This grant application is to continue a project begun last year. Following is a brief recapitulation. We are contesting a proposed major blasting and excavation project in Littleton, NH, at the historic Highland Croft estate, situated in a Commercial-III zone at Exit 43 of I-93. The proposed blasting and removal of 1.5 million cubic yards of ledge - tantamount to 'mountaintop removal' - over 25 acres lies entirely within a municipal wellhead protection zone and immediately adjacent to a USGS designated aquifer. The bedrock under the area is "highly fractured," and a geologic fault line lies 1000-2000 feet east of the Highland Croft property. Hydrogeologic analysis suggests that the high-yield municipal well which wellhead protection zone is supposed to protect taps into a void in the substrate, which has enabled its high yield. Blasting can cause damage to surrounding property and the bedrock substrate in two ways - 1. Vibration from the blasts travels down as well as outward from the blast site. Shifting of fractures - through which water now passes - or even collapse of the void beneath the wellhead is possible. 2. The blasting material used in ledge removal is ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO), made famous in the bombing of the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Residues from incomplete combustion can travel along the lines of underground fractures into water sources. The drawdown "cone of depression" of the municipal well extends under the property. The effective result is that running the well is almost certain to draw blasting contaminants (nitrates, particularly hazardous to infants) into the water system. The potential of damage and/or contamination of the well and/or aquifer is significant. The NH statute that provides for local authority over excavation flatly prohibits projects that will damage aquifers. Our task is to encourage, cajole or coerce the local land use boards to uphold the statute. As this is written, we are waiting for a decision from Grafton Co. Superior Court on our appeal of the Planning Board excavation permit for the project, heard by the court on July 18, 2011. Should Superior Court deny the appeal, the particulars of the case make a further appeal to the NH Supreme Court distinctly possible, if not likely. Should the case go to the Supreme Court, the delay would be approximately one year. It is possible that the issue might be remanded back to the Town for reconsideration without a decision. In that case, we would reassemble all the resources (hydrogeologists, realtor, letters from regional planner and various agencies) that we brought to the January Planning Board hearing, and attempt to augment those with expert testimony on property values. The latter possibility is encouraging, since we have succeeded politically in essentially remaking the ZBA (4 new members) and Planning Board (3 new members) since the hearings. Should the entire case be reheard locally, the process would be markedly more evenhanded than previously. We are still committed to pursuing all available legal avenues of appeal of this project. The process of keeping the land use boards honest and rational is ongoing, from Town Meeting to Town Meeting. The makeup of the land use boards is entirely a function of the appointing authority, i.e. the Selectmen, so it is important to keep getting rational and thoughtful citizens to run for Selectman and to elect them. Note: Jan & Mary Edick and two other abutting property owners are the appellant parties in the legal actions. LERG is the political support arm of the action. (For additional background, see 2010 LERG September Grant Application.)