Opinion ID: 1318039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CTDEP's Claims Regarding Sedimentation in the Dredge Section

Text: CTDEP's treatment of potential sedimentation impacts in the dredge section of the project presents the most serious concern, particularly because sedimentation is cited as grounds for denial in two of CTDEP's four conclusions. [1] In finding that a significant area of both natural habitat and prime shellfishing beds would be exposed to sedimentation exceeding normal levels and for extended periods of time, CTDEP relied heavily on expert studies on the record, finding the Roberge Report, (John C. Roberge, P.E., LLC, Potential Sedimentation Impacts Which Could Result from Dredging (2003) (Roberge Report)), to be the most reliable in terms of predicted amount and extent of sediment dispersion, (2006 Denial at 53), and dismissing the ASA Report, (Applied Science Associates, Inc., Results of SSFATE Model Simulations, Nearshore Connecticut, Long Island Sound (2003) (ASA Report)), because it relied on tidal currents alone. (2006 Denial at 52-53.) On the basis of the Roberge Report, CTDEP provided a measurement of the area that would be impacted by sedimentation. CTDEP now admits that the Roberge Report's predictions are incorrect, overstating the extent of sediment dispersion by more than a factor of four. According to Respondents' brief, the Roberge Report should have stated that the area of sediment dispersion would be 18.5 acres, not 86. ( Compare 2006 Denial at 53, with Resp'ts' Br. 51 n. 24.) This is far closer to the amount predicted in the ASA Report, which estimated 14 acres of sediment dispersion. ( See id.; ASA Report at 4.) Despite the fact that CTDEP should have considered a significantly reduced estimate of the sedimented area, Respondents now contend that [t]he error is one of degree, and that any area of sedimentation that interferes with shellfish harvesting is inconsistent with the CTWQS. (Resp'ts' Br. 52.) This is a surprising claim. CTDEP's reasoning refers to a significant area of sedimentation, specifically, 86.23 acres. (2006 Denial at 50-51, 55.) Further, if any amount of sedimentation would be inconsistent with the CTWQS, it would not have been necessary for CTDEP to go to such lengths to dismiss the ASA Report's conclusions. More importantly, there is no indication in the record that CTDEP actually considered whether 18.5 acres of sedimentation would be a significant impact resulting in a partial loss of an existing use. It is not the role of the court to make such a determination on CTDEP's behalf. See Ace Motor Freight, Inc. v. ICC, 557 F.2d 859, 864 (D.C.Cir.1977). CTDEP's admittedly erroneous finding of 86 acres remains the only finding before us, along with Respondents' assurances that the actual amount of sedimentation does not matter. As we stated in Islander East I, we `may not accept appellate counsel's post hoc rationalizations for agency action. It is well established that an agency's action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.' 482 F.3d at 95 (quoting State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50, 103 S.Ct. 2856). CTDEP's strong reliance on the erroneous sedimentation findings as a basis for denial seems far from harmless error, contrary to the assertion of the majority. Because CTDEP did not consider the effects of sedimentation under the drastically reduced calculations or adequately explain its rejection of the ASA Report in light of its similarity to the new calculations, the 2006 Denial's conclusions with respect to the effects of sedimentation in the dredged section were arbitrary and capricious.