;14:5; U :l1,12;t5:1420>1, 21 -(I) 15:1 20:11;21:1,.,2.5::141 ~~

--(5) 14:10;2ti;21::11; ........ (!) l6:2,1,.,W.Z;00:7: __ .,,

lt8:71:1D <':21;76:1;8:4: 72:10 ,.,.,.,. ... ,7~ !1$2 -CZI) ,.. _,., 77:6;11:1;11:19: -(I)

S:2J;6:U:1D:I•: -(I) 11:9;19:1!;20;10, 12:211,20;P7:11 12:2 15tl;2.1.:21;2J:5; 71:1 :IS ..,.....,(5) -.ro 21:2!;40;2;41:5; _.,, _," 10:4;11:% 511:1<4;M:ID 40:!2;46:12;'11:1; 70:16;72:1,11 12:6.'/:ll:6J.ID,I2 ....... (1) -....ro

1~1.-AI,N.B.LCI (2.)..-·-ltl)),..., *-llpbl ••

~S,MI'

-(I) - ...,....,, liii:ZI

I "" ..... IMI - .,._.(I) -~~~ ,.. ... 11,24;9:21; ..... (2!0 ItS

llhl11ljllc(4 9:1:41:9 1HA!I;I2:9,1'-22; •1:1!144:3.13.10, ..,._.(II) P5:1.!;96<1%JI:l:

_.., 13:11,20;14:11; 2!;05:2,1,9141:24; )1:21,22:J6:2J; 100:. I ""lSI~ 16:}G,IJ;II:IQ.II; .-:2.24149:1.6.11; 00:21;44:10>11:1.10: .... ~ 562l~ ZI:!,I~I.J;]O;], M;l7;60:9;e:llli 5'/:12;1D:IP:61:20; 11~5;22:2;20:7: -(II) ... 1:1:>2:1l:sl:IP, l6>4;0L'7;75:10; ~~~~· 27:10;31:24:sl:ll!; ,. .... 11~1: 20:3~11:17: 12:16,11;14:11; ......-(U) 47:5;D:I~ 21:1;1l:IID;e:l; 4!:15,1,.,44:4;05:9; 17:1~11 S.~:D; S11:2;5'1:5;SIW; 72ol;l!~; 46:15;01'!1>11:1,1 .. ..,.,IJ 12:1~14<

~~-:21: 11:11:101:5 IUI;5S:I;55:1; :M:I 2'1:21;21:-1; 'll:5;7t:ZI;Tf:22; -(JQ ~:1;61:22; TJI7;- - :11;100:11

··~.J; 13:1D;2S:IJ;H:22; t4<1,.,.1;66<5JI; ....... Ill

f2;17;!10:2;115:10,11; 41:1!;66:1!;6'1:11: C7:1Q,14,1$;t9:2,15: ....,...,, 11:11;24:1~1)

N:l2,1l<t?:lioi;OI'; 72:15;-~::11; 7D:Il':'f):l-ll; 41:24

~"' 99:ll;llll:l,t;.IOI~ 0:4;!11:24 15:2!;14:l;U:2l; -~~~ 1*1111 --.CII 111:2o1T:22;11:21; -··" .,._(I) JIO:D

.._ 1!1:1,5,22,2Ail>1:2,1, -ro 7:211 ..........,Ill 1U4;tl;IW~: 15:11;72:1t ..,;:.~ A 43:5 !11:1.11!;101:10 -(I) -(I) ..... (I) 7G:IS --~~~ o111J11r(5) 11:11 7l:IP -(II 71!211;71:1

:Mol~ ........ (I) -141 !10:21 __ .,,

24;7'1:11 111:16 J7:4,9,21,a:l4 -(I) 9.1:11

-141 -121 -(I) 10:21 ~~:1 .. 11:7;2D:I!I;65:2l: 11:1111:13 ·~· ~;6:21~,14,14; 71.:! ~(I) -OJ) 43~

-..ro 1:1:17:15;66e7 211:lla7:<;21:14; JJ::If;l2:111iU:IJD, --"' 15D:16 ..... Ill 1!:7-L'J: U,lt,lt;l4.'7,1l.I.J; ~~-~~~~ l6:2l G:I,.II:IO;M:5; IS:'7,7;1t:li,D;l7:1. --(I)

9:2m:2l 1-:z.r(l) 61:1;62:1;'12:24;79-J 5,10,21;11:11,21; 51:12

-:fl -(I) -.7JI,z2;~1; --Ill -(5) 2'1:21;19:1 74:11,'75:2.!;77 ... l~Dn:l --.(1) 111:1~1, -(I) 12lt,14;1DO-J6,19 --.u, - _.,, 9.1:6,11 ....... (If ''" ,_,..,., 6:6 -oo 16:11;77:U ----(1) ., -(I) JIUI;!I:7;51:5, ....... (I) 7:9,1111! ..

-l'l -· 11;01:11:7~ 7.1:11 -*'"7(1) 411:4>4!1di;S4:11: -(Q -II) "''W(I) 11:5 SII:II;51.15;90:2D !11:21 lD:2l .......... (I)

_...(I) ........ (1) -~~~ -(I) !7:11 15:11 17:24 :I(;I,JI;Zf:ll U:ll _.....,.(I)

-~~~ ""-(U) -(I) -(1) J7:1S

lll :ll;IO:IP 54:21;36:1,16: 12:15 f:U -(I) -(1) CZ:2,3;45:11;5S.'7; -(I) "'r:W'IIl J5:2;4'U-13;

":21 511:11:75:1P:71:1; 24~ SI:II;65:7;S:24;

-(I) !10:11,21;91:1 -(I) Afpooall(l) 71:1!72:21;!11:24

5l:6o0:24 -(I) 101:1 IGO:II --(I) -.....(I)

.,. -(I) ...-..ro 511:21,21 Gl4 -ll'l l:tl9 - ..... (151

---(1) 12:9JI!;Il:11; --(I) .....-IJ') 12:28;16;15,21; 61:17 1•:10;16:241.17:12. 7l:I,.,.IJ 11:1;13:3,1.2; 17"-"':1~;

..... (I) 22;1~1, ... : -(I) 17:1J;22~7:sl:l4; 24:10;25<6.13;lD:I; 2S:lii;S7:lt J4:1;15:1~;J7:1, - :IS:IO;l~I:IO, ll-:4; -(2.) ·~1,23; _.,, 19:sl:1,2;M:2l; 57:11 65:5;!11:11 ''•14,211;411:6,11; 11:11 31:1;40'.211o44:16,19; _..,

-(1) 41:9,1~:1; -"' 45>4;4'1:21;52:211; IJ:l;Z9:7",31:2; !12:2 .._,,17,ZZ;411:5,ll; 55:111;60:2!,24 SS:f,IC1,211;57:21; !4;11;!5:1

-(1) >8:22:51:1',55:1,1,11. -11) ~;f6:l; -"' .., 1- 17:1P A:5;&.12:70:17; I:Z:I2;11:1l;l3:1; _, .. , -(5) _,..CZI 74:%.'71*10:10.1•: "'I~IJ 72:15 11:17',JII:t;29o4, 25:11:sl:7 ti:22;1S:>C,M:It>4; --(7}

· ..... , ~.1·· ·

IICMIJ.D,umJJIIIWIHDIIJIDGY,U.C

tl:14 12:21-IT; 6f:23 -til -(I) -(I) 65:6;'J0-.23;7J:6 --.(16) lt:2 60:1 ,. ... -..c., 19:23,24;211:22; -1111 --.,(1) -.(II ... ;l6:1;41:214; -11,22141:1?, 11:);17:11;25:5; 44:22

JD:IJ IOI:ID l'J;42:1;05:21'""5; l2:fo,D:I hl5:1J'I: C.Voltl) -CZI

_, !14:15;611:19;61:1: 42:21,0""7:22; 74:1 JJ:21:2>;22 14:21;11:1~1 ... 70o4;72:e """":11;411:15; -(I)

-(I) ZS:8;Z'I:J::II:I5; -Ill 62121,22,23;Q:4! 22:6 1!:9 !17:2;49:21:71:15 D:III;56:17;6Sl4; 15:111;8'.>:73:1!,2!; --(1)

... (S) -(I) 69:20;70:14;'1M; '77:24;7!1:16;11t6; >9:1t 47:11;1>:4;6521 1:11;21:U~; 14<2>4;t2:16 11:211,2!;14:5;15:1; -(I)

~S, 2lo4;311:.1~12; _.. ... (J) 17:1l;III:J~I 15:2! 1!:5;11:7 !15:4 -11) Coucllll)

--~~~ ~1e -(5) 2!:14 :17:11 -·ll S:24;6;);9:f:!IO:I 12:17;1l:ll;25:2l: -(!) C.....CIC) -(II} -11) J4<14,'7t:l 11:4:C;I6:ft:l~ 1:7,.,.1,1!,11;

1)-.12:24:2!;50:22; .,. .. , -(I) 69:10111:11;t1:2l; 10:13;11:22;12:12; 44:11;4'1~ l.atl.Z: ~(II) 101:9 "" IJ:I.2;16:1411:1': 55:1,12;t0:P 5"<6:24:7:1': --(14)

_.,., 21:7;24:14;l0:7,t: -(4) •S:24;li:5:!1:JP: ZO:l;J4:2D'~:9. 13:7;14:214;11:6; ll:l,6:>1:t;3S:211:

·~~5:11...,.: 4D:lii;5Z>4;60:11; 12;37".20;C2:1,1D; 20:2;2l:17",14:21; :14:li<IS:n;00:22; 11:2 6<:2l;65<1J;lllt1D; 411:16;47:1M:SI 15:9;4!:5;55:22; 44:11;4-; -(I) 72:7;14<4;16::1: 7J:2;16:Zl#l4; 57:2;51:14J5<- .W:2,24;51:10;Q:II: ,,., lll~l;IIJD:12;1DI:J 101:11 &.l;?ll:l,.,.~,, 71:S;11:10,17',1UM; _,..(I) _.,, __ .,,

15:5J711!~2;17:11: t6:21 ,. 11:10 12:11 -,21;91:21 -(II .....,Ill ~(I) -(" -...c., 11:7

11:9:$1.:1! 12:2l;I7,..,1:1J 51:6,11:5P:2,6.13; 11;2J7;15~1: _,..(II -(Q -(I) 93<17 90:18 111:18

«i:l 74:7,19;7501 --(4) -(1) -oo -(I) --(1) 15!13;6ki;'ID:J,P 51:1 1;!1;2f:lfl42;111;

"" 75:11 -(I) -(I) 51:24;51:11:71:23 -m "T'~IJ) 44:14 22:11 c-t(l)

52:11;Sl:9JO,IQ, -"' -(I) II:S 11;57:11;7:1:4 -....CZJ 51:f;IDC>.l1.l2 7:2 -(I)

clnJIJ(I) 61:14,21 -(I) -CZI 11:17 17:2 ._....Ill 52:12,16;5l:IZJ5; 7:1;511;17 -11)

aDFOIID(.., e5:1 611:1!;6!:61!10:7,21 -CZI -5:22,2!;1514,5; ~ _.,, 7:16;'13:20 --(II

~:12,1!; l0:24 -(I) 11:24 21:12,1!;21:1'1; _...(I) -(J) SW -(I) 12:u,40:1.4,C):2l; 77:2l 44:1lo0e1D -(I) 11:11 411:1J,-.:11',5!:'1; -(I)

_,.,..,, TD:l. -(I) ,...,.Jf;I;Q:JI, ~ID;Q:2l;6<:5; 22:1t -(I) ~ 17;6'1:9,111;61:12; ... ,.,16:5 -Ill 77'.3 -(I) 6!1:1lJI;'OI:Z1,22; ~6 21:12 -m 20:20 72:1!.1oi;III:2CI,21; ....... (I) :M~;Z'1:17",1Q:~ ... Ill PI:23',M:II:f5:3; ~~~~ 74:21 M:l!;lllltl4,211; 92:20 ":5,21 6:1:.1;11:11;11:1 -(I} IDI:I -('1

-(I) -Ill 17:14 -~~~ 17:2,4;11:2:21:11: 15:10 IM:III;tld7 -(I) ~:21>,2Jol !11:111;16:1

_.,Ill T~,52:18 21:11;11U4 --(I) ..... 0) S2:li:U:17;~:1• -ru 41:1 41:11 _.,,

"":t'~,,: -;Q:17 -m ,_(I) 54:7 (;_.e,IJ) !0:17,1~:22; 32:15

...... (!) 4l:t:14:21l;'J>:ID 75:24;'17:19 -'2:21;57:11;'1lo14; CIIM I " 151 7D:S -II) -(D) 11:12 l0:24:l!:22;ll:20; -(I) J6:J 7:12;9:6;15,111; -(1) 17:14;!13:21

11:11,111:17:9; -(I) 11:7;1~7;Jt:6.1J; !12::~ -(2) .,~ .. ll:l',l9;21;43:lt 2G:: 12.D;1L•U; -(1) 1:6,13

-~~~ -~~~ Slo:11,:Z1;7l:l6 41:l era (I) 64~,1G,Jo4;8.., JD:I4;7P:II;!II:2D -(I) -QJ --~~~ -(I) 6l:.S J1:4:65:21 c.lloroi(J)

- J . aomtJAS,N.JLu:a ~~~- ......... ...,_ • •.-8 Atpp. 392

17<f,IIIJI:2 -(I)

I!: II -(I)

Ji:ll -(I)

61:7;67:16 -·1) :16:11

D

-=-(I)

... 1111 :H;I5;J5:4:40:14; !2:11;»:14.17,11, Jll6):11;101:15

"'rt~:7 aA(I)

1!0:16 -Cil

0:2S;9Q:I7 -(J)

l:lt,lf -Q)

IO'Jt;ll:l:SI:U -IS'l

oao,23;11:1~0; 15:2;17:1;211:11~ 11:2Da4:2JIH:4: 21:22;31~;34ol; :JI:I;J!I~I,Ul, ll,li;I0:7;45:1S;

~:22; Ill; 61:11;8:15:71:22; 71:1;79:17:-!11:24 -(I)

I 24:15~1:10

b'=hlll) 57:10,12;51:4 _., lt,z,:l,6

Dolltlilll 'n:l

-(I) 40:1

-Q) 11:1;59:15 ~(I) . ......-n>

60:11 -(I)

1:111 -.ctoa{l)

11:12 -Ill

·~ -lUI

·~ ..• : ·~·I<'·

43:1 -(I) 41~7

-(I) !14:5

-(1) 56:19;'11:5 _,.., JU;J7:7;SO:II: 51:Z;e:4;t0:16

-(') 14:11;1rui,:J2; 71:17;9Q:?J'

-~~~ S5:1f:41:14;54;1l; S6:1l;lill;l1:6l:ll; fill:22;'10.'1

-(1) 42:Z:I

-Ill 71:3 -{I)

68:17 ,..,(S)

ICI:24:1t:IJ -ro "" -(I) Sl:lf

-..(I) '~10 ,..., U:24-32:14; • .:11;12.:!'

llllrl'l U:2l;l6:2.4;30:l2i 50:&;57~

-(21) lloli;l7:1'1',:11:24; 25":SS:Z1;31:15: J4:16;JS:I~:4;

47:4;41:7,14;55:13, ll;59:11;011:14;10:7l S21;11l:IJ;f5:1; !11:10 -l'l

:IP'-"'0:7,11,)4; ,.:16,21

c .... (I)

Slf:l7;111:24 co-(4)

17:I:Sin"': 72:5 _., SO:IJ;SI:IP;K~, 111,14

...... (1) Z7:2

_..,(S) 10:16,li;'JI:f

:ZO:S.,ZS.~S.'/,13: IJ:IJ,II,I'I:II:2A; 17,19;16:9,11;17:7, G:&;a15;74:J,4, lf:J7;20:3,7,11: 20;!10:4$1 :5,9; I""'IJS,It 19:11;J7:12;SC:If, P2:1519.1:17',94cl; -ro 11;5]:15:5"11: 95~1;97:23: 1- '*19:1!:4:111:9.25: Wo7,11;100:2 -·1) ll:a<100:24 --(1) 17:13 -(I) 2t:l'!l'l:lf;Q:IS:

-..-o> 17:23;75:11 68:JJ:71:2.1:111:1: JS:II tlllllloll1(1) 14:1l\11:15

-(I) JI:J5 ..,._(I) lt!U::ZI:S lliii(IQ "" -I)) S:l4;14:JI;J):S; .-.Joe (I) 11:15;12:1;JI:20 42: I!;4U:5I:I: 77:1

.-.ro 61:J;I0:11;7U2; -(I) 72:1 11:11~:4; -~ .. ,_ N:23;99:11 -(I)

-(11 7:13;74:1 9J:II,ll.l7 II :'I -(I)

--(I) -Cil 75:9 11>11~01:2 ~:1 -(I) ~14l -(H) 41:20

5:15;S1'J6.14151:1 4:1:11- -(I) ..,_(!) 52:6;151:2o64:111; 5:211 - 77:1C;'II:JI:IIJ;; :t; -~n~ ....... (I) 1'1:22;H:I~; "",6:4,11,"7:20;

10:1 111:11· 1:12;16:2J;I7:J,S; .... (J) ....... (!1) 11:111;1 .. .1;10:16; 57-1 11:1f;olt:li:61.S: U:U

-Cil 61:9;'17:&;1~ -14t 41:l9;52:5 17:11;19:!;!0:6 1J:I;!&II;17:1;

-(I) .....,_(.., 111:!1 11:9 4Jo2,9;S:I5;11:4 -(I) -(~ ....,_(1) 74:1S

14;a:25:11;]6:1; 61:23 -(I) ~ ...... (I) SS:I2 -(5) ~!t -ro 24:1t)07:14;41:11; -(OQ 114:5:41::11 11:11~ s:l~:n.n:4; -IIZI _.,

S!tli;U:JJ:I$:18 14:11;26:17;J1:2~ 12:5;15:14;11:2; -(IS) !1:5:-e:ll;lii:IP; 411:10:74<17 l>:IO,II;II:U; 6Z:II:ti:'IJ6;74:3:

--(1) 41:31;55:11;62:10: 15:4191:11 7121;11:1;17:10; 6!>:19,22;70:32; -Cil M:4.7.1J:JS:J!J 71:10;7M;.,:21; 17:14:411:7 ---.CZJ 17:7;!0:15,21 IDOl' IS) llolli;»:2>;05:22 -.Q) 17:10

...... (I) 51:1S;S5:lt -{4) 10:11 -Ill) 11:2S;59:11;64:7; ~Ill 211:11,11~ ...... 7&7

7S 14:2,5,12;25:14,19; llli(OI) Jlllll(l) 16:5;17:16-,31:2S; S:111;14:5,1al:l,3;

!lt:IJ l"1",30>4tlllo2; 16:4,S;I9:15,23; •Ill 4&IJ2:52:l.U: 411:5:45:1U..-1;

)2:) 53:6;54:1,13,15,19; D:9;66:1.2:71:12,14; -{1) 55:2UI:4,U.58:l, 72:14;75:14,15;

22:11 2l;!P:t,22;60:!M; 76:12,16,19:77:1S: -{f) 6l:I2;6S.,.,M:IO; 12:1f,:JI;II:24;

40:13>41:1- 61::U,S:TJ~, 17:11,16;19:111':90;5, 12:20 :10;73:4,21:14:10,1]; ~:IO:t4'.24;

-[4) '15ol4;7lcll,22;77:1, !15:2;!16:24;97,,13, D:JO;IH,I;JI:II 9;'11:1t;79:15,11; 17

-1231 80:17',11:1:1;14:11, ..... (I) 12:6,22:13:1.5; 111,2A;IS:J,4,1,1:!,1S, -lllJIWI J. -..wi,IUL LCR

CUJ)!MI..za! .......... .

_...(4) .n:I;36:S:II:II; 41:16 7:J;211:17',26:l0; 41:11;53:2:'*1: -.o, - 1&13;91:11,..:11; 71.'<!

--(1) Ill: It .... (I) 10:1 ~(I) 47:16 .. ~ 51::12 w~~'

-00 R Bll(l) 211:1U4;411:2]; 7:5 'n:2J ...,..., -(I)

""'Cll S:5,2D,2J:6<2 )7:11 49:11171:10 -(1) Jllol.tai(S)

...... (1) 77:17 5:211;31:71"l:ll 24:211 -(I) ldt(l)

.... (1) J7:t 11:23 64;JI ~(I) "\':? Cooat;lf) 5:2,17,19,21;11:4, ....... ., -(I) 4,1l,JS,14,14;11:10; 14:11,J;21:10; 11:11 41:lt,ZJ;4l:lli; 37:21;AO!I3 -Ill 4S:Zl;SO:I2;51:3,10: -141 :11:11 0:11;71:10;74~ 20; 15;68:9:71:'1 ,t ...-.,I)) 71:11:1h4:11&:!,24; ';;,=(2) 1:7j'7:Ji13:24 11:24;to:U7;115"' -(I) 101:15 -ro SQ:1

--'01 "'" -.(1) 10:12 ...,.,1) 1'1:20

poolo(J) S2:10 .... Cil 57:15:59:2 -(1) 44:23:45:2;54:14

-Cil 1*1;24:9;».3: -(2) 11:12;16:s 4l:lfj4T:6;54:2Ji 37:7;51:1

..-a> 95:11 -(I) Z7:1 -(1) 71:5 ...,.., 51:1 ....... (I) 1121;16:1:1'1:1: -ro 111:16 !11:1;11111:20 37:7;011:1

I ..... (I) o.-1') 40o.D 21:15:31'9;40:4:

Clna(l) W;ll:2;1:1:7 -(11) M:U -PI! "c111:14,211:

7M 12:1;21:2D:J2:17; 21:11;11:141C!:U; 41:11;4:1:11;0:11; II:J,IIit4:e,l1;10b4

.-rll 45-111;49'.1,4; ll:t(J) 1011:20 54:13,U;61:U,I7; 8:1,4,1,10;10:2,5;

-1111 ID<l,1UIIl64:2S: 15~7;!11:1 lf:l,:l,4,5,7,14; 65<16;74:~10; -Q) li:I4;4J:IO;I!:1D, 16:17,1Ul:17"-1S. 40:11:641ll -,101:1;17:21; IS;II:U;ft:211 ....,ro 19:23;93:1;t4:16; ~rs~,o,u, 46:2 !152S,:Joi,IA:ll0:2; -(I) 111:15 44:21-:22; 17:1

T.~. 57:tiiJ;16;t5:5; -(4) !16:1S;9'1:11:W:I6 17:4;17:17:44:3:

~(I) -(I) 45:10 1:1.5117:1S:C,IJ; -141

_,...(S) 45:1,'1;66:7'-ti:l 16:21;17:211;K'I, .. 11,..:1,20 wpl(l) lt:SI:S,c7:12

--ro U:t ~:~o4:JI:Il; '11:24:7!>.1 WI (I) --Cil 1:1;!*19 8 :U;75:!1;13;

'19:SAI,11 ...,0) 77:11:11:3 -(IS) 'IZ:P ........ (1)

IJ:23;18:16;11:23; lulpedCI) olll:1

IRIIWII..IliDIBAS,IIJL LOI (8:J)...aD ...... 8 --

-.(I) M:16:11:f

oloo(J) -..... II) --(1) Sl:ll -(I)

14:11 ..... IJ4)

ll4~7:1J:ZII:1; 11:11;32:1'PoM<20, 14:a>6:52:lli;5oi:ID; 16:6114<15;17:11,11

IE

jlg> -·· 15:1~9:7~110:15, It -m

l?:l;llt7'~9:1,11; 2G:U,ZJ;55:J

-(1) Sl:3

-Ill) 1~11~3:24; SJ:1UI:J6:1.11: 41:l1;9:11;56:1 J; 6!:li:'JU:l2:7J:Zll; 71:t,ll-11; 17>4;9Q:II,21;91:1

........ 141 -.II,ZJ _,....., 1):2:22:1;J):IO: Ulll -(1)

5$:5 -(Ill

17M,:JI;II:3; Z0<6;r;3S:I9;!4;1: SS:5;37:1'1l'?:IO; !S:3,7;S6:U,JI; 76:1:1S:22:90:14; 91:11

_,(I) Jl4az

-(1) IOl:IS

... (1) Q::ta

..... (1) 5S:f -Pl

17:1) -(Q

44:11 olot{f)

!2:23;a:l-

D(OQ 13:19;14:13:15(1; 11:4;1Z:t,l4

~,~.~9:3, 4,9-J4:zz,41:1S.17; 41:5;45:16:47:12.16; 41:!:6J<JG;I0:14; 71>4174-15,17; 79-.l .. to:J,4;14:21; IS: lUI 'T.:"(I)

........ (JJ) 11:f;U:IIi;li::ta; 17:22;34:24;4:1:2,3, 7;41:4,--111:11: ...... ,l'-20;tl:l6, 17.1192:1!

--(1) 10:7

-=--(1)

~fsl~:21; 51:24;7"1 .1:11, II

..,.._..Ill 79:1 ..,.._II) ,.,""·II lloiiiiiJ(l) :111:1.2 _,., 63:5

........... Ill 1');7

-(I) 60;111,12

...-.(1) 17:11 ~(I)

71:1J .....,....(1)

112:17 _,._(I) 11:1J:93;11 --Ill

16:t --{1) --(I) 11:2 -(I)

14:13;3t:5:52:ll -ro

n:II:PO:It -...IS)

2S:I;95:15;95:1S; !lltJ;III0:6

_,_.,(I) Sl:lt

--(4) (1)---

51:21:&2>4;19:17 5:14 14:1!;511:6 16:1P -(I) -..ro -(J) T.'o£1:4/111:21:

Nr(1) ~1:2 J6:16 15:10:!2:23 "'14,1,.,33<7; ... (If)

"'nr'(IJ ........ (1) 44:10;61:26;615:11; S6:21141:11;55:11; 11:11,14:11:11 11:2 76-.3 "'" G:llo'I:I'I:Sl<l);

... (I) -(J) ....... (I) lilrlr14l 77:'ll:l1Q:2,211:9S:4 ID:l;J6:2;2215, -17 41:1~9:2J2o IS:It-,.!2:1t;SS:It: ~7,4,14;a7:2r lt:26:15:40:14: ... (!I) "<t,Q:I~ 77:24 tl:22;19:2 lt:l6;20:1:a:J); -"'111 -(1) J9,li;J4:11:5':1.!;

-.a(J) ''~· - - 11:17 ., ..-..(I) ap:alalll ~(1) ..... ., lrlo5=

36:Jt '19:11 15:1,._11, ~(f) .......,Cil -(I) 93:11,ZJ

-.-11> 5'.3;6:11>',25:16; 15:7;>Z:2A ... ., t-J7 lloa(l) !IO:IS IDI.o:M "'r,"...J'.., lwiS) 25:17

---(J) ....,wr.(l) 13:1;21:2D;19:5; ... (14) .,,. 101:11 --(11 51:11:"1:5 11:17;111c5,6;U:1;

-:r,:> •• .....,......, ll:lt -(2) 14:3,4,15;17:2111 ~.1:33:7; --lSI SD-JI;5'~1 111:15;17:24, ..... 10,

-ro Sl:l4 21:14,'7S~...,I -(I) 16;'*10:17:24 Q:l7 ....,.....(1) -(S) SD:l6 -(:I)

-(1) 25:17 f0:211t'14~4;93:2G ... (1) 17:6172:5 D:lt -(10) -....u1 68:1 lln(Q

-(I) 25:11;!0:11:$$:21; SS:I7 -~ 22:13,1~1! 47:J' 57:2!;67:22;69;5; -IJ) -~~ -(II

-,p) 71:11,- l4<2;S4:11.rr:14; -lOO b:ll 112 16:1UZlJ7:1Z:I&:l, 12:1- 115:11;!01:14;91:2; .... (J) -Cil 4 .,.(1) lot:S 15:21;11:11

57:17:70<11 -II) - -(1) -(l) -Ill 40:17 - 44:9;liii'JO

5:15;5'1:24;S1:9 .....,Q) F falt;lf) -(I) ""Cil '11:11 1S:I1:16::!;21:24; 11:14

71:19',11:23 -II) ,_1111 :14:5;21:1-1; -(lt) .... (11) 41:1 S:l,'t:D;7:1S; 22:l6;Sl:lS;J&1.'. 24:11:61:15,19,24;

-d7,22; -Ill 211:17;26:20,21; 14;59:1t:42:4146:10: 66:11,13,1S,28,23, 10:5;!10:3~1:21, 41:12 Z7:11;21:l.f:W:2 Sl:l4,&2:14,11JI; 14;61:!J1J7,JI; 1S;J2:21 ...... 451 lloot('l I7:2;JQ..Z2 61:1;111:3,111:14:12,

.._II) :111:&;44:21:Sllllo .,11ll911:1:14; ,...(I) 2S;b:1,4,4, ... 16; 47:11 U:20;10:1l ll:lllCI4,16: C!:ll llll:li,:M;!IU,I5;

..-.(f) -(I) 9:1-IS;?I:ID -..ro 91:1 12:17;15:1~11; 4S:lt ~16: 17:P -(I) llltl7 -(1) ... ., -..... (I) 6S:2 t4:2;14:14,1S;- S7:14151:5:B:~ loJino(l) Sl:1~'41:16;79:10, ..........,(1) 17 11;69:1 !10:11 11;13:5:tll:ll ,,

-·4) M(l) ,.,_(I)

-~ _,.., 23:111;57:1;15:10: '19:16 1:22

6t:ll;IS:s 8:1;11:22;J:I:7; 1!6:17 fiMSD:!ZlSl4J:22

._.(I) -.a, (I) 40:111$2:1Q95:S -Ill 47:11

'"'" -OJ 17:16 -(J) lioolllp(lJ -ro I:IIJS -(l) 20;11;S0:14 Sli:IJ

!1:12;111:1 alol(l) lii:I!;IJ>.IS •ca> -(27) -(1) !10:1 foliO) n:I7',BI:n S:l3,14,14ol~

76:l.ll;71:l2t -..aCZl '19:10 -(4) 1l;JJ:5AIIG:I1,D; 71:S;'I9:2,6,21 lJ:1>47:2l -..o, 6;12;9:1;40:20; 4fo'l,1;51:1;61:2,3< -(IJ _....(I) 11:1S;I3:4;24:24; JS:'r 64:2D,21:'/Io21,22;

61:1 7:S ll:ll;ll:II;M:t: ~:S(I) II:IJ,IJ;S1':21,:JS:

-=~17:1; -Cl) 4l:J;47:21,%1;41:1S; !lf:3,4:'1:22,:JS; 61:5 eii:JQ,l,...5,1l< fll(l) 91f:ll

.,:24;97:4 --{1) '13:~:4: $'.$ ....,_(I) 0111) - 16:1;17:11 -OJ 46:2

>11:9,!;72:11;'14:23: ........ (1) -(I) 17:1:65:6 -(S) 9321 71:11 15:1 .....,(l) I~

O:WOOC(I) --(I) -(I) 1:11;f6;%1 tqoc(l)

(5)--.....

