STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SITE EVALUATION COMMITTEE DOCKET NO. 2015-06 JOINT APPLICATION OF NORTHERN PASS TRANSMISSION, LLC AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE D/B/A EVERSOURCE ENERGY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF SITE AND FACILITY POST-HEARING MEMORANDUM OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (the “Forest Society”), by and through its attorneys, BCM Environmental & Land Law, PLLC, respectfully submits this Post- Hearing Memorandum. SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS By its Attorneys, BCM Environmental & Land Law, PLLC Date: January 12, 2017 By: Amy Manzelli, Esq. (17128) Jason Reimers, Esq. (17309) Elizabeth A. Boepple, Esq. (20218) Stephen W. Wagner, Esq. (268362) Kelsey C. R. Peterson, Esq. (268165) [email protected] 3 Maple Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 225-2585 TABLE OF CONTENTS GUIDE TO THIS MEMORANDUM ............................................................................................. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 14 I. The Proposed Project Would Have Unreasonable Adverse Effects on Aesthetics and Historic and Archeological Sites ...................................................................................... 14 A. The Proposed Project Would have Unreasonable Adverse Effects on Aesthetics 15 1. Applicant’s Witnesses for Aesthetics did not Comply with SEC Law ........... 15 2. Applicant’s Flawed Methodology Eliminated Potential Scenic Resources .... 17 a. DeWan Did Not Identify all Impacted Town and Village Centers ........... 17 b. DeWan Did Not Identify Scenic Roads Beyond Those Designated as a Scenic Byway and Did Not Consider Private Property Views ................. 18 c. DeWan Unlawfully Interpreted the Definition of Historic Resources to Include Only Historic Sites Eligible for or Included on the National Register ..................................................................................................... 21 d. DeWan Almost Entirely Omitted Cultural Landscapes From its Analysis ................................................................................................................... 22 e. DeWan Further Narrowed and Excluded Potential Adverse Impacts by Viewing Resources Only From Self-Identified Key Observation Points and Failing to Adequately Consider Different Perspectives of the Varied Users ......................................................................................................... 23 3. The Proposed Project Would Have Unreasonable Adverse Effects on Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 29 B. The Proposed Project would have Unreasonable Adverse Effects on Historic Sites and Archaeological Resources .............................................................................. 31 1. Applicant’s Methodology for Analyzing Impacts to Historic Sites was Unlawfully Narrow ......................................................................................... 32 a. Applicant’s Interpretation of Historic Resources is Erroneous ................ 32 b. Section 106 Does Not Satisfy SEC Requirements .................................... 36 c. Applicant Applied too Constricted an Area of Potential Effect ............... 38 d. Applicant’s Project-as-a-Whole Approach Results in Insufficient Information for Approval .......................................................................... 41 e. Applicant Did Not Complete Effects Tables Compliant with DHR Policy and Did Not Consider Cultural Landscapes in Its Initial Assessment ...... 45 f. Ms. Widell Initially Did Not Evaluate Effects of Burial on Historic Resources .................................................................................................. 46 g. Applicant’s Analysis of Archaeological Resources Does Not Provide Sufficient Information to Approve............................................................ 47 ii 2. The Proposed Project would have Unreasonable Adverse Effects on Historic Properties ........................................................................................................ 48 a. Applicant’s Witness and DHR Conclude the Proposed Project would Have Adverse Effects on Historic Resources ..................................................... 50 C. Applicant’s Assessment Cannot Satisfy its Burden Because the Assessment was Completed even Through the Route of the Proposed Project is Still Unclear ...... 52 1. Applicant has Yet to Complete an Accurate Survey ...................................... 53 2. The Actual Design of the Underground Route is Not Available in this Docket ......................................................................................................................... 54 3. Not-Yet-Filed Exception Requests Demonstrate Lack of Underground Design ......................................................................................................................... 56 D. The Applicant Provided No Assessment of the Proposed Project’s Potential Impacts to the Southern Municipalities ................................................................ 58 II. The Proposed Project would Unduly Interfere with the Orderly Development of the Region ............................................................................................................................... 60 A. The Proposed Project Would Unduly Interfere with Prevailing Land Uses of Region ................................................................................................................... 60 1. Applicant did not Meet its Burden of Proof Because it did not Supply the Subcommittee with Information Required by Site 301.09 ............................. 60 a. Applicant Failed to Produce Master Plans of the Affected Communities and Zoning Ordinances of Host Communities.......................................... 61 b. Applicant did not Describe the Prevailing Land Uses in the Affected Communities or How the Proposed Project Would be Inconsistent with those Land Uses ........................................................................................ 63 2. Applicant has Also not Met its Burden of Proof Because Applicant’s Flawed Methodology Disregarded Effects on Prevailing Land Uses and Orderly Development ................................................................................................... 64 a. As Long as a Proposed Project would be in an Existing Right-of-Way, Mr. Varney Generally would not Find Undue Interference No Matter the Intensity of the Proposed Project or Development Abutting the Right-of- Way ........................................................................................................... 65 b. Mr. Varney did not Consider Visual Effects on Land Use; He Considered Only Whether the Proposed Project would Physically Interfere With Existing Uses ............................................................................................ 68 3. The Proposed Project would Unduly Interfere with the Orderly Development of the Great North Woods ............................................................................... 71 a. Pittsburg .................................................................................................... 74 b. Clarksville ................................................................................................ 78 c. Stewartstown ............................................................................................. 80 d. Dixville and Millsfield .............................................................................. 84 iii e. Dummer .................................................................................................... 89 f. Stark .......................................................................................................... 90 4. The Proposed Project would Unduly Interfere with the Orderly Development of the Region with Regard to Conservation Lands ......................................... 92 B. Applicant has not met its Burden Regarding Orderly Development Because Critical Information Concerning Construction is Still Missing or Undefined ...... 99 C. The Proposed Project would Unduly Interfere with New Hampshire’s Tourism106 1. Applicant Must Prove the Proposed Project would not Unduly Interfere with New Hampshire’s Tourism ........................................................................... 107 2. New Hampshire’s Unique Tourism Appeal is Outdoor Recreation in Superior Scenic Beauty................................................................................................ 107 3. Applicant has not Proven the Proposed Project would not Unduly Interfere with New Hampshire’s Tourism ................................................................... 110 a. Mr. Nichols is not Qualified to Render his Opinion ............................... 110 b. Mr. Nichols Did Not Analyze Impacts of Traffic Delays, Impacts of Adverse Effects to Aesthetic and Historic Resources, or Tourism Businesses ............................................................................................... 111 c. Mr. Nichols’ Methodology was not Sound ............................................. 113 i. Mr. Nichols’ Methodology Severely Lacked Specificity ................. 113 ii. Mr. Nichols Misunderstood