Opinion ID: 797350
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impacts on Existing Shellfish Harvesting

Text: 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