01:2117>:211:76:1: 64:J,5:111:14,11; 17:7;11:7',71~3 3,..3 ll:IZ !0:19;1:1:14;91:21 J -Q) ....-ro

-..,p) -ro 27'.21,.,1 3!>:14

"'' .1:12:1:5 )et(l) -(15) __,(I) --.ro -..aalll 92:11 1:.14~:11;25:11, 25<11 11:17 to:1 ,Ioiii') 17;26:11,11;27:15; .....,.lSI

-(15) ......,_(l) 4D:13,o41:24;45:1t, zt:2,1,4,11,16,2l; 20:13;17:1!;!1:17 14:2J;S6:20;S7:U; t6:11(10:7 :U:46:D;Sl:IO;'IS:I; 15:23,14

"".Jln:l4:59:1 4!:11:45:21t41:1'o -(I) llt:23;11:16 -·4) 49:2,6;!0:21:67:; Jl:tG .1oM (I) f:IJ;If;%,6;11:11 -Cil 71:11,ZJ;74:11; -(1) 5:22 -...(li) 75:7;UIItJ4 I'/:IS:ft:4 12:11 Jollii(J) )1:2;50:1 -(S) -(Q -(I) ~17;!15:21 ~~19; 114:1~:71:19

S7:14;.D:I,4,1S 11:6 MJoa(l) ~(I) -(J) -(I) D:l6 51:16 ..... 16:21;1t1:14 ...... (l) llrp(J) ap) -Cil -(1) 3'1:14:51'1 10:15,.'73:7;76:6 71:6

71:11,11 .10:12 Jo-(1) ..... {f) a (I) ...... (I) lilA (I) :II:IJ;61:7J2; J::D;I0:7;22:4; ,.~

27:11 6I:ZJ 62:1;79:12,-911:2A li6:7:S4:23:70:11 11101{1) -(I) liOQ) ........ (I) .... ., PI:IG

Sl:ll 60:11:16:20 A:l ,..1;23l4;45:12; ~";.55:13; ... (I) -(I) ........ (I) 46:15;14:20 24<.1 1;21 10:1,17;11:211; .... ., t2:1,2,1S

--.(1) -(74) 11:9;14:1;19:23; ll:I,;JI:t;1P:4 ... (S) 41:20 10:7:13:17,21; 17:1,1 ......... _{11 15:11:91:11

-(I) 16:2l:2t:2.21;al:24: ,.._(I) "" ,_(1) 21::1 1Z:4,5;1J:J5,17; 17:10 low (IS) :S:S _., 14:S;26:9,2S;27:14,

~r> 12:23;13:0,13; -(I)

21,13;27:24; 11;2fo.z2;]0:2,S; 15:15;12:17;23:1,4; 116:11 ~12;62:11 11:1S;JI:J,IO:l6:4o ...-(') 14:9;31:12>41:11: -(I) ~(I) 40:1,16,1.,.,4J:9,17, 15:11ol6:1:23:1l; SJ:211;6J:I4;71:14; !12:11

lS:2II :IZ;4J:'Z1j44:1,11: 2l:t '19:14;91:11 .. ., -(I) 45:1>46:11~ -(1) 7:S,I;l6:1:P$:2.9

ZJ:6:4Q:t,g,z, 41:2l;SI:I4;S:I!J; K D:'J .. II) -(I) Sl:6:S4:'1,:&,SS:I!I. ~()) 1111:16

16;1D 1,.,51:1t;SII:II,U; -(I) D:t 11{1)

-~~~ S:l4,11:16~1~7; 49:13 ...,...Ill !12:5 24tl0;25:2:16:1,T, Q:ti,l2;19:22:10:11, llz7(1) SI:IJ -(I) 9,16;2'1'.3;1!1:14 10;'12:11116:3;77:10, 411:1S to,-.(J) SS:I7

....._(I) 17;71:3~:24; 111111(1) '12:16 -(H) 1:17 to:IJ)S,I7;11:1,11; 27:2l -0) 6:15,lt,IO:ll:

-.....-~, 17:1:11f:M,ZJ;510:4c -In) 7:14 11:24;11:17;2t:ll; Zt:4~ "-'7'.93:11,11 · 9'.22:.1J:D;l6:1l; -(I) 24:1J;J7:10;!J:Zl; ~(II -12) 2:12!;91:11;41:2; 11:1;211:21:51:14, 4S:II;64:4;71>4;

76:1 1:21:17'.3 4foll;50:12;51.'7; 1-:57:11!111:19 12:3;16::4

-~ ...... (!7) ~1:4;10:1;'19:13 -ro U.C(I)

1:9,12;t:2,3,4,5,13, 1:11,22;111:7: -{I) -,51:11 15:21 17;11:12:12:211:11:4; 11:21;13>4,24;16:11; 49:1 -0) -(2) .6:.14;11:14-.22:7: II:IZ:211>0;29:5: -.-(1) 116:2! 7:4.12 :M:I4,21;15:12: ll:20;n7:47:1: ]7:20 lmloc(l) -(I) 17:1'1:11:15;2!1:21; 56:'1-.Q:9;16o5;69:4; -D) - 40:11 Sll:'/,10;!1:4,1,11,16; 70=':72:6.15:7'=': :111:15 ... (I) loll< PI lS:111',44:6;4S:S; 111:7:11:=;14:16; '14:11 1111:12 4'7:11~15~·· 17:7.:10111:6,8,14,21; L 111115) 1.01(1) SI:ID:60:JIQ:II: 1!1:2;!18:11;VJ:21l: !7:14;U-11: lGD::I.S lt:6;71:5;1S:'ll !1):1,7;1GL-4,14 -(I) 14:20;t4:15 ,g: -(J) ..... (I) 71:1 lo:plts) SO:II;IJ:I 7&1 lold(l) I:M,22;111:7;22:5; -(1)

"""lu.l -(4) 40:6 10:!4 Slf:l4 23:111:17:1!>.40:4; 17:S,'I;II:Il:fi:IO lao (I) -(I) INI::(I) 49:1;50:5;54:17; 14:14 22:6;Z4:2;11:1J 10:15;11:1;39:5: 56:li;SII:IS,'l!l:t; -lSI ....,_PI o49:22;SO:ZI;S6:22;

76:Z:IB:t Jt-.1:41:14145:17 _,.

1:24:9:11.11;111:11. IW:29;711:11:71:t,ll,

"':T:t&~l'oW: -PI ~;71:24; 16,11,21.M;II:2,4, :U;72:23:11:4;116o16, .,... 911:12 JS1II;l4:22,:J6:JJ; 1-.1~1: C6:21,21:ol'.!,l; _,,,

-(I) 21:21;4!:1l40:22; "" Sl:'/',54:1,2;$6;1fo 12:24 37:22 od:l1,111;52:9;6)~2; -(II) 72:lll:ftol

_ .. , -(I) w.!;,..l3;79:9; ~-~,2147:9; -.m IU 41:2J;SS:fi a:IQ,22:14:11~ 50:11:Q:I;65:14;

1:16;10:11;14:17; -m -Ill 111:10 'lll:ll;ll~t;f.l:21 2'1:al;l7~- 1217,1;1~"< w -Q) -ro 'IU(77::Z:I;94:11 5SIZ,S;IZ:Il;IOal -(I) 7:7)47:24 2f:li

-(I) -(I) C!:ll -(I) -(I) 37:5 65:S I I (I) 10:21 21:14l6'1:1 ..-.ro -"' l;;z

_ .. , -(I)

llnl JG::D:3f:7:52:ZI; -(I) ~-~ 46:1J;f:I:S 111(11)

_, """ Ho4;SJ:I~I:

'ltf.':Qr:L:10: llhii:45:21;D:5; -.(I) -(1) .,~ ... 61:1S:63"',11Jt, >>1,111;21:20 ""'" 6S:II:8'.1;70:11; PI:J' 211;12:10;17:11 -(I) -I') '17:10;91:1,1- -(I)

9 :1S ·!1:fo,J4:13;]P;l9; 17:17 7:2 M -(I) <IJ,J7 ...... 00 ... (I)

7:S ......... (7) SD:I4,1S;51:17,11, sm llllllor(l) -(1) 11:1l;IO>U;S5:2. 1P;75:16 -(7)

9:1S $:11 6,10.14 -oo 1H:21:fo)ll:3;

~·'~1:14 -lUI .......... CZ4 24:U:J2:'/',50:U: 4J'.Itl471J:S4:22; 5:12;1;1,17',2201, U:1;15:11;11:1; .,., 95:11 ...... ,"' I4J1,21~U: ll-u:1!1:!2;211:12, ~,., ooltl(ll)

llt2J;I2:111;24:11; 96:15.-:J:- 15,16;35~ 'T.tl11,24;74:11; 24<1~14,16, 17:1 101:3 ""-'G.24"""'16, 'IS: II ~1:5;61:'1;115:2; _,., _,"' 1t;5'1>1,1;:10:1,1,2; -(I) 16:11,211'7:11,14; 37:16 21:ZI;91U2;91:111: 12:12;114:22 111:14;11:11 111:1-12,14.

-(I) 101:11 -(IJ) ..,...,(I) IIJ7,11,2S;N;IJO, 21:6(14:21 _._.(I) 60:f,ll,23;6h4,$, 21- II!R-7,11,20:1!1:5,"

-(7) 45:5 1110.12.14.17,34; -(I) 21:17-15:11, -"PI 64:S N 11:13 16;12:1l;87:2;&.1 19:4 ....... "' --..u..t.&PI

-(I) -(Ill) "'lt:Q:1;Q"' -(I) 9'.l;P5:1J 11:22 &:16;23:23;24:3; .. :15:116:20,20; 70:1! -(II)

-Ill 26:15l4D:Il:D:211: 117:11:11!1:7,12 -C!II 37i7;QI:I:711:24: $4:11 61:1J;QI:It,20;70:1 ~=12 14:11;!4:11:43:'1; 11:11;1111:12;91:1S; _,Q -........oo 112:6:9:1:" 94:4;96:14,2Q;IIl'J; 73:15 14:5,1~111: -(I) uoll(l7) 1111:10 -(I) U.ID;!N:20;91:15 u IG:!;11:24;311:1: ... pn, rthafl)

Uol'l _.....,.(I) --et•> !6<2;l'f'.l;l!>7; 6I:J _", 11:1,24;13:2D;I4:S: 211:2111aJ:I,24; G:21;G:21;5J:3,21;, -..(I) 11:24;12:15,22 lli:l;lf-.Zllf'C:I,I' :14<1,2:111:12;31:12; 53121"1- 7:6

-(I) -.uoo(ll 41:'7;02:21:61>4,10; 114:'7,1;17:4:101:5 -(7) 72:17 1!1:05 71:111;91:1 ~12 -PI IS:Z1:11:11;11:1"' _(., _...,..Cil _.,.,4) 39:11 !2:2,23;51:14;QI:I 11:5:21:1;56:1"' .,,,._,:21;93:1 5:S,IT,It,22 -Cil ...... ,4) 15C:I?,<II:1;fl:1! -(Q -(7,) 11:10;12:7 15-:11:

-(J) 89:'7 6:17',17:t -=(I) 119:12 11:1 -.rro -(45) 11-(2)

-(1) 411:11 '"""'1-12, ............ (I) 7:21;1:4 61:4 dPII4J ·~.ll;IS:IJ,:U: 7~ 11110(1)

""%,.'J,AJ:71a: J7~1:t;tS:1: lot2;a:ll;lkll; -(I) 10:11 ,. .. 11:1ll;l9:16,2l; .... u -(7)

11:5~1:5 -(I) J~~S:I;M:I,1J, -ro l :lfoiH:30:21: -"*Cil UIJ 12,16,17JJ,211;!15:7, 11:21 44:11,47:14.1?,911:1

10:12. .. :1:1,.)11:34 -15) 1!,21,22:!16'.2,4,5.11, -(27) -(1) ... (!) 7:J:fi$:1!1:"""': 22:'7!1,12,1l,ll; S:S,20,1!;0:1.1!>, M:IS

:na2;53:9:'1!1:13; 6'1'.1,4 111:15,211,24-.tJ:IO. 14:23;17:24;1~ 71:1f;n. .. -(I) 17,2l:IOD:21 31:11>,40:21:41:2: 0

-Cil "II -(II) 41:15'":21;61:1:

-(I) - :1,4:71:1J6, -(I) ...-.(U) .-Ill 71:15 16,20:12:15:'13:11 6:J2:5!tl4 2C:I~I,22; 10:7

oJdoclo 111 74:12:1&2;1'1:14: ... (IJ) 2&:10,11;21:14,20: -(U) 45:3 11:7;91:17 7:24;11:20:'4;11; 21:1:111:2.12.16.21 :IS:IIl,1,.,!6:22;

........ (1) 0'-PJ -4;)1:15,45:23; ..-(II) 11:5,-1,19',41~0; 16:6 60:2D;IS:S;I7:14 .... ,..,, ... ,:54::0: lf.tai:12Di6:13: .... 1;511:1J:S2:'7JO, .-.. , O'liell'wlll 51:2,11:111:1;'11:15; 16:1:44:2114'7:10: 25;54:1,1,1t 1S:U 611:1:'1:1:1'7:17 12;$"""""'1fo 5!~...-·~0:A:l: I .... [1)

·-(I) .... (I) fl:~:7;100tll IW:6,24:71:1:11:13 $1:6 12:13 ITS -(I) ..-to (I) ..-a>

-(II) .-un 41:4 :14.~,... -:54:11 6:17;10:10;21:19; IJ:16;M:U;J1:211, -(I) 711:15!71~'""' ..... (I) 32:2;511:1:6S::S; 21,n;lfdO:J,6: 11:21;1e:ll;3&:1 112:12;a:24 ll'7:S d6:12:17:1A'ft:" -=· -(I) ..... (11) 'Tz:'(l)

;;:> -(I) ft1f 11!1;12:11;16:11, -.. .....(I) 22;1f:l1;21:2D; ......,(I) -(I) --(4) :14:12:3~2:11:1: 21:21;32:20;36:3: 15:15

fo2117".11;1:! 1:16:73:21;10:9; 41:11;61:111'7:19; 4S:I-II;Q:21 !Mill elf (<I) !II:J9 ~10;16:t Jll'lrlll ...,.

15C:l4;12:1fo14:13; .... (II) ...... I') 21:6 IMIIIPI M:IS 14:11;2l:f:U:IS, :11:14.22,2:!;21:1:

-~ 10:16

.... (4) 11:!2:6:31:13:3&:1:1, 19:U$1:4 ,._.(I) II:U;S2:5.1:11:4 11;1'7'.5;SI:IIl411:13: _....(I) -(I) 54:11

-II) SI:J4;Sl:21:$9:1a: '1!:7 !<II plolono(l) 14:12,'7.1J4 Q:20,2!:64: II; ...... (I) _,(I) S4:S2

omaJII (llf) ti:J4,'71:7)6;11P:4, 45:11 11:17 -!U 1:1#1.1:11:19; ID;I3:4 -·· -(I) 47::0 1<1:2D;I5:3,U:16:7: ....... (4) 1119;U:S;lf:IJ; 231\~l, ...... (4) 11:16:21:1,14:22:J: 41:16,l'f',111J; oQ:J7 ,.,_II) 65:3;<6:21;S7:16; 2!:13;24>1,1:26:11: 19:17 -(1) !S:II;5e:20 12:11 27:J,II;ZI~IU!; _...,., 21:21 ";,'l':lll) -~~~ 21:24;32:1,22;JJ:Iol, 2A:21;25>7;27:7; -(I) 17;1,11:11:6 17'.tJ:12,16:«J:J: 29:11:3~1~15. ti:M ~~:19;54:22;

_,.., 41:5:42:11;4!:14,24; 17:3!:1;37:1 ..,.,.., 37:12117:211;'12:17; 46:6,12,'47:1-': .,._(I) 2Acl2:!2:3o41:17; Q:l;73o11;14:1'7: '1!:15 49:11>:51:13:~ 'IY.lA:fS;I7',.,17; 51:2 ,_,.,M:11 -(5) !1:1,2!:54:11,21;

,...,. .. _ .-p) ........ (I) 71:24$5:1~14;

56:J;57:3- ~(I) 7:11 14:1 11:2:100:5 59:21,24;Q:3,6: -(I) ..-(I) _.(I) 6!:10;64:19:65:1,11: ...-(1) 15:17 >4:11 50:12 67:1,24;61:1l.M; SZ:lS -(I) _.Ill ..... (D) 111:1.9:'11:12,~ -'Ill '19:1f 47:11 !1:111:16:12;211:10, 12;7l:S,6;75:13; 1:16 pallod[4) 19',21:1~11: 76:f)4,)7,2l,24: ~(7) p 41:14;51:17',11:1.0 72:5,'79:11;17:24; 71:1;'19:2o,2l;ll:f, 1:20,2:1;19:11,11, ...... (I) a:ll,211;1Clll:ll 10.13,1S;Il:S,",22; ·~I -Q) S3:4 ....... (I) b :ll,II:M:I,II; ~(J) S5:lD;$6:1f;l9:1l '"':t;:JJ:16:1 J4:10 l'll6,1,.,11:1,.,D:11: -(I) .-.Ill 91:2.'1,1f;t2:14JI; -(I) 76:211 ...... (1) 42:16;4S:11;1D:ID f3:24;94:l.JOJ4,22; 73:17,211 ......... Ill 112:12 .... II) PS:I,I,1~1'1,.,96:7, -(I) 411:1S .... (I) 12:11W:6 10,11,16,111;97:6.15, 74:21 ........... Ill -,11:1D;76:1 ... (I) lt,22:111:1,4,7.14: ......,(7) 15:6 ..-ro 71:1 ,. .. ,6,12,16,111: II:ID;IS:21;11:21: .......... (1) 73:15 ...... It> IDOt1,4.7,10.1J: B:21;4!:1J;91:14; M:Z ,._,., 411:12 101:1 IGI:ll ,.,_.,..Ill 27:2::li:1;11:1:Z. polol(l)

Olllao"l (I) -.(4) 27::2:'6:9 22 51:14 31:2 2P:21J;J&:I .......... .......... (I) ...-u> ..... (I)

-(II) 9J:IO 2!:2;7!:111;15:23 7J:2 74::0 14:17;2P:IJ.lj --(I) -(I) ...... (I. -(Q 12:9-,31:1-14; 22:12;26:11 :JoOII:ti:S;9!:7 lliM;11:Zl 14:1• 4S:Il091J,IS;SI:'I; -(I) .-I'! _..ro -(I) 54:6;51:6:15:1!1; a~r 2'1:5;55:t;61:2J 2IJ4 ta:l4 (1)---

-(I) V!:14;94:SJD,I4,22: 16:7;45:J,U,C7~2: 60:1;62:12:75:21: -I') 4J:14 ":1,1,11,16,1-7, ,.,:11$7,13;70;15; ll:6;11:17 21 :17;1.1:22:45-.2;

......... (1) 10JJ,If,IP;91:6,15, 'T.tlt.JII74:7;17J4 _.,Ill 47:2&,6J>4;1'1:1! - lt~~I,C..T,J4; Jll"ii""lll 1:11:11:2D;S2:4; -(I)

..... (I) t9:3AJ2JU9: 47::U JS:I'f',40:22;S4:1; '19:1'1 51:1 1011:1,4,7,)D,I>; J'Njod's(JI) 13:1:'6:1.2 nodt(J)

....... (4) 101:1 11:23;16:14;17:11, Jlllo'(J) 46:14 20:1D;51:11;511:4: -(I) lJ:14:1,10,24:41:12: 11:211 -~~~ 15:22 3,..21 ":J.IS:JI:21 ...... Ill 42:10:47'.1

..-.Ill -~~~ ,_,., !II:J -(7)

14:Zl S2:7>40:24,.1:2J; )$:11 .......... (I) 10:10;11:23:21:1, ....--Cil 4!1:12;19:1R:ID

-~~~ ""II 6,1;74:15;11:1! 14:1 .... :2;11:11 ...-(I) 14:6141:21 -II) ..... (I)

,_..II) .11!14 ..... (4) S:t;ll:6 lt-.10.16;32:6 1&.1,2 --.ro U6,1;31:1.1 .--Ill -(7i)

..-Ill !1:17 ~ro 7:14;22:19 111:30;95:11 16:19 ...-1'1 -(I) noltll

-(I) 21:4;7"1:15;12:11 "=..W.I;I1:10:

7~1 -'0:10;76-.!,IJ; Sl:3 ~(I) ... (7) 77m:71:11J9:2.6.21 ---ro !lt:I4,2!;PI:11;97:Z 20:11:J1:11;41<1, --(1) 14:14;1.1:2 _,., _...(4) 22;9:S;61:S2;72:17 ....

...... I') S:t 21:17,111;67;3: .-;~L ~PI 10:15:31:SI;4S:7 .-ro 71:11

'1:.:'"(1) 3'1:13 -(II) ..-oo ..--ro 21._.;l'..,.22,2:!: Q 21:5;39:6;41:2; ......,.....(I) 7!:14 115:11;7&:1;71:3.9, 77:11;>1:29;711:10

]1:16 pol'*(7) 20;711:11,11 ...-11) -(li) _..(II 1:11;27~:U: -(J) $1:1 11:11,14;16:4; :15-.ZO.~I 3S:Sl,20,2!;41:12 211:7 ..-(I) :14:f;4]ol6;56:)4; --(I) ........,CJ)

~(I) 411:11:51:3 71:7JD;~;75:1~ H:21:11~ :IJ!li;II:2;9J:I'I --(I) IJ:4;116:3,24:tO;lD,

..-(II) ..-cl) 1--(J) '" 20;95:5 1:5,10,1!- 41:12 94:11 ~(I) -(5) 17:23:50:11:11:12: ..-(I) ~~ 76:20 21:1,.,24:JJ2; 0:5;16:22;17:11 64:22;'17:21 7:1,4;12:7;.14:11; .... (I) WI;B!>:3

......... (1) ,.-p) !>:5;55:5o66:1: 11:12;511:11 -(6) 45:10 4S:2Ac54<1D;I7:16 7!.'13;7ti2 -(IJ 11:4:31:1:1;11D:11;

,_..p) ,..-.1(1) "="(2) 22:6,12,11,19:U:5, 8:14 'n:t ]D:5,11 I -~~~

12:lS:i$;52;1 .. ..,.. S6:S;M:I6;13,17: 111 a:6 41:!>,11:1,20',12:1!1; - !10:21 "T:i'O"(J) -(I) SJ:I5;56:1~1:11; -(II) -(I) 24:17 51!l;S9:17;61:1D:

li:lt:I5:1J;I6:8, " 'I ~w.~ ... -ro -14:61:2J,ID, I:I:Z5:11:2l;IJ; ,.....(I) 34:21:46:11 16;16:1;19:11 :IO'.JJ;II:7,1S;l2:6. 71:12 .....,..(II) -Ill -(I) l;ll:l3;46:22o09:17; _,...PI 11:11:11@:14; 10:10 32:24 S1:1!;13~1;1M4: 2l'7 24:22;e:II:65:Z4; -(1) -Ill 100:11~4,21;101:2 _,(I) 61:5:61,1S;.,..15: 13:16 7:10

-(I) Jl:Zl tctl _,., ,.,.(I) 66:21 -(4) ... -1'1 17:14;31~,6; 7:12;1!:16

-(I) 10:21:14:6.7,11 22:12;21:9:111:15: 40:14;42:1;4!:6 .,.. .. - (I) 11,11;61:1S,IP -171 8 -(J) 31:14 -"' 7:22;14:1;17:S:

S7:15 --:.r.(l) 2l:I.IJ3:14:3: 41:6;11:11,'711:11: -(I) -(I) S2:22;5l:2D;SI: I; 71:11 29:5,1;61:2

1118:17 -~~~ 6!:9:111:12 -(I) -(I) -..JII) !2:3;40:17f4,P:Di ~.J:s:4; 51:1 51:15

.J!!ll 51:11;116:7 -(1)

-~~--(I) -(I) 11:12;65:21~011:11 S:JI 111:22;11~1!:1: 15:14 $5:14-11 ....... Ill .... (I) 14:14.19;16:22;

..... (2) -(I) 22:11 7:5,1 11119;21!:l,lj29'.4: 15:fo,12:1J 15:11 ..... (I) ,.(IS) .IO:IJ;II:IIo4~-5;

.... 00 -m 46:15 16:fo,ll:l'f',50:1Z,S; 46:16,11;41:24:7d:l; 5~11:1;81:11; 22:17',11:16,22 reo (I) 6S:I1,66:16;0:24; 119:23 611:4,7;11:9;~9; --(1) 111:7,1'7;11~ 12:11;26:11,11: _,..,Q IS:S.IS;IJ:I.D;&:6, ~I IS:9,2i;l9:1!:97:1~ '19:17'.fliJJ4 7<1~ 16:11:16;!04:17; -(I) -oo ;1110;(1) .. ro 15:11:96:22 51:14 ,.,,4 IJ:14;26:19 14:1 -(1) -Ill reoiftlll -(I) -121

2!:11 S1:15 IOI:S 11:24 21:1;56~7 _.(1) ...W(I) -II> "*Ill -ro

44:1 1~1 43l4 3t:S7 S9IJ

""""00 ,_,., -(21) ~Tl:l6 -(I)

73:1,24 37:5 S:21;16:17.1l\ SO:IP ...,._(1) -(D) 1'f'.3,S,It,23;11:2; -(I) .,to(((!) 36:2f 31:7;411:1'f',1!:22: lO:t',J4:'7,1S,II:)S:3, 12:1t;St::J 40~10 -II) 51:1;71:7,11~ 4,11;17:6,16,11;11:2. '*Ol ICAIIA(I)

30:23;31:1 tt:2A:tS;S-':1111:21; 7,.~12; - _.,.." riiUIDJNG(UI) ,.-.ur(J) -CI) -121 19:1;9!:5

5:2;6:1.1:11:19; !N:S ~·7 11:10;19-.5 _,., 14:20;15::!,1~":1: ~"& ...... (I) 22:16;31:4-11:16;21:1J4:22:J: O:S 1l 4li l :B:IJ~11: ..-ro ..-(6) -(5) 27:1,11:28:1~ llO.t J2>4,J;41:1S:51:12 .-w 71:5;12:111:1!117; U:2A:JI:2:32: ..--.(1) ........ (5) t2:1,1D 10:11;97:11 31:14,17;39:12,1'o 61:11:11:11 25:1;162>',11:17; -(I) -Cil 411:1;41~11; ......... (I) -71:22 55:12 37:12:57:2.1;74:5 43:14,24;46:6,12: 32:14.11;101:12 ..-(I) -II) mdml(l) 47'.3,6;e:19;51:1:1: -(I) 52:12;!111:3 16:12;11:14 1:14,15,24 52:2;D:2.23:S4:18, 11:7',12:18 ,....toc(J) -(14) -(I) 21:56,];]7:3,6: -(I) S3:3 9:16;111:1;17:15; l1;l5 !1:211;9:11,2A;Q:l, 61:7,11:112:1 ...... ,~ 22:5;27:11;11:111: .-....o> 6:0:111;64:1~:1, _,0 "'··~:a.. !2:'1:40:1;S'7- !6:17 11;67'~1,24: 17:liD 10,16,11:t:t,t!: 7D:14;13::12;14:24o -(5) 10:1.1:n:12:12:2. ........ (4'1) 11:23:12:12:1):13; 1'1:111 as:;4;2J:II;S2::1!1; 12,'71:3,6;75:1!: 1:4,7,11,17;12:1,2. 16:1~,1<UI: ..(J) 12:l4:"/!:12 'M,I4.11,21.M; 5.14.16,22;1!:~7.1~ 20:14,20;25~7. 4l:J -(II) li:2."111:2D.l3:11,.. 14,1foi4:1'1,1J; 1,16;]7!2;2t:l4; -=·~11 16:4;24:6;SD:2; I0,13.1S;Il:S,".:ZZ: 15:15,17;11:11,20; 30:1,10',21:1-': 43:Zl;52:5;]7:1; 1!:11,11;14:1,11; 11:20.Z1:10:6,1,!6: 3J:21;34:16,11:35:3; .......... 11:1;17:1-.11 17:t,I-IP;t9:2J; 26:1;191 ... 11:33:24; 41:22:44:14)45:21: 45:11,24;41:17,24: .._.,, ..... (')

":2,7,14:92:14,11: 14<5;3S01,12..".22: 41:6;9:1;57:11: 54<1 to:J.ID.IPili:IJ,

,......(I) JGJ:Z 45:11,21:47:12.16: ..... (Q -(!) 17>4 ~'3..1J:11 15:21 27:14 14:2.1D;31:5 _,., T.'l) -m -(I) 11:5;42:21:S7:1; ...-(1) ».i;64!1;n:o 73:1 64:11 3J:1D -(I) ,...,.[1) _,1) ,.....(I;Q ,.,.._(I) 17:2 7:2 60>6 S:II;I:Z4:t:T,t,l2, 11:16 ._..(I) -Ill -(II) lt:I0:21:11:fll7:11: -m 10:10 7:10 J6:16.211;17:1,4,Jt. 3J:I.,!:IJ,II;IT:I; 45:11,24;49:5; -(I) lltlol(l) ZZ;J&::;21! .... ,34:7, 15:~lS:D:211: 72:S;f3,16 111:1!1;15:11 7:19;10:22;22:11 l!l:l!'.l;3'7:10,c4:4, 16:!~:12; ,.._Ill .....-1(341 .... (11) 12;4!~1,21;41:),4

116:5,23;17:1 4l:J3;t3:21 11:15;22:2:WI: l0:1:14:J,ZI; -(I) -(I) ,..._,Q 21:10;!1:14;3'7~6: ~I;Sk1,21; 74S;'I5:J

17~-· IU 47:$;53:1;54:211: 55:4;SI:II,Jf;51.'7, -I') """'*"(I) --.(1) 56<2:57:1;59:23: 16,21:S91JJ0,20; 23~1)-,M:lJ~S:J

45:5 SJ:l9 0,5;65:10;61:23; 61:23;65:21;6'7l4; JICOrT (127) -...n> ,.......(1) 72:5:76:2!1J1:22; A::~7 !:!:':1.2:11,19;

14:1 S:IS tl:fo,IZ>4;fl:6,11; nlol(l) 14:2D;I$:3J3;16."t. -(I) ....-Ol 92:11;14:2;95:1Q,II; 11>6:1'1:1 11:16:21:1,)4,'22:~ - 6t.M¢71:7 96:12JI;f1:20:tbf; -(31) 2!:1:1:14.'4.1:26:11; .... (I) ~~:31:7; !W;II;UD:Uil01':7 12:11,22.24;17:24; 21:1,11;28:12,21;

16:24 ~(7) :ID:5:2J:1,22;24:13: 29:14:32:1,22;JJ,J4. -m 12:4;1111:1!;101:2 21:10;21:1:2!1:1,6; 11;39:l2,16>411:1;

1:1,111471J:41:11; ... -(1) -(I) 311:!~11; 4J:S;CI:II;45:14.%4:

BI.SAI< 1. -.,.u, Jl.lL LOl (Ill) S4WII3 .. bpb(l ....

