Opinion ID: 797350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Merits of Petitioner's Section 19(d) Suit

Text: 41 Proceeding to the merits, we first address the standard of review to be applied in reviewing an action under section 19(d) of the NGA. Section 19(d)(3) provides for a remand where the state agency action is inconsistent with the Federal law governing such [action] and would prevent the construction, expansion, or operation of the facility subject to [the NGA]. 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(3). Here, there is no dispute that the CTDEP Denial is preventing the construction of the pipeline project, so the only question is whether the CTDEP Denial is inconsistent with federal law. Although the statute does not prescribe the applicable standard of review for this question, both parties suggest that the appropriate standard is the traditional arbitrary and capricious standard for review of federal agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 42 By definition, the APA applies only to federal agency actions, see 5 U.S.C. § 551(1), however, in the context of the TCA, federal courts have used the arbitrary and capricious standard when reviewing the merits of state agency decisions made pursuant to federal law. See, e.g., Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. MFS Intelenet of Mich., Inc., 339 F.3d 428, 433 (6th Cir. 2003); U.S. West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 275 F.3d 1241, 1248 (10th Cir.2002); Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Waller Creek Commc'ns, Inc., 221 F.3d 812, 816 (5th Cir.2000); US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. MFS Intelenet, Inc., 193 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir.1999). Specifically, in reviewing challenges to state agency interconnection agreement rulings under a review provision in the TCA analogous to that in NGA section 19(d), see 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6), federal courts have adopted a two-step approach. See Mich. Bell, 339 F.3d at 433. Courts first review de novo whether the state agency complied with the requirements of the relevant federal law. See id. If no illegality is uncovered during such a review, the court then analyzes the state agency's factual determinations under the more deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review usually accorded state administrative bodies' assessments of state law principles. Id.; see also Ace Tel. Ass'n v. Koppendrayer, 432 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir.2005). 43 We apply the same two-step standard to NGA review. Here, there is no question that the CTDEP complied with federal law in applying its state water quality standards to Islander East's permit application, as directed by the CWA. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a). Therefore, we proceed directly to an analysis of the CTDEP's factual determinations under the arbitrary and capricious standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 44 Pursuant to the arbitrary and capricious standard, an agency must 45 examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. In reviewing that explanation, we must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies; we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given. We will, however, uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned. 46 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42-43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (hereinafter State Farm). Additionally, courts may not accept appellate counsel's post hoc rationalizations for agency action. It is well established that an agency's action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself. Id. at 50, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (citation omitted).
47 In the instant case, the CTDEP denied Islander East's WQC application in a brief six-page letter of denial, determining that the proposed work in the proposed location is inconsistent with the Water Quality Standards, because the project would adversely affect water quality and prohibit the existing and designated uses of the receiving waters. CTDEP Denial at 1. The CTDEP cited three bases for its conclusion: (1) temporary water quality disturbance and habitat alteration would be inconsistent with the CTWQS, Surface Water Quality Standard No. 1; 10 (2) degradation of water quality and disruption of existing uses would be inconsistent with the anti-degradation policy set forth in the CTWQS; 11 and (3) disruption of habitat would be inconsistent with section 22a-98 of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA). Id. at 2-5. The CTDEP explained that [t]hese elements do not stand alone, but must be read in such a fashion as to be internally consistent within the Water Quality Standards and consistent with the goals of the [CWA]. Id. at 2. Based on a close analysis of the CTDEP's justifications and the record, we conclude that the CTDEP did not adequately examine the relevant record evidence, and failed to articulate rational connections between the facts in the record and the bases for its decision. To explain our conclusion, we examine each of the agency's three grounds for the Denial. 48
