Opinion ID: 797350
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Water Quality Impacts and Habitat Alteration

Text: 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.