Sheffield Wind Project ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                    STATE OF VERMONT
    ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
    }
    In re Sheffield Wind Project            }       Docket No. 252-10-08 Vtec
    (Appeal of Brouha et al.)        }
    }
    Decision and Order on Pending Motions
    Appellants Carol Brouha, Paul Brouha, Greg Bryant, Don Gregory, the King
    George School, Linda Lavalle, Jane Rollins, Robert Tuthill, and David Zimmerman are
    represented by Stephanie J. Kaplan, Esq.; Appellee-Applicants Signal Wind Energy,
    LLC and Vermont Wind, LLC are represented by Ronald A. Shems, Esq., Andrew N.
    Raubvogel, Esq., and Geoffrey H. Hand, Esq.         The Vermont Agency of Natural
    Resources is represented by Judith L. Dillon, Esq. Appellants Carol Brouha, Paul
    Brouha, Greg Bryant, Don Gregory, the King George School, Linda Lavalle, Jane
    Rollins, Robert Tuthill, and David Zimmerman have filed a Motion to Remand and a
    Motion for Continuance and Reasonable Discovery Schedule.
    Motion to Remand
    Appellants have moved to “remand this appeal so that the Agency of Natural
    Resources (ANR) can determine and analyze the existing uses and other baseline data
    required by the Anti-Degradation [Policy] of the Vermont Water Quality Standards
    (VWQS) and review the application in light of this information.” Motion to Remand at
    1.
    The Court’s September 29, 2009 decision on summary judgment determined that
    the rebuttable presumption of compliance with the VWQS applies to the anti-
    degradation provisions of the VWQS. In the proceedings on this permit on appeal,
    1
    “that presumption can be rebutted by evidence brought forward by Appellants.” In re:
    Sheffield Wind Project, No. 252-10-08 Vtec, slip op. at 12 (Vt. Envtl. Ct. Sept. 29, 2009)
    (Wright, J.). In order to analyze the evidence brought forward by Appellants, the Court
    explained that “an agreed or otherwise established benchmark of the existing uses and
    existing quality of the receiving waters is necessary against which to measure that
    evidence.” Id. The Court anticipates that the parties will present evidence of the
    existing uses and existing quality of the receiving waters at trial, as well as presenting
    evidence as to any permit conditions necessary to enable Applicants to meet the
    standards required by the statute and regulations, on the remaining questions in the
    Statement of Questions.
    Unlike the case analyzed by the Vermont Supreme Court in In re Stormwater
    NPDES Petition, 
    2006 VT 91
    , 
    180 Vt. 261
    , it is neither necessary nor appropriate to
    remand this matter to the ANR. The permit on appeal in the present case was issued by
    the ANR on a case-specific basis, and is before the Court in this de novo appeal to
    determine, among other things, what are the existing uses and existing water quality of
    the receiving waters in the present case, and to determine if the proposed permit
    conditions will meet the VWQS, including the anti-degradation sections of the VWQS.
    By contrast, in the Stormwater NPDES Petition case, the Vermont Supreme Court found
    that ANR had failed to exercise its residual authority under federal law to determine on
    a case-by-case basis whether certain discharges required a NPDES permit. Id. at ¶ 29.
    Because ANR had not acted in the first instance, the Supreme Court remanded the case
    to the ANR to make that case-by-case determination. Id.
    It is not necessary to remand the permit that is the subject of this appeal to the
    ANR to make a determination regarding the existing uses and water quality of the
    receiving waters. Appellants’ Motion to Remand is DENIED.
    2
    Motion for Continuance
    Appellants’ Motion for Continuance and Reasonable Discovery Schedule asks
    the Court to “continue the hearing until January 2010 and establish a reasonable
    discovery schedule that will allow for adequate time to prepare for trial.” Motion for
    Continuance at 1. Appellants argue that “there is insufficient time for the Appellants to
    be prepared to address either part of Question 7 on November 5” and “there is
    insufficient time for the Appellants to engage in discovery and prepare for a December
    2 trial.” Id.
    The trial scheduled for November was rescheduled in part for December due to
    the timing of the Court’s decision on the summary judgment motions. The November 5
    trial date was retained for Question 11 and for the portion of Question 7 involving the
    comparison between the Applicants’ Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan
    and the applicable state standards, which were not provided to the Court with the
    summary judgment motions on this topic. As both issues were presented to the Court
    on summary judgment with expert affidavits, Appellants have not shown that trial on
    either of these issues should be delayed.
    On the issues relating to Question 3 and the second half of Question 7, trial has
    already been continued from November to be heard on December 2, 3, and 4 if needed,
    to allow the parties additional time to prepare those issues for trial. The issues resulting
    from Appellants’ prevailing on summary judgment on Question 3 are not a surprise to
    any of the parties. Applicants and perhaps the ANR will have to come forward with
    evidence on the existing uses and existing water quality applicable to the receiving
    water; Appellants will have the opportunity to present countering evidence.
    This case has been pending since October of 2008; the parties had to prepare
    expert affidavits for the summary judgment motions. Appellants have not shown that
    the two months from the decision on summary judgment to the new trial dates on
    3
    Questions 3 and the second half of Question 7 are an unreasonable amount of time for
    the parties to prepare for trial.
    Appellants’ Motion for Continuance is DENIED.
    Discovery Schedules
    The proposed discovery schedule towards the December trial dates will make all
    written discovery available to Appellants, including the proposed data or other
    information on existing uses and existing water quality of the receiving waters, by
    November 12. The proposed discovery schedule gives adequate time for Appellants
    expert witnesses to review and analyze that information.
    The proposed discovery schedule towards the November 5 trial date, filed by
    Vermont Wind on October 5 and discussed and amended by the parties at the October
    12 telephone conference, is hereby ordered by the Court, except that the initial date of
    October 19 for disclosure of witnesses and serving of written discovery requests is
    hereby extended to tomorrow, October 20. Applicants shall provide a copy of this
    proposed discovery schedule in electronic form to the Court, together with the
    proposed discovery schedule towards the December trial dates, for issuance as a court
    order. The parties shall discuss any changes to the dates in the discovery and pretrial
    schedules with each other before bringing them to the attention of the Court.
    Done at Berlin, Vermont, this 19th day of October, 2009.
    _________________________________________________
    Merideth Wright
    Environmental Judge
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 252-10-08 Vtec

Filed Date: 10/19/2009

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2018