Opinion ID: 1318039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: CTDEP's Claims Regarding the Plow Section

Text: The 2006 Denial found that anchor strikes, cable sweeps, and plow impacts resulting from the use of a subsea plow after mile 12 would disrupt the sea floor, rendering it uneven. (2006 Denial at 47.) In support of its conclusion that disturbed sediments would settle into surface irregularities, CTDEP referenced two projects that have reportedly suffered long-term scarring: the Iroquois Pipeline between Connecticut and Long Island and a series of electric cables installed on the floor of the Hudson River. ( Id. at 43, 47-48.) CTDEP failed to address, however, record evidence regarding the installation of the Cross-Sound Cable, showing that it resulted in little or no impact on shellfish habitat. ( See Task Force on Long Island Sound, Comprehensive Assessment and Report: Environmental Resources and Energy Infrastructure of Long Island Sound at 78-79 (2003).) Although the Cross-Sound Cable is a comparable utility project in Long Island Sound, installed more recently than either the Hudson River cables or the Iroquois Pipeline, CTDEP did not explain why it discounted record evidence that the plowing resulted in little or no impact, or why the Cross-Sound Cable's trench construction was distinguishable from Islander East's proposal. [2] It is not our responsibility to search the record for such distinctions. As we noted in Islander East I, it was Islander East's burden to demonstrate its entitlement to favorable action on its WQC application, [but] it was CTDEP's burden adequately to consider important aspects of the issue. 482 F.3d at 104.