49
50 The CTDEP determined that the dredging, plowing, backfilling, equipment anchoring, and anchor cable sweeping associated with pipeline installation would cause temporary water quality disturbance, permanent change to the benthic substrate, and negative impacts to the aquatic biota, which it found inconsistent with the goal of the CTWQS to restore or maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of surface waters. CTDEP Denial at 4 & n. 11. 12 51 According to the CTDEP Denial, installation would cause direct disturbance to the benthic substrate (sea floor), and would result in short-term turbidity of the water column, followed by sediment deposition on the benthic substrate. Id. at 4. To support this conclusion, the Denial cited a study estimating that between 1 and 3 millimeters of sediment would be deposited in and around the pipeline trench area. Id. at 3 (citing Letter from John C. Roberge to Anthony J. DaRos, First Selectman, Town of Branford at 3 (Sept. 30, 2003))(Sept. 30, 2003 Roberge Report). The Denial determined that this disturbance would permanently change the [benthic] substrate and negatively impact the existing aquatic biota that depend on such substrate; thus, it concluded that [t]he combined assaults of direct habitat disturbance and temporary water quality impacts ... [would] negatively impact the overall biological integrity of the Thimble Islands ecosystem. Id. at 4. Other than the Roberge Report, however, the Denial cited no studies or record evidence to support this conclusion. 52 Additionally, the CTDEP Denial concluded that direct habitat disturbance caused by sediment deposition would dramatically alter natural habitats and adversely impact the existing community of organisms. Id. Specifically, the Denial noted that once the original seabed has been disturbed, the high-order or late successional stage species such as clams and oysters that lived in the original substrate can no longer exist, and that instead, early-stage opportunistic species such as polychaete worms would populate the new habitat. Id. The CTDEP concluded that it was uncertain whether the associated diverse assemblage of bottom dwelling organisms currently present in this area could be reestablished because [n]o studies exist from which one may predict a known recovery time for both these benthic communities and the substrate, if, indeed, there is any significant recovery. Id. The only record evidence to support this conclusion was a report issued by Peter E. Pellegrino entitled Macrobenthic Community Structure Along the Proposed Islander East Pipeline Route in Long Island Sound (Pellegrino Report), which was cited by the CTDEP without discussion of its substance. 53
54
55 The record shows that the pipeline installation's impact on water quality would be short-term, and Respondent does not suggest that such a result would be inconsistent with the CTWQS. See id. at 3 (acknowledging that [t]urbidity of the water column would be relatively short-term); FEIS at 5-3 (stating belief that impacts to water quality [of the Sound near the Connecticut shore] would be short-term in nature, because elevated turbidity levels caused by sediment dispersion through the water column typically return to background levels within days of completion of backfilling, and therefore impacts on Long Island Sound water quality should last no more than several months); John C. Roberge, Potential Sedimentation Impacts Which Could Result from Dredging at 3 (2003) (Roberge Report) at 4 (noting that dredging in the Long Island Sound historically causes suspended sediment concentrations returning to pre-project levels almost immediately following cessation of the trenching operations); TRC Envtl. Corp., Evaluation of Benthic Impacts Associated with Islander East's Modified Offshore Construction Techniques, at 6 (2003) (TRC Report) (estimating that organisms along the pipeline route would be exposed to increased turbidity at any one location for only around 6 hours). Thus, we do not read the CTDEP Denial to place significant reliance on the pipeline project's temporary impact on water quality. 56
