SJC-10585: TEN LOCAL CITIZEN GROUP & another vs. NEW ENGLAND WIND, LLC. & another

Keywords: Administrative Law - Environmental Law - Wetlands

Entered: October 26, 2009 • Argument: March 1, 2010 • Full Docket

Parties:

Ten Local Citizen Group Plaintiff/Appellant
represented by John C. Bartenstein, Esquire, Robert O Lucido II, Esquire

Ten Person Environmental Group Plaintiff/Appellant
represented by John C. Bartenstein, Esquire

New England Wind, LLC. Defendant/Appellee
represented by Gregor I. McGregor, Esquire, Nathaniel Stevens, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection Defendant/Appellee
represented by William L. Pardee, A.A.G.

Assoc. of MA Wetland Scientists Amicus
represented by Christopher B. Myhrum, Esquire

Town of Florida Amicus
represented by James B. Art, Esquire

Town of Monroe Amicus
represented by James B. Art, Esquire

Documents:

This case was argued on March 1, 2010. The following analysis was written prior to argument.

Facts

Two local Citizen Groups challenge a wetlands permit allowing New England Wind, LLC to install twenty wind turbines and a four mile access road on the Hoosac Mountain Range in northwestern Massachusetts.

Development plans called for culverts to be built over a number of intermittent streams. An administrative magistrate at the Division of Administrative Law Appeals recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection revoke the wetlands permit, because the plans would unlawfully interfere with protected wetland assets and the buffer zones around them. The acting commissioner of the DEP rejected the magistrate’s recommended rulings, finding that the project would affect only the buffer zones, and that the regulations allegedly violated did not apply to buffer zones.

The acting commissioner’s decision was approved by a Superior Court judge. The Citizen Groups appealed, and both sides requested direct appellate review by the SJC.

Issues

  1. Environmental protection law: Whether the acting commissioner was correct, as a matter of law, that culvert construction work in the buffer zones around wetland assets is not subject to the same regulations as the wetlands themselves.

  2. Administrative law: Whether the acting commissioner offered a sufficiently detailed basis for rejecting the magistrate’s conclusion that the proposed work would impact the wetland assets themselves.

Note: The preceding analysis is based on a review of the documents listed above, and does not represent knowledge of the underlying facts. At the time of writing, materials were not available from all parties.

Please contact M.A.B. with any comments or corrections.

Mass. Appellate Briefs is a monthly newsletter of upcoming cases to be argued by the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Sign Up Free

Name:
Email:

Enter your email address to receive monthly updates. Your email will not be used for any other purpose.

About

Mass. Appellate Briefs is published by Jack Cushman, an appeals lawyer and former clerk on the Supreme Judicial Court.

Subscribe

Share this brief: