Opinion ID: 797350
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Antidegradation Policy

Text: 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.