57 While the CTDEP acknowledged that the water quality disturbance caused by pipeline installation was not particularly problematic, it did conclude that the sediment deposition and direct benthic substrate disturbances resulting from installation would permanently change the substrate and negatively impact the existing aquatic biota that depend on such substrate. CTDEP Denial at 4. The CTDEP cited no scientific studies or other evidence that directly supported the latter findings, and the Denial failed to acknowledge or respond to contradictory data in the record. 58 An analysis of the record reveals considerable evidence indicating that direct pipeline installation and accompanying sediment deposition would not have a permanent effect on the benthic environment. For example, the FEIS noted that, although most sessile benthic organisms and demersal fish eggs in [the disturbed] area would be smothered by [sediment], most fish and mobile benthic organisms would relocate and avoid it. FEIS at 3-64. The FEIS concluded that recovery of most of the disturbed benthic communities along the pipeline route could be expected to occur within 2 to 5 years. Id. at 3-66; see also id. at 3-70, 3-71 (predicting the recovery of disturbed shellfish beds within 3 to 5 years). 59 Significantly, reports prepared for both Islander East and the Town of Branford projected similar limited impacts. The TRC Report, prepared for Islander East, concluded that, 60 [c]onsidering only the maximum[] [estimates of sediment deposition], and if the predictions are correct, this degree of sediment deposition onto the sea floor should have little impact on sea floor habitats and communities, and may approach background/natural levels of sediment resuspension and deposition in the area. 61 TRC Report at 5 (quoting the opinion of Dr. Roman Zajac, an independent marine biologist consulting on the project); see also id. at 6 (concluding that no mortality is expected and stress factors will be minimal as a result of sediment deposition caused by pipeline installation with 1.5 feet depth of cover). Similarly, the Garrett Group Report, prepared for the town of Branford, concluded that the anticipated bottom damage caused by construction would alter an existing productive shellfish habitat, and an existing invertebrate community structure, but that [a]fter all project related activities and secondary conditions associated with the construction have ceased, the bottom will recover after several years and return to the existing condition. Garrett Group, Ltd., Preliminary Report on the Anticipated Biological Impacts Associated with the Proposed Islander East Pipeline Project at ES-2 (2003) (Garrett Report) (emphasis added); see also id. at 15. Additionally, the Pellegrino Report, cited in the Denial, explicitly discusses the recovery process after sediment deposition, noting that the process typically concludes with the reestablishment of high-order species. Id. at 6. 62 The Denial thus failed to mention that at least four scientific studies in the record concluded that the substrate was capable of a return to its existing condition—findings directly opposite to its conclusion that pipeline installation would permanently change the substrate and dramatically alter natural habitats. Denial at 4. Such failure alone could be deemed arbitrary and capricious. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 42-43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (noting that an agency's failure to offer an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before it is arbitrary and capricious). Additionally, the CTDEP's conclusion that no studies existed from which a known recovery time for both these benthic communities and the substrate could be predicted, Denial at 4, was manifestly contradicted by the above studies, two of which provided specific recovery time estimates, and none of which predicted permanent alteration of the benthic substrate. 13 63 The CTDEP Denial cited two studies during its analysis of the project's impact on the benthic substrate, however, neither of these studies supported its conclusion that the benthic substrate would be permanently changed and the surrounding natural habitats would be dramatically alter[ed]. The Denial cited the Roberge Report simply as a source for its citation of the amount of sediment deposition that would result from pipeline installation. 14 See Denial at 3. The Roberge Report does not make any predictions as to the impact of this activity on water quality, the benthic substrate, or the aquatic habitat. See Roberge Report at 17 (stating that going forward [i]t is essential that the potential impacts upon pelagic, demersal and benthic fauna as well as subtidal flora imposed by the sedimentation processes be evaluated and quantified). 15 Indeed, any conclusions that Roberge later made as to mortality caused by sedimentation apparently were drawn from the Garrett Report, which found that sedimentation would not cause permanent damage. 16 See Sept. 30, 2003 Roberge Report at 4 (discussing Garrett Report's conclusions regarding sedimentation). 64 The Denial also cited the Pellegrino Report to support its description of the changes that the benthic substrate would undergo as a result of disturbance caused by pipeline installation. However, rather than commenting on the damage that such disturbances cause, the Pellegrino Report describes the natural recovery process from such disturbances, concluding that such recovery is a matter of course. See Pellegrino Report at 6. 