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

Heading: Miscellaneous Factors Supporting the Arbitrary and Capricious Determination

Text: 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.