 One is the wireless. I'm trying to say. So a venue is available for men, traffic, staff, ones. There is one other caller on the call. My lawyer and I file a motion in federal court, asking the court to enjoin the board from holding this hearing until the board secures a venue that can reasonably accommodate the attendance of the public which is not painfully inadequate for the test. We're here this morning in the PSP.com number 8643, which is the position of Remind Gas Systems, Inc. for authority to conduct easement rights in property interests of the town of 7970. I'd like to start by taking notices of appearance from the parties. We supported for the Department of Public Service. And with me today are GC Morris, our gas engineer, and David Roqueo, our bladesman. Well, I'm representing the town of Pinesburg. This is Gage, this is Baker, Mr. Shelton. On behalf of Remind Gas Systems, I have with me co-counsel Jeffrey B. as well as witnesses Eileen Similardi, Karen Kotecky, Chris La Force, Jeffrey Nelson, and Mr. Fuscher will be arriving a little bit later this morning. Just the first thing I think we need to take up is the motion on the meeting. Mr. Chair, in essence, what we are asking is that during the cross-examination today, the issues be limited to what was referenced in the board's orders from yesterday. That is specifically the criteria under 30 BSA 1112, and that the testimony not be addressing issues that we think are extraneous or that have already been briefed and are purely legal, and that includes the application of the side gray doctrine under Title 14A, the alleged need for municipal voter approval of the board's condemnation order, the overall need for the project under Section 248. VGS's alleged lack of authority to acquire its interest into practice, part through remnant domain, and or the Vermont Open Meetings Law, which we don't believe the board has jurisdiction to consider beyond the scope of this procedure. And we'll be prepared to raise those objections as we go today. Someone has thought of going back here so I can't hear what's going on. Could you turn that off, please? As that motion's not made during the hearing shall be in writing, and if they raise a substantial issue of law, it shall be accompanied by a brief or memorandum of law. Motions made during a hearing may be required to be put in writing and supported by a brief or memorandum of law, and in such period is the board by duet. The board may decline to consider a motion not made within a reasonable time after the issue first arises with respect to the party. The motion limiting seats to bar across examination on the subject matter of virtually every issue I raised in our pre-trial memo filed on July 25th. Show up in the hearing today and see this motion just before about the start. Doesn't seem like a reasonable way to proceed. I will say that one bullet point I agree with if that is the Open Meetings Law under the statute under section 314, the legislature has decreed that before anybody attains judicial relief, the select board of the agency must have 10 days of the procedure which took her hair and 10 days of the last year. So I don't think anybody can do anything about the Open Meetings Law this morning. My statute. What's that electronic noise that you're hearing? Oh, it's on the phone, okay. Anybody else want to comment on? May I briefly respond, Mr. Chair? I do think that there are elements in the pre-trial memorandum that Attorney Dumont filed that we can discuss today and that includes along the lines of scenic reservations and is the pipeline at the appropriate location and our testimony addresses that. What I will also say is that to the degree that the motion needs to be supported by a legal brief, we responded to Attorney Dumont's pre-trial memorandum and so everything that is in the motion in limiting is refers back to that pre-trial memorandum as well as our motion to revoke. And the only other thing I would add is that motions in limiting are general. The issue, the multiple witnesses testified that in their opinion, the proposed take-in would not be inconsistent with the prior population. And my goal is here is to cross-examine those witnesses about that pre-trial memorandum. That's not purely a legal issue, at least according unless the plaintiff wishes to withdraw that testimony and there's also factual issues. We would say, Mr. Chair, that the use of the park is absolutely relevant and so it is appropriate for Mr. Dumont to elicit testimony on those issues but those aren't what are addressed in our motion to limit. We're going to take a break for a couple of minutes and deliberate and we'll be back. Okay, we've made our decision. The motion is denied. We agree with Mr. Dumont. It should have been made before now. It wasn't properly filed and so we can make your objections if appropriate during the process. Thank you. Are there any other preliminary matters that you can take up before we continue to add? I perhaps this would be a good time for me to formally on the record say that the title draws its motion to the... No further matters and I guess we'll start with the cross-examination of the testimony. Which was the only other thing I would say is that we just to clarify, we have stipulated to all of the pre-file testimony evidence and that's been provided to the reporter. Okay. And just so it's clear on the record then, no party objects to the pre-file testimony going into evidence here, any objections? No. All of the testimony is in there. You're talking about from all parties. From all the parties. Thank you. So you want to call your source witness? If we can have one minute or we're going to array the chairs. We're looking to make sure they have all the pre-file testimony just now. Sure. My name is Karen Kotecki and that's K-O-T-E-C-K-I. Eileen Similardi's S-S-M-S-A-M-I-M-O-L-L-A-R-D as in the enforce, L-E, capital F. So I'll also ask each of the witnesses, have you submitted pre-file testimony as a panel on July 15th, date of July 15th, 2016 and August 2nd, 2016? Yes, yes we have. Yes. Yes. And is that testimony you provided? Yes it is. Yes. Yes. In addition I would ask Ms. Kotecki you also submitted pre-file testimony dated April 27th, 2016. Yes. And is that testimony true and accurate for the best of your knowledge? Yes. And Mr. LaForge did you also provide individual testimony on April 27th, 2016? Is that testimony true and accurate for the best of your knowledge? Have you made corrections that you felt were necessary in your supplemental panel testimony? Yes. And was that testimony prepared? I'll ask each of you again in your panel was that your testimony that we've just identified prepared by you or under your direct supervision? Yes it was, yes. Mr. Chairman and the commissioners, I would turn the witnesses over to process the emanation and all of their testimony that the stipulated has entered into that. I'm sorry, I need to give the witnesses a construction. Because your testimony is a path to joint testimony that you can answer or answer for the whole group. So if you hear something that the other one said that you don't agree with them to speak up right away, otherwise we'll assume you agree. Or the HB was hired by Marquette. Does he stay here then? With HDD, with the use of HDD, approved post-project vegetation management plan will allow for the maintenance of a limited carter subject to annual mowing to allow for pipeline inspections to occur. Is that your understanding? I'm sorry, you must be looking at something that we're not. We're on page 9 of 11 of Mr. Nelson's July 15th testimony. Lines 11 through 13 in the words HDD do not show up. Is he talking about, if you don't know what he's talking about, you can say fine. I'm not asking whether he uses the word HDD in that sentence. I'm asking whether he's talking about a project that's proposed to use HDD and run an antirectors crisis in discotheque. Is it your understanding that he's referring to HDD in answer 19? No, I don't think it applies to HDD. Why don't you turn to the settlement agreement that has been provided to us, reducing this exhibit W file. I'm sure you won't have it. It's also an exhibit that, part of the settlement agreement is my exhibit W. You turn to the Caprax Park vegetation and habitat management plan to start the settlement, H16. Yes. You turn to page six of eights. This is the sub, I'm sorry. This is earlier settlement, not the most recent one. The most recent one. It is the most recent one. Okay, so this is also exhibit petitioner KLK-6. Yes, okay. The demo that's attached to the settlement agreement is dated May 18th. That's part of the July 28th settlement. The sign goes on the second. The HB stationary that was voted on July 28th. Part of this package and the package includes exhibit C, vegetation management plan, May 18th, 26th plan itself. Is it, we have attachments one, it's two, it's three, and we have the part of that. Mr. Dumont, does it look like this? No, it's. It's the same. There's a lot. If you look in the package I gave you was specific. We have the book of a couple pages in front of that. Executed by the town. Right away, maintenance will occur for the BMP on a two to three year cycle to allow for the establishment of desirable grasses and forks, F-O-R-V-S, primarily over the line. The first vote point. Per the BMP, a 20 foot corridor centered on the pipe will be kept mowed to keep woody vegetation from becoming established. Did I read that correctly? Yes. And that is part of the settlement agreement that we might ask, and it will be counted. It's included here, but it looks like it wasn't updated. This date is May 18th. Okay, it looks like it's dated May 18th, which is well before the most recent execution of the stipulation with the town. Is this part of the settlement agreement that was signed by Vermont, yes, and the town? I believe so. Do you say it's wrong? I'm not saying it's wrong. I think it needs to be updated based on that we're going to drill the park. Let me turn off the air conditioner. On some of these radio or something is going on. Let me cut it with telephones. Yeah, people on the phone need to put their phones on mute as we can hear you talking. We'll cut you off if you don't put your phone on mute. This is the board in the leader's room. We're going to ask that you place your phones on mute. Your discussions on the line are interrupting the process. Yes, hello, conference line at the public service for hearing in Berlin, Vermont. If you're on the wrong line, you can call up another line. If you're on the right line and want to listen, we're going to ask you to place your phone on mute because your discussions are interrupting the process. Thank you. Yeah, you really. Can you please put your phone on mute and stop talking? Thank you. I don't know that, but if you look at the stipulate, inside the stipulation, there's a vegetation and habitat management plan that speaks to the HDD. Right. In the stipulation document itself. Why don't you turn to that page? Okay. What page are you on? Page four of the stipulation dated August 1st. Correct. And that vegetation management plan is what is referred to if you didn't see is the vegetation management plan, correct? You turn to the first page, it says vegetation management plan, correct? Correct. So the wording we just read from is incorporated by reference into paragraph 16 of the saloon agreement, correct? Correct. And also, annual mowing of a vehicle by car or with an easter. So that attachment needs to be updated. So that's the intention, is to have it mowed? No. It's not. No, and if you look at the stipulation language, so I think the reference to the exhibit, the exhibit needs to be updated, but if you look at the vegetation and habitat management plan, we have agreed to work with the conservation committee on post-construction activities in the Isma Corridor. You're saying it conflicts with paragraph 16. The paragraph 16 does nothing more than adopt by reference exhibit C, correct? I'm going to, in fact, it doesn't say that and it's characterized as what's for itself, 16. So it says the vegetation management plan is attached here to his exhibit C. What am I missing? If you look at C, if you look at C of the, and the stipulation under 16, implementing a corridor maintenance plan consistent with preservation and enhancement of the existing habitat to the greatest possible extent, taking into consideration requirements for monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline and may be modified to account for the reduced impacts on your products parks through the use of HDD. The sign by Mr. Allen on behalf of the select board includes exhibit C, which calls for a 20 foot corridor that's mowed annually, correct? Yes. Now, if you look at the next bullet point on page six of eight. In the stipulation. Exit of C. The next bullet point refers to the habitat management plan for the worker that will occur outside the 20 foot corridor, correct? I'm sorry, on page six, where is this? How far down? Second bullet point. Okay, got it. The remaining 15 foot zone on either side of the 20 foot load corridor out to the edge of the A-N-G-P phase one right away will be managed for gold wing, golden wing warbler habitat as described here. Yes, correct. So there's nothing inconsistent with a reference to the warbler habitat management in the stipulation and exhibit C because exhibit C says that happens outside the 20 foot corridor, correct? Can you repeat that? Can you identify in the science stipulation something that's inconsistent with the two bullet points in the exhibit C? The first bullet point says we're going to load 20 foot corridor annually and the second one says outside the 20 foot corridor, 15 feet on either side, we're going to do this through habitat management for the warbler. We speak to the warbler in the stipulation as well. What is it in the stipulation that conflicts with the two bullet points in exhibit C? Well, I already read you the first one in terms of agreeing to HDD in C on page five of the stipulation. And if we can look at the mention of the golden wing warbler as well, which is 17 mentions the contribution towards the warbler protection to support the planning as recommended by Audubon Vermont as part of the warbler protection plan and to support services provided to the town of Hinesburg in connection with the pipeline corridor as part of the vegetation management plan and the warbler protection plan. Are you saying that conflicts with the two bullet points on page six of exhibit C? I don't necessarily think it conflicts with the second bullet point. So you agree that the agreement calls for a 15 foot habitat management zone on either side of the 20 foot mode part. That's the second bullet point we just said does not conflict with the stipulation. I don't know. I would have to read the protection plan and have to read it more in detail if it doesn't conflict. But I think the whole point here is that this plan, this plan that was attached was dated May 18th. The stipulation agreed to and signed between buying between Vermont gas and the town of Hinesburg is on August 1st. So this plan may have to be updated to reflect the fact that we're gonna drill the park. We can be very specific here. There is not a 20 foot corridor with the HDD. Were you involved in the negotiations with the town of St. Lawrence? I did not negotiate this document with the town. Okay, so I'm gonna ask that her answer be stricter. That doesn't mean I don't know the details of it. It's the knowledge that you bring into us what other people have told you? No, it's my understanding of the agreement having read it myself and having spoken to, I've been involved with this project from the beginning. And knowing what our practices are relative to HDD. Is it your testimony that page six of the exhibit C that was signed by Mr. Allen behind the town of Hinesburg? Is this a yes or no one of the beautiful ones? Is it correct or is it a wrong one? That's not a yes or no answer. That's not a fair question. He wants to answer the question. He paid six of the exhibit C. The agreement that the town signed on August 1st contains language on pages four and five, section 16, part C, that clearly anticipates that the vegetation management plan will need to be modified to account for HDD. And we intend to do so working with the conservation commission. I'm telling you that there will not be a 20-foot corridor over that pipe as a result of HDD. Mr. Larrie, is the P-ponometer at page nine of Mr. Nelson's pre-fault testimony? Project Education Management Plan is a pre-fault testimony. Is this a yes or no? Let's try and do this step. Yes, he refers to a vegetation management plan. Okay, the vegetation management plan, he refers to its pre-fault is exhibit C to the stipulated agreement, correct? Correct, his July 15th testimony references a vegetation management plan, which is in fact an attachment to that stipulation. So you're not telling us you think page six is incorrect, is that correct, Mr. Larrie? I'm saying page six needs to be updated to reflect the impact on vegetation management of horizontal directional drilling, and we acknowledge that in the stipulation that was signed with the town. When do you, what is the plan to submit the modification of exhibit C to the parties before? I think we need to work with the conservation commission. I don't know a date, I don't have a date for that. Does the monocast plan commence construction before exhibit C is modified? Exhibit C deals with primarily post-construction activities. I'll ask again, does the monocast plan to start construction before exhibit C is amended? I don't know. So as far as the right to be. We could agree to submit a revised exhibit C prior to construction if that was a concern. Well you're asking for board approval now without knowing what the change to exhibit C will be. Is that the position of the gas company? Yes. Mr. Larrie, since in your pre-fault at one point you stated that the length of the chosen parter is 1,987 feet on board at a board, or is that right? I'll take your word for that number. I have approximately 2,000 feet in my head, so. 20 foot wide parter that's mowed annually, that length is a mowed area of 40,000 square feet? If the corridor were to be mowed 20 feet, I would agree with your math. But if the corridor will not be mowed to a 20 foot. Could you identify exhibit B as what? It is the July 28th settlement agreement for revised stipulation regarding condemnation. Are all these passments including exhibit C or the stipulation? I see it. Perpetually reconstruct, maintain, alter, inspect, prepare, replace, and erode one subsurface pipeline. Correct? Correct. He gives the gas company the right or ever to replace this pipeline by another pipeline, correct? The next page, the top of the next page, G.S. shall use horizontal correctional fillings, the entirety of compacts part, to the south side sheltered poles, to complete initial construction of the pipeline. Correct. So the commitment to HDD is only for the initial construction, correct? That's what it says. And yet in perpetuity, as long as the river shall run, the gas company will have the right to put in another pipeline and not use HDD, correct? I'm going to object to this form of request. Can you repeat what you just said? Report the rebound effect. The river shall run. The gas company will have the right to put in another. Monk Gas can sell or transfer this deed to any other pipeline company? Yes. So next year, a year after, 10 years from now, Monk Gas could transfer these deeded rights to another company. And that other company might say, we don't like the pipe for Monk Gas, but then we're going to put in a new pipe, correct? Hypothetically, yes. And that gas company is not bound by the commitment to HDD, correct? Correct. The ownership remains with Monk Gas. Monk Gas discovers that there were pipeline problems during construction, or if they want to replace the pipe by a new pipe that's a better technology, whether it's the week after construction is finished or a year or 10 years later, the deed allows them to do so without HDD, correct? Now, Mr. Tecky, were you involved in the negotiations with the town that you meet with anybody from the town? No, I did not. That was just Mr. Murray and Mr. Dodd? Correct. The most recent stipulation. So the one that was adopted by vote on July 28th? Correct. The second paragraph in 3A is in Albert. This refers to the right to store materials within a certain area. You see that? Yes, I do. And the area in which there's a right to store materials is 50 feet wide? Correct. And it says the right to temporarily place in store materials and equipment, correct? Correct. So does equipment include back hose or lozers? Yes. Do materials include pipes that they end up in the ground? Yes. Materials include construction debris? Yes. Materials and equipment include cars and trucks used by Vermont guests, systems employees, and contractors? No, typically, it could. It could. But typically it's used for pipes and excavators and that kind of thing if we needed to use the additional temporary workspace. Just referring to the paragraph 3A, Mr. Techie, will the use of the part by people such