Court Opinion

ID: 9577502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:35:34.80611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:42.506239
License: Public Domain

JANE A. RESTANI, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection’s (“CTDEP”) second denial of certification for Islander East’s proposed natural gas pipeline plan, see CTDEP, Water Quality Certification Application No. 200300937-SJ, Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC (Dec. 19, 2006) (“2006 Denial”), was supported by reasoned explanation based on record evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. In particular, I note the majority’s acknowledgment that CTDEP failed to explain properly its dismissal of an expert report on sedimentation — especially in light of CTDEP’s admission that the re*165port it relied’ upon was mathematically flawed and significantly overstated the affected area — and that CTDEP improperly rejected Islander East’s proposed drilling plan, despite the fact that CTDEP approved and provided for reference a nearly identical plan from a prior project. I disagree with the majority’s characterization of these errors as harmless, and find that there is not reliable evidence to otherwise support CTDEP’s decision.
I. Review of the 2006 Denial
The majority correctly states that the issue is whether CTDEP was arbitrary or capricious in finding that the proposed pipeline would result in damage inconsistent with the Connecticut Water Quality Standards. CTDEP, Water Quality Standards (effective Dec. 17, 2002) (“CTWQS”).
Under CTWQS surface water quality standard number two, “[ejxisting and designated uses ... and the water necessary for their protection [are] to be maintained and protected.” CTWQS at 1. As part of its antidegradation policy, the EPA requires states to publish Water Quality Standards (“WQS”) that maintain a “level of water quality necessary to protect ... existing uses.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(1). The state has the responsibility to apply any quantitative criteria provided in the WQS, as well as descriptive characteristics. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 714-15, 114 S.Ct. 1900, 128 L.Ed.2d 716 (1994). The Clean Water Act envisions that a state’s WQS may list non-quantitative criteria, such as use designations, which “must be translated into specific limitations for individual projects.” Id. at 716, 114 S.Ct. 1900. Thus, while a state is free to impose narrative or open-ended criteria in its WQS, the use of such criteria does not free the state from its obligation to impose a specific limitation within the context of a particular project proposal. The agency’s central task is to give open-ended criteria meaning for a particular proposed project, providing parties with the necessary guidance to participate in the regulatory process.
In the 2006 Denial, however, CTDEP declined to quantify what specific limitations would have to be met to find the proposed project consistent with the CTWQS. Rather than stating minimum thresholds, CTDEP pointed to a series of likely or potential environmental impacts that it contends would violate the CTWQS. As a court, we are powerless to set the specific limitations on water quality impacts that would be inconsistent with the CTWQS. The majority correctly notes that such a determination depends on scientific evidence and policy judgments best left to the expert consideration of an agency. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U. S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 48, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). Although it is within the agency’s authority to determine a level at which such harms are unacceptable, it must be reemphasized that “an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency itself.” Islander East Pipeline Co. v. Conn. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 482 F.3d 79, 95 (2d Cir.2006) (“Islander East I ”) (quotations omitted). Our task is to hold CTDEP to its own reasoning and judgments.
II. Review of CTDEP’s Conclusions
A. CTDEP’s Claims Regarding Sedimentation in the Dredge Section
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 *166CTDEP’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) (“Ro-berge 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.
*167B. CTDEP’s Conclusions Regarding the Use of Backfill
1. Engineered Backfill
The 2006 Denial also expressed concern over the placement of engineered backfill into the dredge trench, finding that there were significant discrepancies in the record regarding the proposed composition of the backfill, and that even if shellfish could return to a rocky backfill, shellfish predators — particularly starfish — would also colonize the area. (2006 Denial at 37, 66-68.) With respect to the backfill composition, the 2006 Denial specifically noted that an expert report called for the use of “ ‘[r]oek or gravel of less than 4 inches in diameter,’ ” (id. at 37 (quoting TRC Environmental Corporation, Evaluation of Benthic Impacts Associated with Islander East’s Modified Offshore Construction Techniques at 6 (2003) (“2003 TRC Report”))), and that Islander East’s own consultants recommended the use of backfill containing “mostly gravel, no more than 2 inches in diameter and coarse sand,” (id. (citing Haley & Aldrich, Inc., Report on Engineered Backfill Study at 4 (2003)).) Because the nature or grain size of the materials were uncertain, CTDEP concluded that it could not speculate as to what fauna might be able to inhabit the area. (2006 Denial at 38.)