(It)..... ' ? .......

u~.u.-.1:1.&; 66:11,12, IJ:67:12, - IIG!I7 11:1;14>.17:19:1; 09:1t',.SI~l;SZ:2o 17,11;11:1:10:2,19; -(J) -CZ) 93:14 $3~11,11; 14:12,2S;IS:IM14. ~ .. 55:11:63:11 -~) ~:3,6;SMQ; IJoi!I:I,.,U;tf,\5; .....,(I) oplrMCZ) 9:6;75:7--"'1 st:21,)4;6l:3,1; 91:3 4S:I7 U:J;SO:II .... (I) ID:It;64:1f',6!:1,1 I; -:~tn -(I) .. (1) 1:1:24 n:Uf;61:21,24; 15:2 '15:3 ...-.(1) 71:1,!>.71:12:13:2, -(I) -(J) -(I) .,, 12:73:!1,f;?S:ll; 70:S 65:ll;7121 - ....... (I) 76:9,J4.17,JI~; ... (I) -(I) ...... (I) I6<M 71:2;'19:30,21;11:6, 73:1 11'122 n:22 -(I) IQ,14,1S;D:5.19,ZZ; .._(I) llhloc(ll -(I) , ... ll:II,JI;I4:1,11; 71211 6422 71:1 ....,(I) 17:f,Jf;II:I9;D21; -(1) -w,ro --(I) -91:Z.7.14:9Z:I4,11; 100:11 lZ:%1 20:1'1 -()Q fl24;P&:)J0,14,22; ..... (I) -"'Pl -(II) .S:S,I2;'NII,22,24; ts: .... II,Jt.J_,, 54:14 :1!1:1 JI::SR:II:16; L'l~4.1f.l ...... :ll": 1o.ll,16,19;97:f,J5, -(I) -Cil 26:111:40:10;42:6,6, 12:11,17,11;13<14; 19,22;91:1,4,'t,9f'.S, Sl:l5 '*4.,:22l&.2 2014l~5;51:10 14>7117:1 .. 111!22:10, f,U.I4,19;-l,U, -(J) -(IJ -(II) 15,22:25~1,4; 1~01:1 ~"lil79:11 ".20 10:111;2t:I)Jl: 1Jo.l,l5;l.,..,JI:ll,

-o> -(I) -ro :16:24;)9:7;51:1; ~ll.tl:l2 ;111-.15 51:16 .,,, 15:24;71:7,1;71:7 -(I)

--.rCII .....,.._(1) ~(1) --..(1) Jl::'o!t:5;50:2l ,~, "" 2I:S -·Ill

IEC(4) ........ (J) ..,.,(J) ........ (1) 44:7,)7 5:1;6.'1;24:22; I!:W:M 11:17;7~9 :12:11 -Ill 57:11 -(6) -(I) -(U) D:J!;5024

-(U) 9;14:11:24;15~ 14:1 !1:21;10:11,)7; ........ Ill 27:S:II:1~21, 15:1:11:12:111:'1 -(1) 11:20;11:l'l',lt:l; Q:I7;4?;B:2 l4;!1S:l;tll:l,t; llooplJ(I) :ZZ:If;J,..lO 4S:I41'6l4;11S,I3; •lojooohiiJ(I) P'I:IO,ZI~ 1U;63:1;<9:14 ...... (I) M:f,J5 "" 21 -(I) 7:15 -Ill -(J)

..... (17) 411211 _., 19;1,.,16:7 12:19;lt:6 16:7;Z4:t;lG:J; ~121 81:5,12;Q~I, -Ill -(I) 47:6:50~:31; II 27tD 10:1G 56...,.,.,..34;.,..23; -117) ..... (I) ..... (J) -Ill 11:111;19:1Ul; 11:11.20;H:22; 16:14 J:IJ;9;15 31:16 91:15;14...,.:12; Jl:s,41:10o46:1; --(I) -(I) -(I) !11:111;!11:1 411:34;50:9,12,14,)9; 13:!1 7:!1 14:1J

-(J) JZ:I,J~,tf -(J) -Cil -(J) 56:D;71:1:1a:4 &llr(lJ) .,~ lll4;1l:6;22:19; P:l4;12:5;1l:U

-~~~ S:5,1;61Zl~;T:I, -(1) l4:12:37>4.11G:I4; ~Ill . 27:1P;61:11;71:111. 15,16;21:21:21:9; 7:1G 41:14~3!11 :111;92:6 llll:l9;4l:IJ;G:I4, -(Z)

-=.rk1l,J4 ... (Z)

-(I) 17;12:J6.ll;tt:J 7:5,10 11.'1 11:1 -Ill .,...(11 -(J) -Q)

-~'~ J7:1114f:J;12:1 :10:3 :14:5t77:16;71:14 7:2l;t0:10 51 :1;52:4;Q.'I; olllloa(J) _..12) -Ill -Ill S,J2;'1G:IO;Il:T 14:15,16

_..,... 6:14c39:1l;8:10; P:I4;11:M;I6:-4

*'::= -[)1 .,.._(I) 1124:12:1 ...... (I) ~117137"""'114 51:1 -(I) %):16

...-.ro obQ) ..-(6) 66:2 _..(J) 12 7:U;ZI:IJ U:lfaS<1;U:T, -(l) 55:11;71:17:14>4

-(Z) -(I) II;Pl:U,J:l Sll:l4 ....... (J) 22:10;2Y.I 45:2 ......,(11) ...... CZ) 20:14:11:1 _., llll:r(l) 5:6;1:1S-,JI:ID; 54:10;44:19

_ ... (J)

5:16;11:1;57:11, M<l4 2*1;30:14;)1:1; ~~:7,21 ~1:1:1,1)

24;B:t -Ill ~71:3;74",6; _..,(4) ld(l} 51:11 II:! .... (J) l,..l,4,t,ll

21:1 -(I) ..... (I) 511:10,1i;SU -Ill ... -~ 1:6 IS$ 1111(7) IllS 2kl6;65oi.$,1P,ll; -(I) .,...(1) 29-.1;14:7;11:15; .......... (1)

12:10 41:2>;0:6,11; -(I) 5~1;50:11 IO:I:t,l!;llt11; _,(Q 66:li;III:IP;92:7 oa:n,u 'l'llllt(l) 23ol4.15,17~1 ..... ,, .. ,. -(I) -(4) 7:S ·~-.,_ •(I) 71:1 1~17'.M:I;S4:Ui; two (I) 14:.11;74:!1,10;"19:24;

IS:ll -(J) ,..., ,_.17',22:9,1S;ll:6: 11:111;19:2,15;JI:22; -(I) U:I>IO:I;'Iti ..... (14) 41:15;0:19;71:11 12:10;93!1,;97:6,1

9:11 -(1) 16<5:!':10;U:I6; ~cr'a;s~:u -(4) -(I) 8:1 JG:S;JJ:ll;ol4:1; 11:2;14:14-

1'!;1 --(J) 47:t;S7:!1;71:12; 4P:22 -(I) - 7:1:7 ...... 17,2G;t!:T u .. (7)

!12:1 __,(ll) ...... (4) lll:ll;Z5:J;J4:111; -(I) I:S,IG,Il;JIUf< !1:22;41:1t-,16:6; -.rill l5l4;10:1l;7J:IJ;

IS: II li:!I,21,C1:12>14:9; !111:2 !Q,J 114:14 .......... (11 45:'1,)1,21;54:10; -~~~ -~~~

_., SI:J7 60:20;61:1,11-.Cl:l; 1:14 16:1;fS:20:!16:20; IP:12;61:11;0:11

_.(C) 14:24;6l:lf;66:111; .....,.(1) 11:1;101:11 -(I) -'1:19;71:4: 74:5,1~ 1:1:10 -(1) S4.:21 a:u 111:12;11:19,au4; -(ll 71:5 -.ro

_..(J) 1Tl4,17:1P:6;93:20 "" -(U) .:21 57:22;Q:I -(I) -ro 10:2J;17:1;11:P; 11-(1) -Ill - 70:S 52:li;S6:14;0:d; 5::24l':l

SP:14;fl:l -(I) -(1) 6l:ll;73:16;71:U; .-,(1) .._..(J) ll:I;S2:17 511:1 15:T;9l:l:ll:ll S2:14

1220 ..... Cil -(II) - ........... (1) ~Ill 40:12,24;G:9; 55:t;S6:2D;64:24; 31;14 v

4l:ll'l(c2l;S9:9; Tl:I5,17',75:3;7T:4, -(ll ... (I) '10>417T:21:1l:16 1;1011:15,15,), JC:n -(1)

2S;Z1;211:9;41:14; ..........,(11) -(I) -.-(J) 11:12 5l:711P:II:tl:6: !111:2;2111114':17: 15:16 57dl;SI:24 .......,(1) u-.JS IT:12:111>:21:Ttt&c Wll(l) -(l) K:S

-(I) 72:10;74:1f(IM: 47".211 15:16 -(I) lP:I 101:11 -(I) -w Tl:.lA

--.,(11 ..... (I) 47:11 -- -(I) 74.'1,11 U:21 "':::"' Ill -Ill 71~;71:21

--(II ...... (U) 511:5 -(1) !11:16 15:1;111:21;!12:111; ~J,.:I4: -ro TJ~I;76:ll,'77'J>,' --(Q ~14,JJ; ~ 11:!1;19;1,11 91:24 "'=19;4t:ll;SQ:9; 74:4 -(I) .......,(1)

-=-(I) 14:1;1!1:21;7f:t2; -(1) JO:t 1111:12 12:17 - -(I) -(J)

.,._(7) .......... (J) -o> "'" 61:6,17;'15:17 46:1;55:1!;66:22; 51:19 15:1 -(I) --(4) "=15.16;12:1,2 ....... (J) -(11 - 61:16;74:22;79:'1:

14:l,4;19:11 51:19 oolwt(l) 91i1l T -(It -(11 11:1 ...._.(I)

?.9-.J:I9;10:21: "" -CJ) _, 111&(6) 11:17;35:7 -(I) ll:lpl4...,.,51:12 ...WM

14;4;19:1;62:12; -(11 12:7;91:3 -(I) 11:15~7; 66:14;73:11:12:2 21:23;51110 IIJo:l P'l:'l 17:111;li:34:J5:1f<

_.., ...... (4 24:lii:!IO:t -(U) 47:5;5l:l;5o0~

15:14,17:511:12; 16P:I,4;l8:2,5 117111(1) 11:1;12>0:24:15, 56:2;51:5;59-.2); Sf:l6;'1:1!;71::1,4< -(4) U:I6:)S:24:'15:1; M;SI:Il;M;J;!I<'I, 62:5;15:1CJ;Q:n; 7!:1 6!1:9,)6;15:17; 71:1:1;14:2 11;4l:I)G;2,7;11:t; 'll;5;7f:ll:l9:22;

...... (41 ,1:10 -(11 4J:I6;SJ:T;S6:liJ4; 11:9;12>0;'JI,._.,, li:?J,.,.St.ll; tlp(J) 61:2;14:11 TS:IP;11.:1,15,16; 92:17;94:2;95:10,)1; ?6<10 44:25 _., lll:ll,li;'JJ:I \11:12.11:97::14-

...... (I) -.(6) 7!2;1l<9;47:14,17; -(I) ":II;ICICI:l,9;101:'1 TJ:II 5:10;91:!1,11,21; SJ:II 111:5 ....... (I)

•ttl IDI:5,J -(I) -(l) "11:13

= ....,..(I) 64<1J 29:10 _., -(I) 42211 -(I) -(1) 12:tJ;O:I~:n;

10:2 --(J) 76:19 31:5 19:19;'N:16 .......,(I) 111:15;61:12 ...... (J) .. ~ -..Cit

1\JIAJU.aOEDAS,K.U. LCR -- .......... ...

!7:11,21~ 58:15;61:1.5 '" -(1) 65:21 -PI -Ill Mod(11) 120 lnl(ll

50:!1,12:51:15 25:13,'lll 5:1;6:21;7:2,14: U(J) 1:3 -(11) ....... (I) 20:15:26:ltUO:II, 1:2

14:1:Z.l!l:,.,22:11: 11:2 1~12:15:!1.J 15(1) • 41:2>47~;11:12; -(I) -(J) 12 D:l1:11:20;92:19 52:14 """'' lfi214(1l 4(4)

-(I) -(I) -(J) 7:19 Sl:M:si"""I,IJ - S'l:1:12:20 11:1l:'l:l,ll IQ..II(I) 41(1) -(I) -('I) -Ill 22:1 611:16

47:1D 46:12;D.7;24; li:2;IGD2l ••n> ........ (1) 14:7,1-J:IO -Ill 11:22 5

71:12 Wlld'o(l) 2t:Sif'I:D;65:.l4 11(1) -(J) --:11, -Ill .,. S(J)

4l:J:J):9j14:1,11, 16n:22 loti~IT; -01 m.zl:tt:l7 17;TJ:5~1D:TI:I -(J) JoU,JO;Ililt 721:1:) 541(1)

-(J) 17:16-IS -(7) -(I) 10:22 44:3o'5:9;47:2J -(J) 8:li:J0:2J;JI:!I, 1:3 541-A(J)

-Ill 14:1~ 22;111:11:11:21;12:!1 l•ro >O:li;OI:JS 51:14 ......... (11 -(J) 1:4 .-.,(I) 6:10 l:6,12;!12:1S 7 47:11 -Ill -(I) z

-Ill 11:11 ID:4 'la(Z) 47:15,17 _., ...... (I) ~(I) l:oi,IJ

-(l) t:ll;44:11)46:1; 11:5 7:11 41:11 61:22;62:21 -Ill 11(1) ' v--..(1) ""'Cll WilD: II 1:2 II! :I 7f!l,4 -Q) IIIS(J) 'Ill

-.....(7) -(1) 9:15,2J 6:21;7:11,21 7:10 II:IP 52:11 ....W(I) ·-Ill NJJ..I(J)

-(U) WUriiEIIUY ,..., 12:9 5:!1 111:11 16:1,.~; 5:17,11;16:6; -ro :ltl61') --(I) 41:13,15;44~1: IJ:It,JI;D:lO; 40:6,-41>4;50:211 1>1,20 16:28 4P:ll;IS:I9;91:16, U:22;21:24:2f:l: -(J) Jll7(1J ... (1) 17'$:15 41:6,7;oiS:IJ,I4; Olkfi;l4:11 1;2.7. 11:21)

-Ill 41:2S;S!:20~4:9; -(Z) JII.U(J) U:l 51:11,2:2;tR:7~4; I:I&;JD:I> :10!1, -(l) 13:1.24l6':16157::1; -Ill JIU$(1)

1!1:11 10:2J:;72:.\4;74:!2; 60:12;71:11 24:22 -(I) ll:I;IT:!I,IO;f1:9, z -Ill

6121;14:5,21; IO;M:P:t7:11,21; 7:11:1:3 95:12;97:1 "~14.22 D(l)

-oo ""&J&Ji' II) -ro 12 14:9;15:24;21:6; 101:11 II: II litO) 2!1:!1:]6:7;31:22 ,._(I)

-~~~ 1:14 -(7) -· 15~71::6 Dnl[l)

.,,1 -(1) -ro 12 -ro 5:3;24:1 :W-1 21(1J

'14:l3 -(J) ..... (11 l:l ...... (1) 21:11;192l;91:23 7:12;Tl:l7 2!1(1)

Tl:l9 __.. . ., 1:2

"" I :Will w -(I) 6:21

41:1;0:2 I (I) ..... Cil --o:> 11:2oi;J2:11;17:2 3

12:21:19;1t-,92:l 0:15;\01:16 11(1) WllnCI) -(II) 47:12;1111:11 U(l)

24:12;26:11;2!1:1 26>1,15;U:SJ,I9; 11117(1) 7:S ....... (J) ..,, • ..,.,.,;a,l4; .,., ,. ... ,IJ

24:1& 71:7;14:1;!11:11 1141(11 J7:ll -(II) -(I) IJ:M .1.14(J)

2k19=:1,1; 71:1 ll:G(I) ~" 2&0;27l&.7 J 5; -Ill 101:17 ..... (11 (14) ___ ,.

App. 395

TITLE XII PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 162-H ENERGY FACILITY EVALUATION, SITING, CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION

Section 162-H:l

162-H:l Declaration of Purpose.- The legislature recognizes that the selection of sites for energy facilities may have significant impacts on and benefits to the following: the welfare of the population, private property, the location and growth of industry, the overall economic growth of the state, the environment of the state, historic sites, aesthetics, air and water quality, the use of natural resources, and public health and safety. Accordingly, the legislature fmds that it is in the public interest to maintain a balance among those potential significant impacts and benefits in decisions about the siting, construction, and operation of energy facilities in New Hampshire; that undue delay in the construction of new energy facilities be avoided; that full and timely consideration of environmental consequences be provided; that all entities planning to construct facilities in the state be required to provide full and complete disclosure to the public of such plans; and that the state ensure that the construction and operation of energy facilities is treated as a significant aspect of land-use planning in which all environmental, economic, and technical issues are resolved in an integrated fashion. In furtherance of these objectives, the legislature hereby establishes a procedure for the review, approval, monitoring, and enforcement of compliance in the planning, siting, construction, and operation of energy facilities.

Source. 1991,295:1. 1998,264:1.2009,65:1, eff. Aug. 8, 2009. 2014,217:1, eff. July 1, 2014.

App. 396

TITLE XII PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 162-H ENERGY FACILITY EVALUATION, SITING, CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION

Section 162-H:3

162-H:3 Site Evaluation Committee Established.-I. There is hereby established a committee to be known as the New Hampshire site evaluation committee consisting

of 9 members, as follows: (a) The commissioners of the public utilities commission, the chairperson of which shall be the chairperson of the

committee; (b) The commissioner of the department of environmental services, who shall be the vice-chairperson of the

committee; (c) The commissioner of the department of resources and economic development; (d) The commissioner of the department of transportation; (e) The commissioner of the department of cultural resources or the director of the division of historical resources

as designee; and (f) Two members of the public, appointed by the governor, with the consent of the council, at least one of whom

shall be a member in good standing of the New Hampshire Bar Association, and both of whom shall be residents of the state ofNew Hampshire with expertise or experience in one or more of the following areas: public deliberative or adjudicative proceedings; business management; environmental protection; natural resource protection; energy facility design, construction, operation, or management; or community and regional planning or economic development.

II. The public members shall serve 4-year terms and until their successors are appointed and qualified. The initial term of one member shall be 2 years. Any public member chosen to fill a vacancy occurring other than by expiration of term shall be appointed for the unexpired term of the member who is to be succeeded.

III. No public member nor any member of his or her family shall receive income from energy facilities within the jurisdiction ofthe committee. The public members shall comply with RSA 15-A and RSA 15-B.

IV. All members shall refrain from ex parte communications regarding any matter pending before the committee. V. Seven members of the committee shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the committee's

business. VI. Any public member of the committee may be removed by the governor and council for inefficiency, neglect of

duty, or misconduct or malfeasance in office, after being given a written statement of the charges and an opportunity to be heard.

VII. The committee shall be administratively attached to the public utilities commission pursuant to RSA 21-G: 10. VIII. [Repealed.] IX. The chairperson shall serve as the chief executive of the committee and may:

(a) Delegate to other members the duties of presiding officer, as appropriate. (b) Perform administrative actions for the committee, as may a presiding officer. (c) Establish, with the consent of the committee, the budgetary requirements ofthe committee. (d) Engage personnel in accordance with this chapter. (e) Form subcommittees pursuant to RSA 162-H:4-a.

X. An alternate public member who satisfies the qualification requirements of subparagraph I( f), excluding the New Hampshire Bar membership requirement, shall be appointed by the governor, with consent of the council. The alternate public member shall only sit on the committee or a subcommittee as provided for in paragraph XL

XL If at any time a member must recuse himself or herself on a matter or is not otherwise available for good reason, such person, if a state employee, may designate a senior administrative employee or a staff attorney from his or her

App. 397

agency to sit on the committee. In the case of a public member, the chairperson shall appoint the alternate public member, or if such member is not available, the governor and council shall appoint a replacement upon petition of the chairperson. The replacement process under this paragraph shall also be applicable to subcommittee members under RSA 162-H:4-a.

Source. 1991,295:1. 1995,310:182. 1996,228:41. 1997,298:25.2002,247:2.2003,319:9.2004,257:44.2007,364:4. 2009,65:5, eff. Aug. 8, 2009.2014,217:6, eff. July 1, 2014.2015,219:2, eff. July 8, 2015.

App. 398

TITLE XII PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 162-H ENERGY FACILITY EVALUATION, SITING, CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION

Section 162-H:4-a

162-H:4-a Subcommittees.-I. The chairperson may establish subcommittees to consider and make decisions on applications, including the

issuance of certificates, or to exercise any other authority or perform any other duty of the committee under this chapter, except that no subcommittee may approve the budgetary requirements of the committee, approve any support staff positions, or adopt initial or fmal rulemaking proposals. For purposes of statutory interpretation and executing the regulatory functions of this chapter, the subcommittee shall assume the role of and be considered the committee, with all of its associated powers and duties in order to execute the charge given it by the chairperson.

II. When considering the issuance of a certificate or a petition of jurisdiction, a subcommittee shall have no fewer than 7 members. The 2 public members shall serve on each subcommittee with the remaining 5 or more members selected by the chairperson from among the state agency members of the committee. Each selected member may designate a senior administrative employee or staff attorney from his or her respective agency to sit in his or her place on the subcommittee. The chairperson shall designate one member or designee to be the presiding officer who shall be an attorney whenever possible. Five members of the subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the subcommittee's business.

III. In any matter not covered under paragraph II, the chairperson may establish subcommittees of 3 members, consisting of 2 state agency members and one public member. Each state agency member may designate a senior administrative employee or staff attorney from his or her agency to sit in his or her place on the subcommittee. The chairperson shall designate one member or designee to be the presiding officer who shall be an attorney whenever possible. Two members of the subcommittee shall constitute a quorum. Any party whose interests may be affected may object to the matter being assigned to a 3-person subcommittee no less than 14 days before the first hearing. If objection is received, the chairperson shall remove the matter from the 3-person subcommittee and either assign it to a subcommittee formed under paragraph II or have the full committee decide the matter.

Source. 2014, 217:11, eff. July 1, 2014. 2015, 219:9, eff. July 8, 2015.

App. 399

TITLE XII PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 162-H ENERGY FACILITY EVALUATION, SITING, CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION

Section 162-H:ll

162-H:ll Judicial Review.- Decisions made pursuant to this chapter shall be reviewable in accordance with RSA 541.

Source. 1991, 295:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992.

App.400

TITLE XII PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 162-H ENERGY FACILITY EVALUATION, SITING, CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION

Section 162-H:16

162-H:16 Findings and Certificate Issuance.-I. The committee shall incorporate in any certificate such terms and conditions as may be specified to the committee

by any of the state agencies having permitting or other regulatory authority, under state or federal law, to regulate any aspect of the construction or operation of the proposed facility; provided, however, the committee shall not issue any certificate under this chapter if any of the state agencies denies authorization for the proposed activity over which it has permitting or other regulatory authority. The denial of any such authorization shall be based on the record and explained in reasonable detail by the denying agency.

II. Any certificate issued by the site evaluation committee shall be based on the record. The decision to issue a certificate in its fmal form or to deny an application once it has been accepted shall be made by a majority of the full membership. A certificate shall be conclusive on all questions of siting, land use, air and water quality.

III. The committee may consult with interested regional agencies and agencies of border states in the consideration of certificates.

IV. After due consideration of all relevant information regarding the potential siting or routes of a proposed energy facility, including potential significant impacts and benefits, the site evaluation committee shall determine if issuance of a certificate will serve the objectives of this chapter. In order to issue a certificate, the committee shall fmd that:

(a) The applicant has adequate fmancial, technical, and managerial capability to assure construction and operation of the facility in continuing compliance with the terms and conditions of the certificate.

(b) The site and facility will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region with due consideration having been given to the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies.

(c) The site and facility will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural environment, and public health and safety.

(d) [Repealed.] (e) Issuance of a certificate will serve the public interest.

V. [Repealed.] VI. A certificate of site and facility may contain such reasonable terms and conditions, including but not limited to the

authority to require bonding, as the committee deems necessary and may provide for such reasonable monitoring procedures as may be necessary. Such certificates, when issued, shall be fmal and subject only to judicial review.

VII. The committee may condition the certificate upon the results of required federal and state agency studies whose study period exceeds the application period.

Source. 1991,295:1.2009,65:18-21,24, IX, eff. Aug. 8, 2009.2014,217:20-22, eff. July 1, 2014.2015,264:2, eff. July 20, 2015.

App. 401

TITLE LV PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASES

CHAPTER541 REHEARINGS AND APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES

Section 541:3

541:3 Motion for Rehearing.- Within 30 days after any order or decision has been made by the commission, any party to the action or proceeding before the commission, or any person directly affected thereby, may apply for a rehearing in respect to any matter determined in the action or proceeding, or covered or included in the order, specifying in the motion all grounds for rehearing, and the commission may grant such rehearing if in its opinion good reason for the rehearing is stated in the motion.

Source. 1913, 145:18. PL 239:1. 1937, 107:14; 133:75. RL 414:3. RSA 541:3. 1994,54:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995.

App. 402

TITLE LV PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASES

CHAPTER 54 I -REHEARINGS AND APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES

Section 541:6

541:6 Appeal.- Within thirty days after the application for a rehearing is denied, or, if the application is granted, then within thirty days after the decision on such rehearing, the applicant may appeal by petition to the supreme court.

Source. 1913, 145:18. PL 239:4. 1937, 107:17; 133:78. RL 414:6.

App. 403

TITLE LV PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASES

CHAPTER541 REHEARINGS AND APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES

Section 541:7

541:7 Petition.- Such petition shall state briefly the nature of the proceeding before the commission, and shall set forth the order or decision complained of, and the grounds upon which the same is claimed to be unlawful or unreasonable upon which the petitioner will rely in the supreme court.

Source. 1913, 145:18. PL 239:5. 1937, 107:18; 133:79. RL 414:7.

App. 404

TITLE LV PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASES

CHAPTER541 REHEARINGS AND APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES

Section 541:13

541:13 Burden of Proof. - Upon the hearing the burden of proof shall be upon the party seeking to set aside any order or decision of the commission to show that the same is clearly unreasonable or unlawful, and all fmdings of the commission upon all questions of fact properly before it shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable; and the order or decision appealed from shall not be set aside or vacated except for errors of law, unless the court is satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before it, that such order is unjust or unreasonable.

Source. 1913, 145:18. PL 239:11. 1937, 107:24; 133:85. RL 414:13.

App.405

TITLE LV PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASES

CHAPTER541 REHEARINGS AND APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES

Section 541:18

541:18 Suspension of Order.- No appeal or other proceedings taken from an order of the commission shall suspend the operation of such order; provided, that the supreme court may order a suspension of such order pending the determination of such appeal or other proceeding whenever, in the opinion of the court, justice may require such suspension; but no order of the public utilities commission providing for a reduction of rates, fares, or charges or denying a petition for an increase therein shall be suspended except upon conditions to be imposed by the court providing a means for securing the prompt repayment of all excess rates, fares, and charges over and above the rates, fares, and charges which shall be fmally determined to be reasonable and just.

Source. 1913, 145:18. PL 239:18. 1937, 107:31; 133:92. RL 414:20. 1951,203:16, eff. Sept. 1, 1951.

App. 406

TITLE LXIV PLANNING AND ZONING

CHAPTER674 LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATORY POWERS

Zoning Board of Adjustment and Building Code Board of Appeals

Section 674:33

674:33 Powers of Zoning Board of Adjustment.-I. The zoning board of adjustment shall have the power to:

(a) Hear and decide appeals if it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of any zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to RSA 674: 16; and

(b) Authorize, upon appeal in specific cases, a variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance if: (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; (3) Substantial justice is done; ( 4) The values of surrounding properties are not diminished; and (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship.

(A) For purposes of this subparagraph, "unnecessary hardship" means that, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:

(i) No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property; and

(ii) The proposed use is a reasonable one. (B) If the criteria in subparagraph (A) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if,

and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it.

The definition of "unnecessary hardship" set forth in subparagraph (5) shall apply whether the provision of the ordinance from which a variance is sought is a restriction on use, a dimensional or other limitation on a permitted use, or any other requirement of the ordinance.

I -a. Variances authorized under paragraph I shall be valid if exercised within 2 years from the date of fmal approval, or as further extended by local ordinance or by the zoning board of adjustment for good cause, provided that no such variance shall expire within 6 months after the resolution of a planning application filed in reliance upon the variance.

II. In exercising its powers under paragraph I, the zoning board of adjustment may reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination appealed from and may make such order or decision as ought to be made and, to that end, shall have all the powers of the administrative official from whom the appeal is taken.

III. The concurring vote of 3 members of the board shall be necessary to reverse any action of the administrative official or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter on which it is required to pass.

IV. A local zoning ordinance may provide that the zoning board of adjustment, in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, make special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance. All special exceptions shall be made in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and shall be in accordance with the general or specific rules contained in the ordinance. Special exceptions authorized under this paragraph shall be valid if exercised within 2 years from the date of fmal approval, or as further extended by local ordinance or by the zoning board of adjustment for good cause, provided that no such special exception shall expire within 6 months after the resolution of a planning application filed in reliance upon the special exception.

V. Notwithstanding subparagraph I(b ), any zoning board of adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of a App. 407

zoning ordinance without fmding a hardship arising from the condition of a premises subject to the ordinance, when reasonable accommodations are necessary to allow a person or persons with a recognized physical disability to reside in or regularly use the premises, provided that:

(a) Any variance granted under this paragraph shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance.

(b) In granting any variance pursuant to this paragraph, the zoning board of adjustment may provide, in a fmding included in the variance, that the variance shall survive only so long as the particular person has a continuing need to use the premises.

VI. The zoning board of adjustment shall not require submission of an application for or receipt of a permit or permits from other state or federal governmental bodies prior to accepting a submission for its review or rendering its decision.

VII. Neither a special exception nor a variance shall be required for a collocation or a modification of a personal wireless service facility, as defmed in RSA 12-K:2.

Source. 1983,447:1. 1985, 103:20. 1987,256:1. 1998,218:1.2009,307:6.2013,93:1,2, eff. Aug. 19, 2013; 267:9, eff. Sept. 22, 2013; 270:3, eff. Sept. 22, 2013.

App. 408

TITLE LXIV PLANNING AND ZONING

CHAPTER677 REHEARING AND APPEAL PROCEDURES

Appeal and Court Review of Planning Board Decisions

Section 677:15

677:15 Court Review.-I. Any persons aggrieved by any decision of the planning board concerning a plat or subdivision may present to the

superior court a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal or unreasonable in whole or in part and specifying the grounds upon which the same is claimed to be illegal or unreasonable. Such petition shall be presented to the court within 30 days after the date upon which the board voted to approve or disapprove the application; provided however, that if the petitioner shows that the minutes of the meeting at which such vote was taken, including the written decision, were not filed within 5 business days after the vote pursuant to RSA 676:3, II, the petitioner shall have the right to amend the petition within 30 days after the date on which the written decision was actually filed. This paragraph shall not apply to planning board decisions appealable to the board of adjustment pursuant to RSA 676:5, III. The 30-day time period shall be counted in calendar days beginning with the date following the date upon which the planning board voted to approve or disapprove the application, in accordance with RSA 21:35.

1-a. (a) If an aggrieved party desires to appeal a decision of the planning board, and if any of the matters to be appealed are appealable to the board of adjustment under RSA 676:5, III, such matters shall be appealed to the board of adjustment before any appeal is taken to the superior court under this section. If any party appeals any part of the planning board's decision to the superior court before all matters appealed to the board of adjustment have been resolved, the court shall stay the appeal until resolution of such matters. After the fmal resolution of all such matters appealed to the board of adjustment, any aggrieved party may appeal to the superior court, by petition, any or all matters concerning the subdivision or site plan decided by the planning board or the board of adjustment. The petition shall be presented to the superior court within 30 days after the board of adjustment's denial of a motion for rehearing under RSA 677:3, subject to the provisions of paragraph I.

(b) If, upon an appeal to the superior court under this section, the court determines, on its own motion within 30 days after delivery of proof of service of process upon the defendants, or on motion of any party made within the same period, that any matters contained in the appeal should have been appealed to the board of adjustment under RSA 676:5, III, the court shall issue an order to that effect, and shall stay proceedings on any remaining matters until fmal resolution of all matters before the board of adjustment. Upon such a determination by the superior court, the party who brought the appeal shall have 30 days to present such matters to the board of adjustment under RSA 676:5, Ill. Except as provided in this paragraph, no matter contained in the appeal shall be dismissed on the basis that it should have been appealed to the board of adjustment under RSA 676:5, Ill.

II. Upon presentation of such petition, the court may allow a certiorari order directed to the planning board to review such decision and shall prescribe therein the time within which return thereto shall be made and served upon the petitioner's attorney, which shall not be less than 10 days and may be extended by the court. The allowance of the order shall stay proceedings upon the decision appealed from. The planning board shall not be required to return the original papers acted upon by it; but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies thereof, or of such portions thereof as may be called for by such order. The return shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified.

III. If, upon the hearing, it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with the referee's findings of fact and conclusion of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made.

App. 409

IV. The court shall give any hearing under this section priority on the court calendar. V. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review when there is

an error of law or when the court is persuaded by the balance of probabilities, on the evidence before it, that said decision is unreasonable. Costs shall not be allowed against the municipality unless it shall appear to the court that the planning board acted in bad faith or with malice in making the decision appealed from.

Source. 1983,447:1. 1991,231:14. 1995,243:7,8. 2000, 144:4. 2005, 105:2. 2009,266:4.2013, 179:1, eff. Aug. 31, 2013.

App. 410

(1) A concise statement of the principal reasons for and against the adoption of the rule in its fmal form; and

(2) An explanation of why the committee overruled the arguments and considerations against the rule.

Source. #9183-B, eff6-17-08; ss by #10994, eff 12-16-15

CHAPTER Site 300 CERTIFICATES OF SITE AND FACILITY

PART Site 301 REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES

Site 301.01 Eiling.

