Opinion ID: 797350
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impact of Backfill

Text: 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