17 If anything, the Pellegrino Report demonstrates that benthic communities are naturally shaped by disturbances similar to those that would be caused by the Islander East pipeline project: 65 The structure of benthic communities is usually controlled by infrequent severe events (disturbances) that disrupt the community and return the successional process to an earlier stage. Disturbances can be physical, biotic, or chemical in nature and may have multiple direct and indirect impacts on community structure. The recovery process in soft-sediment communities is characterized by a succession of community types, usually beginning with the appearance of opportunistic species (Stage I) and progressing to the establishment of high order (Stage III) successional assemblages.... 66 Pellegrino Report at 6. Indeed, the FEIS confirms this assessment, stating that fine sediments along coastal margins are regularly resuspended by tidal currents. FEIS at 3-49. 67 In sum, we see no rational connection between the CTDEP's conclusion that the pipeline project would cause a permanent harmful change to the benthic substrate and the record evidence cited by the CTDEP. Further, the CTDEP offers no explanation for dismissing record evidence that runs counter to its findings. Neither of the studies cited by the CTDEP support its conclusion that pipeline installation and resultant sediment deposition would permanently change the benthic substrate and dramatically alter the surrounding natural habitat. Denial at 4. The dissent points to portions of the record indicating that installation would directly harm large areas of the substrate, disturb shellfish habitats, and cause significant shellfish mortality in certain locations. See post at 111-12. However, we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. It is not our province to mine the record for evidence that would support the Denial. Even if such evidence exists, it is the agency's task to conduct a thorough examination of the record, to explain why it has rejected or ignored contradictory evidence, and to come to a decision supported by substantial evidence in the record. As to its first basis for its Denial, the CTDEP did none of the above.
68
69 The CTDEP also concluded that the proposed pipeline construction would violate the anti-degradation policy set forth in the CTWQS, which requires the maintenance and protection of water quality in high quality waters and protection and maintenance of existing uses in all cases. CTWQS at Appx. E-1. According to the CTDEP, where water quality is better than the criteria established in the Water Quality Standards, such existing high quality must be maintained except under exceptional and very limited circumstances. CTDEP Denial at 4. 70 The CTDEP determined that the high quality waters in the Thimble Islands ecosystem would be degraded because the discharge of backfill associated with pipeline installation would result in approximately 5.5 acres of nearshore bottom habitat being permanently degraded and rendered unsuitable for supporting the diverse assemblage of shellfish and other bottom dwelling organisms currently inhabiting this area. Id. at 4. The CTDEP concluded that impact on shellfish harvesting would extend well beyond the 5.5 acres of direct disturbance because the bank-run gravel used as engineered backfill would interfere with harvesting techniques. Id. 71 Moreover, the CTDEP concluded that the resulting topographic irregularities over the entire 3,700-acre Islander East corridor caused by sedimentation, backfill with gravel, plow utilization, anchor strikes, and cable sweeps would adversely affect the population of resident benthic organisms and shellfish as well as the efficiency and safety of the existing shellfish harvesting operations and handling of shellfish harvesting equipment. Id. at 5. The CTDEP dismissed as unrealistic Islander East's projection that it would achieve a finished substrate with topographic variations of no more than +2' to -1', explaining that, based on the experience of the Department with the installation of the Iroquois pipeline in 1991, the Department does not agree that such a minimal impact restoration of the work site contours can, in practice, be achieved. Id. The CTDEP also appeared to dismiss even Islander East's proposed minimal variation rate as unacceptable because traditional shellfish harvesting techniques were employed throughout the pipeline route. See id. The CTDEP did not cite any studies or record evidence to support these findings. 72
73
74 As mentioned above, the CTDEP Denial asserts that sedimentation, backfill with gravel, plow utilization, anchor strikes, and cable sweeps would impact the entire 3,700 acre [pipeline] corridor, adversely affecting benthic organisms and shellfish as well as the efficiency and safety of the existing shellfish harvesting operations. CTDEP Denial at 5. The Denial, however, fails to support its contention that 3,700 acres of Connecticut's surface waters would be disturbed and fails to identify with any specificity the shellfish communities that would be impacted by the pipeline. 75 The CTDEP Denial points to no evidence supporting its claim that an area of 3,700 acres would be impacted. This apparent assumption is belied by evidence on the record, which the CTDEP did not address. The FEIS refers to a total impacted area of only 3,140 acres across the entire project, including New York and Connecticut waters. FEIS at 3-45 (finding total disturbance to be 3,140 acres, including subsea plowing with buoys, HDD exit hole and dredge trench and associated spoil mounds). The FEIS calculation of 3,140 acres is itself likely exaggerated, because it is based on Islander East's proposal before Islander East agreed to ship approximately 24,000 cubic yards of dredged material away on barges. 18 See Islander East Pipeline Co., Offshore Dredge Disposal Permit Amendment at 1 (July 29, 2003); see also TRC Report at 4 (discussing changes in proposed construction methodologies that would reduce impact area of HDD exit hole and narrow the dredging trench). To explain clearly how the pipeline would degrade a particular area, the CTDEP must first define the area in question. The CTDEP Denial fails to address this important aspect of the problem. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. 76 Similarly, the Denial cites a threat to commercial interests that collect shellfish using traditional harvest shellfishing techniques in the affected area. CTDEP Denial at 5. CTDEP asserts in general terms that the pipeline is sited within and adjacent to extensive shellfish grants, leased shellfish grounds and public shellfishing lands, id. at 2, yet fails to point to even one specific lease that would be impacted. Furthermore, the Denial's repeated reference to dredging, plowing, backfilling, equipment anchoring, and anchor cable sweeping, see id. at 3-4, obscures the fact that these activities would occur in discrete areas, and that particular shellfish beds, to the extent they actually do reside near the construction zone, would be subject to different potential injuries of different magnitudes. 19 Although it may be argued that the FEIS contains a description of shellfish beds and leases that lie in the pipeline's path, see FEIS at 3-69, we may not supply a rationale for agency action where the agency has provided none, nor may we construct support for an agency's conclusion when the agency has not pointed to evidence on the record favoring its decision. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for such deficiencies; we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given.). 77
78 As discussed above, the CTDEP failed to cite any record evidence supporting its conclusion that pipeline installation would permanently degrade the benthic substrate along the pipeline route. It similarly failed to point to any record evidence supporting its conclusion that the use of engineered bank-run gravel as trench backfill would permanently degrade the nearshore bottom, rendering it unsuitable for shellfish and other bottom-dwelling organisms. 79 To the contrary, the record reflects that Islander East's use of engineered backfill was proposed to serve a beneficial purpose and, indeed, would have benefited shellfish habitats. Midway through Islander East's planning process, a representative from the National Marine Fisheries Service expressed concern that non-engineered (all-rock) trench backfill would cause damage to commercial shellfish operations. See Elizabeth Dolezal, Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC, Project Meeting Minutes: Multi Agency Construction Consultation, at 1-2 (Feb. 3, 2003) (Feb. Minutes). At a subsequent meeting, a representative from the Connecticut Bureau of Aquaculture suggested that Islander East use engineered backfill, which would be more conducive to shellfish. Elizabeth Dolezal, Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC, Project Meeting Minutes: Multi Agency Construction Consultation, at 4 (March 4, 2003) (March Minutes) (A general discussion about the 1991 Iroquois installation resulted in agreement that installation methods have greatly improved and that [engineered] backfilling process and equipment being considered on Islander East have the potential to result in the restoration of shellfish habitat.). 80 Indeed, several studies in the record, commissioned by both proponents and opponents of the pipeline, support the conclusion that the use of engineered backfill could produce future habitats even more diverse than those currently existing. See TRC Report at 6 (Engineered backfill has value as hard substrate for attachment of organisms and plants, which could promote habitat diversity.... This [new] substrate mosaic [created by the backfill] has the potential to increase habitat diversity, supporting greater species richness than a single substrate type.); see also id. at 7 ([T]he use of engineered backfill may increase biological diversity, and has the potential to improve conditions for two valuable commercial species, oyster and lobster.); Garrett Report at 15 (The use of engineered fill will create a varied benthic habitat, shelter/relief, and should enhance nearshore bottom conditions.). 