as Mr. Marks, Mr. Smoker, be interfered with? That a park user cannot walk across that 50 foot wide strip while it is being used to store construction debris, whole lozers, back hose? It would be if we were going to use the additional temporary workspace, which we typically get when we open trench, but in this case we are drilling and the drill rigs are going to be either located at the north property, the northerly property outside the park or the subtly across, south of Shelburne Falls Road. So there will be no impact to those that would wish to use the park, the trails and so forth during construction. So you're saying that paragraph 3A isn't correct because it won't come into effect? It's not incorrect, it's if we had to use additional temporary workspace, which we typically do with open trench construction, we would be allowed to do so. Let's read paragraph 3A, it's the right, during and in preparation for the initial construction, correct? Correct. And maintenance of the pipeline, correct? Correct. So maintenance is in perpetuity, it's forever, right? Correct. So at any time, forever, my guess has to write to use the 50 foot wide strip to place full lozers, back lozers, construction debris, correct? Yeah, but we really have no reason to do that and we have also agreed in our stipulation with the town that if when we do a maintenance work, we're going to get together with the town and the conservation committee to let them know what we need to do. Most of the time it's foot path, folks walking along the corridor to perform maintenance operations and that's something that Crystal Force could speak better to than me. You're saying you're sure this will never happen? I didn't say I was sure. I said it's highly unlikely and with HDD and then after follow-up, as we agreed to in the stipulation, if we needed to do something along the pipeline, we would work with the conservation commission and the select board to let them know this is what we need to do and here's how we're going to go about it. So the purpose of my question, let's assume Moncaz is acting complete good faith in the future. Let's assume that whoever company might apply rights to Moncaz will act in complete good faith forever. Okay? Acting in complete good faith for Moncaz still has the right to impart heavy equipment with a 50 foot wide strip forever. As long as we're in compliance with any permits, CPG and so forth, yes, or another company. You agree that if what happens, exercise of that right could interfere with the use of the park by park town residents, correct? Possibly, just in that location, possibly. Let's look at paragraph 3B as in this refers to initial construction and maintaining the pipeline in safe condition. I didn't highlight the maintaining of the pipeline in safe condition, but I think you'll see it in the third line. See that? Yep. So paragraph 3B applies in perpetuity, correct? Correct. And this authorizes the gas company or its assignee to cut down shrubs or trees within a 56 foot wide area, correct? Correct. Have you been to the site of the proposed? I have. I just want to back up here, though. Just one second, I just occurred to me that additional temporary workspace is temporary. It's temporary, and I think it's only good for two years. I'd have to confirm that date so it isn't in perpetuity. As I'm sitting here reading through this, so it's not forever. In the easement area, the temporary area is during the pipeline's initial construction, comma, and immediately adjacent areas as necessary to eliminate a potential threat to the pipeline's integrity or maintaining the pipeline in safe condition. The D-shell, however, it says it applies to vows, routes, and other protrusions. The gas company or its assignee has the right to cut down the room or keep clear trees, whether or not they're broken. Right, within the easement area, the temporary areas, and then we go on to say, or it goes on to state, with appropriate notice to the Towns Conservation Commission and in accordance with the Warbler Protection Plan and the Parapolar Team. I'm sorry, it's Warbler Protection. Warbler Protection, Warbler. Let's be totally forthright here. Doesn't the gas company need the right, during the lifetime of the pipeline, to come back into the easement area for safety purposes and if necessary, to excavate? Yes. So it wouldn't be reasonable to have an easement be for a gas company that didn't allow it to come back in within the easement area and would have you public. Yes. Yes, I do. So you want to retract what you said before that's never going to be only applies for two years? Well, it mentions the temporary areas and the temporary areas are only good for two years. But if you want to talk about the perpetual easement, yes, we would have that right to go back and maintain the line so that it's, you know, we know it's operating safely and efficiently. And cut trees or shrubs, forever. Yes, if necessary. Okay, I can just add the witness that you need to move the mic closer and speak under the mic. People trying to listen to the live stream can't hear you. Okay. So speak up and speak towards the mic. Okay, thank you. If you now look at paragraph three, C is a cat. B, this applies to a 56 foot line area. Yes. Do erosion control measures include detention swales with check dams? I can't speak to that. Chris LaForce or possibly Jeff Nelson. Chris LaForce, can you answer that question? Can you repeat that question? Sure. Erosion control measures include detention swales with check dams. Possibly depending on what the goal of the, of the item that is happening on the ground. Erosion control measures put the other measures as well, not just detention swales with check dams, but it could include detention swales with check dams, correct? I would say that's an aversion. Okay. I would say that's an erosion measure. Can you describe in your own words what the detention swales with a check dams is? Is that, are you reading something from part C? Part C says the gas company has the right to install erosion prevention and sediment control measures that are, that will be just as judgment are reasonable and necessary. I'm trying to find out what those consist of. I think, I mean, specifically for the erosion prevention is if there's any construction activity going on where the activity requires erosion measures to, according to state permits and best practices for controlled storm water runoff, wetland protection of the wetland. So 15 years from now, the company might find it necessary to bring heavy equipment into the area and that might require them to then use these erosion control measures. Yes, if there was a one reason to, if there was a reason for some type of excavation. Are silt fences another common erosion control measure? Yes. Can you describe those? Silt fence is used to control water runoff from a construction site. They're generally a black material. Generally they're Marify type fabric with wood stakes that's installed. What's the nature of the fabric I didn't hear? It's a fabric that allows, that will hold back any sediment. This protecting right now, before July 28th, did any person or any entity have the right to install, detention swales or silt fences in the area proposed for the pipeline? In the park? Yes. I don't know. Mr. LaForce, do you agree with me that persons such as Walter Barbs and Ms. Smaller who wanted to enjoy the park would find their enjoyment or use it, if they had to walk across the detention swale with a check there? Depending on the extent of that measure, yeah, it could provide for, it might lock. It might be hazardous to cross it, correct? Possibly. You can turn to the paragraph five of the easter deep. Highlighted the words pipeline markers, cathodic, cathodic, test needs? Correct. Can you pronounce that one, Mr. LaForce? Cathodic. Cathodic. The care place there turns to the very back of our pile on exhibits. A.M., A. Mary, and A. Hinton. And what are those documents? These are two photographs. Photographs, okay. Mr. LaForce, are you there? Yes. Is A.M., A. photograph of a test product, Hesely? Not familiar with this photograph or the device necessarily in the photograph, but the yellow marker contains wires would be test leads, I assume, to a pipeline. I don't know the context of this photograph, it's not my photograph. It's from a manufacturer's website. Okay. Is it your understanding that the vertical orange device is what stays on the land, and then if someone comes carrying the meters that this gentleman is holding and plugs it into the device? Correct. With that understanding, I offer exhibit A.M. Not that. The next page, typical gas pipeline marker, the one gas we used recently looked like this, or this is a reasonably close approximation of what they would look like. It's similar. We don't use that style, but it has similar information and is yellow. Do you want to start with the one like that? This is how tall are they? Typically three to four feet. What's their approximate diameter? Approximately, I'd say three inches. With that understanding, I offer exhibit A.M. Ms. Kotecki, do you agree that prior to July 28th of this year, no person, no entity had the right to place devices such as we've just shown on the Gebrax Park property without permission of the town? Correct. There may be pipeline markers along Shelburne Falls Road for distribution along the edge of the road, which could be in front of Gebrax Park. They would be in the road right away. Do you think I'll turn to your exhibits? I think it's K.L. or second testimony in A.M. No, it's the second testimony that wasn't taken out of the path would be in relation to the trails shown on the trail. Sure, it would, and this is approximate, would come from this section and it hugs the westerly boundary, some of it. I'm going to ask you to stand up some members of the board and see what happens. Oh, okay, sure. So it comes down this way. Is it marked on here? No, we have other exhibits that would show where the pipeline is. And show the trails on the same map. I don't know that. That's why I'm using this. Okay. This is the only one that shows the trails. Okay. So if you could just repeat the rest of us what we showed when you dug it. So it's right here. Right here. It crosses the Hillsborough Trail? Correct, goes under it. It crosses the Hillsborough Trail to the west of what's shown as a stream? Yeah, I'm not sure about the north westerly part. I'm not sure where it comes in from here. It could bypass these right here. I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to look at the actual plat and the orthoplane that we have that would, we actually have it. I think we have it. One of the exhibits shows the environmental resources in the park with the pipe. Okay. So I just want to tie the pieces together by scene. Okay. Just to get you to agree that all the activities we've been talking about this morning that can occur for certain teeth can occur in the area that crosses the existing trail. It could, but it would be temporary. If you turn to back these in a deep paragraph number seven. We're getting there. If you contain any limits. Aquamont gas systems, or it's an assignee, can do the kinds of work it can do, the impacts it can impose in the temporary areas. I just want to read through it real quick. Sure. Okay, so I'm sorry. Could you ask your question again? Does the deed contain any limits on the activities for monogas can engage in in the temporary areas during that period of time? It doesn't in its paragraph. Is there some other part of the deed which you would read as limiting what can happen in the temporary area? I would need to look through it. I want to be too disruptive. I know that this legal strategy is really important to a lot of people in the room, and I respect that. I'd also like to say that Public Service Board is stealing, helping steal land for corporate gain for massive corporations, and they are violating my personal personal rights and those people that I work with and the rest of the residents that I'm on. By holding this meeting was such a limited and constrained public participation and we're going to figure out a way to make that more painfully obvious to the government that's behind it and to the board members themselves. Thanks to the interveners for doing great job and to the lawyers. I can't be in this room and I can't miss this bullshit. Mr. DuBois, where were you? Discussing paragraph seven. Well, so it talks about it, yeah, and it talks throughout the easement deed, it talks about what we do have rights to do. As terms of access to the easement and the temporary easements rights that we must exercise in a careful manner. So I can't, if you're asking me, if this paragraph gives us unlimited rights to do whatever we want during that two-year period, I think I would disagree. Let's turn to paragraph eight, fencing and gates. This paragraph prohibits the town for the house evasion commission from installing any fencing or gates without the gas companies permission. Right, and the town did agree that they would consult with BGS like all landowners if they're going to install fences or barricades that could inhibit our access in the easement corridor, typical of any utility corridor. The term paragraph nine on access runs over from the bottom of that page up to this. Okay. To the middle of the next page. But last, sub-paragraph, paragraph nine, to traversing other areas. Do you understand that this clause gives the gas company the right to access the easement area by going across any part of the frags part, using heavy equipment? If the gas company believes this is reasonably necessary? No, I think what it's saying is if there was a significant risk to the public, that we would have the right to access the easement corridor from any part of the park where we deemed that the public could be in harm's way. Otherwise, we would access the corridor from the northerly and southerly boundaries. I'm not suggesting that that clause is unreasonable with your gas company. What I'm asking you, the point of this is, you agree that this now affects the entire, that right affects the entire park, right? It could. And did such a right exist for the July 28th settlement? You mean in a previous agreement? To your knowledge, yes. I don't know. I would need to look at that. It's pretty common in all of our easements. I understood. Okay. Just as with respect to the tax part, did the gas company have a right to go across any part of the park when it was important to do so? I agree that important reasons to do so, if you're guessing. Did such a right exist before this agreement signed on July 28th or voted on July 28th? Are you asking me if Vermont Gas had a right to access the park for whatever reason they thought? For a legitimate reason. Legitimate reason? Well, I would think so if it's a public park. I would think it wouldn't be prohibited because we're the gas company, so. Gas, even gas companies are first to make it. So. I can see that. The right to use heavy equipment. To bring heavy equipment across any part of the park if necessary. Yeah, so early on, we did have a right of entry that was signed by the town early in the project to give us the right, which we use with all of our pre-survey work, and we did have that executed by the town early in the project. So we would have had that right for that right of entry for this type of a, you know, for this project. So that's a limited right of entry to do surveying work for properties. Yes, correct. But under this deed, in perpetuity, may be subject to heavy equipment that the gas company needs in order to fix an urgent pipeline problem. Only in exigent circumstances posing a significant risk to the public safety. And to prevent damage to the property. In paragraph number 10, using the easement area for a trail or driveway or an electric one. Are you on 10? Yes. All right, I show that. No, sorry, that's 11. Okay, all right, good, okay. It's 11, sorry. All right, okay, sure. And if the project's park wants to install a trail or a driveway or an electric line, they have to obtain the gas company's permission. Subject area is the easement area, correct? Correct, we ask all landowners that if they were going to develop the property or you know, one of the driveway over our pipe that they work with us so that we can ensure that it's designed safely and that it won't interfere with the operations of the pipe. Conservation commission not place structures or objects of any kind within the easement area without the my gas company's private approval. Correct, but I wouldn't think they would because it wouldn't be able to anyway. I don't think with, because if it's in the wetland area, I don't think they could have structures in the wetland area. They could build, you know, a barn or. But a trail sign? Yeah. So to put in a trail sign for my gas, we have to approve of that first. I would defer to Chris on that, you know, depending on the structure, but I mean, they may say trail signs are fine. You don't have to ask us permission on that, but especially in this case, the pipe is going to be so deep by drilling. I can't anticipate that a post would necessarily interfere with the operations or even potentially risk the pipe. Mr. Kotecki, if you could just go back to your very first testimony over 20 to 15, do you want to take a break? Unless you are my daughter. No, I thought that I could. Okay. Please, page two, and quote part of the impact degree of distribution. You're on page two? Yes, okay, got it, yeah. Brief says, quote, a property conveyed hereby shall be used only as a public park or school, and it says of what I think means to say, or for public recreational or educational purposes. The town of Pinesburg shall properly maintain and care for the property decree. Did I get that, is it correct? Yes, you did. First thing in the book. The various decree is subject to the following covenant, which covenant shall be considered a covenant real, and shall run with the land in perpetuity by acceptance of this decree. The town of Pinesburg covenants and agrees to comply with said covenant. Said covenant, is that the property decree hereby shall be used only as a public park or school, or for public recreational or educational purposes. The town of Pinesburg shall properly maintain and care for the property decree. Is that correct? Yes. Lengthen several versions of its testimony about the I think the question is. I don't know, but you know, I would assume that they did. I don't know the answer. I can't say what the town accepted. Three of you, are these the rights can only be acquired through the agreement correctly? Yes. The praise you brought saying you're not a lawyer, are you? No. What legal training do you have? None. Unless you mean right-of-way training, I don't consider that legal, but. Do you have any training in the interpretation of wills or decree of distribution? Not, no, not formal training. Do you have your exhibits, water signed by Superior Judge Alden Bryant? Yes. Right? Yes. Went to secure your court, turning general of the state of Iran, to a changed use of the facts part of it. Are you referring to the wells? Yes. Yes. This court has limited jurisdiction for like the Superior Court? Yes. When you say the Ethan rights can only be acquired through the eminent domain process, did you rule out going back to Superior Court? That was not my decision. Well, it's your testimony, so I'm asking about your testimony. Yes, I get, well, that's why we're here. So obviously, yes. So why couldn't this easement agreement have been approved by a Superior Court judge just like the wells were? I can answer that question. Sure, this will provoke an objection. Are you aware that there's a statute that allows the voters of the town to approve of a changed use of the partly that will attend to that? Yes. Is this your objection? I mean, he asked her if she's aware of a statute. Well, I mean, you shouldn't, you shouldn't know. Well, I really... Maybe a follow-up question, because if she is aware of it, it would be, and then what does it mean that might be the case, but... I'm anticipating that he's going to be asking about whether the... When we get there, you're going to put a hand on it. Well, right now, we're always asking if she's aware of this. Am I aware of a state statute? Yeah. Which allows the voters of the town to approve. Yes, someone, that this pipe isn't going to be a changed use. Will you wear that statute in October when you wrote this testimony? I'm not sure I even thought about it. So when we say, when we read in your testimony, these rights can only be acquired through the eminent domain process. And it's fair to say that's just driving in. This is a late person. You're not offering it as an extrovert. I am offering an opinion with a lead guidance by legal counsel in interpreting. With your legal counsel, so far it's not testified. I'm asking about your testimony under oath. It was my understanding that the town could not convey the property because of the covenant. And therefore, this was the next likely course to obtain a secure easement with the town. I need to wrap this up on the record. Are you offering that testimony as an expert or just as a lead person who has no greater