(a) Each applicant for a certificate for an energy facility shall file with the committee one original and 15 paper copies of its application and an electronic version of its application in PDF format, unless otherwise directed by the chairperson or the administrator, after consultation by the chairperson or administrator with state agencies that are required to be provided a copy of the application under this chapter, in order to permit the timely and efficient review and adjudication of the application.

(b) The committee or the administrator shall:

(1) Acknowledge receipt of an application filed under Site 301.01(a) in writing directed to the applicant;

(2) Forward a copy of the application and acknowledgment to each member of the committee;

(3) Forward a copy of the application to each state agency required to receive a copy under Site 301.10(a) and (b); and

(4) Post a copy of each application on the committee's website.

Source. #9183-B, eff 6-17-08; ss by #10994, eff 12-16-15

Site 301.02 Foonat of Application.

(a) Paper copies of applications shall be prepared on standard 8 Y2 x 11 inch sheets, and plans, maps, photosimulations, and other oversized documents shall be folded to that size or rolled and provided in protective tubes. Electronic copies of applications shall be submitted through electronic mail, on compact discs, or in an electronic file format compatible with the computer system of the commission.

(b) Each application shall contain a table of contents.

(c) All information furnished shall appear in the same order as the requirements to provide that information appear in Site 301.03 through 301.09.

(d) If any numbered item is not applicable or the information is not available, an appropriate comment shall be made so that no numbered item shall remain unanswered.

(e) To the extent practicable, copies of applications shall be double-sided.

Source. #9183-B, eff6-17-08; ss by #10994, eff 12-16-15

Site 301.03 Contents of Application.

(a) Each application for a certificate of site and facility for an energy facility shall be signed and sworn to by the person, or by an authorized executive officer of the corporation, company, association, or other organization making such application.

(b) Each application shall include the information contained in this paragraph, and in (c) through (h) below, as follows:

(1) The name of the applicant;

(2) The applicant's mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address;

(3) The name and address of the applicant's parent company, association, or corporation, if the applicant is a subsidiary;

(4) If the applicant is a corporation: App. 411

a. The state of incorporation;

b. The corporation's principal place ofbusiness; and

c. The names and addresses of the corporation's directors, officers, and stockholders;

(5) If the applicant is a limited liability company:

a. The state of the company's organization;

b. The company's principal place ofbusiness; and

c. The names and addresses of the company's members, managers, and officers;

(6) If the applicant is an association, the names and addresses of the residences of the members of the association; and

(7) Whether the applicant is or will be the owner or lessee of the proposed facility or has or will have some other legal or business relationship to the proposed facility, including a description of that relationship.

(c) Each application shall contain the following information with respect to the site of the proposed energy facility and alternative locations the applicant considers available for the proposed facility:

(1) The location and address of the site of the proposed facility;

(2) Site acreage, shown on an attached property map and located by scale on a U.S. Geological Survey or GIS map;

(3) The location, shown on a map, of property lines, residences, industrial buildings, and other structures and improvements within the site, on abutting property with respect to the site, and within 100 feet of the site if such distance extends beyond the boundary of any abutting property;

( 4) Identification of wetlands and surface waters of the state within the site, on abutting property with respect to the site, and within 100 feet of the site if such distance extends beyond the boundary of any abutting property, except if and to the extent such identification is not possible due to lack of access to the relevant property and lack of other sources of the information to be identified;

(5) Identification of natural, historic, cultural, and other resources at or within the site, on abutting property with respect to the site, and within 100 feet of the site if such distance extends beyond the boundary of any abutting property, except if and to the extent such identification is not possible due to lack of access to the relevant property and lack of other sources of the information to be identified;

(6) Evidence that the applicant has a current right, an option, or other legal basis to acquire the right, to construct, operate, and maintain the facility on, over, or under the site, in the form of:

a. Ownership, ground lease, easement, or other contractual right or interest;

b. A license, permit, easement, or other permission from a federal, state, or local government agency, or an application for such a license, permit, easement, or other permission from a state governmental agency that is included with the application; or

c. The simultaneous filing of a federal regulatory proceeding or taking of other action that would, if successful, provide the applicant with a right of eminent domain to acquire control of the site for the purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining the facility thereon; and

(7) Evidence that the applicant has a current or conditional right of access to private property within the boundaries of the proposed energy facility site sufficient to accommodate a site visit by the committee, which private property, with respect to energy transmission pipelines under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, may be limited to the proposed locations of all above-ground structures and a representative sample of the proposed locations of underground structures or facilities.

(d) Each application shall include information about other required applications and permits as follows:

(1) Identification of all other federal and state government agencies having permitting or other regulatory authority,

App.412

under federal or state law, to regulate any aspect of the construction or operation of the proposed energy facility;

(2) Documentation that demonstrates compliance with the application requirements of all such agencies;

(3) A copy of the completed application form for each such agency; and

(4) Identification of any requests for waivers from the information requirements of any state agency or department having permitting or other regulatory authority whether or not such agency or department is represented on the committee.

(e) If the application is for an energy facility, including an energy transmission pipeline, that is not an electric generating facility or an electric transmission line, the application shall include:

(1) The type of facility being proposed;

(2) A description of the process to extract, produce, manufacture, transport or refine the source of energy;

(3) The facility's size and configuration;

(4) The ability to increase the capacity of the facility in the future;

(5) Raw materials used or transported, as follows:

a. An inventory, including amounts and specifications;

b. A plan for procurement, describing sources and availability; and

c. A description of the means of transportation;

(6) Production information, as follows:

a. An inventory of products and waste streams, including blowdown emissions from a high pressure gas pipeline;

b. The quantities and specifications of hazardous materials; and

c. Waste management plans;

(7) A map showing the entire energy facility, including, in the case of an energy transmission pipeline, the location of each compressor station, pumping station, storage facility, and other ancillary facilities associated with the energy facility, and the corridor width and length in the case of a proposed new route or widening along an existing route; and

(8) For a high pressure gas pipeline, the following information:

a. Construction information, including a description of the pipe to be used, depth of pipeline placement, type of fuel to be used to power any associated compressor station, and a description of any compressor station emergency shutdown system;

b. Proposed construction schedule, including start date and scheduled completion date;

c. Operation and maintenance information, including a description of measures to be taken to notify adjacent landowners and minimize sound during blowdown events;

d. Copy of any proposed plan application or other documentation required to be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in connection with construction and operation of the proposed facility; and

e. Copy of any environmental report, assessment or impact statement prepared by or on behalf of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when it becomes available.

(f) If the application is for an electric generating facility, the application shall include the following information:

(1) Make, model, and manufacturer of each turbine and generator unit;

(2) Capacity in megawatts, as designed and as intended for operation; App. 413

(3) Type of turbine and generator unit, including:

a. Fuel utilized;

b. Method of cooling condenser discharge; and

c. Unit efficiency;

(4) Any associated new substations, generator interconnection lines, and electric transmission lines, whether identified by the applicant or through a system impact study conducted by or on behalf of the interconnecting utility or ISO New England, Inc.;

(5) Copy of system impact study report for interconnection of the facility as prepared by or on behalf of ISO New England, Inc. or the interconnecting utility, if available at the time of application;

(6) Construction schedule, including start date and scheduled completion date; and

(7) Description of anticipated mode and frequency of operation of the facility.

(g) If the application is for an electric transmission line or an electric generating facility with an associated electric transmission or distribution line, the application shall include the following information:

(1) Location shown on U.S. Geological Survey Map;

(2) A map showing the entire electric transmission or distribution line project, including the height and location of each pole or tower, the distance between each pole or tower, and the location of each substation, switchyard, converter station, and other ancillary facilities associated with the project;

(3) Corridor width for:

a. New route; or

b. Widening along existing route;

( 4) Length ofline;

(5) Distance along new route;

(6) Distance along existing route;

(7) Voltage design rating;

(8) Any associated new electric generating unit or units;

(9) Type of construction described in detail;

(10) Construction schedule, including start date and scheduled completion date;

( 11) Copy of any proposed plan application or other system study request documentation required to be submitted to ISO New England, Inc. in connection with construction and operation of the proposed facility; and

(12) Copy of system impact study report for the proposed electric transmission facility as prepared by or on behalf of ISO New England, Inc. or the interconnecting utility, if available at the time of application.

(h) Each application for a certificate for an energy facility shall include the following:

(1) A detailed description of the type and size of each major part of the proposed facility;

(2) Identification of the applicant's preferred choice and other alternatives it considers available for the site and configuration of each major part of the proposed facility and the reasons for the preferred choice;

(3) Documentation that the applicant has held at least one public information session in each county where the proposed facility is to be located at least 30 days prior to filing its application, pursuant to RSA 162-H:lO, I and Site

App. 414

20.1.01;

(4) Documentation that written notification of the proposed facility, including copies of the application, has been given to the governing body of each municipality in which the facility is proposed to be located, and that written notification of the application filing, including information regarding means to obtain an electronic or paper version of the application, has been sent by first class mail to the governing body of each of the other affected communities;

(5) The information described in Sections 301.04 through 301.09;

(6) For a proposed wind energy facility, information regarding the cumulative impacts of the proposed facility on natural, wildlife, habitat, scenic, recreational, historic, and cultural resources, including, with respect to aesthetics, the potential impacts of combined observation, successive observation, and sequential observation of wind energy facilities by the viewer;

(7) Information describing how the proposed facility will be consistent with the public interest, including the specific criteria set forth in Site 301.16(a)-G); and

(8) Pre-filed testimony and exhibits supporting the application.

Source. #9183-B, eff 6-17-08; ss by #10994, eff 12-16-15; amd by #11156, eff 8-16-16

Site 301.04 Financial, Technical and Mana~rial Capability. Each application shall include a detailed description of the applicant's financial, technical, and managerial capability to construct and operate the proposed energy facility, as follows:

(a) Financial information shall include:

(1) A description of the applicant's experience financing other energy facilities;

(2) A description of the corporate structure of the applicant, including a chart showing the direct and indirect ownership of the applicant;

(3) A description of the applicant's fmancing plan for the proposed facility, including the amounts and sources of funds required for the construction and operation of the proposed facility;

(4) An explanation of how the applicant's financing plan compares with financing plans employed by the applicant or its affiliates, or, if no such plans have been employed by the applicant or its affiliates, then by unaffiliated project developers if and to the extent such information is publicly available, for energy facilities that are similar in size and type to the proposed facility, including any increased risks or costs associated with the applicant's financing plan; and

(5) Current and pro forma statements of assets and liabilities of the applicant;

(b) Technical information shall include:

(1) A description of the applicant's qualifications and experience in constructing and operating energy facilities, including projects similar to the proposed facility; and

(2) A description of the experience and qualifications of any contractors or consultants engaged or to be engaged by the applicant to provide technical support for the construction and operation of the proposed facility, if known at the time of application;

(c) Managerial information shall include:

(1) A description of the applicant's management structure for the construction and operation of the proposed facility, including an organizational chart for the applicant;

(2) A description of the qualifications of the applicant and its executive personnel to manage the construction and operation of the proposed facility; and

App. 415

(3) To the extent the applicant plans to rely on contractors or consultants for the construction and operation of the proposed facility, a description of the experience and qualifications of the contractors and consultants, if known at the time of application.

Source. #9183-B, eff6-17-08; ss by #10994, eff 12-16-15

Site 301.05 Effects on Aesthetics.

(a) Each application shall include a visual impact assessment of the proposed energy facility, prepared in a manner consistent with generally accepted professional standards by a professional trained or having experience in visual impact assessment procedures, regarding the effects of, and plans for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating potential adverse effects of, the proposed facility on aesthetics.

(b) The visual impact assessment shall contain the following components:

(1) A description and map depicting the locations of the proposed facility and all associated buildings, structures, roads, and other ancillary components, and all areas to be cleared and graded, that would be visible from any scenic resources, based on both bare ground conditions using topographic screening only and with consideration of screening by vegetation or other factors;

(2) A description of how the applicant identified and evaluated the scenic quality of the landscape and potential visual impacts;

(3) A narrative and graphic description, including maps and photographs, of the physiographic, historical and cultural features of the landscape surrounding the proposed facility to provide the context for evaluating any visual impacts;

( 4) A computer-based visibility analysis to determine the area of potential visual impact, which, for proposed:

a. Wind energy systems shall extend to a minimum of a 1 0-mile radius from each wind turbine in the proposed facility;

b. Electric transmission lines longer than 1 mile shall extend to a Y2 mile radius if located within any urbanized area;

c. Electric transmission lines longer than 1 mile shall extend to a 2 mile radius if located within any urban cluster;

d. Electric transmission lines longer than 1 mile iflocated within any rural area shall extend to:

1. A radius of 3 miles if the line would be located within an existing transmission corridor and neither the width of the corridor nor the height of any towers, poles, or other supporting structures would be increased; or

2. A radius of 10 miles if the line would be located in a new transmission corridor or in an existing transmission corridor if either or both the width of the corridor or the height of the towers, poles, or other supporting structures would be increased;

(5) An identification of all scenic resources within the area of potential visual impact and a description of those scenic resources from which the proposed facility would be visible;

(6) A characterization of the potential visual impacts of the proposed facility, and of any visible plume that would emanate from the proposed facility, on identified scenic resources as high, medium, or low, based on consideration of the following factors:

a The expectations of the typical viewer;

b. The effect on future use and enjoyment of the scenic resource;

c. The extent of the proposed facility, including all structures and disturbed areas, visible from the scenic resource;

d. The distance of the proposed facility from the scenic resource;

App.416

e. The horizontal breadth or visual arc of the visible elements of the proposed facility;

f. The scale, elevation, and nature of the proposed facility relative to surrounding topography and existing structures;

g. The duration and direction of the typical view of elements of the proposed facility; and

h. The presence of intervening topography between the scenic resource and elements of the proposed facility;

(7) Photosimulations from representative key observation points, from other scenic resources for which the potential visual impacts are characterized as "high" pursuant to (6) above, and, to the extent feasible, from a sample of private property observation points within the area of potential visual impact, to illustrate the potential change in the landscape that would result from construction of the proposed facility and associated infrastructure, including land clearing and grading and road construction, and from any visible plume that would emanate from the proposed facility;

(8) Photosimulations shall meet the following additional requirements:

a. Photographs used in the simulation shall be taken at high resolution and contrast, using a full frame digital camera with a 50 millimeter fixed focal length lens or digital equivalent that creates an angle of view that closely matches human visual perception, under clear weather conditions and at a time of day that provides optimal clarity and contrast, and shall avoid if feasible showing any utility poles, fences, walls, trees, shrubs, foliage, and other foreground objects and obstructions;

b. Photosimulations shall be printed at high resolution at 15.3 inches by10.2 inches, or 390 millimeters by 260 millimeters;

c. At least one set of photosimulations shall represent winter season conditions without the presence of foliage typical of other seasons;

d. Field conditions in which a viewpoint is photographed shall be recorded including:

1. Global Position System (GPS) location points with an accuracy of at least 3 meters for each simulation viewpoint to ensure repeat!lbility;

2. Camera make and model and lens focal length;

3. All camera settings at the time the photograph is taken; and

4. Date, time and weather conditions at the time the photograph is taken; and

e. When simulating the presence of proposed wind turbines, the following shall apply:

1. Turbines shall be placed with full frontal views and no haze or fog effect applied;

2. Turbines shall reasonably represent the shape of the intended turbines for a project including the correct hub height and rotor diameter;

3. Turbine blades shall be set at random angles with some turbines showing a blade in the 12 o'clock position; and

4. The lighting model used to render wind turbine elements shall correspond to the lighting visible in the base photograph;

(9) If the proposed facility is required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations to install aircraft warning lighting or if the proposed facility would include other nighttime lighting, a description and characterization of the potential visual impacts of this lighting, including the number of lights visible and their distance from key observation points; and

( 1 0) A description of the measures planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects of the proposed facility, and of any visible plume that would emanate from the proposed facility, and the alternative measures considered but rejected by the applicant.

Source. #9183-B, eff 6-17-08; ss by #10994, eff 12-16-15 App. 417

Site 301.06 Effects on Historic Sites. Each application shall include the following information regarding the identification of historic sites and plans for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating potential adverse effects of, the proposed energy facility on historic sites:

(a) Demonstration that project review of the proposed facility has been initiated for purposes of compliance with Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. §306108, or RSA 227-C:9, as applicable;

(b) Identification of all historic sites and areas of potential archaeological sensitivity located within the area of potential effects, as defined in 36 C.F.R. §800.16(d), available as noted in Appendix B;

(c) Finding or determination by the division of historical resources of the department of cultural resources and, if applicable, the lead federal agency, that no historic properties would be affected, that there would be no adverse effects, or that there would be adverse effects to historic properties, if such a finding or determination has been made prior to the time of application;

(d) Description of the measures planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects on historic sites and archaeological resources, and the alternative measures considered but rejected by the applicant; and

(e) Description of the status of the applicant's consultations with the division of historical resources of the department of cultural resources, and, if applicable, with the lead federal agency, and, to the extent known to the applicant, any consulting parties, as defmed in 36 C.F.R. §800.2(c), available as noted in Appendix B.

Source. #10994, eff 12-16-15

Site 301.07 Effects on Environment. Each application shall include the following information regarding the effects of, and plans for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating potential adverse effects of, the proposed energy facility on air quality, water quality, and the natural environment:

(a) Information including the applications and permits filed pursuant to Site 30 1.03( d) regarding issues of air quality;

(b) Information including the applications and permits filed pursuant to Site 301.03(d) regarding issues of water quality;

(c) Information regarding the natural environment, including the following:

( 1) Description of how the applicant identified significant wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities potentially affected by construction and operation of the proposed facility, including communications with and documentation received from the New Hampshire department of fish and game, the New Hampshire natural heritage bureau, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and any other federal or state agencies having permitting or other regulatory authority over fish, wildlife, and other natural resources;

(2) Identification of significant wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities potentially affected by construction and operation of the proposed facility;

(3) Identification of critical wildlife habitat and significant habitat resources potentially affected by construction and operation of the proposed facility;

(4) Assessment of potential impacts of construction and operation of the proposed facility on significant wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities, and on critical wildlife habitat and significant habitat resources, including fragmentation or other alteration of terrestrial or aquatic significant habitat resources;

(5) Description of the measures planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse impacts of construction and operation of the proposed facility on wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities, and on critical wildlife habitat and significant habitat resources, and the alternative measures considered but rejected by the applicant; and

(6) Description of the status of the applicant's discussions with the New Hampshire department offish and game, the New Hampshire natural heritage bureau, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and any other federal or state agencies having permitting or other regulatory authority over fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.

Source. #10994, eff 12-16-15

App. 418

Site 301.08 Effects on Public Health and Safety. Each application shall include the following information regarding the effects of, and plans for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating potential adverse effects of, the proposed energy facility on public health and safety:

(a) For proposed wind energy systems:

(1) A sound impact assessment prepared in accordance with professional standards by an expert in the field, which assessment shall include the reports of a preconstruction sound background study and a sound modeling study, as specified in Site 301.18;

(2) An assessment that identifies the astronomical maximum as well as the anticipated hours per year of shadow flicker expected to be perceived at each residence, learning space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area, other occupied building, and roadway, within a minimum of 1 mile of any turbine, based on shadow flicker modeling that assumes an impact distance of at least 1 mile from each of the turbines;

(3) Description of planned setbacks that indicate the distance between each wind turbine and the nearest landowner's existing building and property line, and between each wind turbine and the nearest public road and overhead or underground energy infrastructure or energy transmission pipeline within 2 miles of such wind turbine, and explain why the indicated distances are adequate to protect the public from risks associated with the operation of the proposed wind energy facility;

( 4) An assessment of the risks of ice throw, blade shear, and tower collapse on public safety, including a description of the measures taken or planned to avoid or minimize the occurrence of such events, if necessary, and the alternative measures considered but rejected by the applicant;

( 5) Description of the lightning protection system planned for the proposed facility;

(6) Description of any determination made by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding whether any hazard to aviation is expected from any of the wind turbines included in the proposed facility, and describe the Federal Aviation Administration's lighting, turbine color, and other requirements for the wind turbines;

(7) A decommissioning plan prepared by an independent, qualified person with demonstrated knowledge and experience in wind generation projects and cost estimates, which plan shall provide for removal of all structures and restoration of the facility site;

(8) The decommissioning plan required under (7) above shall include each of the following:

a. A description of sufficient and secure funding to implement the plan, which shall not account for the anticipated salvage value of facility components or materials;

b. The provision of financial assurance in the form of an irrevocable standby letter of credit, performance bond, surety bond, or unconditional payment guaranty executed by a parent company of the facility owner maintaining at all times an investment grade credit rating;

c. All turbines, including the blades, nacelles and towers, shall be disassembled and transported off-site;

d. All transformers shall be transported off-site;

e. The overhead power collection conductors and the power poles shall be removed from the site;

f. All underground infrastructure at depths less than four feet below grade shall be removed from the site and all underground infrastructure at depths greater than four feet below finished grade shall be abandoned in place; and

g. Areas where subsurface components are removed shall be filled, graded to match adjacent contours, reseeded, stabilized with an appropriate seed and allowed tore-vegetate naturally;

(9) A plan for fire protection for the proposed facility prepared by or in consultation with a fire safety expert; and

(1 0) An assessment of the risks that the proposed facility will interfere with the weather radars used for severe storm warning or any local weather radars.

(b) For electric transmission facilities, an assessment of electric and magnetic fields generated by the proposed facility and

App. 419

the potential impacts of such fields on public health and safety, based on established scientific knowledge, and an assessment of the risks of collapse of the towers, poles, or other supporting structures, and the potential adverse effects of any such collapse.

(c) For high pressure gas pipelines:

(1) A comprehensive health impact assessment prepared by an independent health and safety expert in accordance with nationally recognized standards, and specifically designed to identify and evaluate potential short-term and long­term human health impacts by identifying potential pathways for facility-related contaminants to harm human health, quantifying the cumulative risks posed by any contaminants, and recommending necessary avoidance, minimization, or mitigation;

(2) A sound and vibration impact assessment prepared by an independent expert in the field, in accordance with ANSIIASA S12.9-2013 Part 3 for short-term monitoring and with ANSI S12.9-1992 2013 Part 2 for long-term monitoring, including the reports of a preconstruction sound and vibration background study and a sound and vibration modeling study;

(3) A description of planned setbacks that indicate the distance between:

a. The proposed high pressure gas pipeline and existing buildings on, and the boundaries of, abutting properties;

b. Any associated compressor station and schools, day-care centers, health care facilities, residences, residential neighborhoods, places of worship, elderly care facilities, and farms within a one mile radius; and

c. The proposed high pressure gas pipeline and any overhead or underground electric transmission line within 112 mile;

(4) An explanation of why the setbacks described by the applicant in response to (3), above, are adequate to protect the public from risks associated with the operation of the high pressure gas pipeline; and

(5) A description of all permanently installed exterior lighting at compressor stations and how it complies with Site 301.14(f)(5)c.

(d) For all energy facilities:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in (a)(l) above, an assessment of operational sound associated with the proposed facility, if the facility would involve use of equipment that might reasonably be expected to increase sound by 10 decibel A-weighted (dBA) or more over background levels, measured at the L-90 sound level, at the property boundary of the proposed facility site or, in the case of an electric transmission line or an energy transmission pipeline, at the edge of the right-of-way or the edge of the property boundary if the proposed facility, or portion thereof, will be located on land owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant or an affiliate of the applicant;

(2) A facility decommissioning plan prepared by an independent, qualified person with demonstrated knowledge and experience in similar energy facility projects and cost estimates; the decommissioning plan shall include each of the following:

a. A description of sufficient and secure funding to implement the plan, which shall not account for the anticipated salvage value of facility components or materials;

b. The provision of financial assurance in the form of an irrevocable standby letter of credit, performance bond, surety bond, or unconditional payment guaranty executed by a parent company of the facility owner maintaining at all times an investment grade credit rating;

c. All transformers shall be transported off-site; and

d. All underground infrastructure at depths less than four feet below grade shall be removed from the site and all underground infrastructure at depths greater than four feet below finished grade shall be abandoned in place;

(3) A plan for fire safety prepared by or in consultation with a fire safety expert;

(4) A plan for emergency response to the proposed facility site; and

(5) A description of any additional measures taken or planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate public health and safety

App. 420

impacts that would result from the construction and operation of the proposed facility, and the alternative measures considered but rejected by the applicant.

Source. #10994, eff 12-16-15; amd by #11156, eff8-16-16

Site 301.09 Effects on Orderly Development ofRe2ion. Each application shall include information regarding the effects of the proposed energy facility on the orderly development of the region, including the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies regarding the proposed facility, if such views have been expressed in writing, and master plans of the affected communities and zoning ordinances of the proposed facility host municipalities and unincorporated places, and the applicant's estimate of the effects of the construction and operation of the facility on:

(a) Land use in the region, including the following:

(1) A description of the prevailing land uses in the affected communities; and

(2) A description ofhow the proposed facility is consistent with such land uses and identification of how the proposed facility is inconsistent with such land uses;

(b) The economy of the region, including an assessment of:

(1) The economic effect of the facility on the affected communities;

(2) The economic effect of the proposed facility on in-state economic activity during construction and operation periods;

(3) The effect of the proposed facility on State tax revenues and the tax revenues of the host and regional communities;

(4) The effect of the proposed facility on real estate values in the affected communities;

(5) The effect of the proposed facility on tourism and recreation; and

( 6) The effect of the proposed facility on community services and infrastructure;

(c) Employment in the region, including an assessment of:

(1) The number and types of full-time equivalent local jobs expected to be created, preserved, or otherwise affected by the construction of the proposed facility, including direct construction employment and indirect employment induced by facility-related wages and expenditures; and

(2) The number and types of full-time equivalent jobs expected to be created, preserved, or otherwise affected by the operation of the proposed facility, including direct employment by the applicant and indirect employment induced by facility-related wages and expenditures.

Source. #10994, eff12-16-15

Site 301. 10 Completeness Review and Acceptance of Applications for Energy Facilities.

(a) Upon the filing of an application for an energy facility, the committee shall forward to each of the other state agencies having permitting or other regulatory authority, under state or federal law, to regulate any aspect of the construction or operation of the proposed facility, a copy of the application for the agency's review as described in RSA 162-H:7, IV.

(b) The committee also shall forward a copy of the application to the department offish and game, the department ofhealth and human services, the division of historical resources of the department of cultural resources, the natural heritage bureau, the governor's office of energy and planning, and the division of fire safety of the department of safety, unless any such agency or office has been forwarded a copy of the application under (a) above.

(c) Upon receiving an application, the committee shall conduct a preliminary review to ascertain if the application contains sufficient information for the committee to review the application under RSA 162-H and these rules.

(d) Each state agency having permitting or other regulatory authority shall have 45 days from the time the committee forwards the application to notify the committee in writing whether the application contains sufficient information for its purposes.

App. 421

(e) Within 60 days after the filing of the application, the committee shall determine whether the application is administratively complete and has been accepted for review.

(f) If the committee determines that an application is administratively incomplete, it shall notify the applicant in writing, specifying each of the areas in which the application has been deemed incomplete.

(g) If the applicant is notified that its application is administratively incomplete, the applicant may file a new and more complete application or complete the filed application by curing the specified defects within I 0 days of the applicant's receipt of notification of incompleteness.

(h) If, within the 10-day time frame, the applicant files a new and more complete application or completes the filed application, in either case curing the defects specified in the notification of incompleteness, the committee shall, no later than 14 days after receipt of the new or completed application, accept the new or completed application.

(i) If the new application is not complete or the specified defects in the filed application remain uncured, the committee shall notify the applicant in writing of its rejection of the application and instruct the applicant to file a new application.

Source. #10994, eff 12-16-15

Site 301.11 Exemption Detenuination.

(a) Within 60 days of acceptance of an application or the filing of a petition for exemption, the committee shall exempt the applicant from the approval and certificate provisions ofRSA 162-H and these rules, if the committee fmds that:

(1) Existing state or federal statutes, state or federal agency rules or municipal ordinances provide adequate protection of the objectives set forth in RSA 162-H:1;

(2) Consideration of the proposed energy facility by only selected agencies represented on the committee is required and the objectives ofRSA 162-H:1 can be met by those agencies without exercising the provisions ofRSA 162-H;

(3) Response to the application or request for exemption from the general public, provided through written submissions or in the adjudicative proceeding provided for in (b) below, indicates that the objectives of RSA 162-H:1 are met through the individual review processes of the participating agencies; and

(4) All environmental impacts or effects are adequately regulated by other federal, state, or local statutes, rules, or ordinances.

(b) The committee shall make the determination described in (a) above after conducting an adjudicative proceeding that includes a public hearing held in a county where the energy facility is proposed to be located.

Source. #10994, eff 12-16-15

Site 301.12 Tjmeframe for Application Review.

(a) Pursuant to RSA 162-H:7, VI-b, each state agency having permitting or other regulatory authority over the proposed energy facility shall report its progress to the committee within 150 days after application acceptance, outlining draft permit conditions and specifying additional data requirements necessary to make a final decision on the parts of the application that relate to its permitting or other regulatory authority.

(b) Pursuant to RSA 162-H:7, VI-c, each state agency having permitting or other regulatory authority over the proposed energy facility shall make and submit to the committee a final decision on the parts of the application that relate to its permitting and other regulatory authority, no later than 240 days after application acceptance.

(c) Pursuant to RSA 162-H:7, VI-d, the committee shall issue or deny a certificate for an energy facility within 365 days after application acceptance.

(d) Pursuant to RSA 162-H:l4, I, the committee shall temporarily suspend its deliberations and the time frames set forth in this section at any time while an application is pending before the committee, if it fmds that such suspension is in the public interest.

Source. #10994, eff 12-16-15

App. 422

Site 301.13 Criteria Relative to Findin~s ofFinancial. Technical. and Maoa~erial Capability.

(a) In determining whether an applicant has the fmancial capability to construct and operate the proposed energy facility, the committee shall consider:

(I) The applicant's experience in securing funding to construct and operate energy facilities similar to the proposed facility;

(2) The experience and expertise of the applicant and its advisors, to the extent the applicant is relying on advisors;

(3) The applicant's statements of current and pro forma assets and liabilities; and

(4) Financial commitments the applicant has obtained or made in support of the construction and operation of the proposed facility.

(b) In determining whether an applicant has the technical capability to construct and operate the proposed facility, the committee shall consider:

(1) The applicant's experience in designing, constructing, and operating energy facilities similar to the proposed facility; and

(2) The experience and expertise of any contractors or consultants engaged or to be engaged by the applicant to provide technical support for the construction and operation of the proposed facility, if known at the time.

(c) In determining whether an applicant has the managerial capability to construct and operate the proposed facility, the committee shall consider:

(1) The applicant's experience in managing the construction and operation of energy facilities similar to the proposed facility; and

(2) The experience and expertise of any contractors or consultants engaged or to be engaged by the applicant to provide managerial support for the construction and operation of the proposed facility, if known at the time.

Source. #10994, effl2-16-15

Site 301.14 Criteria Relative to Findio~s of Unreasonable Adverse Effects.

(a) In determining whether a proposed energy facility will have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, the committee shall consider:

(1) The existing character of the area of potential visual impact;

(2) The significance of affected scenic resources and their distance from the proposed facility;

(3) The extent, nature, and duration of public uses of affected scenic resources;

(4) The scope and scale of the change in the landscape visible from affected scenic resources;

(5) The evaluation of the overall daytime and nighttime visual impacts of the facility as described in the visual impact assessment submitted by the applicant and other relevant evidence submitted pursuant to Site 202.24;

(6) The extent to which the proposed facility would be a dominant and prominent feature within a natural or cultural landscape of high scenic quality or as viewed from scenic resources of high value or sensitivity; and

(7) The effectiveness of the measures proposed by the applicant to avoid, minimize, or mitigate unreasonable adverse effects on aesthetics, and the extent to which such measures represent best practical measures.

(b) In detennining whether a proposed energy facility will have an unreasonable adverse effect on historic sites, the committee shall consider:

(1) All of the historic sites and archaeological resources potentially affected by the proposed facility and any

App. 423

anticipated potential adverse effects on such sites and resources;

(2) The number and significance of any adversely affected historic sites and archeological resources, taking into consideration the size, scale, and nature of the proposed facility;

(3) The extent, nature, and duration of the potential adverse effects on historic sites and archeological resources;

(4) Findings and determinations by the New Hampshire division of historical resources of the department of cultural resources and, if applicable, the lead federal agency, of the proposed facility's effects on historic sites as determined under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. §306108, or RSA 227-C:9; and

(5) The effectiveness of the measures proposed by the applicant to avoid, minimize, or mitigate unreasonable adverse effects on historic sites and archaeological resources, and the extent to which such measures represent best practical measures.

(c) In determining whether a proposed energy facility will have an unreasonable adverse effect on air quality, the committee shall consider the determinations of the New Hampshire department of environmental services with respect to applications or permits identified in Site 30 1.03( d) and other relevant evidence submitted pursuant to Site 202.24.

(d) In determining whether a proposed energy facility will have an unreasonable adverse effect on water quality, the committee shall consider the determinations of the New Hampshire department of environmental services, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and other state or federal agencies having permitting or other regulatory authority, under state or federal law, to regulate any aspect of the construction or operation of the proposed facility, with respect to applications and permits identified in Site 301.03(d), and other relevant evidence submitted pursuant to Site 202.24.

(e) In determining whether construction and operation of a proposed energy facility will have an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment, including wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities, the committee shall consider:

(1) The significance of the affected resident and migratory fish and wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities, including the size, prevalence, dispersal, migration, and viability of the populations in or using the area;

(2) The nature, extent, and duration of the potential effects on the affected resident and migratory fish and wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities;

(3) The nature, extent, and duration of the potential fragmentation or other alteration of terrestrial or aquatic significant habitat resources or migration corridors;

(4) The analyses and recommendations, if any, of the department of fish and game, the natural heritage bureau, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies authorized to identify and manage significant wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities;

(5) The effectiveness of measures undertaken or planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects on the affected wildlife species, rare plants, rare natural communities, and other exemplary natural communities, and the extent to which such measures represent best practical measures;

(6) The effectiveness of measures undertaken or planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects on terrestrial or aquatic significant habitat resources, and the extent to which such measures represent best practical measures; and

(7) Whether conditions should be included in the certificate for post-construction monitoring and reporting and for adaptive management to address potential adverse effects that cannot reliably be predicted at the time of application.

(f) In determining whether a proposed energy facility will have an unreasonable adverse effect on public health and safety, the committee shall:

(1) For all energy facilities, consider the information submitted pursuant to Site 301.08 and other relevant evidence submitted pursuant to Site 202.24, the potential adverse effects of construction and operation of the proposed facility on public health and safety, the effectiveness of measures undertaken or planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such potential adverse effects, and the extent to which such measures represent best practical measures;

App. 424

(2) For wind energy systems, apply the following standards:

a. With respect to sound standards, the A-weighted equivalent sound levels produced by the applicant's energy facility during operations shall not exceed the greater of 45 dBA or 5 dBA above background levels, measured at the L-90 sound level, between the hours of 8:00a.m. and 8:00p.m. each day, and the greater of 40 dBA or 5 dBA above background levels, measured at the L-90 sound level, at all other times during each day, as measured using microphone placement at least 7.5 meters from any surface where reflections may influence measured sound pressure levels, on property that is used in whole or in part for permanent or temporary residential purposes, at a location between the nearest building on the property used for such purposes and the closest wind turbine; and

b. With respect to shadow flicker, the shadow flicker created by the applicant's energy facility during operations shall not occur more than 8 hours per year at or within any residence, learning space, workplace, health care setting, outdoor or indoor public gathering area, or other occupied building;

(3) For wind energy systems, consider the proximity and use of buildings, property lines, public roads, and overhead and underground energy infrastructure and energy transmission pipelines, the risks of ice throw, blade shear, tower collapse, and other potential adverse effects of facility operation, and the effectiveness of measures undertaken or planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such potential adverse effects, and the extent to which such measures represent best practical measures;

(4) For electric transmission lines, consider the proximity and use of buildings, property lines, and public roads, the risks of collapse of towers, poles, or other supporting structures, the potential impacts on public health and safety of electric and magnetic fields generated by the proposed facility, and the effectiveness of measures undertaken or planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such potential adverse effects, and the extent to which such measures represent best practical measures;

(5) For high pressure gas pipelines, apply the following standards:

a. With respect to sound standards for interstate pipelines, the noise attributable to any new compressor station, compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade or update of an existing station, shall not exceed a day-night sound level (Ldn) of 55 dBA at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area, such as schools, hospitals, or residences, as provided in 18 CFR §380.12(k), available as noted in Appendix B;

b. With respect to sound standards for intrastate pipelines, the noise attributable to any new compressor station, compression added to an existing station, or any modification, upgrade or update of an existing station, shall not exceed the standards set forth in (2)a., above, regarding wind energy systems;

c. With respect to vibration, compressor stations or modifications of existing compressor stations shall not result in a perceptible increase in vibration at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area, such as schools, hospitals, or residences, as provided in 18 CFR §380.12(k), available as noted in Appendix B, or a level of 2.0 peak particle velocity, whichever is less;

d. With respect to exterior lighting at compressor stations, no light shall be projected above the horizontal plane or projected beyond the property lines;

e. With respect to pipeline construction and safety, the requirements in Puc 506 and Puc 508 for a class 4 location in a high consequence area, as those terms are defined in 49 CFR §192.5(b)(4) and 49 CFR §192.903, available as noted in Appendix B, respectively; and

(6) For high pressure gas pipelines, consider:

a. The results of the comprehensive health impact assessment;

b. The proximity of electric transmission lines to the high pressure gas pipeline;

c. The proximity of any compressor station to schools, day-care centers, health care facilities, residences, residential neighborhoods, places of worship, elderly care facilities, and farms;

d. The effectiveness of measures undertaken or planned to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such potential adverse effects; and

App. 425

e. The extent to which the measures in d. represent best practical measures.

Source. #10994, eff 12-16-15; amd by #11156, effS-16-16

Site 301.15 Criteria Relative to a Findini of Undue Interference. In determining whether a proposed energy facility will unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region, the committee shall consider:

(a) The extent to which the siting, construction, and operation of the proposed facility will affect land use, employment, and the economy of the region;

(b) The provisions of, and financial assurances for, the proposed decommissioning plan for the proposed facility; and

(c) The views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies regarding the proposed facility.

Source. # 1 0994, eff 12-16-15

Site 301.16 Criteria Relative to Finding of Public Interest. In determining whether a proposed energy facility will serve the public interest, the committee shall consider:

(a) The welfare of the population;

(b) Private property;

(c) The location and growth of industry;

(d) The overall economic growth ofthe state;

(e) The environment of the state;

(f) Historic sites;

(g) Aesthetics;

(h) Air and water quality;

(i) The use of natural resources; and

(j) Public health and safety.

Source. #10994, eff12-16-15

Site 301.17 Conditions of Certificate. In determining whether a certificate shall be issued for a proposed energy facility, the committee shall consider whether the following conditions should be included in the certificate in order to meet the objectives of RSA 162-H:

(a) A requirement that the certificate holder promptly notify the committee of any proposed or actual change in the ownership or ownership structure of the holder or its affiliated entities and request approval of the committee of such change;

(b) A requirement that the certificate holder promptly notify the committee of any proposed or actual material change in the location, configuration, design, specifications, construction, operation, or equipment components of the energy facility subject to the certificate and request approval of the committee of such change;

(c) A requirement that the certificate holder continue consultations with the New Hampshire division of historical resources of the department of cultural resources and, if applicable, the federal lead agency, and comply with any agreement or memorandum of understanding entered into with the New Hampshire division of historical resources of the department of cultural resources and, if applicable, the federal lead agency;

(d) Delegation to the administrator or another state agency or official of the authority to monitor the construction or operation of the energy facility subject to the certificate and to ensure that related terms and conditions of the certificate are met;

(e) Delegation to the administrator or another state agency or official of the authority to specify the use of any technique, methodology, practice, or procedure approved by the committee within the certificate and with respect to any permit, license, or

App. 426

approval issued by a state agency having permitting or other regulatory authority;

(f) Delegation to the administrator or another state agency or official of the authority to specify minor changes in route alignment to the extent that such changes are authorized by the certificate for those portions of a proposed electric transmission line or energy transmission pipeline for which information was unavailable due to conditions which could not have been reasonably anticipated prior to the issuance of the certificate;

(g) A requirement that the energy facility be sited subject to setbacks or operate with designated safety zones in order to avoid, mitigate, or minimize potential adverse effects on public health and safety;

(h) Other conditions necessary to ensure construction and operation of the energy facility subject to the certificate in conformance with the specifications of the application; and

(i) Any other conditions necessary to serve the objectives ofRSA 162-H or to support fmdings made pursuant to RSA 162-H:16.

Source. #10994, eff12-16-15

Site 301.18 Sound Study Methodoloi:Y.

(a) The methodology for conducting a preconstruction sound background study for a wind energy system shall include:

(1) Adherence to the standard of ANSVASA S12.9-2013 Part 3, available as noted in Appendix B, a standard that requires short-term attended measurements;

(2) Long-term unattended monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the standard of ANSI S12.9-1992 2013 Part 2, available as noted in Appendix B, provided that audio recordings are taken in order to clearly identify and remove transient noises from the data, with frequencies above 1250 hertz 113 octave band to be filtered out of the data;

(3) Measurements shall be conducted at the nearest properties from the proposed wind turbines that are representative of all residential properties within 2 miles of any turbine; and

(4) Sound measurements shall be omitted when the wind velocity is greater than 4 meters per second at the microphone position, when there is rain, or with temperatures below instrumentation minima; following the protocol of ANSI S12.9-2013 Part 3, available as noted in Appendix B:

a. Microphones shall be placed 1 to 2 meters above ground level, and at least 7.5 meters from any reflective surface;

b. A windscreen of the type recommended by the monitoring instrument's manufacturer must be used for all data collection;

c. Microphones should be field-calibrated before and after measurements; and

d. An anemometer shall be located within close proximity to each microphone.

(b) Pre-construction sound reports shall include a map or diagram clearly showing the following:

(1) Layout of the project area, including topography, project boundary lines, and property lines;

(2) Locations of the sound measurement points;

(3) Distance between any sound measurement point and the nearest wind turbine;

( 4) Location of significant local non-turbine sound and vibration sources;

(5) Distance between all sound measurement points and significant local sound sources;

( 6) Location of all sensitive receptors including schools, day-care centers, health care facilities, residences, residential neighborhoods, places of worship, and elderly care facilities;

(7) Indication of temperature, weather conditions, sources of ambient sound, and prevailing wind direction and speed for the monitoring period; and

App. 427

(8) Final report shall provide A-weighted and C-weighted sound levels for L-10, Leq, and L-90.

(c) The predictive sound modeling study shall:

(1) Be conducted in accordance with the standards and specifications ofiSO 9613-2 1996-12-15, available as noted in Appendix B;

(2) Include an adjustment to the Leq sound level produced by the model applied in order to adjust for turbine manufacturer uncertainty, such adjustment to be determined in accordance with the most recent release of the IEC 61400 Part 11 standard (Edition 3.0 2012-11 ), available as noted in Appendix B;

(3) Include predictions to be made at all properties within 2 miles from the project wind turbines for the wind speed and operating mode that would result in the worst case wind turbine sound emissions during the hours before 8:00 a.m. and after 8:00 p.m. each day; and

(4) Incorporate other corrections for model algorithm error to be disclosed and accounted for in the model.

(d) The predictive sound modeling study report shall:

(1) Include the results of the modeling described in (c)(3) above as well as a map with sound contour lines showing dB A sound emitted from the proposed wind energy system at 5 dBA intervals;

(2) Include locations out to 2 miles from any wind turbine included in the proposed facility; and

(3) Show proposed wind turbine locations and the location of all sensitive receptors, including schools, day-care centers, health care facilities, residences, residential neighborhoods, places of worship, and elderly care facilities.

(e) Post-construction noise compliance monitoring shall include:

(1) Adherence to the standard of ANSIIASA S12.9-2013 Part 3, available as noted in Appendix B, that requires short­term attended measurements to ensure transient noises are removed from the data, and measurements shall include at least one nighttime hour where turbines are operating at full sound power with winds less than 3 meters per second at the microphone;

(2) Unattended long-term monitoring shall also be conducted;

(3) Sound measurements shall be omitted when there is rain, or when temperatures are below instrumentation minima, and shall comply with the following additional specifications:

a. Microphones shall be placed 1 to 2 meters above ground level and at least 7.5 meters from any reflective surface, following the protocols of ANSIIASA 812.9-2013 Part 3, available as noted in Appendix B;

b. Proper microphone screens shall be required;

c. Microphones shall be field-calibrated before and after measurements; and

d. An anemometer shall be located within close proximity to each microphone;

( 4) Monitoring shall involve measurements being made with the turbines in both operating and non-operating modes, and supervisory control and data acquisition system data shall be used to record hub height wind speed and turbine power output;

(5) Locations shall be pre-selected where noise measurements will be taken that shall be the same locations at which predictive sound modeling study measurements were taken pursuant to subsection (c) above, and the measurements shall be performed at night with winds above 4.5 meters per second at hub height and less than 3 meters per second at ground level;

(6) All sound measurements during post-construction monitoring shall be taken at 0.125-second intervals measuring both fast response and Leq metrics; and

(7) Post-construction monitoring surveys shall be conducted once within 3 months of commissioning and once during each season thereafter for the first year, provided that:

App. 428

a. Additional surveys shall be conducted at the request of the committee or the administrator; and

b. Adjustments to this schedule shall be permitted, subject to review by the committee or the administrator.

(f) Post-construction sound monitoring reports shall include a map or diagram clearly showing the following:

(1) Layout of the project area, including topography, project boundary lines, and property lines;

(2) Locations of the sound measurement points; and

(3) Distance between any sound measurement point and the nearest wind turbine.

(g) For each sound measurement period during post-construction monitoring, reports shall include each of the following measurements:

(1) LAeq, LA-10, and LA-90; and

(2) LCeq, LC-10, and LC-90.

(h) Noise emissions shall be free of audible tones, and if the presence of a pure tone frequency is detected, a 5 dB penalty shall be added to the measured dBA sound level.

(i) Validation of noise complaints submitted to the committee shall require field sound surveys, except as determined by the administrator to be unwarranted, which field studies shall be conducted under the same meteorological conditions as occurred at the time of the alleged exceedance that is the subject of the complaint.

Source. # 1 0994, eff 12-16-15

PART Site 302 ENFORCEMENT OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Site 302.01 Determination of Certificate Violation.

(a) Whenever the committee or the administrator as designee determines, on its own or in response to a complaint, that any term or condition of an issued certificate is being violated, it shall give written notice to the person holding the certificate of the specific violation and order the person to immediately terminate the violation.

(b) The administrator or another designated representative of the committee shall have the authority to inspect and monitor the construction and operation of the energy facility subject to the certificate.

(c) If the person holding the certificate has failed or neglected to terminate a specified violation within 15 days after receipt of the notice and order issued pursuant to (a) above, the committee shall commence a proceeding to suspend the person's certificate.

(d) Except in the case of an emergency, the committee shall give written notice of its consideration of suspension and of its reasons for consideration of suspension and shall provide an opportunity for an adjudicative hearing pursuant to Site 201 with respect to the proposed suspension.

(e) Except in the case of an emergency, the committee shall provide 14 days prior written notice of the hearing referred to in (d) above to the holder of the certificate and to the complainant, if any.

(f) If the committee determines following the adjudicative proceeding that a certificate violation has occurred and is continuing, the committee shall issue an order that suspends the holder's certificate until such time as the violation has been corrected if the committee determines, after due consideration of any mitigating circumstances and a determination of whether suspension is in the best interests of the public, or would result in an inability to assure that the state has an adequate and reliable supply of energy in confonnance with sound environmental principles, that the following criteria have been met:

(1) The violation will not be terminated within 30 days from the date of the committee's decision; and

(2) The violation will have an unreasonable adverse effect pursuant to Site 301.14 on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural environment, or public health and safety.

Source #9183-B, eff 6-17-08; ss by #10994, eff 12-16-15; amd by #11156, eff 8-

App. 429

I.

II.

III.

IV.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE

Docket No. 2012-01

Re: Application of Antrim Wind Energy, LLC for a Certificate of Site and Facility for a Renewable Energy Facility Proposed to be Located in Antrim, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF SITE AND FACILITY

April25, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

THE APPLICATION

A. The Application and Supplements B. Summary of the Application

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. Applicant B. Counsel for the Public c. Town of Antrim D. Antrim Planning Board E. Antrim Conservation Commission F. Stoddard Conservation Commission G. Audubon Society ofNew Hampshire H. Harris Center for Conservation Education I. Industrial Wind Action Group J. Appalachian Mountain Club K. Gregg Lake Association L. Abutting Landowners Group of Intervenors M. North Branch Residents Group of Intervenors N. Edwards/ Allen Group of Intervenors

Page 1 of71

4

4

9

9 10

13

13 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19

App.430

v. DELIBERATIONS 20

A. The Subcommittee Deliberation Process 20

B. State Agency Permits and Reports 21

1. Wetlands Permit 21 2. Alteration of Terrain Permit/§401 Water Quality 22 3. Subsurface Systems Permit 23 4. Driveway Permit 23 5. Aviation Permits 24 6. Historical Resources 24 7. State Fire Marshal 25 8. Natural Heritage Bureau 25 9. New Hampshire Fish & Game Department 26

c. Alternatives Analysis 26

D. Applicant's Financial, Technical and Managerial Capability 29

1. Technical and Managerial Capability 29 a. Positions of the Parties 29 b. Subcommittee Deliberations 35

2. Financial Capability 35 a. Positions of the Parties 35 b. Subcommittee Deliberations 39

E. Orderly Development of the Region 40

1. Positions of the Parties 40 a. Municipal and Planning Issues 40 b. Economic Impacts 42 c. Effects on Conservation Efforts as Part of the Impact of 43

The Facility on Orderly Development d. Subcommittee Deliberations 44

VI. ADVERSE EFFECTS 45

A. Aesthetics 46

1. Positions of the Parties 46 2. Subcommittee Deliberations 48

Page 2 of71

App. 431

B. Historic Sites 55

1. Positions of the Parties 56 2. Subcommittee Deliberations 57

c. Air Quality 57

1. Positions of the Parties 57 2. Subcommittee Deliberations 58

D. Natural Environment 58

1. Positions of the Parties 58 a. Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities 58 b. Wildlife (exclusive of avian species and bats) 60 c. Wildlife- Habitat Fragmentation 60 d. Birds and Bats 61

2. Subcommittee Deliberations 63

E. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 65

1. Positions of the Parties 65 a. Noise 65 b. Fire and Emergency Safety Issues 67

2. Subcommittee Deliberations 68

VII. CONCLUSION 70

Page 3 of71

App. 432

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 7, 2013, after eleven days of evidentiary hearings and three full days of

deliberation, a majority of the Subcommittee of the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee

("Subcommittee") appointed in this docket voted to deny the Application of Antrim Wind, LLC

for a Certificate of Site and Facility ("Application"). The Application sought a Certificate of Site

and Facility ("Certificate") for the authority to site, construct and operate a 30 MW wind

powered Facility ("Project" or "Facility") along Tuttle Ridge and Willard Mountain in the Town

of Antrim, New Hampshire. This Decision and Order memorializes the deliberations of the

Subcommittee and sets forth the reasons for denial of the Application.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 31,2012, Antrim Wind Energy, LLC ("Applicant" or "AWE") filed an

Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility with the New Hampshire Site Evaluation

Committee. The Application sought authority to site, construct and operate a 30 megawatt

("MW") wind energy Facility and associated facilities in the Town of Antrim, Hillsborough

County, New Hampshire. The Facility ultimately proposed by the Applicant would include ten

(1 0) Acciona A W 3000 wind turbine generators each having a nameplate capacity of three (3)

MW. Each wind turbine generator within the Facility would be approximately 500 feet tall. The

proposed wind turbines would be among the tallest free standing structures in the state ofNew

Hampshire.

On February 9, 2012, pursuant to RSA 162-H:6-a, II, the Chairman of the Committee

designated Vice-Chairman Ignatius to review the Application to determine whether it contained

sufficient information to carry out the purposes ofRSA 162-H. See, Correspondence from

Chairman Burack to Commissioner Ignatius (Feb. 9, 2012). The Chairman of the Committee

Page 4 of71

App. 433

also indicated that due to a personal conflict, he would be unable to serve as a member of the

Subcommittee assigned to this matter and that, in accordance with RSA 162-H:3, Vice-Chairman

Ignatius would serve as Subcommittee Chairman. See, Order Designating Subcommittee

Pursuant to RSA 162-H:6-a (March 20, 2012).

On February 9, 2012, Counsel to the Committee forwarded correspondence to all state

agencies that appeared to have permitting, licensing or other jurisdictional authority over matters

covered in the Application. Counsel to the Committee requested that each state agency review

the relevant portions of the Application and advise the Subcommittee if the Application did not

contain sufficient information to consider the issuance of any permit, conditions, or licenses

under the agencies' jurisdiction. No state agency reported that the Application was incomplete.

On February 9, 2012, Counsel to the Committee also forwarded correspondence to the

Town of Antrim and the abutting Towns of Bennington, Deering, Hancock, Hillsborough,

Nelson, Stoddard and Windsor notifying each municipality of the filing of the Application

consistent with RSA 541-A:39 and the procedures to intervene in the proceeding. A similar

letter was sent to the Southwest Regional Planning Commission.

On February 13, 2012, the Subcommittee Chairman issued a letter to the New

Hampshire Attorney General requesting the appointment of an Assistant Attorney General as

Counsel for the Public pursuant to RSA 162-H:9. On April30, 2012, the Attorney General

formally designated Senior Assistant Attorney General Peter C.L. Roth to serve as Counsel for

the Public.

On March 5, 2012, the Subcommittee Chairman issued an Order pursuant to RSA 162-H:

6-a, II fmding that the Application contained sufficient information to carry out the purposes of

Page 5 of71

App. 434

RSA 162-H pertaining to renewable energy facilities and accepted the Application. Order

Accepting Application for Certificate of Site and Facility (March 5, 2012).

On March 20, 2012, the Subcommittee Chairman designated a Subcommittee to consider

the Application in accordance with RSA 162-H:6-a, III and RSA 162-H:4, V. Order Designating

Subcommittee Pursuant to RSA 162-H:6-a (March 20, 2012).

On March 20,2012, the Subcommittee Chairman also issued an Order and Notice of

Prehearing Conference, Site Visit and Public Information Hearing. The Order and Notice

scheduled a · site visit and public information hearing for the afternoon and evening of April30,

2012, in the Town of Antrim, Hillsborough County, pursuant to RSA 162-H:6-a, IV. The Order

and Notice also scheduled a prehearing conference to be held in Concord on May 7, 2012. The

site visit, public information hearing and prehearing conference all occurred as scheduled.

During the pendency of this docket, the Subcommittee received motions to intervene

from: (i) the Town of Antrim, through its Board of Selectmen; (ii) the Antrim Planning Board;

(iii) the Antrim Conservation Commission; (iv) the Stoddard Conservation Commission; (v) the

Audubon Society ofNew Hampshire ("Audubon"); (vi) the Harris Center for Conservation

Education; (vii) Industrial Wind Action Group ("IW AG"); (viii) the Appalachian Mountain Club

("AMC"); (ix) Brenda, Mark and Nathan Schaefer; (x) Richard and Loranne Carey Block;

Robert Cleland and Annie Law; (xii) Katharine Elizabeth Sullivan; (xiii) Elsa Voelcker; (xiv)

Janice Duley Longgood; (xv) Clark A. Craig; (xvi) Robert Edwards and Mary Allen; (xvii)

James Hankard; (xviii) Samuel and Michelle Apkarian; and (xix) Clifton Burdette. On May 18,

2012, the Presiding Officer granted the intervention Petitions and ordered that the intervenors be

consolidated into two groups: "Abutting Landowners" group of intervenors (Brenda, Mark and

Nathan Schaefer, Janice Duley Longgood, and Clark Craig Jr.) and ''North Branch Residents"

Page 6 of71

App. 435

group of intervenors (Richard and Loranne Carey Block, Robert Cleland and Annie Law, Elsa

Voelcker, James Hankard, Samuel and Michelle Apkarian, and Clifton Burdette). Order on

Motions to Intervene (May 18, 2012). On July 26, 2012, the Gregg Lake Association moved for

late intervention. On August 22, 2012, the Presiding Officer permitted the late intervention of

the Gregg Lake Association as a limited intervenor with the right to cross-examine the

Applicant's witnesses and the witnesses of the other parties, and present arguments on the

Application. Order on Outstanding Motions (Aug. 22, 2012.)

During the course of these proceedings, the Applicant submitted four supplements to the

Application.

Initially, the Subcommittee scheduled a final pre-hearing conference for Friday,

September 7, 2012, and public adjudicative proceedings to begin on Monday, September 10,

2012. Order and Notice of Final Pre-Hearing Conference and Public Adjudicative Proceedings

(Aug. 15, 2012). However, on August 30,2012, in response to motions by !WAG and Counsel

for the Public, the Presiding Officer ruled that a pre-hearing conference would be held on

September 6, 2012 to determine whether the Motions should be granted and, if so, to discuss a

new procedural schedule. Procedural Order and Notice of Additional Pre-hearing Conference

(Aug. 30, 2012).

In the Application for Site and Facility, the Applicant requested that the Subcommittee

create a subdivided lot for the interconnection facilities associated with the Project. Ex. A WE 1,

at 45. After receiving briefmg regarding this issue, the Subcommittee met to hear oral argument

on September 6, 2012. See, Notice of Public Meeting and Further Procedural Order (Aug. 22,

2012). At the oral argument, the Subcommittee voted to take additional procedural steps to

review the Town of Antrim Subdivision regulations to determine whether the Antrim Planning

Page 7 of71

App. 436

Board retained residual authority pertaining to the proposed subdivision, and indicated that it

would require an additional day of hearings to address those issues. See, Order on Motions to

Continue and Further Procedural Schedule (Sept. 13, 2012).

Following the September 6, 2012, hearing, the Subcommittee scheduled a pre-hearing

conference for October 25,2012, with adjudicative proceedings beginning on October 26,2012

and continuing until November 2, 2012, with public comment scheduled for November 1, 2012

and November 2, 2012. Order and Notice of Re-Scheduled Final Pre-Hearing Conference and

Public Adjudicative Proceedings (Sept. 13, 2012). The referenced pre-hearing conference was

held as scheduled on October 25,2012. Subcommittee counsel, Michael Iacopino, presided at

this conference and issued a report adopted by the Subcommittee Chairman by Order dated

October 25, 2012. Report of Pre-Hearing Conference (Oct. 25, 2012).

The adjudicative proceedings began on October 26, 2012, with further oral argument

regarding the Applicant's request to subdivide the lot associated with the interconnection

facilities, and the proceedings continued through November 2, 2012. The first few days of the

adjudicative hearing were intermittently interrupted. As a result, the Subcommittee extended its

normal hearing hours and met on several nights well into the evening. Nevertheless, having

exhausted its reserved hearing time the adjudicative proceeding was recessed until November

27, 2012. Order and Notice of Continued Adjudicative Proceeding (Nov. 8, 2012). The

evidentiary portions of the proceeding concluded on December 6, 2012. Order and Notice of

Public Deliberative Proceedings and Further Procedural Order (Dec. 28, 2012). In lieu of

closing arguments, the Subcommittee permitted the parties to file post-hearing briefs.

On February 5, 2013, the Subcommittee commenced public deliberations on the

Application. The Subcommittee deliberated for three full days. On February 7, 2013, a majority

Page 8 of71

App.437

ofthe Subcommittee voted to deny the Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility.1 This

Decision contains the reasons for denial as required by RSA 162-H: 16, I.

lli. APPLICATION

A. The Application and Supplements

The Application was filed on January 31, 2012. Thereafter, the Applicant submitted four

Supplements to the Application. On August 10, 2012, the Applicant filed the First Supplement

to the Application that included additional information regarding the laydown yard, the operation

and management building and temporary staging area, the proposed meteorological towers,

updates regarding environmental impacts and related information provided to state and federal

agencies. See, Ex. A WE 6. On August 22, 2012, the Applicant filed a Second Supplement

which included, among other things, information regarding the Applicant's technical and

managerial capability, aesthetics, and radar activated light control system. See, Ex. A WE 7. The

Second Supplement to the Application also contained the First Supplemental Pre-filed

Testimony of Sean McCabe and Ellen Crivella and the pre-filed direct testimony of Ruben

Segura-Coto, a viewshed analysis that was extended to ten miles, Appendix 9-A-1, and

Appendix 20 containing an agreement between the Applicant and AMC with regard to radar

activated turbine lighting. See, Ex. A WE 7. The Third Supplement to the Application was filed

on September 5, 2012 and included information regarding the wind energy resource at the

Project Site. See, Ex. A WE 8. On October 11, 2012, the Applicant filed the Fourth Supplement

to the Application which included the following additional information and testimony:

1 Subcommittee Members Ignatius, Boisvert, Dupee, Bailey, Robinson and Simpkins voting in favor of the Motion to Deny the Application; Subcommittee members Stewart, Lyons, and Green voting against the motion to deny the Application.

Page 9 of71

App. 438

c

(i) additional information regarding the radar activated light system,

(ii) Appendix 2D-1 (Application for Driveway Permit associated with temporary laydown/construction area),

(iii) Appendix 2H (letter to Mr. Rennie regarding revisions to Alternation of Terrain, 401 Water Quality Certification, and Wetlands Permit),

(iv) supplemental pre-filed testimonies of Jack Kenworthy, Joseph Cofelice and Martin Pasqualini, John Guariglia, Richard Will and Russell Stevenson, Colin High, Daniel Butler and Patrick Martin, Dana Valleau and Adam Gravel, Robert O'Neal, Matthew Magnusson,

(v) Second Supplemental Pre-filed Testimony of Sean McCabe,

(vi) First Supplemental Pre-filed Testimony of Ruben Segura-Coto, and

(vii) Pre-filed Direct Testimony of Sally Wright.

The Application as originally filed and as supplemented over the course of the

proceedings, contained all of the information that is required by RSA 162-H:7 and NEW

HAMPSHIRE CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES SITE 300.01 AND SITE 300.02.

B. Summary of the Application

The Applicant is a Delaware limited liability company formed for the purposes of

development, construction and operation of the Project. Ex. A WE 1 at 2, 53. The Applicant has

two members: (i) Eolian Antrim, LLC (50% ownership); and (ii) Westerly Antrim, LLC (50%

ownership). Ex. A WE e at 2, 53. Eolian Antrim, LLC, in turn, is owned by Eolian Renewable

Energy, LLC. Ex. A WE 1 at 2, 53. Westerly Antrim, LLC is owned by Westerly Wind, LLC.

Ex. A WE 1 at 2, 53. Westerly Antrim, LLC is a portfolio company of US Renewables Group, an

energy investment firm founded in 2003. Ex. A WE 1 at 2, 53.

The Project is proposed to be located on and adjacent to 354 Keene Road (NH Route 9)

and includes approximately 1 ,850 acres of private lands currently leased by the Applicant from

Page 10 of71

App. 439

five landowners. Ex. A WE 1 at 5. These lands occupy the area from Route 9, southward to the

east summit of Tuttle Hill, and to the north flank of Willard Mountain to the west. Ex. A WE 1 at

5. As proposed, the Project would be constructed primarily on the ridgeline that starts

approximately 0.75 miles south ofNH Route 9 and runs south southwest, for approximately 2.5

miles. Ex. AWE 1 at 5.

The Facility is proposed to consist often (10) Acciona 3000 wind turbine generators each

having a nameplate capacity of three (3) MW. Ex. A WE 1, at 16. Each turbine would rise to

492 feet above ground level when measured from its base to the tip of its blade. Ex. NB 2, at 3.