20 81 The CTDEP's failure to acknowledge this record evidence directly contradicting its conclusion is arbitrary and capricious. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (holding that an agency's failure to consider an important aspect of the problem, or to offer[] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency is arbitrary and capricious). One document in the record supports the CTDEP's conclusion that shellfish harvesting will be negatively affected by engineered backfill. See Feb. 4, 2004 Roberge Report at 3 (predicting that proposed engineered backfill would significantly alter the existing benthic communities within the construction footprint, and surmising that the backfill may completely change the fisheries within the trench band and could require commercial fishing operations to either abandon the area ... or employ revised ... methods). The CTDEP, however, did not cite this document in its Denial, nor did it support its conclusions with any scientific data from the record. As mentioned above, reviewing courts may not attempt ... to make up for ... deficiencies in agency decisions; we may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency itself has not given. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. We must uphold agency decisions of less than ideal clarity, id., however, where the record directly contradicts the unsupported reasoning of the agency and the agency fails to support its pronouncements with data or evidence, we may not defer. As the Supreme Court has held: 82 There are no findings and no analysis here to justify the choice made, no indication of the basis on which the [agency] exercised its expert discretion.... Expert discretion is the lifeblood of the administrative process, but unless we make the requirements for administrative action strict and demanding, expertise, the strength of modern government, can become a monster which rules with no practical limits on its discretion. 83 Id. at 48, 103 S.Ct. 2856 (internal quotation marks omitted). 84
85 The CTDEP justified its finding that Islander East would be able to achieve its benthic topography restoration goal solely by referencing its experience with the 1991 installation of the Iroquois Pipeline. Denial at 5. Again, the agency cited no data or studies to support this conclusion. 86 First, the Denial points to no record evidence demonstrating that the Iroquois project permanently degraded the benthic substrate of Long Island Sound waters. Even if the record contained evidence indicating that those waters have yet to recover, we again emphasize that it is not our province to mine the record for data supporting the agency's blanket conclusions. 87 Second, and more important, the CTDEP failed to acknowledge the extensive work Islander East did to modernize and improve its technology so as to avoid causing similar environmental harm to that wrought by the Iroquois Pipeline. Islander East proposed to: (1) use HDD technology to drill under the seabed so as not to disturb the sea floor, as opposed to Iroquois, which dredged the seafloor from the shore to the 15-foot water mark; (2) place dredge spoil on barges, and backfill trenches with engineered bank-run gravel designed to increase habitat diversity, whereas Iroquois sidecast dredged material back onto the sea floor and backfilled the trenches with some of the sidecast spoil; and (3) restore the sea bottom contours without dragging a 40-ton steel box over the sea floor, as Iroquois had done at the request of CTDEP, apparently with unfortunate results. See generally Islander East WQC Application. Additionally, as indicated by the record, it was acknowledged at two multi-agency meetings that installation technology [has] significantly improved since the Iroquois line installation. Feb. Minutes at 1; see also March Minutes at 4 (A general discussion about the 1991 Iroquois installation resulted in agreement that installation methods have greatly improved....). 88 The Denial neglected even to mention these proposed installation improvements, much less point to evidence indicating that they would have been inadequate to avoid the topographic irregularities caused by the Iroquois installation. Although, as the dissent points out, see post at 112-13, it was Islander East's burden to demonstrate its entitlement to favorable action on its WQC application, it was the CTDEP's burden adequately to consider important aspects of the issue. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. By rejecting Islander East's topography predictions out of hand, with no discussion of its attempts to improve construction methods, the agency failed to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 89 The CTDEP's conclusion that the proposed pipeline would violate its antidegradation policy was unsupported and contradicted by evidence in the record, and therefore must be rejected as arbitrary and capricious.