knowledge of this thing? A person's off the street. No, I would say an expert. An expert. Not just someone off the street. Only because of my background in deeds and secure easements. Tell us what your expertise is. It's my understanding based on my interpretation with legal counsel that the deed, that the town could not convey the deed as a, excuse me, convey the part of the easement because of the covenant and the deed and the decree. And that eminent domain was the course of action that we would take. First, getting an agreement with the town twice. And so we have that agreement. They've agreed, we've worked up, we've resettlement. And so the only thing left to do is for the public service board to rule. With the sound, is it? Of both the downstream and the front. Okay. That will prompt me if people can't hear or they can't see. But we have the email. So we'll work on it. Okay, thank you. Someone's putting their picture on the floor. Yes, please. Please. For the forestry, putting increased impacts to elements and streams in the general area and limiting options to instructing future wells in this location. Friends, a concern raised by the town administrator given the municipal water uses taking place in the partner. Had these resources and concerns not been present, the Velcro partner may have been a suitable location for the pipeline. Did I read that correctly? Yes. The testimony was that the municipal water supply was taking place in the present tense, was going on in the park, and that the town administrator had told you that, right? Yes. Now, August 2nd. Yes. Your pre-file on page five, line 11 stated that you had been in error. There is no community water system in the park, correct? No, that's not correct. So, the corrected testimony was to say that there are two existing wells located in the Velcro corridor or thereabouts that we had believed were in use, but we later found out they are not in use at this time. And also, earlier in the negotiations a couple years ago, the town administrator did tell Vermont Gas, or the town, I don't want to say town administrator, but the town did inform Vermont Gas that there was potentially a new well to be installed, approximately 200 feet from the proposed pipeline route. The two existing wells, I believe, around 600, and then there was another potential location. We only just recently found out that indeed the water system has not been installed or is not operational at this time. There were a couple of different town administrators that had turned over in the past four years when this whole project started with the town. By 15th of page five, we said, for no reason, included the municipal water uses taking place in the park. Had these concerns not been present, the Velcro corridor may have been a suitable location to fight one. And on August 2nd, pages four and five, you wrote, Vermont Gas was under the impression until recently that the water system in the bagged park in reference to the Chippin, Superior Court stipulation and order had been built. More recent information has been relayed that while there had been plans to construct the community water system along with at least two existing wells and plans back in 2013 for a new proposed well, most new components of the water system have not yet been built. Furthermore, Vermont Gas is not aware of whether the town proposes to continue with construction of the community water system within the bagged park. Correct, correct. So one of the two critical reasons for not selecting the Velcro right-of-way is now off the table, correct? Potentially, potentially. We don't know what the plan has to do with the existing wells or any newly proposed wells. The existing wells are on the east side of the Velcro right-of-way. I know it's within the Velcro corridor. I don't know exactly where. It's in that general vicinity. Well, I think within the corridor or outside the Velcro corridor? I don't know the exact location. I know a map, a portal map was provided to us with two circles that depicted the existing wells. You read the Velcro corridor's 152 water? Yes, I do. And the proposed alternative that the Conservation Commission has raised to be shifting part of the pipeline route to the western side of the Velcro corridor. Yes. So, there are at least 150 feet between the pipeline route and the wells? I can't be sure exactly where those wells are, so I can't say yes to that possibly. Now, the other factor you mentioned in your July 15th testimony was minimizing the impact on wetlands. Should I ask you about that or wait for Mr. Nelson's testimony? You should probably wait for Mr. Nelson. Five of your testimony, not Mr. Nelson's, you write. There's nothing about the presence of the project in the cracks part. It changes the current or planned future uses of the park or that is inconsistent with the recreational and educational purposes referenced in the restricted cover. I've already talked about your training or fees and wells. Let me ask you about current or planned future uses. Talk to the town about what their plans are other than understanding about that the water system hasn't been, is in operational at the time. So if you don't know what the town's current or planned future uses of the park are, how can you testify that there's nothing about the project that changes the current or planned future uses of the park? Well, I think, as I said earlier, putting the, drilling the pipe under the wetland that's located in the park, to me, says there's really no impact to the use, any use in the park. Well, if you test the money on reading terms until after the peak, correct? Yes. There was no commitment to HDD on July 15th. You're right, you're right. So you were saying, digging a trench, putting in a pipeline through the park is not inconsistent with the planned or future uses of the park, even though you didn't know what those were, right? You're exactly right, except if those uses would be, digging a trench would be temporary. Well, or else from the town to the right to you, documents showing the planned present or future uses of the park. I am not. Page seven, you said there are a number of problems with the so-called Eastern route. You state that there is ledge, this area is marked by a substantial amount of ledge that would need to be removed, correct? Correct. My guest assistant says blasted through ledge on many other parts of the pipeline, correct? Correct. The gas company has chosen to go through ledge rather than to use farmland, correct? Correct. So blasting through ledge is not an insurmountable obstacle? It isn't, but it could prove public safety because we'd be blasting through Route 116, the highway, and the ledge there, if you drive 116 in that location, it's very steep, it's the outcroppings all up and down Route 116. So it would be a little bit trickier to blast an extensive portion of right-of-way along the state highway. My guest has used flaggers to stop traffic in Route 116 for several months already. Yes, we have. That would probably control, you could control using flaggers. Yes. That's not an insurmountable obstacle. No. You also state that this Eastern route would involve a difficult, gentle typography in the area. What did you mean by that? Well, it's heli, it's heli there. There's some blind spots, there's, you know, corners as you, it's very heli there. In addition to that, there are several landowners, numerous landowners, where we'd have to secure rights. Right, that was your fourth reason I was going to ask you about. Okay. But that's fine, you said the Eastern route would also require negotiations with numerous additional new landowners. Correct. When did you first contact those landowners? I have not. I haven't contacted those landowners. However, I know how many landowners the, approximately the Eastern route would impact. Page seven, you also discussed the Western route. Your comments were, oh, this would require agreements with two new landowners. A semi-colon agreements with the upstream and downstream landowners, but also be required for the deviation. Correct. Have you contacted any of those landowners? Yes, I have. When did you do that? This summer. This summer. Summer of 2016. Yes. In the past month? Yes. Have you testified that you could take five to eight months to complete the negotiations? Correct. Correct. If you had attempted to completely avoid the park, using the west HDD on the western route, in order to avoid cutting trees in the forest, if you attempted to do that starting in 2013, you would have all those rights in hand right now, would you about? Not necessarily, we started with Italian in 2013. Of course, I have some questions for you about. Just to do my opinion, one question. Please. Which is, I'm indicating if you now know how many parcels would be? Approximately seven parcels properties. It could be less landowners, and that would be dependent on where we would, assuming we would locate the pipe in the highway, we would still need additional temporary workspace to work along that corridor to keep one lane open on route 116. When you say seven parcels. Seven parcels, at least. How would they land on? I don't know, I didn't, yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Missing the force on page seven of the July 15 testimony. Yes. You discussed this, quote, western route, state that realignment would assess a substantial cutting of mature forest on a steep rocky slope. Resources. I'm sorry, Jim, could you start? Certainly. Yes, I will repeat it. You state that realignment onto the western route would necessitate substantial cutting of mature forest on a steep rocky slope, creating a high potential for undue adverse effects on natural resources. Correct. Are you with me there? Yes. Two of HDD were used. Not necessarily to get across that route, but over that HDD. The last sentence on the bottom of the sentence, running over onto A, you would still need some clearing for, is it called the lay down area? In order to complete an HDD, the same length of pipe in another area to stage it for being pulled into the trench. So that alignment could require to set up for the HDD. So you know if the tree cutting for the lay down area north of the forest area, is true or it's not true? Yeah, correct. Yes. Preliminary evaluation, right? Yes. Our assessment is line 16. Our assessment of these alternatives is at really high level, correct? Correct. 18, 19, 20. Could you repeat the question? Sure, let me start over. Is it your conclusion on page 10 of the line 18, 19, 20 that the alternatives would not necessarily result in a more preferable route? That's correct. That the alternative routes are not feasible? Let me start over. You have not concluded that the alternative routes are not feasible. You've concluded that you run out of time to explore them. Is that right? I don't think that's a fair characterization of where we are. I think it's important to remember that we believed until early 2016 that we had agreement with the town to construct the pipeline where it is. And when you're considering alternatives, it's very difficult to look at it parcel by parcel. The entire project, many alternatives, were looked at. And we had plenty of time to evaluate those. And they were done so in our collateral permits and in 7970, the CPG docket in this case. What we have looked at now are other alternatives not to the same degree of granularity that this alternative has been looked at. And there is nothing on the table in any of those alternatives that is markedly preferable to this particular parcel. And the pipe location of the pipe in this parcel. They were evaluated in aggregate for the route in 7970. Because we can't look at just Jabrax Park. You also have to look upstream and downstream of that to see what the impact on other locations would be. Page nine, line 16 through 22, they are assessment of these alternatives in the high level. However, based on our collective experience with engineering design, environmental due diligence, and right-of-way acquisition for the project. We are confident that it would not be possible to complete all the required work to pursue a potentially viable project in order to complete construction of the project in 2060. Correct. And do you stand by that? I do. You stated that you addressed HDD somewhat and you're pretty confident to testify, knowledgeable enough to testify about how HDD works, its advantages, and its risks. Have you read the report submitted by Vermont Gas to the public service board in connection about HDD pipeline risks and advantages in the phase two case in Colorado? Not in Iowa. Near the end. In March, 2013, on your own knowledge and experience, are there risks to use to be classified as a toxic material? It's a very fine clay material, including this case, I suppose. No. No. Would it be fair to say that the HDD process relies upon the hole that is the board for the return of the drilling fluid and if there are fractures or cracks or any connection between the hole that's being bored in the surface, the repressurized fluid can rise to the surface, that's possible. Is this problem one that is frequently enough occurring in HDD drilling that's generally recognized problem? I wouldn't characterize it as frequent, but it can happen if you have a plan to, has Vermont Gas prepared any kind of HDD plan of a protocol for preparing for it? We have it at this point. Except for we have an emergency return plan. It's generally accepted within the engineering field that before you engage in HDD drilling, you have to do a site exploration to see if there are a return on what lands should I ask Mr. Nelson about those facilities. I have some questions directed just to you. You filed in July 15th lines, page three, line seven and eight. No one proposed an alternate location outside of the practice park during those proceedings. Correct? Correct. Is this section 248 process? Yes. Are you aware that the Supreme Court of Vermont has held explicitly that the 248 process involves, quote, no predetermination of the issue of necessity for a particular route? What relevance does that have to do with it? Since the Supreme Court said that the 248 process doesn't predetermine the route. I'm objecting because it calls for a legal opinion. It's implicit in the question. Witness made a statement, I'm wondering why she thinks the statement is relevant. That no one proposed an alternative location during the 248 process. That's not a legal question. That's not a legal question. That wasn't the one you asked. Thank you for the objection, I guess it's a better question. You get the question? Sorry. Why is it relevant today that no one proposed an alternative location during the 248 process? I simply made the point. A free distribution service at no charge regardless of the distance and other necessary approvals that the company will extend its means for any customer except for a temporary service up to a maximum. And the next sentence says, if it's more than 100 feet, and if the service will yield the company adequate revenue to justify the extension, the company will do so without charge, correct? The contribution required from the customers, in this case, is zero. I've got some at that time. The settlement agreement doesn't say it, it doesn't. If you look at paragraph 13c, it says that the guest company will absorb 100% of the cost no matter what the distance, correct? Isolation cost for any. So it's your testimony that if the select board thought it was getting guaranteed free distribution to those local home parts, the select board was wrong? No, the select board is getting to service, to a service line. Check out the distance and you're sure that all of them are moving. In my experience at- We started out looking at paragraph 11 of your tariff. You told me that was a long paragraph. We should look at paragraph 10. But now you are looking at service lines which is paragraph 11, correct? No, I was responding to your question. You were asking me what it varies specifically. As per the existing tariff, PGS will cover installation costs of up to 40. All you're doing is complying with your existing tariff. What was in it for the select board? Why was this a value content? It will cost about $470,000, correct? Correct. It's an essential exception to your usual practice in order to make a deal with the select board. Is that what you did? Just like we did in the town. When the gas company wants to make a political deal with a select board ejection, it departs from a standard practice. Is that what you're telling us? No, excuse me. I'm an object of that political deal. It's very ambiguous. I'll withdraw the question. Settlement? Give us the examples that you know of where Formakas has made similar offers. It's $470,000 worth of distribution lines that normally would come through into the speculation. That's one example, right? Correct. Give us another. And you're saying that that extension of service would not have been done under normal circumstances. I can't say that it wouldn't. What we have done here is. These in Cornwall have set out $2.8 million and will allow natural gas to reach 50% of the residences. Residence isn't as well as municipal buildings and the school. Who'd like to object to the relevant rights appeal on this project? The public use in that case is safely guarded for the obligations to serve all unequal and reasonable terms, obligation to serve all unequal and reasonable terms, facilities and accommodations that just requires the use of them in the domain. And our point here is that Formakas departs from that department. This case, Heinzberg is just one example. Cornwall was $2.8 million worth of distribution service. They otherwise would not have provided. It's $407,000 in civil terms, facilities and accommodations. And I would say if this is also any service accommodations or any free service that BGS gave in this case was given as compensation or consideration, it's no different than if they just paid the money. And there was money paid for the season as well. And by the Supreme Court of Monk, that this is part of the Supreme Court described as reasonable, unequal terms. They can't meet that there at birth. BGS is CPG based on them being public. We don't need to waste more of the word's time on this. I only have like one or two more questions on it and then you just take it under advice then. Sure, let's do that. We don't need to pull on it right now. Okay, figure under his life. So just a couple of follow-up questions. Ms. Szilagri's view of the bar exhibits Z and AA Formakas's reply is we are refusing your request because over the 10-year period it would cost $560,000 and serving this community would leave us with a shortfall of $221,000. I agree with- I'm sorry, I didn't- Do you know who Brian Gray is? I do know who Brian Gray is. And he wrote, I agree with X that there are potential 60 homes along the entire route. Unfortunately, to reach the 60 homes, we would have to install approximately 12,000 feet of mainline and 14,000 feet of service line at a cost of $560,000. The margin generated by the 60 homes over a 10-year period will not pay for the construction of us. There's a shortfall of $221,000 that will be required as a contribution from the customers. In addition, BGS must charge tax on the $221,000 as if it were, as if it were income at the rate of 40%. So an additional $147,000 is tax to up is required to construct this project. A total contribution of $368,000 is required from the customers. Did you read that correctly? You did. You have not taken that position with this new distribution that hindsight's forgotten. We have not. That is all I have with this panel. So we started looking at alternatives at that time. Okay. So the alternative analysis began- Based on my knowledge, yes. There may be somebody who has different information, but that is mine. I think even when Mr. Marks filed his initial request for intervention. Clear on the alternatives. The Velco alternative had been looked at. So we went back and did look at that. As to whether or not we looked at the so-called Eastern and Western alternatives at the time that petition was filed, I don't know. Mr. Dewart, you used preferable. I think probably the best word is practicable. There's probably- Yes, I think that would be the best word to use. You talked about beginning the alternatives analysis sometime in April or thereafter. And you talked about it being a high-level analysis. Is it correct to assume that that high-level analysis differed from the kind of analysis that was done in 2012 for other alternatives to the pipeline route? The analysis that was done in 2012 was for the entire pipeline route. And we had, I'm doing this from memory, but I believe we had a series of criteria we looked at, we looked at constructability. We looked at environmental resources. We looked at cost. We looked at proximity to structures. So we had a series of items that we looked at before we landed on the route that we- How did that differ in this latest alternatives analysis, if at all? I would say the biggest difference between what we did then and what we did now, we have agreement with the upstream and downstream landowners. So we know where we want the pipe to start and end