As proposed, each of the turbines would be constructed at the following site elevation: (1) WTG-

1 1,431 feet; (2) WTG-2 1,743 feet; (3) WTG-3 1,758 feet; (4) WTG-4 1,682 feet; (5) WTG-5

1,726 feet; (6) WTG-6 1,516 feet; (7) WTG-7 1,676 feet; (8) WTG-8 1,700 feet; (9) WTG-9

1,646 feet; (10) WTG-10 1,896 feet. See, Ex. AWE 2, Appdx. 2E (FAA determinations); see

also, Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 7 A (civil design drawings). The ridgeline designated for the location

of the turbines has a site elevation fluctuating between 1,042 feet and 1,904 feet. Ex. A WE 1 at

48. Generally, as proposed, each turbine would be between 25% and 35% of the elevation of the

ridge line where it would be located. See, Ex. A WE 2, Appdx. 2E (FAA determinations); see

also, Ex. AWE 3, Appdx. 7A (civil design drawings).

In addition, the Application indicated that the Project would consist of approximately 4

miles of new gravel surfaced roads within the project area, a joint electrical collector system

consisting of both underground and overhead collection lines, an interconnection substation, and

an operations and maintenance building of approximately 3,000 square feet. Ex. AWE 1 at 16,

26, 33, 44.

Page 11 of71

App. 440

(

The Applicant stated that it would have to build approximately 4 miles of new gravel

surface road for access, construction and maintenance of the wind turbines. Ex. A WE 1 at 16.

The main access road would be approximately 3.47 miles long and would be built in two

sections: (1) the first section will connect Rte. 9 to wind turbine generator WTG # 1; and (2) the

second section includes the remainder of the road, from WTG # 1 to the ridge and then along the

ridgeline. Ex. A WE 1 at 16. The Applicant asserted that there would also be two spur roads

installed to access individual turbines. Ex. A WE 1 at 16.

The Applicant proposed to interconnect the Facility to an existing Public Service

Company of New Hampshire ("PSNH") 115 kV electric transmission line through the proposed

interconnection substation which would be constructed adjacent to the existing PSNH L-163115

kV electric transmission line. Ex. A WE 1 at 26. The Applicant asserted that no new electric

transmission lines, other than Project electrical collector system lines, would be required. Ex.

A WE 1 at 26. As proposed, an underground electrical collection system would transfer the

electricity generated by the turbines to the substation. Ex. A WE 1 at 26. The substation yard, in

turn, would be divided into two areas: ( 1) the collection yard consisting of 100 feet by Ill feet

and containing a transformer and a 16-foot by 12-foot control house; and (2) the interconnection

yard consisting of 172 feet by 186 feet and containing a three-breaker ring bus and a 20-foot by

24-foot control house. Ex. A WE 1 at 26. The interconnection substation would be a standard

three phase 115 kV transmission level substation designed and constructed by PSNH. Ex. A WE

1 at 42. The switchyard and substation would include transformers, switching equipment,

protective relay and control equipment, transfer trip equipment, disturbance analyzer equipment,

transducers, a Remote Terminal Unit, telemetry equipment and meters. Ex. A WE 1 at 33.

Page 12 of71

App. 441

Finally, as proposed, the operation and maintenance building would be a single story

structure comprising approximately 3,000 square feet including offices and associated facilities

(bathrooms, kitchen, storage) for technicians, a garage for spare parts and supplies, and a

computer server room. Ex. A WE 1 at 33, 45, Appdx. 7C.

The Applicant also asserted that it would install a permanent meteorological tower on the

ridgeline between turbine #3 and turbine #4 to obtain wind data at the Project Site for wind

turbine performance management. Ex. A WE 1 at 46, 62.

The Applicant anticipated that the overall cost of constructing the Project would be

approximately $55-65 million. Ex. A WE 1 at 55. The Applicant did not claim that it had the

present fmancial ability to undertake the Project from its own assets, but asserted that it would be

able to obtain the capital required for the construction and operation of the Facility through a

combination of construction loans, and sponsor or third party equity. Ex. A WE 1 at 55.

IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Applicant

As a part of its Application, the Applicant submitted the pre-filed testimony of the

following individuals:

• Jack Kenworthy, Chief Executive Officer of Eolian Renewable Energy, Ex. A WE 1;

• Joseph Cofelice, founder and Chief Executive Officer of Westerly Wind, LLC and Martin Pasqualini, founding partner and Managing Director ofCP Global Partners, LLC, Ex. AWE1;

• Sean McCabe, Vice President of Development at Westerly Wind, LLC, and Ellen Crivella, Project Manager in the Environmental and Permitting Services Group at GL Harrad Hassan, Ex. A WE 1;

• John W. Guariglia, Associate Principal with Saratoga Associates, Landscape Architects, Architects, Engineers, and Planners, P.C., Ex. AWE 1;

Page 13 of71

App.442

(

• Richard Will, Manager, Northeast Cultural Division ofTRC Companies, and Russell Stevenson, Architectural Historian of A. D. Marble & Company, Ex. A WE 1;

• Colin High, Co-Founder and Principal Consultant with Resource Systems Group, Inc., Ex. AWE 1;

• Daniel T. Butler, Manager, Civil and Transmission Engineering Department with TRC Companies, Inc., Ex. AWE 1;

• Dana Valleau, Environmental Specialist ofTRC Environmental Corporation and Adam Gravel, Associate/Project ofStantec Consulting, Ex. AWE 1;

• Robert O'Neal, Principal at Epsilon Associates, Inc., Ex. A WE 1;

• Ross Gittell, James R. Carter Professor of the University ofNew Hampshire, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, Ex. A WE 1;

The Applicant also submitted supplemental pre-filed testimony of (i) Sean McCabe and

Ellen Crivella (Ex. A WE 1); (ii) Jack Kenworthy (Ex. A WE 1); (iii) Joseph Cofelice and Martin

Pasqualini (Ex. A WE 1 ); (iv) John Guariglia (Ex. A WE 1 ); (v) Richard Will and Russell

Stevenson (Ex. A WE 1); (vi) Colin High (Ex. A WE 1); (vii) Daniel Butler and Patrick Martin

(Ex. A WE 1 ); (viii) Dana Valleau (Ex. A WE 1 ); (ix) Dana Valleau and Adam Gravel (Ex. A WE

I); (x) Robert O'Neal (Ex. A WE 1); (xi) Matthew Magnusson (Ex. A WE 9), (xii) Ruben Segura-

Coto and Sally Wright (Ex. A WE 7); and the second supplemental pre-filed testimony of Sean

McCabe (Ex. A WE 9).

The Applicant asserted that the information contained in its Application, pre-filed

testimony, and exhibits clearly demonstrated that the Applicant had the financial, managerial and

technical capacity to construct, manage, and operate the Facility in accordance with the

conditions of the Certificate. In addition, the Applicant asserted that the Facility would not

unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region and would not have an unreasonable

adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, natural environment, or public

Page 14 of71

App. 443

health and safety. The Applicant asserted that the Subcommittee should grant the Application

and issue a Certificate to the Applicant.

B. Counsel for the Public

Counsel for the Public retained the following experts: (i) Jean Vissering, a landscape

architect, to provide an independent assessment of the aesthetic impacts of the proposed Project;

(ii) Gregory C. Tocci of Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Inc., to study potential noise impacts of

the Project; and (iii) Trevor Lloyd-Evans of the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences to

study the effect of the Facility on birds and flying mammals. Counsel for the Public submitted

pre-filed and supplemental pre-filed testimony ofthese experts. Ex. PC 1-6.

Counsel for the Public asserts that the Subcommittee should deny the Application

because the Project will allegedly have unreasonable adverse effects on aesthetics, public health

and safety and the natural environment. In general, Counsel for the Public asserts that

environmental benefits of the Project are outweighed by the serious and permanent

environmental harm that the Project will cause. Specifically, based on the analysis conducted by

Ms. Vissering, Counsel for the Public asserts that the Project will have an unreasonable adverse

effect on aesthetics because of the Project's visual impact on the area. As to the impact on

natural environment, Counsel for the Public asserts that the Applicant did not meet its burden to

show that the Project will not have adverse effect on the natural environment and requests the

Subcommittee, if it decides to grant the Certificate, to condition it upon requirement to conduct

similar environmental studies as were required by the Subcommittee in the Certificate granted to

the Groton Wind Project. Counsel for the Public further asserts that the Subcommittee should

deny the Certificate because the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Project's noise will not

have adverse effect on aesthetics and public health and safety.

Page 15 of71

App.444

Counsel for the Public further urges the Subcommittee to deny the Certificate because, in

his view, the Applicant failed to show that it has fmancial and managerial capacity to construct

and operate the Project. Counsel for the Public retained the consultative services ofDeloitte

Financial Advisory Services. Deloitte prepared a report analyzing the fmancial, managerial and

technical capability ofthe Applicant and the Facility. See, PC 7.

C. Town of Antrim

The Town of Antrim supports the issuance of a Certificate. The Applicant entered into

an Agreement with the Town of Antrim addressing the Town's concerns including, but not

limited to, the issues of noise and decommissioning. Ex. A WE 4, Appdx. 17. The Applicant

also entered into a Payment In Lieu of Taxes ("PILOT") Agreement with the Town. Ex. A WE

12-13. In addition, the Antrim Board of Selectmen advised the Subcommittee that the Project

was supported by the vast majority of the townspeople. As a result, the Antrim Board of

Selectmen urges the Subcommittee to issue the Certificate and to incorporate the agreements

negotiated by the Town as conditions to the Certificate.

D. Antrim Planning Board

The Antrim Planning Board neither supports nor opposes the construction of the Project.

It asserts, however, that it should have jurisdiction over any subdivision that may be required as a

result of construction and operation of the Project.

E. Antrim Conservation Commission

The Antrim Conservation Commission neither supports nor opposes the construction and

operation of the Project. In their arguments, however, the Antrim Conservation Commission

urged the Subcommittee to consider the Project's impact on aesthetics and natural environment

Page 16 of71

App. 445

of the region and to condition the Certificate so that the Project will not have an unreasonable

adverse effect on aesthetics and natural environment of the region.

F. Stoddard Conservation Commission

The Stoddard Conservation Commission alleges that the construction and operation of

the Project will adversely affect the core wildlife habitat and conservation values of the area and

urges the Subcommittee to deny the Certificate. In the alternative, the Stoddard Conservation

Commission requests the Subcommittee to condition the Certificate upon the following

conditions: (i) remove turbines 9 and 10 from the Project; (ii) expand the acreage under the

proposed conservation easements to include all of the landowners on whose land the Project will

be sited; and (iii) prohibit any development on conservations easements.

G. Audubon Society of New Hampshire

Audubon urges the Subcommittee to deny the Certificate because the Project, as

proposed, will have an unreasonable adverse effect on Willard Pond and on the de Pierrefeu

Willard Pond Sanctuary which it manages. Audubon also states that the Certificate should be

denied because the Applicant does not have the fmancial, technical and managerial capacity

required for the construction and operation of the Project. Audubon also requests the

Subcommittee to incorporate a number of conditions designed to minimize the effect of the

Project on Willard Pond and on the dePierrefeu Willard Pond Wildlife Sanctuary if the

Subcommittee decides to grant the Certificate.

H. Harris Center for Conservation Education

The Harris Center for Conservation Education neither supports nor opposes the

Application.

Page 17 of71

App. 446

I. Industrial Wind Action Group

IW AG asserts that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that it has the financial and

managerial capacity required for the construction of the Project, that the Project will not unduly

interfere with the orderly development of the region and that the Project will have no

unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural

environment, and public health and safety. IW AG also argues that the Project will not provide

the environmental, economic or regional energy benefits claimed by the Applicant. Therefore,

the Industrial Wind Action Group urges the Subcommittee to deny the Application.

J. Appalachian Mountain Club

AMC neither supports nor opposes the Application but it did enter into an agreement with

the Applicant designed to reduce nighttime light pollution which may be associated with the

Project. AMC requests that the Subcommittee incorporate the requirements of this Agreement

into the Certificate if the Committee decides to grant the Certificate. See, Ex. AMC 5.

K. Gregg Lake Association

Although granted intervenor status, the Gregg Lake Association did not participate.

L. Abutting Landowners Group of Intervenors

The Abutting Landowners urge the Subcommittee to deny the Application. They assert

that the Project will have unreasonable adverse effect on natural environment and orderly

development of the region. Specifically, they state that the sound and visual impact of the

Project will have unreasonable adverse effect on the residents of the region in general and on the

owners of the residences abutting the Project specifically. The intervenors also expressed their

concerns about the impact of the Project on the values of the real estate in the region and,

Page 18 of71

App. 447

ultimately, urge the Subcommittee to conclude that the Project will have unreasonable adverse

effect on orderly development of the region.

M. North Branch Residents Group of Intervenors

The North Branch Residents assert that the Project will have an unreasonable adverse

effect on natural aesthetics, air and water quality, the natural environment, and public health and

safety. The North Branch Residents also allege that the Project will unduly interfere with the

orderly development of the region and that the Applicant does not have the fmancial, technical

and managerial capacity required for the construction of a Project of such magnitude. The North

Branch Residents assert that the turbines, as proposed, will be "far beyond reasonable proportion

for the area" and will unreasonably and adversely impact aesthetics, natural environment and

orderly development of the region. The North Branch Residents further assert that the

construction and operation of the Project in the Rural Conservation Zone of Antrim will result in

serious noise disturbance and health risk to many of the residents of the North Branch area of

Antrim. As to the Applicant's financial and managerial capacity, the North Branch Residents

assert that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that it will be able to obtain sufficient funds to

fmance the Project on this magnitude and effectively manage its operation. Therefore, the North

Branch Residents request the Subcommittee to deny the Application.

N. Edwards/Allen

The Edwards/ Allen intervenors argue that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate

sufficient technical, managerial and financial capability to build and operate the Facility. They

argue that the lack of a fully negotiated PP A and inexperience on the part of the Applicant

indicate insufficient fmancial, technical and managerial expertise. See. Edwards/ Allen Closing

Memorandum at 1-5. The Edwards/Allen intervenors also complain about the PILOT and

Page 19 of71

App. 448

alternative PILOT agreements reached by the Town and the Applicant. Edwards/Allen suggest

that under the PILOT agreements, the Town of Antrim will be worse off financially and will not

see any economic benefits as a result of the formula used to assess fmancialliability within the

regional cooperative school district. Edwards/Allen Closing Memorandum at 11-18.

Edwards/ Allen also joins Counsel for the PubHc and others in urging the Subcommittee

to adopt the fmding of Ms. Vissering that the Facility will have an unreasonable adverse impact

on the view shed in the region. Edwards/ Allen Closing Memorandum at 8-10.

V. DELIBERATIONS

A. The Subcommittee Deliberation Process

The Subcommittee deliberated over the course of3 days from February 5 through

February 7, 2013. As has been done in previous dockets, the Subcommittee used RSA 162-H: 16

to defme the contours of its deliberations. In doing so, the Subcommittee first reviewed the

status of state permits and then approached its deliberations within the outline set forth at RSA

162-H:16. In this case, a majority of the Subcommittee ultimately determined to deny the

Application because of its determination that the siting, construction and operation of the Facility

would have an unreasonable adverse effect on the aesthetics of the region. The deliberative

process used by the Subcommittee was to engage in a general discussion of each subject area.

For the most part, the general discussion was led by one member of the Subcommittee, followed

by a discussion by the entire Subcommittee. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chair

would seek to obtain a sense of the Subcommittee's position with respect to that subject area. In

some cases, a non-binding "straw vote" of the Subcommittee was taken. In other cases, the

sense of the Subcommittee was apparent from the discussion. This section of the Decision and

Order summarizes the deliberative process of the Subcommittee.

Page 20 of71

App. 449

B. State Agency Permits and Reports

To commence its deliberations, the Subcommittee first reviewed the status of state

permits and agency reports.

1. Wetlands Permit - Department of Environmental Services

As part of the Application, the Applicant submitted a standard Dredge and Fill

Application commonly referred to as a Wetlands Permit with the Department of Environmental

Services under the authority ofRSA 458-A:3, and in accordance with administrative regulations

promulgated by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services ("DES"). See, N.H.

CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ENV-WT 300 ET SEQ. The Wetlands Permit

Application was included with the Application. See, Ex. A WE 2, Appdx. 2A. A Supplement to

the Wetlands Permit Application was filed on August 6, 2012. See, Ex. A WE 6, Appdx. 2A. As

part of the amended Wetlands Permit review process, the Applicant proposed to dredge and fill

9,755 square feet of palustrine forest and scrub shrub wetlands and to dredge and fill452 square

feet within a perennial and intermittent stream. Ex. A WE 6, Appdx. 2A. On August 31, 2012,

DES issued its fmal decision and recommended approval of the wetlands permit with certain

conditions. Ex. Comm. 12. The conditions were outlined in the Wetlands Permit issued by DES

on August 31, 2012. I d. DES found that the Project would be a "major project" as defined by

N.H. CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ENV-WT 303.02. DES appended 15 conditions to

the Wetlands Permit. Ex. Comm. 12. In its report to the Subcommittee, the Wetlands Bureau of

DES determined that there were not many jurisdictional wetland areas within the Project's

vicinity and the Project did not affect wetlands areas considered to be of special value from a

local, regional or state perspective under ENV-WT 101.90. Ex. Comm. 12. The 15 conditions

Page 21 of71

App. 450

required by the Wetlands Bureau, as set forth in Comm. 12, were relatively routine. Ex. Comm.

12.

2. Alteration of Terrain Permit- Department of Environmental Services Section 401 Water Quality Certificate

Under RSA 458-A: 17, the Applicant also filed an Application for an Alteration of Terrain

Permit with the Department of Environmental Services Water Division. Ex. A WE 2, Appdx. 2B.

The Application for an Alteration ofTerrain Permit indicated that construction of the Facility

would disturb approximately 2,648,448 square feet or approximately 60.8 acres ofland during

construction. Ex. A WE 2, App. 2B; A WE 9, Appdx. 2H; Comm. 12. The Application for an

Alteration of Terrain Permit was filed with the Water Division at DES on January 26, 2012. A

copy was also filed with the Application in this docket. The Applicant revised its Alteration of

Terrain Permit Application on August 30, 2012 to include an additional meteorological tower.

Ex. A WE 6, Appdx. 2B; A WE 9, Appdx. 2H. The Water Division issued an Alteration of

Terrain Permit Decision recommending the approval of the revised application with conditions.

Ex. Comm. 12. The conditions included permit conditions from the Water Shed Management

Bureau to satisfy Section 401 Water Quality Certification concerns. Ex. Comm. 12. The Water

Division's approval ofthe Applicant's request also included recommendations from the Drinking

Water and Ground Water Bureau to satisfy concerns regarding ledge blasting and monitoring

through best management practices. Ex. Comm. 12.

The Alteration of Terrain Permit was issued by DES based upon the premise that the

New Hampshire Programmatic General Permit issued by the United States Army Corps of

Engineers applies to the Project. On March 5, 2012, the Subcommittee received confirmation

Page 22 of71

App. 451

that the United States Army Corps of Engineers had determined that the Programmatic General

Permit did apply in this matter. Ex. Comm. 4.

The conditions specified by DES with respect to the Alteration of Terrain Permit required

the Applicant to employ the services of an environmental monitor to inspect the site during

activities that will cause an alteration of terrain. Ex. Comm. 13. Site inspections were required

at least once a week and under certain storm conditions. Ex. Comm. 12. As a condition of the

Alteration of Terrain Permit, the Applicant was required to develop certain plans for approval by

DES including a construction and best management practice inspection and maintenance plan, a

turbidity sampling plan, a monitoring plan, a spill prevention control and countermeasures plan,

and a water quality violation prevention plan. Ex. Comm. 12.

3. Subsurface Systems Permit- Department of Environmental Services

As part of its deliberations, the Subcommittee also reviewed the Applicant's Application

for a Subsurface Systems Permit. Ex. A WE 2, Appdx. 2F. That Application was filed with DES

on January 26, 2012. One individual septic system would serve the Facility. The septic system

was expected to accommodate 300 gallons per day. A Subsurface Systems Permit was issued by

DES on August 31,2012. Ex. Comm. 12.

4. Driveway Permit- Department of Transportation

In order to obtain ingress and egress to the site of the proposed Facility, the Application

required the construction of a driveway offN.H. Route 9. Therefore, the Applicant also filed an

Application for a Driveway Permit with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation. Ex.

A WE 2, Appdx. 2D. The Application for a Driveway Permit was filed on January 26, 2012. A

copy was also provided in the Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility. Ex. A WE 2,

Appdx. 2D. On September 4, 2012, the Department of Transportation approved that Permit for

Page 23 of71

App.452

•

the construction of a driveway off Route 9. Ex. Comm. 14. The Driveway Permit recognizes

the heavy loads that the driveway will support during construction and contains conditions that

require that the driveway landing be constructed using one foot of gravel, one foot of crushed

gravel and 4 inches of bituminous asphalt pavement. Ex. Comm. 14.

5. Aviation Permits- Federal Aviation Administration

Along with the Application, the Applicant also filed a series of Federal Aviation

Administration documents determining that the Facility will not cause a danger to aviation safety

if operated in compliance with conditions. Ex. A WE 2, Appdx. 2E. The Subcommittee also

notes that the Applicant executed a stipulation with AMC that would require the installation of a

radar activated lighting system once such a system has been approved by the Federal Aviation

Administration. Ex. AMC 5.

6. Historical Resources- NH Division of Historical Resources

In addition to the foregoing state and federal permits, the Applicant also submitted

correspondence with the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources. The review of

historical resources is generally governed by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act. The New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources is the state agency entrusted with the

obligation to administer Section 106. The process of the review of historical resources is an

interactive and ongoing process which often extends beyond the granting of a Certificate of Site

and Facility due to the nature of the process. The Subcommittee received several reports from

the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources along with its Application. Ex. Comm. 5,

9, 11 and 15.

Page 24 of71

App. 453

7. State Fire Marshal

In addition to the foregoing Permits, there are certain state agencies which provided

information to the Subcommittee although they do not technically have a permit, license or

certificate to issue. On February 21, 2012, the State Fire Marshal filed a letter with the

Subcommittee. The Fire Marshal requested that the Subcommittee condition any Certificate on

compliance with the following codes: International Building Code, 2009 Edition; NFP A 1, Fire

Code, 2009 Edition; and FPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2009 Edition and NFPA 850,

Recommended Practice for Fire Protection for Electric Generating Plants and High Voltage

Direct Current Converter Stations, 2010 Edition. The Fire Marshal also asked that any

Certificate of Site and Facility be conditioned upon a review of fmal plans by the Fire Marshal

and compliance inspections. The Fire Marshal also sought a condition that would allow him to

retain independent third party review at the expense of the Applicant. Ex. Comm. 1.

8. Natural Heritage Bureau- Department of Resources and Economic Development

As part of its Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility, the Applicant maintained a

dialogue with the Department of Resources and Economic Development, New Hampshire

Natural Heritage Bureau ("NHNHB"). Ex. Comm. 7. On July 2, 2012, NHNHB filed a progress

report. Ex. Comm. 7. On August 2, 2012, NHNHB filed a fmal report with the Subcommittee.

Ex. Comm. 10. During the course of its review, NHNHB conducted a data base check, reviewed

community mapping surveys, and inspected portions ofthe site on December 13,2011 and again

during the growing season on July 13, 2012. NHNHB concluded that it is unlikely that the

proposed Facility will impact rare plants species or exemplary natural communities. Ex. Comm.

10.

Page 25 of71

App. 454

(

9. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department was also involved in a review of the

Application. Specifically, the New Hampshire Department ofFish and Game evaluated the

Avian and Bat Protection Plan ("ABPP") proffered by the Applicant and suggested certain

conditions be applied. Ex. Comm. 16. Those conditions are addressed in more detail in the

section of this Order dealing with the deliberations of the Subcommittee concerning the natural

environment.

Having reviewed the various permit applications and the recommended permits and

conditions from the various agencies, the Subcommittee recognizes that the Applicant worked

diligently with the various state agencies and provided complete information that permitted the

various agencies to report to the Subcommittee in a complete and timely fashion. The

Subcommittee also notes that in the event that it chose to issue a Certificate, the conditions

required by the agency permits would necessarily become conditions of the Certificate. See,

RSA 162-H: 16, I. The Subcommittee also acknowledges that it has the authority to delegate to

an appropriate state agency the authority to monitor the construction and operation of an energy

facility and to delegate the authority to specify the use of any technique, methodology, practice,

or procedure approved by the Subcommittee within a certificate to a state agency. See, RSA

162-H:4, III & III-a.

C. Alternatives Analysis

The Subcommittee deliberations next considered the issue of available alternatives. RSA

162-H:16, IV, requires the Subcommittee to consider "available alternatives" in deciding

whether the objectives of RSA 162-H would be best served by the issuance of a Certificate. In

considering available alternatives, the Subcommittee will consider the evidence of alternatives

Page 26 of71

App. 455

presented by the Applicant as well as any other evidence in the record pertaining to alternative

sites. See, Decision, Application of Granite Reliable Power, LLC, 2008-04, at 23 (July 15,

2009).

In presenting its evidence with respect to available alternatives, the Applicant described a

site selection process consisting of 10 site selection criteria. Ex. A WE 1 at 46-50. The

Applicant asserts that the choice of site for the Facility was the result of a southwestern regional

prospective site analysis nested within Eolian's statewide model for wind energy suitability in

New Hampshire. Ex. A WE 1 at 47. In applying this methodology, the main site selection

criteria include an adequate wind resource (based on meso wind models), environmental

appropriateness, grid-interconnection, proximity to transportation routes, and distance from

residences. Ex. A WE 1 at 4 7.

As a result of this process, the Applicant considered potential sites in Marlow and in

Stoddard. Ex. A WE 1 at 4 7. The Applicant found the Marlow site to be less suitable than

Antrim because of extensive wetlands and considerable distance to transmission resources. ld.

The Stoddard site was determined to be less suitable than Antrim due to extensive conservation

easements and access issues. ld.

The Application also asserts that the Applicant considered several different on-site

turbine configurations, as well as relocation of various components of the Facility including the

operations and maintenance building. Ex. A WE 1 at 50. In its Application, the Applicant

detailed four on-site alternatives that it considered. The Applicant originally considered

construction of 11 turbines. Ultimately, the Applicant eliminated a turbine that would have been

located off the south flank of Willard Mountain. This turbine was eliminated in order to create a

smaller overall footprint and to limit the visual impact on the Willard Pond Sanctuary. The

Page 27 of71

App. 456

Applicant reports that it also considered different access and road solutions. Ultimately, the

chosen route for the road was determined to be the shortest in overall length, thus minimizing the

effect on the environment. in addition, the Applicant asserts that it considered different turbines

and various layouts for the physical components of the Facility. Ex. A WE 1 at 50-52.

In discussing the alternatives analysis supplied by the Applicant, some members of the

Subcommittee expressed concern that the Application did not include comparative maps or any

tabulation of comparative information between the off-site alternatives in Stoddard and Marlow

that had been considered by the Applicant. See, Transcript, Deliberations, Day 1 at 46.

Additionally, a member of the Subcommittee expressed concern that the Site selection criteria

and alternatives analysis presented by the Applicant failed to address the affect of the Project on

aesthetics of the area. See, Transcript, Deliberations, Day 1 at 49.

In discussing alternatives to the proposed Site, the Subcommittee also considered a

proposal suggested by Jean Vissering, a witness for Counsel for the Public, and echoed by

several intervenors that would have eliminated turbines 9 and 10 due to their proximity to

Willard Pond and to employ the use of smaller turbines throughout the remainder of the Facility.

See, generally, Ex. PC 1 at 18-19.

In addition, the Subcommittee noted that an available alternative that was not contained

in the Application is a project configuration and turbine size that was presented to the SEC in the

prior docket dealing with this Project: Docket No. 2011-02, Petition of Antrim Wind for

Jurisdiction. That proposal involved the same site along the Tuttle Hill/Willard Mountain

ridgeline but called for 10 turbines in the 2 MW size class with heights of less than 475 feet.

See, Transcript, Deliberations Day 1 at 51.

Page 28 of71

App. 457

D. Applicant's Financial Technical and Managerial Capability

During the course of deliberations, the Subcommittee considered the fmancial, technical

and managerial capability ofthe Applicant as required by RSA 162-H:16, IV (a). In undertaking

its deliberations, the Subcommittee found it more convenient to address the technical and

managerial capabilities separately from the fmancial capability of the Applicant.

1. Technical and Managerial Capability

a. Positions of the Parties.

The Applicant asserts that it has established by a preponderance of the evidence, through

the pre-filed and live testimony of Sean McCabe, Ruben Segura-Coto and Sally Wright, that it

has the technical and managerial capacity required for operation and construction of the Facility.

See, Ex. A WE 1, McCabe and Crivella Pre-Filed Testimony; Ex. A WE 7, McCabe and Crivella

First Supplemental Testimony, Ex. A WE 9, McCabe, Wright and Segura-Coto Second

Supplemental Testimony; Transcript Day 2 at 131-274. In addition, the Applicant claims that the

individual and combined experience in the renewable energy sector of its staff warrants a fmding

that the Applicant is possessed of sufficient technical and managerial capabilities to construct

and operate the Facility.

In particular, the Applicant points to the background and experience of Sean McCabe,

Joseph Cofelice and Jack Kenworthy. Ex. A WE 1, Pre-Filed Testimony of Jack Kenworthy and

Pre-Filed Testimony of Joseph Cofelice. Mr. McCabe has been employed in the wind power

industry since 2004, holding positions of responsibility with both Catamount Energy and Duke

Energy Corporation. Mr. Cofelice was employed for 15 years with American National Power

where he had responsibility for project development. Ex. A WE 1, Pre-Filed Testimony of

Joseph Cofelice. In addition, he is a former president of Catamount Energy where, under his

Page 29 of71

App.458

(

(

leadership, the company developed and fmanced wind energy projects with a total capacity of

585 MW. I d. Mr. Kenworthy submits that he has worked in the renewable energy field for 10

years and is presently leading current development for four projects. Ex. A WE 1, Pre-Filed

Testimony of Jack Kenworthy. The Applicant also notes that the Deloitte Report recognized that

the development team presented by the Applicant is qualified to develop this project. Ex. PC 7.

In addition to the technical and management skills of its personnel, the Applicant also

relies on its intention to execute an operations and management ("O&M") contract with Acciona

Wind Power North America ("A WP"). As such, the Applicant relies on A WP to support its

claim of adequate technical and managerial capability. The initial term of the O&M contract will

be five years and may be renewed with A WP or another provider thereafter. Ex. A WE 7,

Transcript Day 2 at 263. A WP is a subsidiary of the multinational Acciona Energy. Ex. A WE

First Supplemental Pre-Filed Testimony of McCabe, Crivella and Segura-Coto. A WP operates

and maintains 12 wind energy facilities across North America for a total operational capacity of

1,315.5 MW. Transcript Day 2 at 82. In addition, AWP is responsible for an additional189

MW of wind facilities commissioned before the end of2012, including the first two Acciona

A W 3000/116 turbines located in Iowa. I d. A WP uses a state of the art SCAD A system that is

monitored seven days per week and twenty-four hours per day. Ex. A WE 7, McCabe, Crivella

and Segura-Coto First Supplemental Testimony at 9. The SCADA system contains redundant

systems that serve to protect the assets in the event of power failure or other catastrophe.

Transcript, Day 2 at 145. A WP boasts a fleet availability factor of98.2% over the time of its

operations in North America, an OSHA lost time rate ofO and in 2012 had recordable injury rate

of2.8. Ex. A WE 7, McCabe, Crivella and Segura-Coto First Supplemental Testimony at 9. In

addition, the Applicant maintains that it will have three to four employees on site to oversee

Page 30 of71

App. 459

project operations and attend to matters that are not within the scope of the O&M contract. Id. at

10. Based upon the experience and skills of its team and the expected O&M contract, the

Applicant asserts that it has adequate managerial and technical expertise.

An additional issue raised in the docket is the commercial viability of the Acciona AW

3000/116 turbine. The Applicant suggests that the commercial viability of the turbine has been

demonstrated in the market because two of the turbines have been developed for installation in

Iowa and another 10 have been ordered for a project in Nova Scotia. Transcript Day 2 at 159-

163. The willingness of developers to invest in the turbine allegedly demonstrates commercial

viability according to the Applicant. Id. The Applicant also reports, through the testimony of

Sally Wright, that the turbine has successfully undergone technical design review. Transcript

Day 2 at 160-162. The turbine is presently undergoing "type certification" which is a third party

validation process. Id. at 162. Type certification is not yet complete. The two turbines

developed in Iowa are being used as prototypes for the type certification process.