90 As the third basis for its WQC Denial, the CTDEP concluded that the proposed pipeline violates the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-98, which requires that WQCs comport with the CCMA's goals and policies. See Denial at 5. Islander East argues that such consideration was inappropriate, because the CWA requires that WQC determinations be grounded only in state water quality standards, not in extraneous state statutes. Counsel for the CTDEP concedes that the CCMA was not an independent basis for denial, and explains that the Denial's passing mention of the CCMA was merely an observation that the project would have adverse impacts upon existing water-dependent resources, relating directly to the Connecticut Water Quality Standards' antidegradation policy. Respondent's Br. at 38-39. The Denial's discussion of the CCMA certainly appeared to be more than a passing mention, as it was framed as one of three main reasons supporting the decision to deny Islander East's application. Nevertheless, the court will deem counsel's concession as a waiver of the CCMA as an independent basis for the Denial, and we need not decide whether it might properly have constituted an independent ground for decision. In light of our determinations that the CTDEP's other two justifications for its Denial were insufficient, we must therefore conclude that the Denial as a whole was arbitrary and capricious, and cannot support the agency's decision to deny Islander East's WQC application. 91
92 Two additional factors contribute to our conclusion that the Denial is arbitrary and capricious. First, the Denial's brevity is troubling. After a two-and-a-half page introduction, the Denial contains a mere two-and-a-half pages of analysis, supported by five record citations, none of which, for reasons already discussed, reasonably support the broad conclusions reached. As points of comparison, the two other governmental entities that have considered the Islander East project to date, FERC and the Secretary of Commerce, 21 each issued voluminous reports on the potential environmental effects of the proposed pipeline. The FEIS (issued by FERC) spanned hundreds of pages and included citations to all available evidence; its table of contents alone was almost as long as the CTDEP Denial. See FEIS at i-v. The Secretary of Commerce's determination was fifty pages long and included 283 record citations. We do not suggest that it would have been impossible for the CTDEP to issue a well reasoned and adequately supported WQC determination in a shorter report than those of FERC or the Secretary of Commerce. We note simply that the complexity of the matter under consideration did not lend itself easily to brief analysis. Thus, when the CTDEP's failures (a) to provide record support for its conclusions, and (b) to discuss evidence to the contrary are considered together with the surprising brevity of its Denial decision, the latter fact only reinforces our conclusion that the challenged decision is arbitrary and capricious. 93 Additionally, there is some evidence in the record suggesting that CTDEP knew it was not adequately prepared to support the Denial, and that its issuance had become more a matter of strategy in opposing the pipeline than of fact-finding. See CTDEP email from Sue Jacobson to Peter Francis and Ron Rozsa (May 15, 2003) ([W]e met with folks from the AG's office this morning and they were aghast that we have not yet begun collecting the data.); CTDEP email from Jane Stahl to Peter Francis (May 28, 2003) (No surprises in Islander East response and I don't think any change in our strategy.); CTDEP email from Sue Jacobson to Jonathan Goldman (Oct. 2, 2003) ([O]ur biggest hook will be the [pipeline's] potential to lower surface water quality....); CTDEP email from Peter Francis to Betsey Wingfield (Jan. 21, 2004) (Sue and I did some work on the 401 letter this week but it still feels incomplete and a bit artificial/manufactured.). 94 Any effort by the CTDEP to pursue a strategy to justify a foreordained opposition to the pipeline would be incompatible with a reviewing agency's mandate to use its expertise to come to a reasoned decision supported by substantial evidence. In fulfilling its statutory prerogative to review Islander East's WQC application, CTDEP was entrusted with identifying the conditions for construction that would adequately safeguard the environment. To the extent some evidence indicates a greater concern with mounting a public relations campaign to preclude building the pipeline than with neutrally evaluating the record evidence, that evidence further supports the conclusion that the Denial was arbitrary and capricious.