without impacting landowners with whom we've already reached agreement. So that would be more of a filter that you would put on an alternatives analysis, at least taking a look at understanding the upstream and downstream impact. It was a smaller scope. It was a smaller scope, correct. How, if at all, did the re-delineation of the wetlands impact the company's assessment of the Velco right-of-way as a potential alternative? So Mr. Nelson can speak to it with greater specificity, but my understanding is that even with the re-delineated wetlands, the Velco corridor or the Velco co-location option would have had greater wetland impact than the corridor that is before you now in the event of an open-trench alternative. That changes based on the HDD now that will be used through the park. That's correct. By using HDD in the park, there is no impact to the wetlands. If you could, the newest proposal for going through the park is HDD. What's the approximate cost of that? I will defer to Mr. LaForce, the pianist. I believe some preliminary estimates that we came up with was, sorry, some preliminary estimates that we did in-house. The number was one to $2 million and the range is due to how much rock would be encountered during the drill. Compared to Cosper Trenching, what could you do that, Delta, for us? I don't have that information with me off the top of my head. Is it fair to say that Trenching is much cheaper than doing HDD? I believe in this case, it would be cheaper. Can you give us like a ballpark figure? I mean, it said one to two million for the HDD. What would Trenching approximately be? Just so we can see that delta there. I don't have that, sorry. Sure. To give you a true comparison. We've seen a lot of deals struck to allow for the movement of the pipeline through easement concerns as we move through the summer. Were the comparative costs of those arrangements assessed in comparison to, including the agreement with the town here, were the comparative costs of those arrangements, were those costs compared to the alternatives, the off-the-park alternatives, costs? May I make sure I understand the question? Are you referring, you mentioned you've seen several deals come through the summer, are you referring specifically to this agreement? Well, this agreement, and I'm thinking of things like the Pizer easement, et cetera, that had relatively high costs, or at least would have been published as relatively high costs. And you're talking now one to two million plus the agreement with the town. And that's a relatively high cost amount to allow for this HDD under the park. Comparatively, was that cost delta assessed in comparison to the other alternatives that take it off the park? That was subjectively considered. We need to start with the cost of the project and the rate cap of 134 million. So the incremental cost of horizontal directional drilling will be formed by the company. But in considering those alternatives, it's not just the cost of construction that needs to be weighed. It is the cost of delay. And yes, those were considerations in our dealings with the town and in our dealings with any other landowners where we needed to reach agreement where we had not yet done so. And I appreciate that the alternatives analysis was done in April. It was a high level analysis that addressed constructability and natural resources concerns, other things that we'll hear about and that we saw in the July 15 testimony. Was there a cost comparison of what we now see as the final resultant proposal and those alternatives? The alternatives were not cost up. That seems romantically awkward. But we didn't have cost estimates for the alternatives. We did consider the cost of delay in the alternatives. And what would that cost be? Can you tell us more about that cost of delay? What does that entail? Well, we have 200 plus construction workers on site now that we would need to send home and remobilize at a later date. That would be a change order to our Michaels contract. I don't know what the magnitude of that change order would be. And then there are also carrying costs associated with that project as we're sitting here with a project under construction that is not yet in use. And then there would be incremental cost is associated in general with project management. Any of the support functions required for construction that are all geared up and in place and active today would have to be halted, sent home, redeployed. And some of those contracts may need to be negotiated for some of the support services. So would you have costed that, using your same word, costed all of that out? Would there be spreadsheets somewhere showing those amounts? Not with the level of detail I just gave you. And yet enough so that you could use that as a point of concern and comparison. Correct. The project team has enough of an understanding of the project cost matters that, frankly, I don't believe that level of granularity is necessary to come to the conclusion that there's a significant cost associated with delay, not to mention the fact that we would not be able to bring natural gas service to Regenza Middlebury in time for the 16-17 heating season. So there is a different cost associated with that, not of a Vermont gas cost, a customer cost. Just have one follow-up based on your earlier discussion about trenching versus HDD and the cost. We were looking for that delta. I know you must have the cost of trenching across the park. And you must now have an estimate of how much the HDD is going to cost against Mr. McForest's test. If I could make a records request that you provide that information to the public. Of course. Can I just add one thing, too, to consider on any alternate route? We would have to negotiate with new landowners and that could delay. And we could end up going to eminent domain because we don't have those easements yet. And Mrs. Mellani, is it hard to get that to us within a week? No. Thank you. I did have one more question, too. We talked about the alternatives analysis beginning in April and the costs of delay. Had the alternatives analysis begun in February, would that cost be less? The cost of which, please? The cost of delay. No, I don't believe so. Any follow-up to our question? Yes, Mr. Dewmock. Yes, I have a couple of follow-up questions. I'm sorry. I'm having difficulty hearing you. Sorry. The answer to your question is for your member Hoffman. You said the HDD alternative will produce no wetlands impacts. Yes, I don't believe there's any wetland impacts associated with HDD in the park. Yes, I was referring to the HDD. You were referring to anything that happens after the initial construction rate? I was not. Because after the initial construction, there's no commitment to HDD, correct? So that really does answer your answer. No, I don't believe it does, actually. Because are you referring to the installation of a different pipe? I don't understand the question. Replaced later, does the commitment to use HDD apply? OK, now I understand the question. If the pipe is replaced later, it will require us to go back before the Public Service Board and get a 248, at which point the town would be a party to that proceeding automatically. And I suspect that we would be required to HDD. Technically, you are correct. The agreement only refers to the initial installation of the pipe. But under the 248 rules, as I understand them, in my capacity of Vice President of Regulatory of Vermont Gas, we cannot replace. The only way we can replace that pipe with existing pipe, replace it, is that we did the same type of thing. Otherwise, we have to go back and get an amended 248, at which point the town would be a party to that. You must have answered what I said. I wasn't talking about changing the pipe. I wasn't talking about asking you about putting in a bigger pipe. I was asking you about the clause Part 2 of the easement that says, the right to construct and the perpetual right to reconstruct, maintain, alter, inspect, repair, replace, and remove the pipe pipe. I was arguing that before she did. She asked about putting in a bigger pipe pipe. No, that's not it. My answer must have been this interpreted. I thought you asked me. Why don't you ask me the question again and I'll try again. If there's a problem with this Vermont Gas or subsequent owner of the pipeline feels that the existing pipe isn't working well enough or needs a repair or needs to be replaced for any reason, under the easement deed, there's no commitment to this HDD to do so, correct? Then my answer stands, if we have to replace that pipe for any of the reasons you articulated, we're talking about pipe replacement. I believe we would need to come back before this board and get a 248 at which time the town would be a party to that and I expect that they would point to this agreement and we would end up with an obligation to HDD again. You are correct, the agreement does not say that, but we do not have the right to do whatever we want because of the 248 constraint. So are you speaking on behalf of the Vermont Gas Systems and you state that any repair or replacement of the pipeline will require an emergency treatment? I was speaking to the replacement of that pipeline and because it is 30 to 50 feet down, it is unlikely that there would be repairs to that pipeline. It is more likely that we would need to replace that pipeline. You're speaking on behalf of the company and you're committing that if there's any repair or replacement of the pipeline, the company will apply for it. That is not what I said. That's not what she said. So I heard what she said and you re-characterized that it wasn't what she said. Then I thought just what she said. I thought she said, any repair or replacement will require a 248. She talked about replacement and she didn't talk about the care. Because I understood you were correct. That is correct. So just ask her what you need to ask. So you're saying replacement would go back before the board, but repair would not? Correct. Even if it's replacement with a new pipeline that's identical, what do you think a new CPG would be? If it was identical, it would be horizontally directionally drilled. Both dimensions, not the identical construction. I believe that we would need to go to the public service board. Yes, I do. What is it in the existing CPG that causes you to believe that? It's not the existing CPG, it's the 248 statute. So replacement of an existing 12-inch pipeline or an identical 12-inch pipeline would require an amended CPG? Because it wouldn't be identical. My second question, the follow-up question, is to answer some questions from the board. Mr. Dumont, before you go on, I ask one thing. Just because I've heard some different answers here. In similarities, you said in response to me and then again in response to Mr. Dumont, that using HDD, there will be no effect on wetlands in the park. Then I heard Mr. LaForce say, when I asked him about, well, if you use HDD in the Velco quarter, would there be the impact of wetlands in the Velco right of way? And he seemed to indicate, I heard that there could be some problems. So I'm thinking the two witnesses are saying something different. No, I don't believe we are, but it may have been interpreted differently. The HDD in the location as proposed is one fell swoop. We're going to start and we're going to end outside of the park. No impact on wetlands during construction. Mr. LaForce was talking about if we were to drill in the Velco area, it may not be able to be one contiguous drill. It may require multiple drills, at which point it may require a staging area in the park that would have a temporary impact on a wetland, could have a temporary impact on a wetland, depending on the location of the drill race. So your answer was to the proposed Correct. Thank you very much for clarifying that. Follow up on that, though. Am I to infer, then, that there is some sort of jog, as it were, in the Velco right of way, that would make it impossible to do what you call essentially a straight shot? When I was saying that jog, there's been multiple routes talked about. So if you were going to try and avoid all wetlands, I was talking about wetlands upstream and downstream. And there are some wetlands upstream of the park that are contiguous to the park, the wetlands in the park. So I was referring to those at the Velco corridor, as I've seen it on maps, that piece is a straight shot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have another question? Yes. Finish this subject, hopefully. Ms. Ellarie, you don't believe that any of the rights given to the company under paragraph three of the easement? Because we're horizontally directionally drilling this, I don't believe there will be any clearing on either side of the pipeline. So would you just take out that clause of easement? I'd need to read it in context to make sure that the construction team, that there's not a nuance in there that I am not thinking of. But there's no pipeline clearing, there's no clearing associated with the horizontal directional drilling. Parts that I've asked people about this morning, such as the right to reverse any part of the practice part, is this necessary? No, I would not agree to that. We need access to that pipeline in the highly unlikely event of an emergency. I think that would be an inappropriate edit to this easement. The reference of easement to temporary areas is unnecessary because of each of the people? Yes. It sounds like you're saying the easement to each is inappropriate because if it gives company rights, it doesn't need it. I think you just linked two thoughts I would not link. There are rights in this deed that we do not need. For example, the temporary access area, we do not need that. That does not mean that the easement is inappropriate. There that starting in 2013, the Conservation Commission wrote an A&R into the town saying, there's a better option. Either of those is the right option. What's going on the west side of the Velcro right of way would minimize the impact on weapons? Are you aware of that? Not of that. Not of that specific letter. The Conservation Commission, if Monk has to consider a route that's not in the Velcro right of way, minimizes the impact on weapons. But it won't. It won't. It's not a question of the right. Mr. Dumas, how does this follow up to our question? Because I'm not sure if that's your question. It's presented. The alternatives considered would be the Velcro right of way, which they say won't work for enough reasons. For the existing group. And I believe they're going to have options, including with Monk's representatives. While I, the Conservation Commission, repeatedly say, we don't want either of those. We want the west side of the right one. If they don't know about that find, then they can say they don't know. Otherwise, this is the problem we're going to have. I'm aware that the Conservation Commission has talked about this pipeline for a while. I am also aware that Vermont Gas believed until April of 2016 that we had a pipeline location that was acceptable to the town of Hinesburg. So on that very matter, you were aware that the select board had never publicly voted to approve of your agreement, correct? I don't know, Jeff, if it's irrelevant, it certainly is not a follow-up to the board's question. They're saying they relied on an agreement that was never publicly voted upon. And so I'm asking, aren't they? Did they really go at it, or did they know that it had never been adopted by the select board? And also, like, Jeff, based on this, all began at the open meeting 27th of the year. Not recently, but the very history of this talk about it, she said the select board avoided this agreement in April because of the open meeting's violation history. And I'm just asking, was Vermont Gas, which says it relied on the agreement where they completely ignorant that it had never been approved upon the select board? I'm not sure what the factual part of the question was. Could you repeat it? Was Vermont, were you, or any member of the panel, aware that the select board had never voted publicly to adopt this stipulation? You say you were reliant. I will let the other men, people on the panel, speak to themselves. I am not able to speak to the process by which that agreement came to be signed. What I can speak to is that we had a signed agreement with the town of Hinesburg that Vermont Gas believed and relied on until April, 2016. Moreover, we had a conceptual agreement with the town since about 2014. And the agreement that was executed in 2015 was substantially similar to the conceptual agreement that we had since late 2014, August 2015. I was not aware. Yeah, I agree, I was not aware as well. I just understood that we had reached an agreement with the town and we were good to go and to receive once we secured the remaining easements. Perfect. There. Mr. LaForsche talked about the pipeline in HDD being 30 to 50 feet in depth. Is it 30 to 50 feet for the entire length? Because then I saw the hand gesture that indicated it was a loop. Is it 30 to 50 feet for the entire length of the pipeline? Where is it? Of the park or does it get closer to the surface as it approaches Shelburne Falls Road? That's correct. It will get, the depth will change but the plan for the HDD in order to avoid disturbance or disturbance to the park is to set back from those property mines. So the shallow parts of the drill will be on the northern property and the southern property. So it'll still be very deep in the park. That's why I gave it a rain. So we're gonna take our lunch break. We had scheduled it for 45 minutes. So if you put that, that's all right. And then when you come back, you're gonna do. Can someone hit the air conditioning please? Should we take this with us or not? It's all right, so. Okay, all right. If you need to. Yeah, it might be our property. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. We're gonna continue with this witness and with these witnesses. I think we're up to Mr. Bean asking redirect and I just wanna remind the witnesses to please speak up. I think everyone should speak up when you're speaking. It's difficult to hear. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna ask the witness some questions about an exhibit JAN2. It's in the exhibit binders we've given to the board. And that is just a larger version. And I thought Mr. LaForest could orient the board to that exhibit. It's the same one. It was attached to the three-pot. Yes, it is. The Jeff Nelson's three-pot has come on anymore. Did you indicate that there was an exhibit binder? We have one for the interveners. We don't have one for you. We do have the three-pot testimony. Yes, it's an exhibit. Oh, it's attached to the three-pot testimony as JAN2. And it's attached to Mr. LaForest's testimony? No, to Jeff Nelson. To July 15th. July 15th, right. Thank you. Mr. LaForest, I'd like to direct your attention to the larger version of what is JAN2 exhibit to Jeff Nelson's testimony. Could you just point to the board, the boundaries of the park, where the easement that PGS seeks to condemn is located, where the right-of-way for Velco is located? Could you do that, please? So on this map, there are a bunch of different lines. The first one to point out is this, I'll call it a soft yellow line. That is the boundary of the... Mr. LaForest, please. Could you come around the other side of it, then? Sorry. You're back stuff up a lot of folks. Thank you. This soft yellow line, the whole art's not shown on it, but the area that we've been talking about is this, that's the boundary of the park. So that be the orange line? No, it's this soft yellow line. Okay. Lighter than that orange line. Can you put your finger around the boundaries of the park? So, as I said, the whole park is an omni here, but our portion is, so I'm just following this around. It overlaps with this orange line. There's a portion off this map, but it's park, as I understand it. The second item was to talk about the, or to point out the area that we're here for and the easement we're seeking is basically this dark blue line with the light blue highlight going down the entirety of this map. Can you start at the top once more? Sure. So, and also to point out, up is north. This map is oriented north up. And I'm just following this blue line straight down the page. And now could you show us where the bell go right away? Yes. So, the bell go right away is a different lighter yellow line that has, it's dashed with two dots. And it runs basically parallel to our line. And it runs down the center, straight down the page. And you can identify it because you'll see these gray dots with black outlines with numbers on it, one 21, one 22, one 23. And as I believe those are bell go structure locations and their corresponding numbers. They're the poles, I think. I'm almost hardly without the poles. Where's the house you were talking about that's close to the bell go? So, I'll just point out this is Shelburne Falls Road. And across from the park is a property. And you can see this, it's from the ortho photo. You can see a very straight line. And that's the driveway back to a house. And the house is located here at the bottom of the page. You can see the bell go right away. It's right within, it's right adjacent to it. What would you have to do to change the configuration of the easement you see in order to get to the bell go right away but the pipeline there? So, as I pointed out, this is a dark blue and the white blue is our proposed route. On the north, we secured an easement for the pipe in this area. And on the south, we've secured an easement. So if we were to put our pipe right next to bell go, adjacent to it, we'd be putting the pipe somewhere in this area. And then somehow we would have to get from this point back to our proposed pipeline on use adjacent properties. And so it would be some type of route up through here, back or across the same thing here. We'd have to somehow traverse across these properties to get back to the approved design. Do you know the use for them? How much of the blue line at the top and at the bottom outside of the park has already been built? We don't have exact location, but we prep the right away, right up to the park and are ready to install it. I don't, they're putting pipe in every day and so I can't tell you as of right now where the actual pipe is, but work has already started in these areas. What are the relevant green areas? Dark green, light green, et cetera. What is the difference in color? I would say Mr. Nelson is more dressed up and so it's, they're natural resource areas. Mr. Nelson can talk more to what their actual significance of the exact. So my question I have for you is to get from the present easement over to the VILCO right away, would you, do you have easements to do that or would you need to get easements? We don't have agreements to cut across in that manner. We only have the right to go where the pipe line is designed right now. Then one other question I have is do you need any area beyond, if you were gonna do an HDB, would you need any area beyond to the east of the VILCO right away in order to light pipe? Certain designs might need more easement area or in order to construct if we were to do an HDB similar to this, similar to what we're proposing here, we don't have any room north or south on these properties. So unlike here, we have already secured best these areas. We need a spot to stage the pipe in order to pull it back in. So you basically need the same amount of area above ground adjacent to the installation in order to weld the pipe, stage it and be able to pull it into the ground hole. Okay, so currently under the current plan, if you're successful in this particular combination, where would be your entry and exit points and where would the staging be? So we're proposing roughly to stage it, and I think I said this earlier, to the north and south of the park boundary. So we'd stage equipment up here to the north and here to the south. Most likely case, because of the way it's laid out, we'd stage the pipe along the roof, going up off this page so that it could be pulled back in for the length of this pipe. Or for this. And just for the record, how do you, how do they drill it? Do they, is there a pipe at all and then how do they get the pipe through it just so we understand that? In general. In general, it takes many passes to drill, to complete the bore. Generally, we do a pilot hole, or we do a pilot hole first. Then it's a series of what we call reams where they gradually make the hole larger to the point where that hole is conditioned in order to pull the pipe into that borehole. How many of these HDD drills has Vermont Gas performed on the pipeline today? We've performed approximately, we've completed approximately 12 larger HDDs and we've completed a couple other small ones across roads. And who's your HDD subcontractor? Right now it is Michael's. Is it a regional or large or small HDD? It's a big HDD company. I think they actually operate worldwide or have done projects overseas, but they're listed in the US. Let me ask you a question. While the HDD is being drilled, this process of reading and pulling the pipe through, will persons be able to use the park? Yeah, I fully expect that they could use the park. That's why we're doing the HDD, it's not, so we don't disturb that area. You mean the natural resource area? Yes. Number. Would people be able to walk over the hill square path even as the drill went under it? Yes. Have you drilled any other thoroughfares where HDD was employed in and people were traveling over? Yeah, we've completed multiple HDDs in that manner. There are a couple significant ones where we drilled I-89 in Williston and we did not stop traffic on the highway during that process. And we also drilled the Muskie River in Essex slash Williston. And in Polaris word. So, Mr. Dumont was asking you about potential things that would go wrong with the pipeline net that was installed. Does that seem to you to be, you said it was possible, but could you give us whether you think it's clear? I mean, I see it as pretty unlikely and we currently have over seven miles of transmission in our existing system and we've operated it for 15 years and operated it well. When installing a new gas line, we do a lot of measures in order to test the integrity and the pipe. So, we're exerting welds, we're inspecting those welds, inspecting the pipe as it goes in. And then before it's put into service, we do a final hydro test of it at one and a half times the operating pressure. And then also, this pipeline has the ability to run an inline inspection tool through it and... What's an inline inspection tool? An inline inspection tool is a device that can run through the pipeline and inspect the pipe and let us know if there are any issues, picks up anomalies and gives us information about the pipeline. And we're going to do one after it is gassed up and we'll be running one of these tools every seven years. So, Mr. Dumont was asking you about maintenance of the pipeline after it was installed. Do you plan on mowing about the pipeline? Right now, I believe in the situation it says we'll work with the conservation commission on coming up with a plan for any pressure and that would be one of the items we would have to discuss with them. What if the Hinesburg Conservation Commission objected to your cutting trees or grass? I think we've worked with them on that process. Could you refrain from cutting about the pipe given a step? I do with the current method of HDB where the pipe is very deep and after walking the route several times, the vegetation there, most of it is grassy shrubs and I don't see any of that as a threat. Okay, you can sit down. I have a question about another example. I'd like to direct your attention to JAN-4. It's a pasted Jeff Nelson's testimony. It's the work of David. Could you describe it to me? Yes. Well, I was like that when I said the little bit here and it has some blue lines to show them. I'll turn the blue line. It's the last one. Yes, it is. Of course, maybe just to orient the board and we can put up this JAN-4. You can show us these alternative routes north and south. So this is orienting the same as this larger map. Okay, could you show us the alternative routes or show me the eastern route? This is an alternative that was considered. Mr. Beam, we can't see anything with these kids. I'm just trying to get the strain. Just about the center of the map is the park property right in here. The eastern route is shown coming across here to the east. That runs along Route 116. It goes past the intersection with Shelburne Falls Road and CBU Road and then cuts across back to our proposed pipeline corridor. And is that a longer or shorter route than the one you proposed to conduct? It is definitely longer than the route that we are proposing in the park, probably by a few thousand feet. As an alternative route, is it as practicable, less practicable, and more practicable than the ones you see pick and dance? In my opinion, it's less practicable just because of how far it's deviating from our corridor. The fact that we have to add thousands to more feet of pipe. Like I said, I think it's a couple thousand, two thousand. You have to go through a tight area along Route 116, then coming back to the corridor, we have to cut across multiple new properties. Okay, and could you just outline, I think you have two western alternatives that you could outline after the board. Before you head to the western, on this eastern one, I understand your practicable standard is what you're using. Is it feasible? I think parts are, but other parts would need a lot more detail to figure out how feasible they are, especially along Route 116. I drive that quite often, and I know there's houses right out to the edge of the road, and there's rock wedges that extend above the road. So dealing with those would take a lot more detail, but I know those would be difficult things to overcome when you have structures like that. So you can go out to the western. So again, we're in the back, center of this map is the park, and the proposed route through the park. There's two western routes that are on this park. One's called the western route, and one's called the far western route. The western route goes out of the park, and kind of along the, there's a, I guess I'd call it a hill, and basically goes up and over that hill, and the far western route goes basically around to the other side of the route, or other side of the hill. So it'd be the west side of the hill, between the men, the ones along. Shuttle Falls Road and gruesome properties back to our proposed or approved pipeline corridor. All right, those routes, how do they compare in length to the route you're proposing? I don't know. The western route, I would say, is very similar. It's definitely slightly more pipe. The far western route is similar to this eastern route. I don't think it's as far, but I think it's probably about a couple thousand feet longer than our proposed route. So the western route, the one that is just a little longer than the one you proposed to condemn, is there anything about its location that presents challenges in building? And I think a lot of the challenges there, it's basically, I believe it's a rock hill. I haven't done any solo warings, but I had walked up there and looked at it from the park. There's very steep slopes on it, so we'd have to figure out a way to deal with that, or even if we can. I noticed that some of the trees on it were, it looked like they were sliding down the hill, so there's some stability problems on that hill. So from an operations standpoint, that would be difficult. And there are, are there not elevation lines on that map that show whether it's steep or not? Yeah, on this map, there are some lines close together. They're basically orange lines, and those are some topography lines. There's 10 foot and 15 foot contour lines if you look at the key there. There's a picture on a thinner orange line. During any of these drills, have you had any inadvertent returns? We have. And do you have a plan to address them? We do. And did you address someone who had the inadvertent returns? We did. Yes. And we're just ready for your next movement. Could I just answer the last question? Yeah, sure. This was Mr. Brack. Mr. Brack, I'd like to say this. I'm sorry. I did have questions of Mr. Moran. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, that's fine. It was really the way I said it. That there was Mr. Brack. Mr. Moran, you addressed some of the difficulties and issues and challenges that would confront VGS if they were relocating their plan pipe-wide either to the Velco right away or to one of these alternate routes. Could you just summarize what those challenges are and what the cost implications are? Sure. Mr. LaForge just walked through some of the practical, excuse me, practical problems or challenges with the alternate routes. Let me just translate that into some time and potentially knowledge. Let's start with the alternative of relocating the pipe in Velco. First and foremost, we would be trading a location of the pipe that the town has found acceptable to for a location that we don't know if it would be acceptable. And as Mr. LaForge pointed out, it would involve renegotiations with the landowner to the north and introduce a new landowner to the south. We don't know whether or not that would be something that the landowner should be interested in and it would not be unreasonable to think that that could take anywhere from half a year to a year and a half. We had to go through a whole negotiation, eminent domain, appeal, et cetera. Any movement of the pipeline even within Geoprags Park would require an amendment to our collateral permits. If we're drilling, we may not need to amend the collateral permits for the drill itself, but we would have birth disturbance associated with the lay down area or the pullback area and we would need to amend our collateral permits for that. That would include our INDC, our stormwater construction permit, potentially our wetland permit, potentially our Army Corps of Engineer permit and the 401 and 404 that go with it. It's a question mark as to whether or not or what type of approval for the board would be required. I don't want to make a determination whether it would be considered a substantial change or not a substantial change, but in any event there would be some degree of interaction with the Public Service Board, all of which translates into delay. Oh, I guess the other one I should mention is the resident interveners in this case have not opposed the location of the pipe in the park, the specific location. They have opposed the use of the park at all. So as I sit here right now, I have no reason to believe that an alternate location to the specific interveners in this case would be necessarily any more acceptable. So that all translates into delay. Delay translates into costs. We mentioned the delay to customers in Addison County, just high level, just the carrying costs on this project. The portion of this project that's recoverable, not the total cost of the project, but the carrying costs on this are somewhere in the order of $700,000, $750,000 a month. And while the cost of this project is capped at $134 million, a review like this for landowner access is arguably at least something we could consider seeking recovery for and above the cost cap exception. I'm not going to find out whether it would meet it or not, but at least it falls within the bucket of things that could be considered. And that is moving the line within the park to Velco. The eastern and western alternatives have the exact same issues, but they're exacerbated by more landowners. And the fact that, by the way, none of these are going to be for archaeology. That can be particularly outside of the park. We have not reviewed any of them for archaeology. On the longer pipes that I think we call the far western alternatives, some of the practical things like that's not, we didn't buy that much pipe. We bought enough pipe for this project. If we start adding lengths of pipe, we need to go back and buy more pipe for it, which also can ensure these two delay and costs. But bottom line, we're simply trading the location of a pipe with a landowner that we reached agreement about the location of the pipe for an area that is completely uncertain, regardless of whether we stay in the park or go outside of the park. Can you speak up, please? It's hard for me. The whole thing? Well, I said bottom line, which we would be trading off the location of the pipe for a landowner where we have agreement for that location to areas where there's a tremendous amount of uncertainty as to whether or not we will be able to reach agreement or that location would be acceptable to the underlying landowners. Mr. Big, can I ask you a question? Absolutely. Has the archeological study been done in the Velco right away? No. Within Velco itself, probably, because the type of archeology that needs to be done for Velco, because it's poles versus Vermont gas being trenched, I would be highly doubtful that there's adequate archeology within the Velco right away to meet what we would need for the pipe. And has Velco coverage for that? It cannot be in the park. Within the park? I don't know. I'm not aware of anything like that. Yes, I just want to point out that Commissioner Hopper referred to as the Velco right away. Thank you for the direction. We all think the same. Just to follow up, Mr. LaForest said there have been some inadvertent returns already. And I just want to know how many and where they went those. I don't have a total number. I do not know. Mr. Nelson probably acknowledges witnesses there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are you guys ready for Mr. Nelson? Yes. I do. Good. And I will. Yes, I do. I have my testimony of July 15th, which is 11 pages plus the exhibits, Jan 1 through Jan 4. I prepare your direct supervision. Yes, I've prepared it. And did you guys do the cloud in this case? Yes. Is it true and accurate today for the best of your knowledge? Yes, it is. You will see the witness. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, you testimony addresses wetlands delineation. Am I correct? In part, yes. Testify about wetlands delineation on page 3, on page 4, page 5, and page 6. Correct? I see mention of wetlands delineation on page 3, and 4, and 5, and 6. Yes. Am I correct that you have never delineated a single wetlands in your career? Personally, I have not. Am I correct that you possess no educational qualifications, no training, and no certifications for delineating wetlands? I wouldn't agree to that brought of a characterization. So I share with your counsel the exhibit I was brought with me this morning. Have you looked at that? About your prior testimony about this matter? I guess I'd like to see it if you're going to ask me to agree to it. This morning testimony gave a friend of the United States District Judge William K. Sessions on May 20th, 2016 in Vermont Railway versus County of Shelby. Seven exhibit. I will have to I'll have to mark it. This will become this will become AP. You have copies for everybody? Well, I have three extra copies. The party's already got the board. Um, Mr. Judge, Mr. AP. Yes. Will you ask on page 1031? And I want to ask you a little bit about your experience delineating wetlands. How many wetlands have you delineated in your career? Your answer was none. Then you were asking what type of educational qualifications, courses or certifications do you have regarding delineating wetlands and your answer was none? That's correct. So that's what you testified under open thumb report? Yes. Are you saying that was not correct? No, I that is correct. What I had heard you ask me a few minutes ago was a slightly different question than that, but maybe I misheard it. Okay. You do not hold yourself out as an expert in wetlands delineation, correct? That's correct. Ms. Woolard, April Woolard was reportedly referred to on page three. She is a trained wetlands biologist, correct? I haven't reviewed her qualifications. Is she certified to delineate wetlands? I don't know. Didn't Ms. Woolard work for the wetlands division of A&R for many years? To your knowledge, personally? I know she worked for the wetlands program at the state. I don't recall the duration of time that she was there many years ago. Your testimony on page five, line three, says that Ms. Woolard's testimony for conclusion, excuse me for conclusion, that a new program is needed is to entirely unsupported and vigorously contested. Did I read that correctly? Yes, you did. So you as a person with no certification, no education, and no training in wetlands delineation are vigorously contesting for conclusion? There's a lot more facts between those two that I would want to be able to describe before agreeing to that kind of characterization. Well, you're the only witness who's been presented by Ron Cass on this issue, so it's you or nobody, right? For the issues in front of the board? I supervise the staff of professionals that are responsible for conducting and certifying wetland delineations, and I rely on them under my direct supervision to do their work in a professional and complete manner. But they're not here to testify? They're not here to be crossed down on earth? Not today. Have you seen letters submitted to this board by Attorney Leinhorn and Docket 797-0 on July 29th of this year? Which I've circulated in counseling as well. I've just been handed a letter dated July 15th. You said July 15th. I'm sorry, July 15th. I just spoke. So yes, I have seen this before. You need to get into it. I'll mark it. Do you agree that Mr. Einhort Einhort concludes that the existing route through the park will traverse wetlands that were not mapped or not delineated? Well, I guess I'd want to... I don't know that I'd agree with that as you've stated it. Does Mr. Einhort conclude that VGS will need to obtain a new wetland permit for the impacts portion park portion of the project prior to performing any work within the previously unidentified portions of those wetlands? Yes, that is the statement on page two of the letter. In fact, you've communicated that by Einhort? That's what this letter says and this letter is from Einhort. Yes. So Einhort agrees with the conclusion that you said was