The Applicant's witness, Sally Wright, testified, however, that the Acciona AW

30001116 is "not proven." Transcript Day 2 at 166. "Not proven" is a term that is applied to any

turbine that has not yet achieved 100 "turbine years" of operation. I d. The Applicant submits

that many projects using "not proven" technology still obtain fmancing and presumably

commercial operation. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at 24.

Finally, the Applicant notes that Acciona has provided a warranty for the turbine and

argues that "type certification" and the Acciona warranty establish the commercial viability of

the turbine. Therefore, the Applicant claims that it has established by a preponderance of

evidence that the proposed turbine is commercially viable. Id.

Page 31 of71

App. 460

c

Counsel for the Public submitted the Deloitte Report as an exhibit in this proceeding. Ex.

PC 7. The Deloitte Report noted that several members of the Applicant's development team

have experience in the power industry and, in particular, in the renewable energy field. The

Deloitte Report found that the development team was qualified to develop and construct the

Project and that there was no evidence to suggest the development team was unqualified or that

any specific team members were not capable of performing their duties. Ex. PC 7 at 42.

Nonetheless, Counsel for the Public asserts that the Applicant failed to establish sufficient

technical, managerial capabilities to construct and operate the Project.

The absence of a firm draft of the O&M Contract and the absence of a balance of plant

contract for construction serve as a basis for Counsel for the Public to object to the technical and

managerial capability of the Applicant. Post-Hearing Memorandum of Counsel for the Public at

48-49. Counsel for the Public argues that in the Laidlaw docket, the Subcommittee had access to

key contracts and knew the identity of key personnel. Counsel for the Public asserts that this

Applicant has presented no evidence of contracts for the construction of the Facility and that the

O&M contract is not firm despite Ruben Segura-Coto' s testimony before the Subcommittee. I d.

at 48 (arguing that Segura-Coto could not provide definitive answers about the terms and

conditions of an O&M agreement.) Likewise, no potential balance of plant contractor has been

identified, nor has a balance of plant draft contract been submitted to the Subcommittee.

Counsel argues that conditioning the Certificate on the negotiation of an O&M contract with

A WP and a balance of plant contract would be contrary to the statute. ld. at 49. Counsel for the

Public argues that these contracts should be presented to the Subcommittee at a hearing before

the Certificate is granted so that they are appropriately reviewed. In proceeding without firm

contracts in these areas, Counsel for the Public asserts that the Applicant does not have sufficient

Page 32 of71

App. 461

technical and managerial capability to construct and operate the Facility in accordance with

industry certificate that may be granted. In short, Counsel for the Public argues that the

Applicant left too many variables subject to future conditions. See, Post-Hearing Memorandum

of Counsel for the Public at 47-50.

The North Branch Residents claim that A WE is a new startup company with no

experience. It claims that A WE made errors in its initial filings for variances before the Antrim

Zoning Board of Adjustment and that the quality of the Applicant's filings before the Town's

boards was poor and incomplete. The North Branch Residents argue that the Project, in its initial

stages, was smaller and that the Applicant was incompetent to manage the construction of the

Project in its smaller iteration and, therefore, should not be granted a Certificate for this much

larger project. See, Final Brief North Branch Residents, at 25.

The North Branch Residents also argue that it does not trust the Applicant's estimated

annual net capacity factor of37.5 to 40.5%. The North Branch Residents argue that the wind

resource is "not particularly outstanding" and that A WE has not presented data that conflict with

that statement. This argument takes issue with the V-Bar Report summarizing the wind resource

at the Facility. Ex. A WE 8, Appdx. 21. The North Branch Residents also claim that the

projected net capacity factor assured by the Applicant is far greater than capacity factors

experienced at other New England wind energy facility sites. The North Branch Residents argue

that because the projected capacity factor cannot be trusted, the Applicant does not have

sufficient technical and managerial capability to construct or operate the Project. See, Final

BriefNorth Branch Residents at 26-27.

IW AG argues that the Subcommittee must immediately discount the credibility of Sean

McCabe and Sally Wright because they are under contract with and/or employed by the

Page 33 of71

App. 462

Applicant. IW AG also claims that Ruben Segura-Coto can only speak to the qualifications of

Acciona and not the Applicant. Because no contract yet exists between the Applicant and

Acciona, IW AG asserts that there is no basis to evaluate technical or managerial expertise. See,

Final Memorandum of IW AG at 24.

IW AG also argues that the Subcommittee has violated the Right to Know law, RSA 91-

A, by "refusing to release financial information." It asserts that this action violated !WAG's due

process rights and effectively prohibits IW AG from commenting on fmancial capability. See,

Final Memorandum ofiW AG at 25.

Audubon, similar to Counsel for the Public and IW AG, argues that the tender of an O&M

contract with A WP by the Applicant is insufficient to establish that the Applicant has adequate

technical and managerial expertise to construct and operate the Facility. Audubon also argues

that the record is devoid of evidence of an O&M contract after the initial 5 year period.

According to Audubon, the perceived lack of information is a sufficient basis upon which to

deny the Certificate. See, Post-Hearing Memorandum of Law of Audubon at 21-22.

The Edwards/ Allen intervenors acknowledge that the Deloitte Report recognized that the

Applicant's development team has "direct experience" in wind energy development. However,

the Edwards/Allen intervenors argue that, with the exception of Mr. Kenworthy's management

of a small wind energy generation facility in the Carribean, the record does not contain evidence

ofthe Applicant's "hands-on" experience with the renewable energy facilities of this magnitude.2

The Edwards/ Allen intervenors go on to argue that sufficient technical capacity has not been

demonstrated by the Applicant. See, Closing Memorandum and Proposed Conditions of

2 The Edwards/Allen statement that the record does not contain evidence of the Applicant's experience is not supported by the resumes and testimony of Messrs. Cofelice, McCable and Kenworthy,

Page 34 of71

App. 463

Edwards/Allen at 3-4. Similar to the other parties, the Edwards/Allen intervenors also argue that

an O&M contract with Acciona does not presently exit and that its terms are ambiguous.

b. Subcommittee Deliberations

In a non-binding straw vote, the Subcommittee indicated that the Applicant appeared to

have sufficient technical and managerial capability to construct and operate the Project. In

coming to this conclusion, the Subcommittee recognized that the Applicant's team does bring

considerable experience to this Project. The Subcommittee also recognized that the

manufacturer of the turbines, Acciona, would be the entity primarily responsible for the initial

installation and operation of the turbines for a period of approximately five years. Acciona is a

large company and a world-wide leader in the field of wind power generation. While there may

be some uncertainty about the terms and conditions of the O&M contract, the Subcommittee

recognizes such relationships are routine in the industry. The Subcommittee concludes that the

Applicant, through its association with Acciona and the O&M Agreement, demonstrated that it

possesses the technical and managerial capacity required for the construction and operation of

the Facility. The overall sense of the Subcommittee was that the Applicant provided sufficient

evidence that it possesses the technical and managerial capability to construct and operate the

Facility, between its internal experience and the employment of Acciona through an O&M

Agreement.

2. Financial Capability

a. Positions of the Parties

The Applicant asserts that the record demonstrates that it possesses adequate financial

capability to fmance, construct and operate the Facility. In support of its claim of adequate

fmancial capability, the Applicant relies on the following: the pre-filed and direct testimony and

Page35 of71

App. 464

c

c

cross-examination of Joseph Cofelice and Martin Pasqualini, Ex. A WE 1, Cofelice and

Pasqualini Pre-Filed Testimony, Ex. A WE 9, Cofelice and Pasqualini Supplemental Testimony;

the conclusions reached in the Deloitte Report, Ex. PC 7; the fmancial expertise and backing of

its upstream investors and consultants, namely US Renewables Group. The Applicant does not

claim that it has the present fmancial ability to undertake the project from its own assets, but

rather, acknowledges that it will need to obtain and secure project fmancing, either through a

power purchase agreement ("PP A") or a "financial swap replicating the revenue certainty of a

PPA." Ex. A WE 1 at 55-56; PC 7 at 24. The Applicant notes that the Deloitte Report

commissioned by Counsel for the Public comes to a similar conclusion. In essence, the

Applicant asserts that it has adequate fmancial capability to obtain project fmancing so long as it

has secured a contractual stream of revenue. Absent that, the Applicant implies that financing

the Project will be impossible.

The Applicant also recognizes that it will be impossible to secure construction fmancing

without a PPA or some alternative contractual stream of revenue from the Facility. The

Applicant also argues that project financing for renewable energy projects is typical in the

industry and cannot be secured until all permits (including a Certificate) are in place. The

Applicant also recognizes the need for a PP A or similar device in order to induce a lender to

fmance the Project. Along these lines, the Applicant notes that the federal production tax credit

(PTC) has been extended to projects commenced in 2013 under recent federal legislation. The

implication is that the extension of the PTC should render a PP A more likely to be obtained. The

Applicant also argues that the testimony presented established a robust market for construction­

ready wind energy projects and that the price of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) has increased

dramatically since May 2011, thus demonstrating significant demand for wind energy resources.

Page 36 of71

App. 465

Thus, the Applicant agrees that sufficient financial capability only exists if the Applicant can

secure construction fmancing prior to the commencement of construction. The Applicant,

therefore, asks for the imposition of a condition similar to the condition imposed on the Granite

Reliable Project in Docket No. 2008-04. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at 18.

The Applicant opposes the fmancial arguments proffered by IW AG. While IW AG

claims that the fundamentals (i.e., extent of the wind resource and the capacity factor) of the

Project are overstated, the Applicant responds, by noting the V-Bar Wind Study Summary, Ex.

A WE 8, at 21, and by relying on the testimony of Sally Wright, that the predicted capacity

factors are consistent with typical modem wind projects using large rotor turbines. Transcript,

Day 2 at 226. The Applicant also asserts that IW AG is mistaken in its attempts to measure the

Project's competitiveness against the entire electric grid. The Applicant points out that

government imposed measures such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard ("RPS") adopted in

many states drive the cost of wind energy, not the cost of natural gas. See, Ex. A WE 9, Cofelice

and Pasqualini Supplemental Testimony at 12. In this regard, the Applicant argues that its

fmancial capability must be measured in the context of the renewable energy market and not

against the overall electricity market, which it admits is driven by the price for natural gas.

Applicant' s Post-Hearing Brief at 16.

Counsel for the Public argues that the Applicant has failed to establish that it has

adequate fmancial capability to support the construction and continued operation of the Facility.

Counsel for the Public first compares this Facility to other projects where the Subcommittee has

granted a Certificate on a condition that, among other things, the developer must have fmancing

in place prior to construction. Counsel for the Public notes that in the Laidlaw Berlin Biopower

matter, the SEC required an approved PP A and review of the fmancing closing prior to

Page 37 of71

App. 466

construction. Counsel for the Public notes that in that case, the conditions of the Certificate

required the developer to file additional documentation regarding the ability to construct and

operate the project. Counsel for the Public points out that the developer in the Laidlaw Berlin

Biopower docket came before the Subcommittee with a draft PPA, a "comfort letter" from a

recognized lender, a· fuel supply agreement for the wood to fuel the facility, and a known capital

structure. By comparison, Counsel for the Public notes that the Applicant in this case has no

PP A, no signed O&M agreement, no turbine supply agreement, no fmancing or evidence of an

interested fmancing prospect and an unknown capital structure. See, Post-Hearing Memorandum

of Counsel for the Public at 44-47.

Counsel for the Public also argues that the Applicant's position is inferior to the

developer in the Granite Reliable docket. In that docket, Counsel for the Public asserts that the

developer had significant and recent experience in raising capital, had identified potential lenders

and had made progress toward negotiating a PP A. Ultimately, Counsel for the Public asserts that

this Applicant has failed to establish a record as strong as that made for the PP A and fmancing

conditions in Laidlaw Berlin Biopower and Granite Reliable. Therefore, Counsel for the Public

asserts that the Subcommittee is left with nothing but the experience of Mr. Cofelice and Mr.

Pasqualini with CP Energy. Counsel for the Public also notes that there is no contract beyond

the end of2012 with CP Energy. ld. at 46-47.

Counsel for the Public also argues that the Deloitte Report does not support a fmding of

fmancial capability. The Deloitte Report suggests that the cost of the Project may be

underestimated when compared to others in the region. Similarly, the Deloitte Report suggests

that the capacity factor for the Project may be overstated when compared to capacity factors

achieved at other projects. Additionally, Counsel for the Public points out that the Deloitte

Page 38 of71

App. 467

Report establishes a fixed charge coverage ratio that, coupled with a PP A, might support

fmancing of the Project with the assistance ofCP Energy. Counsel for the Public claims that the

Applicant argued against the Deloitte Report's conclusion and would not run it's pro forma with

Deloitte's fixed charge coverage ratio. Counsel for the Public asks the Subcommittee to take that

refusal as an acknowledgment that the Applicant cannot achieve the target fixed charge coverage

ratio established by Deloitte. Without a PP A and without being able to meet the Deloitte fixed

charge coverage ratio, Counsel for the Public argues that the Applicant has not demonstrated the

fmancial capability to fmance construction and operation of the Project. Id. at 47.

Counsel for the Public also argues that the Applicant has provided little, if any, evidence

of the fmancial capacity to support the Project beyond the fmancing stage and into the

operational phase. Counsel for the Public argues that the Applicant undertakes a nearsighted

approach in this regard.

b. Subcommittee Deliberations

The Subcommittee expressed concern about the financial capability of the Applicant.

The Subcommittee's concern stemmed from the fact that the Applicant did not present evidence

of any significant progress towards obtaining construction fmancing, obtaining a PP A, or

attracting a significant equity partner. The Subcommittee recognized and accepted the

Applicant's proposition that obtaining a Certificate would enhance the ability of the Applicant to

pursue project fmancing, additional equity partners, and the PP A. However, unlike other cases

in which conditions were fashioned to address these issues, the subcommittee was concerned that

the Applicant essentially comes to the table without any substantial progress towards establishing

any of the key conditions necessary to render the Applicant to be fmancially capable to construct

and operate the Facility. The Subcommittee did not make a fmal determination as to whether

Page 39 of71

App. 468

c

c

there were conditions which, if met, would render the Applicant to be fmancially capable of

constructing and operating the Facility as proposed. Consideration of such conditions was

deferred and, ultimately, the Subcommittee voted to deny the Application on other grounds.

E. Orderly Development of the Region.

1. Positions of the Parties

RSA 162-H: 16, IV(b) requires the Subcommittee to consider whether the proposed

Project will unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region with due consideration

given to the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing

bodies. RSA 162-H:l6, IV(b).

a. Municipal and Planning Issues

The Subcommittee was presented with an unusual circumstance in this docket.

Municipal and planning bodies within the Town of Antrim took different positions with respect

to the Application.

The Town of Antrim, through its Board of Selectmen, supported the Project. See, Town

of Antrim Post-Hearing Brief at 2. The Town, through its Board of Selectmen, negotiated an

agreement with the Applicant. The Agreement with the town addressed a panoply of issues

including, but not limited to, the appearance of the wind turbines, noise restrictions, construction

conditions and decommissioning requirements and funding. Ex. A WE 4, Appdx. 17 A. In

addition, the Town of Antrim, through its Board of Selectmen, negotiated a PILOT Agreement.

Ex. A WE 12. Additionally, when concerns were raised concerning the effect that the PILOT

might have as a result of Antrim being in a cooperative school district, an alternative PILOT was

negotiated. Ex. A WE 13. In addition, the Town of Antrim, through its Board of Selectmen,

opines that the existence of the Facility in the Rural Conservation District of the Town is

Page 40 of71

App. 469

consistent with the orderly development of the region and the Town's Ordinances as the

Selectmen argue that public utilities are a permitted use in the rural conservation district where

the Facility is proposed to be located. Town of Antrim Post-Hearing Brief at 1-2.

The Antrim Planning Board indicates that it does not take a position for or against the

Facility. The Planning Board suggests that it has "defined its role as intervenor to provide the

SEC with sufficient information so that it has a clear understanding of the Antrim master plan,

zoning ordinances and subdivision and site plan review regulations." It has taken a position that

the Antrim Planning Board should have jurisdiction over any subdivision that may be required

pursuant to the Antrim Wind Energy, LLC project. Curiously, however, the Planning Board

takes the position that there is insufficient evidence from which the Subcommittee could fmd that

the Project will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region. The Planning

Board submitted as exhibits copies of the Town's Zoning Ordinance, the Town's Master Plan,

the Town's Planning Ordinance and the Town's Site Plan Review Regulations. See generally,

APB 2, APB 10, APB 11, APB 12, APB 14.

The Antrim Conservation Commission similarly indicates that it is neither for nor against

the proposed Facility. However, the Conservation Commission recommends conditions that

would substantially reduce the size and nature of the Project and substantially increase the

requirement of additional mitigation. See, Closing Memorandum and Proposed Conditions of

Antrim Conservation Commission at 10-12.

In addition to the foregoing Boards and Commissions within the Town of Antrim, matters

pertaining to the proposed Facility were submitted to the voters of the Town of Antrim on the

Town's warrant at two Town meetings. While the Applicant, the various Boards and other

intervenors vehemently disagree about how the votes at town meetings should be interpreted, it

Page 41 of71

App. 470

was clear to the Subcommittee that those votes generally indicated that the townspeople who

voted generally supported the development of the proposed Facility.

In addition to the aforementioned Boards and Commissions within the Town of Antrim,

the Subcommittee also heard the views of the Stoddard Conservation Commission. The

Stoddard Conservation Commission argued that the Application should be denied. The Stoddard

Conservation Commission's opinion focused primarily on wildlife conservation issues and not

issues that more generally pertain to the orderly development of the region. See, Final Brief,

Stoddard Conservation Commission.

Finally, it should be noted that the Subcommittee invited the participation of the

Southwest Regional Planning Commission. A letter from counsel to the Subcommittee was

forwarded to the Southwest Regional Planning Commission on February 9, 2012. No response

was received and the Southwest Regional Planning Commission did not participate in any

manner in this proceeding.

b. Economic Impacts

As part of the Subcommittee's consideration of the impact of the proposed Facility on the

orderly development of the region, the Subcommittee heard arguments from the parties

addressing the likely impact of the proposed Facility on the local economy and on real estate

values. The Applicant submitted the testimony of Professor Ross Gittell and Matthew

Magnusson on both of these issues. Ex. A WE 1, Tab 11; Transcript, Day 6, Morning Session at

10-154. In addition, the Applicant submitted two studies performed by Professor Gittell and Mr.

Magnusson. In the first study, they reviewed the economic impact of the proposed Facility. Ex

A WE 3, Appdx. 14B. In the second study, they reviewed the impact of the Lempster Wind

facility on local residential property values in Lempster. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 14A. Professor

Page 42 of71

App. 471

Gittell and Mr. Magnusson determined that the Project would contribute to the local area

economy approximately $12,000,000.00 during construction. Total economic benefits, including

direct, indirect and induced benefits to the local economy from the Project are expected to be

approximately $56,000,000.00 over a 20 year period. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 14B at 3. Professor

Gittell and Mr. Magnusson also opined that the Facility in Lempster did not have a significant

impact on local residential property values. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 14A. Intervenors, particularly

the North Branch Residents and IW AG, contested the methodology used by Professor Gittell and

Mr. Magnusson in both studies. IW AG primarily attacked the economic analysis done by

Professor Gittell and Mr. Magnusson by criticizing the underlying computer model used to

calculate state and local impacts. See, Post-Hearing Memorandum of Industrial Wind Action

Group at 18. IW AG also criticized the Gittell!Magnusson report regarding Lempster real estate

values. Likewise, the North Branch Residents criticized the Lempster property value report

primarily based upon anecdotal information. See generally, Ex. NB 2, Ex. RB 2 (photographs of

homes for sale in the vicinity of the Lempster wind turbines).

c. Effects on Conservation Efforts as Part of the Impact of the Facility on Orderly Development

The Applicant argues that the Project's conservation plan which provides for 808 acres of

permanent conservation is consistent with the conservation goals of the Antrim Open Space Plan

and the corresponding conservation contained in the Town's Master Plan. See, Applicant's Post-

Hearing Brief at 30. The Applicant also argues that the Project is compatible with existing and

historical land uses on the Tuttle Hill Ridge. The Applicant points out that the area has

historically been used for sheep farming and timber harvesting and that present uses of the region

include commercial timber production, hiking, hunting, with commercial enterprises, residences

Page 43 of71

App.472

and undeveloped forests, existing along Route 9 in the vicinity of the ridge. See, Applicant's

Post-Hearing Brief at 31. The Antrim Conservation Commission points out that the proposed

Facility is located in an area where there have been significant conservation efforts by the Town

and neighboring towns. The Antrim Conservation Commission also points out that the Facility

is located within the "Quabbin to Cardigan Initiative" which is a regional interstate conservation

effort. See, Closing Memorandum and Proposed Conditions of Antrim Conservation

Commission at 3.

d. Subcommittee Deliberations

After reviewing and discussing the Application and the evidence as it pertained to the

orderly development of the region, the Subcommittee noted that residents of Antrim voted not to

prohibit the Project. The Subcommittee also noted that the Master Plan for the Town of Antrim

contained certain goals that included maintaining the rural character of the community, but also

encouraging energy conservation and encouraging the use of renewable energy in their

community. The Subcommittee noted that the community in Antrim had been careful and

diligent in its planning efforts going back at least to 1989 with the establishment of the rural

conservation district and the open space conservation plan. The Subcommittee also noted that

these conservation efforts were coupled with commercial uses that are consistent with rural areas

such as logging and timber harvesting.

It is important to recognize that although the Subcommittee must consider the views of

municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies, the

Subcommittee is free to take a position that is different than those presented by those agencies

with respect to the orderly development of the region. While the Subcommittee also considered

the impact on real estate values, it was determined that the information provided was too limited

Page 44 of71

App. 473

in scope in order to establish that construction of the Facility would have a detrimental impact on

real estate values.

During deliberations, the Subcommittee also noted that in addition to the Quabbin to

Cardigan Initiative, there are easements within areas close to the proposed Facility that are part

of the Forest Legacy Program, a program that supports conservation efforts and applies state and

federal funds to those efforts.

After considering the various issues impacting on this decision, the Subcommittee

indicated that the proposed Facility would not unduly interfere with the orderly development of

the region. Prior to reaching this conclusion, the Subcommittee addressed the views of

municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies, the economic

impacts of the Facility and the impact that the Project would have on conservation efforts.

VI. ADVERSE EFFECTS

Under New Hampshire law, the Subcommittee may only issue a Certificate of Site and

Facility if it finds that the Facility will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on: (1)

aesthetics; (2) historic sites; (3) air and water quality; (4) the natural environment; and, (5) public

health and safety. See, RSA 162-H:16, IV( c). The Subcommittee must consider each of the

issues set forth in RSA 162-H: 16, IV( c), without discretion to determine if one area of inquiry is

more important than another. The statutory requirement states that the Subcommittee "must find

that the site and facility ... will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic

sites, air and water quality, the natural environment, and public health and safety". See, RSA

162-H:16, IV. Therefore, ifthe Subcommittee fmds that the proposed Project will have an

unreasonable adverse effect on any one of the statutory criteria, the Subcommittee must deny a

Certificate of Site and Facility.

Page 45 of71

App.474

A. Aesthetics

1. Positions of the Parties

In considering whether a Project will have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics,

the Subcommittee will generally consider the effects of the Project on the viewshed in the region.

See, Application of Lempster Wind, LLC (SEC Docket 2006-01), Decision Issuing a Certificate

of Site and Facility with Conditions at 27 (June 28, 2007). During the course ofthe adjudicatory

hearing, the Subcommittee had the benefit of hearing from two experts. The Applicant engaged

the services of Saratoga Associates. John Guariglia, a representative of Saratoga Associates,

conducted a visual assessment of the Project and prepared a visual impact analysis report. Ex.

A WE 3, Appdx. 9A. The analysis included a visual assessment of the area within five miles of

the proposed Project. Subsequently, at the request of other parties, the Applicant had Saratoga

extend its visual assessment report to an area extending up to ten miles surrounding the Project.

Ex. A WE 7 at 2. In addition to creating a visual impact assessment, Mr. Guariglia also presented

photo simulations from several locations to illustrate the visibility of turbines from what

Saratoga considered to be a representative sample of viewsheds at varying distances from the

Project. The initial and supplemental visual impact analyses identified 72 visual receptor

locations within the five mile radius study and 258 visual receptors within the five to ten mile

radius of the proposed Project. Ex. A WE 7, Appdx. 9A-1 at 1-14. It should also be noted that

Mr. Guariglia performed additional photo simulations illustrating potential views from additional

areas within the five to ten mile radius. In his testimony, Mr. Guariglia concludes that the

project would not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics because the project would

not be visible in a significant portion of the study area. In his testimony, he also admits that

wind turbines are "large and highly visible structures". He further admits that since the turbines

Page 46 of71

App.475

are large and highly visible in some locations, their visibility "may not be readily avoided." Ex.

A WE 1, Guariglia Pre-Filed Testimony at 17. In his testimony, Mr. Guariglia also indicated that

his analysis of the effects on individual viewsheds was a concern for the effect on view shed areas

that were of"statewide significance." However, Mr. Guariglia had some difficulty in defining

what the term "statewide significance" meant. Ultimately, he indicated that his definition was "a

location with scenic and aesthetic values and is protected by law or a legislative body".

Ultimately, Mr. Guariglia identifies this defmition as coming from a State of Maine guidance

document and from a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation policy. See,

Transcript, Day 5, Afternoon Session at 197-199. Mr. Guariglia rendered the opinion that the

proposed Facility would not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics and in particular,

the viewshed in the area.

The Subcommittee also heard from Jean Vissering, a landscape architect consultant, hired

by Counsel for the Public. Ms. Vissering did not prepare a viewshed map as part of her study,

relying upon the viewshed maps created by Mr. Guariglia and Saratoga Associates, and did not

dispute the fmding contained within the viewshed maps that 95% of the area studied would not

have a view of the turbines during leaf-on season. Transcript, Day 7 Morning at 114. However,

Ms. Vissering testified that although the Saratoga study was in and of itself accurate, it was not

complete and did not contain what is required for a visual impact assessment. She criticized the

Saratoga Report as lacking any detailed analysis of the specific view shed vantage points within

the region. Ex. PC 1 at 17. Ms. Vissering determined that the Project, as designed, would have

unreasonable adverse effects on the scenic quality and resources of the surrounding area. Ex. PC

1 at 2. Ms. Vissering found that there would be substantial impacts on visually sensitive

resources throughout the region. She identified her approach as a more qualitative approach and

Page47 of71

App. 476

c

as an approach that should be taken in addition to the quantitative approach contained within the

Saratoga Report. She found that there would be significant impacts on the viewsheds from

Willard Pond, Bald Mountain, Goodhue Hill, Gregg Lake, and other locations. See, PC 1 at 5-

15. In addition, she found that Willard Pond and the wildlife sanctuary, as a whole, would be

unreasonably impacted by the Facility. Id. at 17. Ms. Vissering's approach and her qualitative

assessment were significantly different than that provided by Mr. Guariglia. Ms. Vissering

ultimately concluded that the Project, as presently configured, would have an unreasonable

adverse impact on the aesthetics of the region. However, Ms. Vissering also indicated her

opinion that the Site could support a wind energy facility if it were to undertake certain measures

including the elimination of the turbines that would impose upon Willard Pond (believed to be

turbines 9 and 1 0) and the use of a smaller turbine throughout the Project. Id. at 18. In addition,

Ms. Vissering also indicated that the Project should use radar activated collision avoidance

system for lighting of the towers and provide additional conservation lands as off-site mitigation.

Additionally, Ms. Vissering recommended that steps be taken to shield the view of the road and

turbine pads that may be visible from Goodhue Hill and other areas where the infrastructure of

the Project other than the turbines will be significant. Id. at 18-19. It was Ms. Vissering's

opinion that the Project, as configured, was not appropriately scaled and designed to work within

the geographic setting. Id.

2. Subcommittee Deliberations

The Subcommittee spent considerable time evaluating the impact of the Facility on

aesthetics. See, Transcript, Deliberations Day 1 at 40-71; Transcript, Deliberations Day 3

Afternoon Session at 6-79. The Subcommittee found that the Facility, as proposed, would have

an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics. See, RSA 162-H:16, IV( c). Deliberation

Page 48 of71

App. 477

Transcript, Day 3 Morning at 71. In coming to its determination, the Subcommittee considered

three issues: the impact ofthe Facility's size and scope on the aesthetics of the overall

community; the impact of the Facility on the area referred to as Willard Pond and the dePierre­

feu Wildlife Sanctuary; and, the lack of satisfactory mitigation for the aesthetic impacts of the

Facility.

The Facility, as proposed, would include ten wind turbine generators that would run

along a ridgeline that is approximately 2.5 miles in length. Ex. A WE 1 at 5. Each turbine would

rise to 492 feet when measured from its base to the tip of its blade. Ex. A WE 1 at 16. As

proposed, each ofthe turbines would be constructed at the following site elevations: (1) WTG-1

1,431 feet; (2) WTG-2 1,743 feet; (3) WTG-3 1,758 feet; (4) WTG-4 1,682 feet; (5) WTG-5

1,726 feet; (6) WTG-6 1,516 feet; (7) WTG-7 1,676 feet; (8) WTG-8 1,700 feet; (9) WTG-9

1,646 feet; (10) WTG-10 1,896 feet. Ex. AWE 2, Appdx. 2E (FAA determinations); see also,

Ex. AWE 3, Appdx. 7A (civil design drawings). The ridgeline designated for the location of the

turbines has a site elevation fluctuating between 1,042 feet and 1,904 feet. Ex. A WE 1 at 48. As

proposed, the height of each turbine would be between 25% and 35% of the elevation of the

ridge line where it will be located. Ex. A WE 2, Appdx. 2E (FAA determinations); see also, Ex.

A WE 3, Appdx. 7 A (civil design drawings).

The Tuttle Hill ridgeline is a prominent topographical feature in the Town of Antrim.

The ridgeline extends along the northwest border of the Town of Antrim and along with Willard

Mountain, Robb Mountain, Bald Mountain and Goodhue Hill, and creates a cradle that

encompasses Willard Pond, Gregg Lake, Meadow Marsh and a number of areas containing

sensitive viewpoints. Ex. PC 1 at 3-4; Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 9A at 7. At least one of these

Page 49 of71

App.478

visually sensitive areas, Pitcher Mountain, already has an existing view of the Lempster wind

project located in Lempster, New Hampshire. Ex. PC 1 at 10.

The Subcommittee fmds that the size of the proposed wind turbine generators, when

imposed upon the Tuttle Hill/Willard Mountain ridgeline would appear out of scale and out of

context with the region. This is particularly so when considering the viewshed impacts on a

combination of visually sensitive areas. There are significant qualitative impacts upon Willard

Pond, Bald Mountain, Goodhue Hill and Gregg Lake. Ex. PC 1 at 5-10. There are moderate

impacts on additional locations including, but not limited to, Robb Reservoir, Island Pond,

Highland Lake, Nubanusit Pond, Black Pond, Franklin Pierce Lake, Meadow Marsh and Pitcher

Mountain. Ex. PC 1 at 10-14.

The proposed turbines are the tallest ever sought to be certificated in this state. 3 In fact, if

constructed they may be the tallest free-standing structures in the state. By way of illustration,

the tallest building in Manchester, New Hampshire, One City Hall Plaza, is approximately 275

feet in height. The location for the site is not remote and is within the view shed of numerous

areas, both publicly and privately owned, where the public will see a significant impact on the

landscape.

The Subcommittee found Mr. Guariglia's limitation of qualitative considerations only to

areas meeting his definition of "statewide significance" to be an overly restrictive approach.