entirely unsupported and vigorously contested? No, the statements that Ms. Muller made were different than what the agency said, but the agency said is that if Vermont Gas intends to do work within the previously unidentified wetlands or buffers, a new wetland permit would be required. What Vermont Gas intends to do is to use HDD to drill underneath the wetlands and thereby avoid any impact to them and therefore not require a new wetlands permit. So your pre-file testimony did not address that eventuality, did it? I don't know that I did specifically. At the time of the pre-file testimony, the company had not committed to using HDD in the park and now as a result of the agreement with the town, the company has agreed to take that step to avoid impacts to the park and to the wetlands. So you've been here all day, correct? Yes, I have. And you heard the discussion of the vegetation management plan that's considered C to the signed agreement? I did hear that discussion, yes. And you heard our discussion on page six of exhibit C which says a 20 foot carter centered on the pipe where we kept road to keep wetting vegetation that was coming established. The remaining 15 foot zone on either side of the 20 foot load carter up to the edge of the A NGC phase one right away. I'm sorry, I can't see the edge of the... The remaining 15 foot zone on either side of the 20 foot load carter up to the edge of the A NGP phase one right away. It will be managed for Golden Wing workbook that I've had as described here. Is your understanding that the language I just read is no longer in effect? Well, I don't know that I would say it's no longer in effect. The document you just read from is dated May 18th of this year. And at the time the proposal that was on the table was to construct the segment of the pipe using open trench and therefore this was presented by us as a minimization measure so that once the pipeline was installed the long-term impacts to the park would be minimized the opportunity for the restoration natural habitat and natural vegetation to be restored would be achieved. Given that as of last week the company in the town have agreed that the pipe would be installed by HDD the the restoration and the need for this kind of maintenance have changed and I believe that the Vermont Gas Witnesses have spoken to that this morning. But I may ask first of all you said this is a May 18th document in fact this is the document that was executed on August 2nd by the town's attorney based on the vote of July 28th including this page do you understand that? Well, I understand that it was an attachment to the stipulation. It's incorporated by reference to the stipulation it's an easement do you understand it? I guess can you refer me to something specific? Yeah, so I'm going to make this point to the board to this point when I get your honors it appears that much of the preparation I did for this hearing which was based on the signed settlement agreement the gas company is now backing off where the town is with both. I'm going to I'm not guessing this is you're going to respond to what you thought okay in order for me to effectively represent my clients I need to have the documents that are actually the agreement we're now hearing the documents we were given we're not the actual agreement we're under the administrative procedure wrap and due process it's unfair of the improper to force us to go through a hearing the documents a settlement agreement that is being changed as we're here as we sit here so if in fact the changes are made that the witnesses spoke about this morning I don't know alternative but to ask for another hearing I would have posed that the agreement was unsigned until Tuesday or Wednesday it was given to Mr. Dumont immediately the agreement also says in 16c that this this vegetation management plan will be modified and the the settlement agreement with the town was meant to be modified and Mr. Nelson can talk about those modifications but this discovery was given to Mr. Dumont in real time the events the signing of the agreement was a kind of hurt after the July 15th 2016 pre-file pre-file testimony was made and there were significant efforts to try to bring the town and BGS together so that an agreement could be reached rather than a dispute which I think is BGS's obligation in working with the public so I really don't think he's being prejudiced by this I don't think also that the modifications that are occurring are either surprising or particularly material to this eminent domain proceeding which really revolves around necessity I understand too that it also must address how the public use the prior existing public use of Giprox part will be affected I the company is committed to working with the town and the conservation committee within the town to make this work and and they're going to continue to work with them and attempt to make this agreement work for for the town and for BGS if I may respond up up paragraph 16c that Mr. Nealers referred to says paragraph 16c 16c of the 70 yes okay yep says implementing a corridor maintenance plan consistent with preservation and enhancement of the existing habitat to the greatest possible extent taking taking into consideration requirements for monitoring and maintenance of the pipeline and it says and may be modified may be modified to account for the reduced impacts on the facts part through use of HDD so it's saying there is there will be the corridor maintenance plan and the one that exists might be modified but the one that exists is adopted and incorporated by reference into the several arena the paragraph 16 and it's the easement deed explicitly so if that corridor maintenance plan is going to be changed the details of it are really important to me all the issues we've discussed today I believe section 19 with that addresses the conservation plan is also relevant to this this was an agreement that they came together and it was I think 16c says that it may be modified to account for HDD and HDD is in fact one of the things that makes cutting a corridor less important than it would have been if this was an open trench installed type that was only four feet or four and a half feet below the ground spec's going to be 30 to 50 feet below the ground but the maintenance concerns therefore have changed to account for the HDD installation the HDD was undertaken to address concerns expressed by the town including the conservation committee some of whom or at least one of whom is an intervener here so I I think these are positive developments I think they could have been should have been anticipated by Mr. Dumont and I don't think he's persisted at all by this this this document will probably in the future maybe they'll they'll continue to modify it and adjust to challenging circumstances and conditions so Mr. Dumont what are you asking for? I'm not asking for you to do anything right now I just felt I need you reached 20 you need to put that on the record and maybe we'll deal with that in the briefs but I'm not asking you to do anything right now Who are you? Where are you? I'm a class example I think I asked it's my turn to ask a question I'll put it back to ask you a question okay right here you put turns your pre-prol page nine what is slide 18 you say we have performed a very limited GIS analysis what is a GIS analysis first and I'll ask you about the very limited part sure well GIS stands for geographic information systems and what we mean by the term GIS analysis is that we went to publicly available data sources to look at what was known about natural resource features cultural resource features any information that we could gather about these possible potential alternatives to try to inform our understanding of whether or not they might be viable what is a very limited GIS analysis well I think what I was trying to state there was that it was really not a field evaluation that it was really more of a desktop assessment line 20 state I stress that this analysis is extremely rough in that no field natural resource assessments have been performed along any of these lines at this point yes when could you undertake this preliminary extremely rough analysis if I I gave the board my copy of Jan 4 and I if I could grab one of those back so this Jan 4 which depicts the the lines on the map if you will is dated July 14th of this year my recollection is that we began working on assessing these these lines if you will during June of this year was that after Miss Moolark did the site visit and you became aware of the delineation problem I don't recall if it was or not a not certain of that I just have to guess what prompted this extremely rough preliminary I'm sorry extremely rough very limited analysis obviously as others from Vermont Gas testified this morning the company had understood they had an agreement with the town up until earlier this year as far as bringing the pipeline through the current alignment and when that became not the case there was a desire to look to see if there was some other practical way of connecting the segment to the north of Caprax with segment to the south why start in June why not February why not March I I don't have an answer to that I mean it was obviously there's been a lot of effort ongoing both on this parcel and other parcels associated with the project and that was the point at which we were asked by Vermont Gas to to look at possible other alternatives so the timing was not up to you Vermont Gas made a request to you at certain point Vermont Gas is our client and we are you know responding to requests to do work and perform analyses by the company thank you if you could turn to page seven this four through eight yes you were asked whether the currently permitted alignment as the potential to result in undue adverse impacts to wetlands as a result of the updated elimination you said no that's correct why what's the in your mind what's the where does the undue adverse impact statement standard come from what standard are you addressing so I guess before I answer that if I may I just want to make sure that the board and the parties are clear that this answer was given in the context of an expectation that the segment of pipeline would still be constructed via open trench so that there would be temporary trenching of these wetlands the the larger delineated area from 2016 as of the time of writing of this testimony is is with that aside um the undue adverse standard is one that is in the wet from our wetland rules and that's how the agency evaluates the project in the context of those rules to determine whether or not impacts to wetlands and row buffers should be authorized that's right Paul but it doesn't make that clear you're really addressing the standard in the amount wetlands rules correct right I am and I believe that that's also incorporated into 248 review as I understand it this is not a 248 case so I'm asking really why how do you connect us to the issues in front of the board if you can I believe in this instance I was in part responding to some of the assertions made by this who are that I believe she concluded that there would be an undue adverse impact but again I don't have her memo in front of me but I believe that's why I I wrote this to make it clear that we just agreed her memo was submitted to A&R it wasn't submitted to the board for actions do you understand that I believe I don't know how that memo was circulated do you know what the standard is for necessity to take lands already committed to public use I wouldn't consider myself to be an expert in that area so you weren't reporting to address that area well I don't know what the legal standard is but certainly in terms of consideration of impacts to wetlands and how that might feed into an ultimate determination that would be made by others I was sticking to the area within which our work had been done now I would like to ask you about HDZ okay are you an expert on this I I guess I would certainly not as to the design of drills or the engineering aspects of how one would go about in HDD but in the course of my work we've had the opportunity to interact with numerous designers and regulators and evaluate projects and participate as an inter part of an interdisciplinary team in the design of projects to avoid and minimize impacts and so in that context I've certainly had exposure to the use of HDD as a way of avoiding a lot of different kinds of impacts are you an expert on the engineering standards that should be followed when preparing an area for HDD no where we are right now is you're testifying that HDD is the proposal before the board you're the witness that the other witnesses have referred to for the impacts of HDD and so far you say you're not an expert on the engineering standards that would apply to preparing an area for HDD right am I missing something there well if you wanted to ask me about potential impacts from inadvertent returns or contingency plans or things of that sort that you're having to use well we'll get there but first I want to know you've said you are not an expert on this standards to apply when preparing a site for HDD that's still true right you haven't changed you know that I think the one word you deleted from the way you just rephrased that is engineering I'm certainly not an expert in the engineering design or the engineering criteria that one would use in preparing an HDD so does the American Society of Simple Engineers have standards for designing HDD preparing an area for HDD and designing an HDD preparing an area for HDD and designing an HDD but I just said I wasn't an expert in designing an HDD so how would I I guess I I don't feel I can get a qualified answer to that are you aware of any generally accepted standards on designing HDD or preparing an area for HDD I'm not an expert on HDD design are you an expert on the geotechnical or soil or geological or boring that should be conducted as part of preparing an area for HDD or designing HDD well again a designer of a drill would be the responsible party for assessing for example what types of geophysical information whether that for warings or other geophysical techniques to be able to design a drill that's not work that that I do having said that I'm certainly familiar with soil warings the review of soil boring data the collection of that data and I would say the interpretation of that data but I to take that the next step to then how do you use that information to design a drill that's not my expertise so if there are standards of generally accepted practices for a level of detail needed for soil boring or geological boring whether you need to do it every 50 feet or every 2,000 feet you don't know what those standards are for the purposes of designing the drill and preparing the area yes I think that again qualifying it for the that you know the collection of that data for the purposes of designing the drill I am not here to speak to that you understand that can I ask a question yes go ahead can you say designing the drill what does that actually mean it means designing the actual hardware or where it goes or it's where it goes so that you know obviously the drill has a starting point and an ending point on the ground and as Chris described the sort of parabola of how steeply does the drill dive into the ground how far down this could go how you know let the length be that depth and so the designer is going to look at available data whether that's boring or surface geophysical readings that tell them for example where the depth of bedrock is whether the soil is clay or silt or sand or of course peat and then they will design the drill which is assigning those parameters of depth and angle of approach and and you know the the horizontal section that's in the middle of the drill so that's what I mean by designing the drill and that's where Michaels which is the firm that Montgas has retained to build the project has as Chris said worldwide expertise doing I think they have the record for doing the longest HDD in the world and they're the ones that ultimately do that drill design and I guess if I could just make one aside to that comment as well which is one of the drills that was authorized in the CPG that issued for this project was under the Moncton swamp that drill is about underneath the swamp it's about 2,400 feet which recently successfully completed no inadvertent releases in the Moncton swamp and the there were no warrings done in the Moncton swamp because that would have been difficult in terms of just impacts to the swamp and they are concerned so that drill is longer than this drill and that we're no warrings within the Moncton swamp before this successful completion of that drill I just needed to know but yep because I need the drill actually met Mr. Nelson in the case you just brought up the volume of the Moncton swamp what work did Michael's undertake to compensate for the lack of warrings? I I don't know and I guess I'd be hesitant to speculate yeah I'm just I'm not sure based on the witnesses answers I don't need to turn to questions for you Do you have a question? Yeah, I have a question but we're told that you're the expert on the warrings and so if you could just tell me a little bit more about what so if I could just go back to Jan too I hate to run but this time I have to and I haven't I haven't objected yet I know it's an area of concern to the board the witness has established who lacks the foundation against these questions can I object to any answers in the area in which he's doesn't have the required expertise? I think that is just incorrect factually that Mr. Nelson said he did have expertise on warrings and analyzing the warrings that were taken out of warrings what he said he did not have expertise on was designing the horizontal drills which it is a fundamentally different endeavor We were told by the previous witnesses that this would be the director of the records I mean this would be the person when we were asking the questions before we were told Mr. Nelson what people were and what I heard Mr. Nelson say is what Mr. Bean just said right Mr. Nelson can you answer what expertise do you have to do in war? Sure my training is that I have a a bachelor's degree in geology master's degree in civil engineering both from UVM and the course of my 30 plus years as a practicing professional an arminal professional in Vermont I have done everything from being when I was a young scientist on the on the drill rig logging the soils to interpreting soil boring data for purposes of whether it's wastewater system design not that I'm doing the design or HDD design but basically interpreting the soil units for the purposes of informing other team members as to how to use the information in doing their design work so I have I would consider a very extensive experience interpreting collecting and interpreting soil boring data over the years and soil boring data is used for many things not just for hours on the drill correct I understand that but I thought the intended pending question was to go from that area to what is sufficient boring before you do a drill maybe I misread no I'm trying to understand the better since there were two moorings that either end of this route what if anything in that show okay as long as we're not going to the next step then I would I wouldn't understand anything okay thank you so I will say that Vermont guests did provide in the most recent discovery filing the logs of the two moorings that were that were completed there were this is the first boring again we're on Jan two was immediately the south of Shelburne Falls road and then just to the south of Frank's Park the second boring was just to the north of the of the park boundary and without having fully memorized the moorings my recollection is that the southern one was about 60 feet or so deep and was predominantly clay the northern one had um or some sandier soils and gravel and then eventually hit bedrock which was described as a bill of stone or limestone at and I can't remember the exact number but it's in that I believe that same range 50 to 60 feet so based on that information and you know knowing that the area between isn't necessarily exactly the same we have evidence at both points that there's enough depth of uncontrollable material when you drill not to have to be a rock drill now even if it was rock it could be drilled because it places on the project where Michael says drill through rock but it's a slower and more expensive process to drill through rock than it is to soil based on your experience and maybe you don't know what would you recommend for moorings in the park along that line the line before the horizontal building was done again excuse me I have to object the witness has established he doesn't have the foundation to provide a competent answer that question I know it's legally it's relevant but the witness is not competent to answer I was going to suggest that I didn't feel qualified to answer thank you any follow-up to our question but hasn't happened already oh the witness already did that try it yeah can you read the rack just a little bit did one of you have qualifications to the effect of a NHDD drill at a certain depth on wetlands yes I do and what's your opinion as to the effect this HDD drill at 30 to 15 feet might have on the wetlands in Asian Frog Park my opinion is that this drill at those depth ranges will have no impact whatsoever on the existing wetlands on the park does that include in the proposed route and also in the Velco right away I was answering the question in the context of the the currently planned group because it is a different analysis if we talk about going to Velco that I'd have to give longer explanation about would you give that longer explanation so again as Chris LaForce had mentioned you know starting at the north if the alignment on the west side of Velco were to be utilized the the project would need to to zig if you will come down and then zag back and at those turning points there would need to be excavations and pulling of pipe that would occur in I think I don't see how you could do it without being in the wetlands so there would be impacts in the wetland at the north and depending again on where the the jog went back to the existing corridor in the south it would be at least in my opinion very likely that you would be within the wetland there so that you would there would be temporary impacts to the wetlands from excavation of these pits during the installation even if the entire part were to be driven because so in other words if I understand it probably if in the proposed route there are no turns that's correct it's a straight line so the set up and the pull can all occur with equipment that doesn't need to be in the park itself is that right that's exactly whereas if you have turns in the park then you have to have to put them in that's exactly the way and furthermore because the pipeline is so straight to the north and south of here as Chris was saying on Mr. Lafort the pipe can be strong or those pieces of pipe can be laid out within the existing corridor that's being done where there are permits for impacts and earth disturbance and so forth so it doesn't invoke any new areas of impact because it's all within that existing permanent corridor I just wanted to show that anybody else have a problem? Well yes on that question Mr. Nelson I know you said you're not an HDB expert I just hear you say that it's not possible to change the alignment horizontal alignment of HDD without activity in service that's my understanding based on team communication Chris Lafort obviously spoke to that earlier I'm not making that determination I'm really the one looking at what the ramifications of that would be but you just said it's not possible to change the direction of an HDD without going back in from the service that's why I think I just heard you say and I if you wish me to qualify that by saying that is my understanding I'm happy to do that but that that is not my determination that's my understanding have you looked at any of the standard works on how to conduct HDD? I'm not sure what you're referring to I should have looked at any any references yours on how to conduct HDD? it's based on communication with other members of the team Chris Lafort for example but you yourself have never looked at any of the engineering manuals standards? I'm not going to read something without knowing what you're asking me about have you looked at what we marked as exhibit A.K. which was the contingency plan that Mr. Podano drew up from Laugh Gas in 8.80? yeah I'm familiar with that and he talks about the pipeline taking turns horizontally left to right without ever reaching the service correct? I wouldn't agree to that unless you show me that language I don't I mean I have to look at it but you look at exhibit A.K. Is that in your booklet? Yes I'm going to read the pack okay so Nick is like 8.10 sheets for that maybe this is a good page Mr. Podano I thought I had it but now I I thought it was in his document and it's in his book that I have this not in evidence so I'm going to have some drugs question I have to violate the copyright well it's a copy for all of you do you want to get another measure? No. okay so are you used to work? yes I've continued you're through okay no no I'm going to I'm sorry continue artwork I'm sorry um Mr. Ness the inadvertently term um policy by Mr. I thought it was so done all the restrictions here um was that kind of connection with Festa? that's correct and was it specific in any particular topographical future? well it was um it was a general contingency plan certainly the largest HDD which was under consideration of during that project was it posed at the time drill under Lake Champlain but there were other drills that were contemplated for natural resource avoidance purposes so that that contingency plan was intended to address certainly the drill under the lake as well as this other shorter drills that were also considered this VGS currently have an inadvertently return on policy? yes there's a plan that was developed at the request of ANR for this project and it is in effect and um for the the inadvertent returns that Chris the force described that plan has been deployed successfully in ensuring no significant or ongoing impacts to natural resources as a result of those events are you aware of any inadvertently points on this project in what minutes? um I'm aware of a few that have occurred yes um and uh again the plan has been followed and there have been no significant or ongoing impacts ANR has been out each time I believe each time there's been an inadvertent return and observed conditions we file a report with the agency stating what has been done and the follow-up and ensuring that all features are returning to pre-existing conditions now with respect to a permit for the HGD from ANR do you have any understanding of what ANR's approach or the Army Corps of Engineers approach would be to necessarily have a permit when you're going on HGD this definitely yeah underneath that but the agency says this is outside the scope of direct I don't know why we're going and it's also calling for hearsay but it's outside the scope of direct and close I didn't I didn't think it was because Mr. Newman asked a lot of questions about permitting and what effect it would have on wetlands I think Mr. Nelson will testify about his conversations with ANR and and his familiarity with recognized protocols of both the Army Corps and ANR with respect to HGD and why permits aren't necessary under the way this is exactly why we need another hearing that's not in this pre-file there's no way we have to be prepared for it this is all new territory well I would say this that Mr. Dumont brought it up and once we brought it up I think I ought to have a right to complete the story and not just have the half that is told through across the ammunition for the pre-file and exhibits that we all had to be prepared for today and not get into this area if the vicinity is going to be amended so that there will be all the parts that Miss Simulari said were wrong are in the political are going to be taken out and there's going to be a new corridor management program we need to see it we need to know what it is before we have testimony about it and HGD is part of that and we need to see that plan and have a chance to respond to it Mr. Dumont I recall you asking some questions about permitting is that incorrect? what I his pre-file was responding to April Rool Arts memorandum and she said as to the wetlands it was improperly terminated she was criticizing that we didn't at all get it from the question of what is the state's position on permitting for HGD what you've now asked me about well I guess I guess what I would say is that there was Mr. Dumont specifically asked do you send that what do you send that response to to ANR and raise the issue of whether there were contacts with ANR about this and and Mr. Nelson responded no I think he submitted to the to the board but I think he directly raised this issue of what Mr. Nelson's understanding is and what his communications were with ANR and here here would you just restate the question that was a fair question I asked him if he had any familiarity with recognized protocols or approaches taken by ANR for the Army Corps of Engineers and that was a foundation question that I was going to use to ask then ask him how and and some of it is just general familiarity with with recognized approaches taken by those two agencies and some of it is based on direct communications with ANR but it was about HGD communications about HGD as I understood the question that's why objectives were about communications with what what would be the impact on the wetlands and whether or not and well it's people who looked at on day day of Mr. Nelson July 6 between Cascone and Y9 through 13 isn't he talking about this topic right there some aspect of it but as he just told us the management plan his view is that the management plan that we are spending so much time talking about today was not an HGD management plan we don't have the details of what the management plan will be for the HGDD will it include Mowing will it include anything on the surface we don't know yet so this this is a hypothetical speculative discussion about monitoring program we know nothing about and so what A&R told him their practice might be for HGD it is speculation in addition to being hearsay and yes it is related to his pre-prime to a limited extent but not to an extent that it's useful because there's nothing provided to any of us any of us about what the monitoring program would be if there's HGD which is what this is all getting done to you will they have to mow so will they have to mow the corridor for HGD yeah so we're going to uh sustain the objection okay I'm going to do it from bottom today I would like to direct your attention to pale case six and page page five of the revised speculation okay okay so in directing your attention to paragraph 19 conservation plan does sorry Mr. can you be more precise on which which extension okay this is the K K L K six parenthood technique number six and it actually is attached this is this is something a little detailed yes it is okay this this paragraph 19 address any proposed modifications that that might be made to the conservation plan in cooperation with yes so paragraph 19 which is titled conservation plan includes a a few sentences that I believe are important to to that consideration first midway through the paragraph it says specifically Vermont gas agrees to modify normal maintenance routines as needed to address concerns and so I read that to mean that the normal maintenance routines which were such as such as the the paragraphs that we've talked about in the May vegetation management plan I guess I read this that Vermont gas will be modifying those and that's that's clearly understood in this I see it in this document and then finally this this paragraph as as I read it is looking at the development of this conservation plan in the future it's really something that is not obviously consistent today but it's something that and it's not something that is effect it affects construction of the project but it's operation and that it would be done in consideration of the warbler plan that was developed by Audubon Vermont and other elements of the vegetation management plan that we developed that's all it was about we talked about the need to develop these plans in the future and these all appear to have been in these languages you recognize that I recognize that the stipulations crafted isn't and that these plans didn't follow reading from it that there there were a lot of that the stipulation reflects the fact that there was insufficient time to craft plans that that are referenced in it is that correct um certainly as to this particular plan some of the plans like the warbler plan already exists and that was attached to it but the conservation plan is something that the quarter of that management maintenance plan well see I guess I that one I I'm not sure I would agree with it because the going back to paragraph 16 just before the A through E subsections it says details of the warbler protection plan include and then there's been a lot of discussion today about C the quarter maintenance plan so then if I turn to the the warbler protection plan on page five that is a section there that says specific management actions recommended for the pipeline corridor so this is a plan that already exists now granted there's a difference between open trenching and HDD but certainly some elements of this in terms of enhancing the shrubland habitat are certainly still applicable and as far as I know Vermont gas is completely committed to working with conservation commission and Audubon Vermont to implement what's been agreed to here in this plan well with regard to the you know the conservation plan yeah how long would it take to craft one? now that you know that it's interesting right I don't know that it's a particularly we take that long it's as I say it's really the intent of that is for the operational phase of the project not the construction phase but obviously there would want to be some interfacing with the town the conservation commission but we think that that could be done we have the framework here of what is intended to be in it I think that could be done a month a week three three six months a month maybe had one redirect right of course one follow if you could keep that same document in front of you with the August 1st 2016 in terms of the KLK6 turned to the paragraph 16 that you and Mr. Dean have been referring to paragraph 16 vegetation and habitat mentioned planned some paragraph D this is the latest document the one that was actually signed and it says ensuring that any mowing in the corridor is conducted outside of nesting season very that correct one? yes so the document everybody signed on its face refers to mowing in the corridor correct? well it doesn't mandate mowing I think that what this does is that in the event that Vermont gas the conservation commission Audubon, Vermont any other representatives of the town determine that mowing is an appropriate prescription for management of those lands that this restricts times that mowing could not be done it doesn't require anybody to do any mowing well the easement date doesn't require Vermont gas to do anything it authorizes Vermont gas to do what it wants correct? um check for that it's completely argument if I continue to take a break now before we do I just like to share up the check to see if there's anybody outside who would like to come in but I think we have a couple weeks to see it's available I don't see anybody out there but in case there's one of the people who doesn't know I'm out there so I'm going to thank you thank you you're welcome let's take a 15-minute break sorry I just think I'm fine there's nobody outside I'm not great I think we could continue good afternoon do you swear or firm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give any of the troops the whole troops are looking about to prove this? I do could you please say your name for the record? Michael J. Buescher how could you spell your last name? B-U-S-C-H-E-R thank you and in this document did you prepare pre-file testimony and exhibits on April 27th 2016 for submission? I did okay and did you prepare those under your direct supervision? I did okay and are they true and accurate to the best of your knowledge? they are okay thank you this witness is available for cross-examination okay Mr. Dumont yes good afternoon Mr. Buescher how are you? good how are you Mr. Dumont? good return to page four of the pre-file line 14 the proposed easing area is located slightly away from the development order of the the vended area of the old field succession can I read that correctly? yes you did and you state that in the context of your discussion on the prior page that it is board policy to use existing corridors to site you the transmission facilities to minimize effects I do how far from the existing Velcro corridor is the proposed easement and I know it's not exactly parallel to the range I could give you an exact number I could I could quickly take a look at the map and give you a a better estimate of what that distance is do you agree that the closer the route is to the existing Velcro corridor less the visual impacts would be? this is a completely underground portion of the project so for this particular project I would say there is less need to have it exactly along the corridor whereas if it was a second transmission line being installed that would be more obvious if it wasn't directly along the side of the corridor you're probably going to say can you say a second transmission when you check out the electric transmission? yes party your prefiled state April 27th 2016 that is correct there's nothing in your prefiled about car being pipeline being underground so when I said the corridor being underground I specifically meant the the pipeline being underground when did you learn the pipeline being underground? I think it's always been underground I guess not did you need to say underground before HDD? I meant to say underground okay all right thank you so with underground not HDD but underground burial isn't there a bulk ground clearing that's associated with that? there is above ground clearing and as I noted that there would be shrub and other small woody vegetation removal but it would be limited did you look at the vegetation management plan is it preparing your testimony? I reviewed it what's your understanding of the clearing that is expected to occur? my understanding of the clearing is that under the situation where the project would have been installed by a trench method that there would have been a up to 20-foot area that was maintained on a two to three year cross schedule and that that would be for lack of better terms mode although not mode like a lawn it would be just mode every two to three years that there would be a management plan that would be irregular and feathered along the edges of the 50-foot corridor either side and in a not even and irregular fashion so it would help with the habitat but from a visual standpoint it would also help naturalize that so there would be a sharp deep location? that was my understanding from the management plan very well lady purified straight man thanks for talking about the deep so the rest of the questions have to do with the terms of the easement deep you've been here all day you've heard are talking about the different paragraphs of the easement deep the 56-foot width more tree clearing and so on have you looked at the easement deep and prepared a brain for today? I have not studied in any amount of detail I have I have reviewed portions of it you understand that the easement deep gives BGS the right to store materials and equipment within that 50-foot area I would have to see that portion pointed out to me thank you where the easement deep gives Mark he has to write that write to cut down shrugs and trees within a 56-foot wide area my understanding that is with approval or under consideration with the the town that they may be allowed to clear are you saying the town has veto power or just as it should be being sold? to be honest I don't know what the exact authority the town has over that decision process so for your testimony is restricted to aesthetic visual impact correct? that's correct do you address whether or not the project would interfere with the use other than the visual impact whether or to interfere with the use of the part other than visual impact? my testimony also addresses quarterly development it does not specifically address the use of the park thank you for the questions no questions thank you it's not a question just very briefly so Mr. Busher you understand now that the proposed plan is to use HDD for for actually constructing the project? yes I did and you also understand that there might be circumstances in which some level of maintenance might be required in the park at some clearing may be done yes you've been to Geperang's Park before I have and what's your what's your sense of it how would you describe it generally speaking? so pleasant place to be I actually I live in Heinsberg I drive down Chauburn Falls Road almost every day I would say it has moderate to low use there's a parking lot it's uncommon to see more than three or four cars in the parking lot commonly there's one or two it's regularly used though mostly passive recreation trail walkers primarily I would assume a lot of people from what I hear going out to bird and observe other type of wildlife in that area do you expect that if there were a disturbance of a minor clearing let's say to address park to either put in a pipeline marker address a concern to you anticipated would really affect people's let's just say your use and enjoyment of the park aesthetic qualities my use and enjoyment of the park is usually going the other direction up into the woods so from from mine and that's where the majority of the trails are it's going in the other direction to the east of the proposed corridor I would to put in a trail marker a pipeline marker I think that would be extremely hard to conceive that there would be any discomfort to these installing the marker depending on any type of maintenance that