Moreover, it appears that Mr. Guariglia may have misunderstood the status and values of certain

viewpoints. For instance, the Audubon's wildlife sanctuary is an area to which state and federal

funds have been designated. Regardless of the definition used to identify an area as being of

3 Existing turbine heights are as follows: Lempster Wind, 396 feet; Granite Reliable, 411 feet; Groton Wind, 399 feet.

Page 50 of71

App. 479

"statewide significance", it is clear that the Facility would have a significant impact on areas that

are of significant value for their viewshed in the Town of Antrim and the surrounding region. A

majority of the Subcommittee agreed with the assessment ofMs. Vissering that the Facility is not

appropriately scaled and designed to work within the geographic setting. Ex. PC 1 at 18. In

short, the turbines are too tall and too imposing in the context of the setting. They would

overwhelm the landscape and would have an unreasonable adverse impact upon valuable

viewsheds.

In addition to the unreasonable adverse effect on the aesthetics of the region, the Facility

would have a particularly profound impact on Willard Pond and the dePierrefeu Wildlife

Sanctuary which is owned in fee and managed by Audubon. The Wildlife Sanctuary comprises

1,700 acres. The Facility is proposed to be constructed within one mile of the property boundary

of the Wildlife Sanctuary. In addition, Audubon holds conservation easements on approximately

1,300 acres ofland adjacent to the Wildlife Sanctuary. Willard Pond is located in the interior of

the Wildlife Sanctuary. Willard Pond is a state designated Great Pond. See generally, RSA

4:40-a; RSA 271 :20; N.H. CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ENV-WR 101.21. Willard Pond is

approximately 100 acres and boasts an undeveloped shoreline and pristine water quality.

Motorized vessels are prohibited from the Pond. Willard Pond is surrounded by forested peaks,

including Bald Mountain and Goodhue Hill. Willard Pond and the Wildlife Sanctuary are

popular locations that are enjoyed by numerous visitors. Environmental education programs,

fishing, birding, wildlife viewing, and solitude all appear to generate visitors to the Pond and

Wildlife Sanctuary. The Pond and the Wildlife Sanctuary are part of a larger tract of conserved

lands consisting of approximately 30,000 acres and known as the "super sanctuary." See

generally, Ex. ASNH 23.

Page 51 of71

App. 480

Public funds have been dedicated to the dePierrefeu Wildlife Sanctuary and the

surrounding conservation lands through a conservation program known as the Forest Legacy

Program, the federal government has invested approximately $3.5 million to conserve the lands

within and directly adjacent to the Wildlife Sanctuary. Transcript Day 8 Morning at 63, 68-69.

The State has invested approximately $400,000.00 for similar purposes. ld. In addition, Willard

Pond and the dePierrefeu Wildlife Sanctuary sit within the "Quabbin to Cardigan Initiative," an

interstate regional effort to conserve the Monadnock Highlands of north central Massachusetts

and western New Hampshire.

The visual impact of the Facility on Willard Pond and the dePierrefeu Wildlife Sanctuary

is well illustrated in the photo simulations prepared by Mr. Guariglia and Ms. Vissering. Ex.

AWE 3, Appdx. 13A, Figures A8-a and A8-B; PC 1, Appdx. A, photos lA- 1-C. In addition,

the Subcommittee had occasion to visit the Willard Pond area as part of a site visit prior to the

public hearing in this docket. Having visited the area, the Subcommittee was able to understand

first-hand the context and the setting of Willard Pond and the Wildlife Sanctuary. Having visited

the Site and understanding the size and specifications of the proposed Facility, a majority of the

Subcommittee is convinced that the Facility would impose an unreasonable adverse effect on the

viewshed from Willard Pond, as well as in other areas throughout the dePierrefeu Wildlife

Sanctuary.

The Applicant claims, however, that the visual effects of the Facility will be mitigated

physically and by the dedication of off-site mitigation lands. The Applicant asserts that it has

offered to mitigate many of the physical characteristics that contribute to the visual impact of the

turbines through its mitigation program. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 13A at 21. The Applicant asserts,

among other things, that the color of the turbines will be neutral to minimize reflected glare and

Page 52 of71

App. 481

visual contrast with the background sky. The Applicant notes that the turbines will not be used

for commercial advertising. The Facility will also maximize the use of underground

transmission lines and interconnects. The Applicant also lists additional physical measures taken

to minimize the visual impact of the Facility. Id.

In addition to physical mitigation, the Applicant submits that its overall environmental

mitigation for the project consists of dedicating in excess of 800 acres ofland in and around the

Facility to conservation easements. Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at 12.

After consideration and deliberation, a majority of the Subcommittee found that the

proffered mitigation does not appropriately mitigate the unreasonable adverse aesthetic impacts

of the Facility. The physical mitigation efforts as described by the Applicant, while appreciated,

are comparable to what is the standard design of any wind turbine facility in the region. The

Applicant refers to the standard features of a modem wind turbine facility as mitigation. These

features were considered by the Subcommittee in its review of this Application. A majority of

the Subcommittee fmds that the physical mitigation program cited by the Applicant is

insufficient to mitigate the visual effects of this Facility on the regional setting and on the

Willard Pond - dePierrefeu Wildlife Sanctuary area.

Similarly, the Subcommittee fmds that the offer of more than 800 acres of conservation

easements in and around the proposed Facility is a generous offer by the Applicant. However,

the dedication of lands to a conservation easement in this case would not suitably mitigate the

impact. While additional conserved lands would be of value to wildlife and habitat, they would

not mitigate the imposing visual impact that the Facility would have on valuable viewsheds.

A majority of the Subcommittee is reluctant to impose the mitigation measures suggested

by Ms. Vissering on the Applicant. As noted above, Ms. Vissering suggested the elimination of

Page 53 of71

App. 482

two turbines and a reduction in size of the balance of the Facility among other measures as

mitigation. However, we note that the Applicant did not propose a smaller project as an

alternative despite the fact that, at one point, this Facility was proposed to consist of smaller

turbines. The reduction in scale suggested by Ms. Vissering may substantially mitigate the

unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics but would likely change other dynamics of the Project

to such a degree that the Subcommittee would be unable to confidently assess the consequences

of issuing a Certificate.

The Subcommittee debated whether there was some form of mitigation that would permit

the Facility to be certificated while appropriately ameliorating its impacts. The Subcommittee

simply could not structure appropriate mitigation measures for adverse visual effects of the

magnitude presented by the Applicant without substantially affecting other important factors that

must be considered by the Applicant in the planning, siting and construction of a wind-powered

facility.

It should be noted that other jurisdictions have similarly denied authority for the

construction of energy facilities that would cause adverse impacts on the view shed or aesthetics

of the region. In his Post-Hearing Memorandum, Counsel for the Public offers a summary of

several decisions issued in other jurisdictions by agencies with siting and permitting authority.

See, Post-Hearing Memorandum of Counsel for the Public at 24-26. The Subcommittee

recognizes that its authority and jurisdiction has a scope that is somewhat different than the out-

of-state agencies relied on by Counsel for the Public; however, the subject matter and

consideration due to aesthetic issues is similar.4 In this docket, as in those referenced by Counsel

4 Counsel for the Public relies on agency decisions from the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the New York Public Service Commission. Post-Hearing Memorandum of Counsel for the Public at 24-26. In the cited Maine cases, the agency is required to "consider the state's policy of

Page 54 of71

App. 483

for the Public, the Facility will have an unreasonable adverse effect on viewsheds of significant

value within the State ofNew Hampshire. It is for this reason that we must deny the Application

for a Certificate of Site and Facility.

We note that the Applicant has received FAA Determination letters that indicate that the

turbines would not cause a hazard to aviation and requiring night-time lighting. The Applicant

has also entered into an agreement with the AMC to install radar activated night lighting when it

is approved by the FAA. Aviation safety is of paramount importance when constructing and

operating turbines as tall as proposed for this Facility. However, if the FAA determines to

approve radar activated lighting, we would defer to their expertise. Thus, if a Certificate were to

be granted in this docket, the Subcommittee would approve the AMC Agreement as a condition

of the Certificate. The radar activated lighting would serve to mitigate a portion of the

unreasonable adverse effects on the aesthetics of the region. However, a majority of the

Subcommittee does not believe that the use of radar activated lighting sufficiently adds to the

mitigation of the aesthetic impact as to warrant the issuance of a Certificate.

B. Historic Sites

In order to issue a Certificate to the Applicant, the Subcommittee must decide that the

Project will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on historic sites in the region. See, RSA

162-H:16, IV( c). The Project is subject to review pursuant to Section 106 of the Historic

Preservation Act of 1996. The lead federal agency for Section 106 review in this case is the

United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Army Corps"). The Army Corps is required to act in

consultation with the New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources. See, 16 U.S.C. §470 et.

identifying and protecting areas that possess scenic features and values of state or national significance." In West Virginia, the agency must determine whether the turbines will "significantly and adversely impact views from recognized public sites used as scenic overlooks."

Page 55 of71

App. 484

seq. As a matter of practice, a review of historical resources is an iterative process. The

evaluation considers two types of resources: (1) archeological resources, below ground, from the

"pre-contact" period prior to European settlement; and (2) historic structures. Historic review

under Section 106 generally involves three stages: (1 )identification; (2) evaluation; and (3)

mitigation, if necessary. Stages 2 and 3 are not triggered if appropriate study demonstrates that

the Facility will not adversely impact any archeological resource or there will be no historic

structures in the vicinity of the site.

1. Positions of the Parties

The Applicant has completed both Phase 1A and Phase 1B surveys with respect to

archeological conditions. The Phase 1A survey indicated no historic period or pre-contact

archeological sites were within the Project's boundaries or within 10 kilometers of the Project

that have previously been documented. Ex. A WE 1; Will and Stevenson Pre-Filed Direct

Testimony at 6. Additionally, the Phase 1B inspection indicated that there were no land forms

that were suitable for pre-contact period subsurface testing and that no historic period features

such as cellar holes (other than stone walls) were identified within the Project area. Id. The New

Hampshire Division of Historical Resources concurs with these fmdings. See, Ex. A WE 3,

Appdx. 9C.

With respect to historic structures, the Section 106 process is continuing. The Applicant

has completed a Project Area Form which has been accepted by the Division of Historical

Resources. In addition to the Project Area Form, the Applicant has provided the inventory and

area forms to the Division of Historical Resources and has also sought determination of

eligibility for the National Register. See, Ex. Comm. 9, Ex. Comm. 15. Though the Antrim

Planning Board identified a number of historic structures that would be negatively impacted, it

Page 56 of71

App. 485

did not conclude that the Facility would have an unreasonable adverse impact on historic

structures.

The Subcommittee has received a report from the New Hampshire Division of Historical

Resources requesting that, if the Subcommittee grants a Certificate, it be conditioned upon

continuing compliance with the Section 1 06 process, including fmal identification of resources,

assessment of effects, and avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts to historic

resources. RSA 162-H: 16, VII permits the Subcommittee to condition a Certificate upon the

results of required federal or state agency studies whose study period exceeds the application

period.

2. Subcommittee Deliberations

After reviewing the record as described above, the Subcommittee unanimously indicated

that the Project would not have an unreasonable adverse effect on historic sites.

C. Air and Water Quality

Pursuant to RSA 162-H: 16, IV( c), the Subcommittee must consider whether the facility,

as proposed, would have an unreasonable adverse effect on air and water quality.

1. Positions of the Parties

No party claimed that the Facility would cause unreasonable adverse effect on air quality,

though IW AG argued that the Facility was not needed to meet environmental standards such as

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as the regional level of emissions has been dropping in

recent years for unrelated reasons.

The Applicant and intervenors testified to the potential impact on water quality. Other

than some concerns regarding run off and disturbance of wetlands, which are governed by

Page 57 of71

App.486

Department of Environmental Services permits, there was no claim that the Facility would not

have an unreasonable adverse effect on water quality.

2. Subcommittee Deliberations

It is undisputed that the Facility will not emit pollutants into the air. While the parties

may disagree about the overall contribution of the proposed facility to a reduction in air

pollution, there is no concern that the Facility will have an adverse effect on air quality.

Regarding water quality, potential concerns are adequately addressed in the three

recommended permits issued by the Department of Environmental Services: the Alteration of

Terrain Permit and §401 Water Quality Certification; the Wetlands Permit; and the Subsurface

Systems Permit. See, §V, B, 2 above. Compliance with the conditions of said permits will

support a finding that the Facility would not have an unreasonable adverse effect on water

quality.

D. Natural Environment

The Subcommittee must consider whether the Facility will have an unreasonable adverse

impact on the natural environment. See, RSA 162-H:16, IV( c). Review ofthe effects of the

proposed Facility on the natural environment includes a review of rare plants and exemplary

natural communities located within the Project area, wildlife within the Project area, the

existence of avian species and bats within the Project area, and concerns about habitat

fragmentation.

1. Positions of the Parties

a. Rare Plants and Exemplary Natural Communities.

The Applicant asserts that the construction and operation of the Facility will not have an

adverse effect on rare plants or exemplary natural communities. To support its position, the

Page 58 of71

App. 487

Applicant presented the testimony of Dana Valleau, (Ex. A WE 1, Valleau Pre-filed Direct

Testimony at 9), as well as a natural communities report, see, (Ex. A WE 1, Appdx. 11A (natural

communities)). The report indicates that surveys determined that there were no significant

natural communities or rare plants in the Project area. Additionally, the assessment determined

that none of the surveyed communities in the project area would qualify as exemplary. In

addition to the information from the Applicant, the Subcommittee received two reports from the

New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau. On July 2, 2012, the Natural Heritage Bureau

provided a report indicating that a standard database query for known locations of rare species

and exemplary natural communities found nothing of concern in the Project area. The July 2,

2012 report also indicated that representatives from the Natural Heritage Bureau walked through

the site in December of2011 and on that walk, could fmd no evidence of rare species or

uncommon natural community types or exemplary examples of natural communities. However,

the Natural Heritage Bureau wished to conduct a further review during the growing season. See,

Ex. Comm. 10.

On August 2, 2012, the Natural Heritage Bureau reported that its representative

conducted a further on-site review on July 13, 2012. Id. The purpose of the second on-site

review was to search for state listed plant species within a few targeted natural community types

with greater potential for rare species. No rare plant species were observed during these surveys.

As a result of the survey and mapping performed by the Applicant, and the reviews by the

Natural Heritage Bureau, both database reviews and on-site reviews, the Bureau determined that

the proposed project will not impact rare plants species or exemplary natural communities. See,

Ex. Comm. 10.

Page 59 of71

App. 488

c

No other party to this proceeding offered additional evidence or disputed the fmdings of

the Natural Heritage Bureau.

b. Wildlife (exclusive of avian species and bats)

The Applicant presented the testimony of Dana Valleau and Adam Gravel with respect to

the impacts of the Facility on wildlife in the Project area. In his Pre-Filed Direct Testimony, Mr.

Valleau asserts that a desk top review of known environmental factors reveals no known critical

habitat or endangered species that are present at the Project site. The United States Fish &

Wildlife Service concluded the same. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 18 at 2. In addition, the Applicant,

through Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel, prepared and submitted a wildlife impact assessment. Ex.

A WE 6, Appdx. 12G. In the wildlife impact assessment prepared by Messrs. Valleau and

Gravel, they assert that "direct impacts to wildlife from construction and operation of the Project

are not expected to be a significant concern". Ex. A WE 6, Appdx. 12G at 1. This conclusion is

not disputed by any other parties.

c. Wildlife -Habitat Fragmentation

The Applicant presented the testimony of Dana Valleau and Adam Gravel with respect to

the issue of wildlife and habitat fragmentation. Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel opined that the

unfragmented habitat block associated with the project area consists of 12,994 acres. They point

out, however, that the Project will only impact 5.4 acres ofland that is designated as highest

ranked habitat in New Hampshire and only 6.4 acres of land that is designated as highest ranked

habitat in the biological region. Ex. A WE 9, Pre-Filed Testimony of Dana Valleau and Adam

Gravel at 12. Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel also point out that after construction is complete, the

fmal Project, including the maintained roads, electrical infrastructure and turbine pad footprints,

will total only 11.5 acres. Id. Thus, Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel determined that the "narrow

Page 60 of71

App. 489

and discontinuous footprint of the project does not create an island of isolated habitat and is ...

not significant habitat fragmentation". ld. The definition used by Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel is

the definition contained in the text, The Theory oflsland Biogeography, by E.O. Wilson and

R.H. McArthur (1967). ld. Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel opine that the finished Facility will not

cause habitat fragmentation because it is a very small incision into an otherwise large area. They

also point out that most of the wildlife species found in the Project area are considered to be

"generalist" and are found in many habitat types. As a result, they concluded the species of

wildlife that are within the Project will not be excluded or isolated.

The North Branch Residents, along with the Stoddard Conservation Commission,

presented the testimony of Susan Morse and Jeffrey Jones. These witnesses conducted a walk­

through through the Project area. Ms. Morse described the Project area as being "core wildlife

habitat". See, Ex. NB 4 at 5. In Ms. Morse's opinion, the Project would cause disruption of

movement corridors, altered wildlife behavior and consequent energy losses, and impacts to the

breeding practices of wildlife in the area. ld. Ms. Morse also expressed concern over the

cumulative effects caused by humans which negatively impact wildlife. However, she

recognizes cumulative assessment is a "relatively new applied environmental science". Ex. NB

4, Susan Morse Pre-Filed Testimony at 8.

d. Birds and Bats

The impact of the Facility on avian species and bats was contested amongst the parties in

this docket. As a result of a tiered consultation process based on USFWS Guidelines, the

Applicant submitted a number of studies. Ex. A WE 9, Valleau and Gravel Supplemental

Testimony at 5-7. Though the studies are not in dispute, the parties did dispute the scope of

appropriate conditions should a Certificate be granted. The Applicant' s consultants conducted a

Page 61 of71

App. 490

number of pre-construction surveys pertaining to avian species and bats. Those surveys include

a breeding bird survey, diurnal raptor migration surveys, radar surveys for nocturnal avian

migration, rare raptor nesting surveys, acoustic bat monitoring and bat mist nesting surveys. Ex.

A WE 1 at 81. Based upon the above referenced pre-construction studies and experience at other

wind farms in the Northeast, Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel expect bird collisions at the Facility to

occur at a low frequency. A WE 1, Valleau/Gravel Pre-Filed Direct Testimony at 29-30. They

also opine that any impact that does occur with respect to avian population is unlikely to

adversely affect that population. I d. at 31. Messrs. Valleau and Gravel also note that bat

fatalities are expected to be low at the Facility. ld. at 33. However, they state that the New

England bat population is presently suffering from a disease known as white nose syndrome.

White nose syndrome has caused a decline of all bat species that are known to hibernate in caves

or mines in the Northeast. Therefore, as the bat population is decimated by white nose

syndrome, the definition of a biologically significant level of bat mortality may change. Ex.

A WE 1, Valleau/Gravel Pre-Filed Direct Testimony at 33.

Audubon, through its witness Carol Foss, also provided testimony regarding avian

species within the project area, although her review was primarily limited to raptors and eagles.

Ms. Foss points out that the Project area is within a documented golden eagle migration corridor.

Ex. ASNH 25 at 5. Ms. Foss also extrapolated a golden eagle passage rate from various sites in

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. She compared that passage rate for

Antrim and determined that the passage rate at the Facility was slightly above the mean. ld.

Based upon her assessment, she found that the Facility site was in Category 2 "high to moderate

risk to eagles/opportunity to mitigate impacts" as defined in the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Ex. ASNH 25 at 6.

Page 62 of71

App. 491

The Subcommittee was also provided with information from the United States Fish &

Wildlife Service with respect to eagles and raptors. Ex. A WE 43. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service predicts the risk to golden eagles within the Project area to be considered to be low. The

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service predicts annual collision rates for bald eagles to be in the moderate

category. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service also advised the Applicant that the avian and bat

protection plan prepared by the Applicant is consistent with USFW Land Based Wind Energy

Guidelines. Ex. A WE 43. The avian and bat protection program, as proposed by the Applicant,

requires one year of post-construction avian studies followed by a program of adaptive

management and phased consultation throughout the life of the Facility. The Applicant asserts

that it's avian and bat protection plan, as amended, will help to assure that the construction and

operation of the Facility does not have an unreasonable adverse impact on avian species and bats.

Counsel for the Public retained the services of Trevor Lloyd-Evans with respect to the

effect of the Project on birds and bats. Mr. Lloyd-Evans did not conduct his own studies of the

avian and bat species present on the Project site. However, having reviewed the studies prepared

by the Applicant's consultants, Mr. Lloyd-Evans recommends that there be three consecutive

years of post-construction avian and bat studies as well as an adaptive management program

consistent with the avian and bat protection plan.

2. Subcommittee Deliberations

No party has suggested that wildlife, other than avian species and bats, will be harmed or

killed as a result of the siting, construction and operation of the Facility. However, the parties do

disagree with respect to whether the Project will cause habitat fragmentation that will affect the

wildlife population in the project area. The Subcommittee concluded that the Facility will not

have an unreasonable adverse effect on wildlife.

Page 63 of71

App. 492

(

(

(

Regarding habitat, while Ms. Morse provided testimony regarding the potential impacts

of habitat fragmentation on various species of wildlife, her testimony did not lead to a conclusion

that the proposed Facility would, in fact, constitute "habitat fragmentation" of a degree that

would have any impact in the Project area. In this regard, the Subcommittee fmds the testimony

of Mr. Valleau and Mr. Gravel to be better grounded in accepted science and more relevant to

the Project area in question.

In considering the impact on birds and bats, the Subcommittee acknowledged that a one

year post-construction study of avian species and bats would be too short upon which to base

conclusions about impacts from the Facility, particularly given the threats to New Hampshire's

bat species. A majority of the Subcommittee ultimately determined that if the Facility were to be

certificated, it would require three years of post-construction avian species and bat surveys, as

well as the implementation of the avian and bat protection plan, as offered by the Applicant, with

its adaptive management and phased consultation provisions. The Subcommittee engaged in

extensive discussions regarding the effects of the proposed Facility on the natural environment.

Virtually all of the Subcommittee members, during the course of deliberations, opined that the

Facility would not have an unreasonable adverse effect on the natural environment, so long as

certain conditions were imposed.

The Subcommittee determined that the following conditions would be required in order

to assure that the proposed Facility does not cause an unreasonable adverse effect to the natural

environment:

• The Applicant must complete 3 years of avian and bat post-construction studies in addition to implementation of all of the provisions of the avian and bat protection plan as amended, including adaptive management and phased consultation;

Page 64 of71

App. 493

part

During the construction of the Facility, logging operations shall be limited to periods of time when the ground is dry or frozen;

• The Applicant must use New Hampshire licensed foresters who will apply best management and forestry practices such as those contained in the publication Good Forestry in the Granite State for all of its logging and forestry operations;

•

The Applicant's plan to curtail invasive species shall be extended to the post­construction period, as well as the construction period;

The conditions contained in the October 26, 2012letter from the New Hampshire Fish & Game Department to counsel for the Subcommittee should be adopted as of the avian and bat protection plan.

E. Public Health and Safety

1. Positions of the Parties

a. Noise

The issue of turbine generated noise and its effect on human health and annoyance was a

highly contested issue in this docket. The Applicant, Counsel for the Public, and the North

Branch intervenors all retained experts to testify before the Subcommittee.

The Applicant employed Epsilon Associates and Robert O'Neal. Epsilon Associates

prepared a Sound Level Assessment Report. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 13A. The Epsilon Sound

Level Assessment predicted that sound levels from the Facility would comply with conditions set

forth in previous decisions of the Site Evaluation Committee and with the 1999 Guidelines set

forth by the World Health Organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency

recommended guidelines. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx. 13 A at 9-1; Ex. A WP 1, O'Neal Pre-Filed

Testimony at 10-11. Epsilon Associates asserts that it took a very conservative approach in its

predictive modeling. In calculating predicted sound level at each receptor, Epsilon used a

computer model that assumed that all 10 turbines were operating at maximum capacity and that

the receptor was downwind from all10 turbines at the same time. Ex. AWE 1, O'Neal Pre-Filed

Page 65 of71

App. 494

Testimony at 6; Transcript Day 5 Morning at 19-20. Epsilon Associates prepared a table

identifying the predicted sound levels at each of 155 receptors in the vicinity of the Facility. Ex.

A WE 3, Appdx. 13A, Table 7-2; see also, Ex. A WE 41. The highest predicted sound level at

any receptor, according to Mr. O'Neal's analysis, would be 41 dBA. The predicted sound levels

were based on guaranteed broadband sound data provided by Acciona, the manufacturer of the

turbines.

In addition to measuring predicted sound levels, Mr. O'Neal took measurements of

existing ambient sound levels at five locations. Results shown in table 6-2 of the Sound Level

Assessment Report indicate that the average background L90 sound (where sound level was

exceeded 90% of the time during measurement period) was 3 7-44 dB A. Ex. A WE 3, Appdx.

13A at 6-3.

Mr. O'Neal also opined that low frequency or inaudible sound could be ignored with the

advent of modem upwind turbines. He reported that low frequency sound "has been reduced to

low levels in modem wind turbines and is generally not an issue". Ex. A WE 3 Appdx. 13A at 4-

1. In support of this claim, Mr. O'Neal relies on peer reviewed research conducted by him along

with others. See, O'Neal, R.D., R.D. Hellweg, Jr., and R. M. Lampeter, "Low Frequency Noise

and Infrasound from Wind Turbines," Noise Control Engineering Journal, March-April2011,

59(2), 135-157. In addition, he relies on recent research conducted by expert panels in the wind

industry and by the Massachusetts Departments of Public Health and Environmental Protection

in opining that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal connection between wind

turbines and health problems or disease. Ex. AWE 9, O'Neal Supp. Testimony at 14-16.

Counsel for the Public retained Cavanaugh Tocci Associates and Gregory Tocci to

address sound issues. The North Branch Residents retained Mr. Richard James and E-Coustic

Page 66 of71

App. 495

Solutions. Both Mr. Tocci and Mr. James criticize the ambient sound level testing conducted by

the Applicant. They point out that the sound level testing performed by Mr. O'Neal does not

include a true baseline because it did not correct either for insect noise or a running brook -

particularly at Locus 5 on Salmon Brook Road near the home of Intervenor Janice Longgood.

Mr. Tocci obtained third octave band data from Mr. O'Neal and testified that when the data is

corrected to eliminate insect noise the baseline is significantly lower. Thus, the predicted sound

level will actually cause a significant increase in the sound levels that would cause a disturbance

and significantly annoy people at the receptors when insect noise is not present. Mr. James

opined that when the insect corrected data is considered, the increased noise at Ms. Longgood's

home may cause her to abandon the property.

Mr. James and Mr. O'Neal significantly disagree about the alleged existence and effects

on human health of infrasound. Mr. James cites to a number of articles and anecdotal experience

to support his claims that infrasound causes human health effects.

b. Fire and Emergency Safety Issues

In considering the effects on public health and safety the Subcommittee also addressed

fire safety issues. As indicated above, the State Fire Marshall made recommendations pertaining

to conditions pertaining to the construction and operation of the Facility. The Fire Marshal

recommends the following conditions:

1. All structures including, but not limited to, towers, nacelle, operation and maintenance buildings be constructed in accordance with the following codes and standards:

International Building Code, 2009 edition,

NFP A 1, Fire Code, 2009 edition,

NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, 2009 edition

Page 67 of71

App. 496

c

c

c

(

(

(

(

(

NFP A 850, Recommended Practice for Fire Protection for Electric Generating Plants and High Voltage Direct Current Converter Stations, 2010 edition.

2. The State Fire Marshal or his designee will review all plans relative to the project and perform routine compliance inspections during construction and a fmal acceptance inspection in conjunction with the local fire and building code officials.

3. If technical assistance is required, the State Fire Marshal may require an independent third party review in accordance with NFP A 1, 1.15.

See, Comm. Exh. 1.

2. Subcommittee Deliberations

After extensive discussion, the Subcommittee determined that the Facility would not have

an unreasonable adverse effect on public health and safety as it relates to noise if subjected to

conditions that placed a limit on the noise that could be received at residences during the day and

at night. In coming to this conclusion, the Subcommittee noted existing standards such as the

EPA Guidelines and the 1999 WHO Guidelines. The Subcommittee relied upon the newer 2009

WHO Guidelines in establishing a sound level condition. The Subcommittee also agreed that

there was insufficient data to determine that the turbines will emit low frequency inaudible or

infrasound that would cause harm to human health.

The necessary conditions are as follows:

1. In the daytime, sound levels generated by the Facility at the outside fa<;ades of residences shall not exceed 45 dBA or 5 dBA above ambient, whichever is greater. For the purposes of these conditions, daytime is considered to begin each morning at 8 AM and conclude at 8 PM. All other time shall be considered to be the nighttime.

2. At nighttime, sound levels generated by the Facility shall not exceed 40 dBA or 5 dBA above ambient, whichever is greater.

3. Within a reasonable time after the commencement of commercial operations, the Applicant shall retain an independent qualified acoustics engineer to take sound pressure level measurements, including one third octave band measurements in accordance with the most current version of ANSI S 12.18. The measurements shall be taken at the same receptor locations as contained in Ex.

Page 68 of71

App. 497

A WE 3, Appdx. 13A (Epsilon Associates, Inc. Sound Level Assessment Report dated November 17, 2011.) In addition, the Applicant shall take sound pressure level measurements at three additional locations as agreed upon with the Selectmen of the Town of Antrim.

Regarding fire and emergency safety, the Subcommittee considered the Fire Marshal's

recommendations during deliberations and determined them to be reasonable requirements

designed to assure public safety.

In addition, the Subcommittee considered the establishment of emergency training and

planning requirements. The Subcommittee noted that the Applicant's agreement with the Town

of Antrim, Ex. A WE 17 A, contains a number of reasonable conditions that are designed to

assure the safety of the public. The agreement requires the Applicant to cooperate with the

Town's emergency services and mutual aid partners. See, Ex. A WE 17 A p. 6. In addition, the

Applicant is required to consult with the Town and purchase specialized equipment that would

not otherwise be required by the Town but for the existence of the Facility. See, Ex. A WE 17 A

at 6-7. The agreement also calls for reimbursement to the Town of extraordinary expenses

incurred in an emergency response to the Facility. Id. However, the Subcommittee noted that

emergency planning and training are not included within the agreement between the Applicant

and the Town of Antrim.

The Subcommittee recognizes that wind turbine generation facilities are unique and may

require atypical emergency response efforts. The Applicant has indicated that it intends to

establish an emergency response plan in coordination with the Town of Antrim. See,

Applicant's Post-Hearing Brief at 90-91 . The Subcommittee sees this as a positive attribute that

will also help to assure the safety of the public. If a Certificate were to be issued in this docket,

the Subcommittee would adopt the agreement between the Applicant and the Town of Antrim

Page 69 of71

App. 498

(

(

c

(

(

(

and require compliance with that agreement as a condition the Certificate. Likewise, the

Subcommittee would adopt the recommendations of the Fire Marshal as conditions of the

Certificate.

The Subcommittee would also require the Applicant to consult with officials in the Town

of Antrim who are responsible for emergency services in order to prepare an emergency response

plan. As part of that plan, the Applicant must include a provision that training in emergency

response to wind turbine facilities will be provided to the Town's emergency service providers

on a regular basis at the expense of the Applicant.

VII. CONCLUSION

The Subcommittee's decision is not a determination that a wind facility should never be

constructed in the Town of Antrim or on the Tuttle Hill/Willard Mountain ridgeline. The

decision is based solely on the information provided regarding the specific Facility presented in

this docket. A different facility may be adequately suited to the region.

Likewise, this decision should not be construed as a judgment against the use of wind

turbines to generate electricity. The Subcommittee is cognizant of the need for new clean and

renewable energy resources. The Facility, as proposed in this docket, is simply out of scale in

context of its setting and adversely impacts the aesthetics ofthe region in an unreasonable way.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Application for a Certificate of Site and Facility is

DENIED.

Amy Ign ius, e Chair, SEC Chairman, Public Utilities Commission

Page 70 of71

App. 499

~~~L Division of Forests & Lands Dept. of Resources & Economic Dev.

11--w\. ·Mr~y___ Brook Dupee, Bureau~ Dept. of Health & Human Services Division of Public Health Services

~~ NH Div. of Historical Resources

dward Robmson, Bwlogtst NH Fish & Game Dept.

Page 71 of71

(

App. 500