there could be some limited partial restriction to use of the park but I wouldn't see that it would be overly diverse or problematic to these overall intended use of the park by contrast you've I think I don't think you came on this did you come you didn't come on the site visit with us but you've been you've you've been to the parking lot before of Jeff Bragg's park yes and you're aware of the knoll that's shown on J and four that we have before us it was refers to Mr. LaForce as a hill that's to the west of the proposed corridor yes if the pipe were to be placed either open trenched or HDD along that corridor do you anticipate that you would see that notice that tree clearing from from the parking lot or from any well else in the park for that if that was I want to object there's no foundation this witness knows what the visual impacts would be of HDD drilling he stated that he uses and enjoys the park and he's been there before and we've talked about alternatives both in the pre-final testimony as well as earlier today there was the question asked what would the impacts visual impacts be of the HDD drilling in the forest that's the part of your but he's an expert in aesthetics so I I might be able to clarify with my answer I can't hear you I was going to say I might be able to clarify that well I can hear the question again so my question is were the pipeline to be in construct I'll rephrase the question were the pipeline to be constructed on the hill would you anticipate a visual that someone using the park would notice the visual on that I think it's possible if a cleared corridor was required that would require the removal of trees and then describe corridor area then that that corridor would be more apparent to users of the park I have no further questions great nice petitioners have no additional witnesses I said I have not recovered for the other witnesses what I would have covered Mr. up to now so work question that's right but I you so is that is it is testimony or even yes sir David if you want so you can go up there and I can come up it's okay it's really really I'm sorry no no no no questions no questions please stop I think we've heard a statement well we made him sit at all that was the problem it's not at all it's not at all it's not at all it's not at all so I guess are we ready for Mr. Morse okay the right questions for him right yes first one I'll ask you a question later I'll just hold you first I'll just hold you for the family good afternoon do you swear or affirm under penalty of surgery that the testimony when you're back to get was the troops the home troops and nothing about the troops yes I do could you state your name and occupation for the records my name is GC Morris I'm the gas engineer for the public service department and did you submit pre-val testimony in this matter I did and was it prepared by you or under your direction yes and is it through and accurate to this your knowledge I believe so the only thing that's to do my I just like to point out that you did sign up for 60 minutes for Mr. Busher signing for Mr. Racky out and he sat here all day if you knew we did I guess maybe you didn't know until now that you have any questions for him um it wasn't until I was much I thought we were told he was going to go that the landscape folks have been going to go first stop and there's material that I needed to cover whoever was first and I've now covered with the other way okay so more happened and I won't be long with Mr. Morris referring to page two lines 11 and 12 of your pre-partner regarding routing the pipeline to avoid property I did not discover an alternative that would be a shorter length to lower cost when did you conduct that consideration that investigation on may 24th when I wrote this what did your I utilized town maps I utilized Google and my understanding from being on the site previous occasions so town maps in google tell us a little bit more about what you did well I I researched what was available in the way of maps in our case files and then I went to the town maps just online see if I could get a little bit wider view of the parcels that were in the area or other geological features and then at my desk I just sort of plotted out what might be an alternative to routing the pipeline through the property I did not consider alternates within the property a question what alternatives did you consider I considered essentially routings that would loop around the project either to the west or to the east in my look at routings around to the east I considered what appeared to be at least three road crossings at least eight parcels of unknown complexity and buildings extremely close to well-traveled roads to the west I considered the extreme slope and topography and frankly had concerns about unstable land and installation by way of blasting and rock formation but essentially I just took a common sense as I stated and tried to keep it as cursory as possible and made the assumption which is a reasonable one that any trajectory longer than relatively straight one through the property would be at least as more expensive as the trajectory increase in its length proportionally but both alternatives that I looked at appeared to be much more complex than just that simple ratio of expense to increase interjectory length my hearing isn't good and it's a little hard to hear here did you say you did a cursory examination is that the word you use yeah I I spent the evening one evening doing that I didn't go out and actually take measurements on site I didn't take a surveying wheel I just utilized maps from my desk and looked at generalities how much time did you spend on this project I have spent endless hours on this project for many years I that was a bad question how much time would you spend doing this evaluation of alternatives three or four hours over several days did any of the alternatives you considered include use of HDD no I didn't I didn't consider HDD thank you you're welcome that's it okay I just I just come one quick question and this is a I think I'm looking for a common sense answer and this may be obvious but you said that you've worked on the whole project the whole Vermont gas project now for many years correct and you understand yes yes sir and thank you and you understand that or you've heard the testimony today that this is the last remaining parcel in order to connect the two pieces of the pipeline I have I wasn't sure about the frozen property but thank you for clarifying that for me thank you so in your opinion is there any other way short of connecting these two pieces of pipeline to put the the broader pipeline the 41 mile pipeline into operation is there any other other way no a pipeline essentially has to be contiguous in order to function understood and thank you for indulging me on this but it's your testimony that that from what you saw going through the branch part from the the ballard parcel to the north to the fordton property to the south is the in the in the corridor that's shown on JAN-4 is the shortest route yes it's quite direct thank you Mr. Morris in that case you have a point to the north on the blue line on the map on JN 4 yes you have a point to the south at the bottom and so of course the shortest route is going to be between be between those two points correct yes both in elevation and in plan view but if the points were north and south in a different location that would also be the shortest route likely so yes so I just want to ask you about the the test we've heard practical alternatives preferable alternatives I think somebody else said reasonable alternatives and you seem to be on your testimony at page two it would be a shorter length the lower cost why did you use that test that was the two criteria that I thought would be applicable to practical any follow-up to our question no thank you do you need to react no okay directly I'm sorry Mr. Morris in your role as gas engineer are you out in the field and generally familiar with the the project design and its route yes and have you in fact been on this particular property and walked it several times thank you you're welcome hold up yeah great thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you okay yes great my witness though I submitted a brief on the testimony in support of the motion to dismiss which the town is now withdrawn I have this election here because Mr. Dumont seems so disappointed on that shoulder that I might not call this so we have him here Mr. Dumont might question but we don't wish to submit this brief on testimony well if you're not submitting this testimony then Mr. Dumont can't there's nothing for Mr. Dumont no but I I've been counting on having him here it's one reason I because of documents I want to get into the record true that he's knowledgeable about can I ask you a question Mr. Allen yes so this testimony that I took to be a pre-trial test yes is it only pertinent to your motion to dismiss it is not pre-trial testimony in this case well I believe in doing now through response that we were taking the motion to dismiss under advisement and addressing it as part of the whole case the theory to counteract that motion to dismiss would be that it's an insignificant taking and I was putting in Mr. Allen's testimony to establish that at least to some degree it was a significant taking since I've withdrawn the motion I don't have particular interest in presenting that all right so we're not editing his testimony but we're making available for Mr. Dumas since he's currently alive however I understand that it was admitted this morning during it was not sent in I mean sent it in a month ago I would think it's dated May 25th but it's not been that's at least two months well just anyway just so the record's clear in case it wasn't the pre-trial test is going to be very much well I think at that point we're at it tonight thank you but he's available for Mr. Dumas that's just an objection okay okay we're going to take a break and talk about this Mr. Lasher I said if he's not if you're not going to bring in here voluntarily I want to give subpoena to the board because I've been counting on having him here but I have not I've only I've not objected to the drawing in the grip of it because I thought he was going to be here to answer questions so let's see if it's going to object are you going to object just don't don't give the argument we're going to go a few minutes so we're not here here's the argument okay one second one minute so where we are now is we have a witness who has a pre-fault testimony and then now but now they're not offering it okay it's not happening do you want to cross exam in the witness without your signal it's on the same subjectless testimony there's some documents I want to introduce to him and then ask him about the documents okay Do you have a response to that? I do I mean first Mr. Dumont said well if he wasn't going to be here that's one of the reasons that I didn't call on my own which is and my first response to that is is well you didn't file any pre-fault test products for your own witness so now they want to call Mr. Lashua and not they but Mr. Dumont must call Mr. Lashua and question him about some documents that that there really aren't even addressed in his withdrawn testimony so there's there's been no notice of at all about that Mr. Dumont didn't tell us that he wanted to that Mr. Lashua to testify it sounds like it's going to be beyond the scope of whatever he was going to testify to and he made no effort and this is something that we may complain too much about but he made no effort to file any pre-fault testimony of his own clients and I think what he probably wants to do is I'm not going to predict what he wants to do with this manager He was I prepared for his cross-examination as I had with the other witnesses who gathered documents that I want to ask the witness about that relates to the subject matter of his testimony as soon as we heard on the telephone call 48 hours ago that was thinking withdrawing his testimony I said well I need to have him there and the context in which he came up was I submitted discovery questions as was contemplated by the board's schedule after the proposed revised settlement agreement was posted on July 23rd we had a deadline that required I submit discovery questions in seven calendar days so I did that from the town and to the from my cast we had a telephone conference on Tuesday which I asked when I was going to get my discovery answers and Mr. Dodd said I would have them I think this though the conversation was Monday not Tuesday and Mr. Dodd said I would have them at the end of the day Tuesday and Mr. Allen said I would have them in 10 days which would be well after today's hearing so I said that was not acceptable I needed them before the hearing and in response to that I was told then we're just going to draw his testimony that was how it came up I said well if you're going to draw his testimony I still need to have them there because there's areas I want to ask them about that relate to his testimony and the deadline for me to find my own one pre-file that hadn't long since passed Mr. Allen do you object to this I mean Mr. Lashall let's take this there events that are describing the phone call were not to my recollection connected I had asked him if he was going to get his totally irrelevant discovery and I said 10 days I actually sent it to him yesterday he was still totally irrelevant I told him at that time when we were going by who's was putting on public witnesses and I think there was discussion about just stipulating to two witnesses and not close examining them I said that I was actually not going to call Mr. Lashall I no longer had the need to for the reason I explained the board I had proposed to Mr. Dumas during the break if he wants to he can just submit Mr. Lashall's pre he can move the admission Mr. Lashall's pre-file testimony if he wants and proceed from there I wasn't trying to take advantage of doing it at the last minute I just saw no point in presenting Mr. Lashall's testimony on my behalf anymore but I didn't want to deprive him but he would reasonably had expected to be able to cross them Mr. Lashall so you don't object to not to it across the district with their bargaining of position on the last I was on that phone call as well and my understanding was that if Mr. Allen was not going to make him a better hold that Mr. Dumas would have the next I'm sorry I'm going to go through the soul of that you know take more time discussing this for the more exciting we just need gymnastics as well with you do you swear over under penalty of perjury that the testimony about beginning to be true with the cultures and looking at the truth I do thank you for making yourself available you've been present throughout the day for the day I believe I believe yes you've heard have you have you read Mr. Laforces and Ms. Kotecki's July pre-prol testimony in which they discussed their preliminary review of alternative routes that did not involve the partner did not read that testimony have you heard that discuss it today today yes what review has the town made what study has the town made of alternative routes that do not involve the next part there has been general discussion of alternate routes but no formal study to my knowledge of Japanese principle decree has there been a vote at town meeting on whether or not to approve of the July 28th settlement agreement that was signed on August 2nd it's my understanding that is not required at all this that that question isn't even within the scope of his withdrawn pre-prol testimony and it relates to the I believe it relates to the open reading issue I don't see how whether the town voted or not I mean why would why would why was it go down that path but it's one of the issues we listed in our motion under me that the the select board lacks the authority it's not an open meeting issue at all it's just my statute the public has to vote on any diversion of use or change of use deed of of the town apartment and that's what was your question to the just whether there has been that vote that's all I'm okay with that man answering that one question yeah that's that's has there been a vote no thank you and finally civet a oh show the witness during the break from adix community car plant by the date of 6 of 28 19 negative very less documented than a couple can I cheat with you on this thing that's not happening do you need a copy there? we're gonna sharing this carrying so we're gonna get type there's a copy of updated in in september of 1999 on the tax part I was not in heinsberg on september 28th 1999 I can't verify you have seen this report in the course of your work this time ministry I am aware of his existence but not familiar with the content or have do I recall seeing it at this time well if you like it was so up we do the schools of evidence apply to the board and subject if anybody wants to check it see if it's accurate copy this is the copy we have and I would fool it submission and we'll kind of check later if this is inaccurate copy I would stipulate to substitute any whatever the correct copy is yes I do have this there's no foundation to admit it through this witness he said he was not familiar with the content frankly it's not even a proctor of how it's relevant it relates to the the part of the board of the in 1999 would you like to do address relevant to the yeah to respond to Mr. Mead Mr. Mead are the testimony that we heard the pre-prol testimony of some of the other witnesses talks about consistency with the president of future plans for the use of the part that those are addressed with the document 17 years old is there a new plan for the trans party? we look and apparently since this is the most we have actually the the conservation commission this has this these records and they look and this is the most recent for you is that your last question yes okay so I'm not we'll take we're not ever meant this today we'll take your own advisement and find your own brief whether we should admit this or not thank you what the relevant is is whatever should be the way it is if you want to read you can have a little of the side of it yeah Mr. Mead about a serious way that you would get earlier but would you say you would like to move this testimony into the record I'm happy to I wasn't sure that that was what Mr. Allen wanted to do I'm happy move this testimony on the record well Mr. Allen did offer it as well right I didn't know that was a witness I'll why did I move Mr. Lashford's testimony to the record so I'll do that any objection and jet to it because I think it is outdated it was submitted before the decision to do HDD so it addresses things before that I assume that's further reason that it has has been withdrawn is that it's no longer addresses current circumstances which I think largely have been addressed by the HDD since Mr. Allen and it's quite an hard off and there you've got to ask your questions if you really want to in brief that too but we're not going to get in yet at this time I do not really want to in I'm sorry I won't bring in that okay wait anything else we need to discuss the in-person I'm sorry I'm sorry it's okay are we done with questions for the item? yes anybody else do you need to do that I'm done okay good thank you thank you thank you now an appropriate time to talk about scheduling on the briefing yes I just didn't you focused on the motion about that this morning we did Mr. Chair what we would like what we basically asked for in the motion are three things first that if possible we can get an expert the transcript on an expedited basis and obviously to Montgasso assume that whatever the charge and the court record we can do that between us and the court record the second issue is that in light of the importance and again we're not trying to presuppose the outcome at all but the rules do talk about you know allowing for modification what justice requires and what we're worried about is that we're running out of daylight to construct the project this year so if in order it's going to be granted what we'd asked is based on the current briefing schedule if it's possible and understanding that the board has constraints we're looking to try to get a decision in mid-September and then the third thing that we asked for we asked for consideration and the other parties haven't had a chance to look at it but we would ask that the reconsideration period under 59e be five days instead of 10 days with the understanding that we'll respond in two days so what what dates you're proposing for the 500 weeks I think that briefing schedule is already agreed to in the in the existing schedule so really the bigger issue is this 59e wanting less time for reconsideration correct and that was filed today and I assume you're going to have a chance to respond to that yes okay and the I think believe we've sent out just one that we've sent out in order asking for responses to their motion by August 12th thank you August 12th eight days we'll get ready to get in the morning anything else to you to talk about before we run thank you for your patience and and yes and everybody appreciate it sorry for the evening