The record demonstrates that the 2003 TRC Report was issued before Islander East had finalized its backfill proposal, and therefore does not contradict the later descriptions of the intended backfill as a layer of rock covered by a layer of sand. (See 2003 TRC Report (issued February 17, 2003).) Islander East provided a completed backfill plan on April 15, 2003, and subsequently referenced the use of two layers in the backfill. (See Multi-Agency Meeting Notes (Apr. 15, 2003) (“April Minutes”).) The 2006 Denial, however, continued to refer to concerns related to an all-rock backfill. (See 2006 Denial at 70.) Similarly, the 2006 Denial repeatedly , cited concerns that predators would also colonize an area filled with a rocky backfill. (Id. at 66, 68.) Although the record shows that the use of a two-layer sandy backfill would prevent predators from undermining shellfish colonization, (see April Minutes at 1), CTDEP failed to explain why it did not consider the evidence indicating negotiated changes in the composition of Islander East’s proposed backfill, and the potential effects thereof.
2. Proposed Use of Some Native Spoil
In the 2006 Denial, CTDEP found that Islander East’s “suggestions regarding disposal options ... appear to retreat from the conclusion reached during the agency technical discussions” by seeking to use some native spoil in the backfill area. (2006 Denial at 37.) CTDEP expressed concern that the proposal to return excess spoil to the HDD exit area was contradicted by Islander East’s prior statements to CTDEP, would be “inefficient and slow,” and would “increase sedimentation.” (2006 Denial at 38 (quotations omitted).)
CTDEP failed to acknowledge, however, that plans to use some native spoil to fill the HDD exit pit had existed since the beginning of the process. (See Project Meeting Minutes at 2 (Mar. 4, 2003) (stating that Islander East intended to dispose of a maximum of 25,000 cubic yards of dredged sediment, and that it was “possible to return spoil to the HDD exit hole or to use spoil as a top dressing material to the engineered backfill”); April Minutes at 1 (stating that spoil could be placed over rock laid in the HDD exit pit).) The fact that Islander East was prepared to use a limited amount of dredged material is therefore not at odds with its contention that using dredged sediment to the exclusion of engineered backfill would not be *168practical. Thus, in addition to its failure to consider negotiated changes in the composition of engineered backfill, CTDEP neglected to consider fully record evidence of the proposed options for use of some native spoil in the backfill area.
C. CTDEP’s Claims Regarding the Plow Section
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.
D. CTDEP’s Conclusion Regarding Islander East’s Proposed Use of HDD
Although CTDEP found that shellfish in the drilling exit pit, or in an area affected by a frae-out, would die of exposure to drill fluid, the 2006 Denial did not cite record evidence indicating that wave energy might disperse the fluid, or address other record evidence suggesting that dispersion does occur. Although there is evidence on the record indicating that releases of drill fluid would likely be “small and isolated, ... or rapidly dissipate,” (Garrett Group, Ltd., Preliminary Report on the Anticipated Biological Impacts Associated with the Proposed Islander East Pipeline Project, through the Nearshore Area of Long Island Sound — Branford, CT at 10 (May 8, 2003)), the 2006 Denial does not explain why it assumed that drill fluid would not disperse before the suffocation of the shellfish populations not removed prior to construction. While the majority indicated that reasonable minds might differ on the implications of the evidence on the record, it is not the responsibility of the court to comb the evidence to derive such implications where the agency neglected to do so.
*169In addition, even assuming that drill fluid would not disperse quickly enough to avoid shellfish suffocation, CTDEP dismissed all of Islander East’s proposed mitigation and remediation plans. (See, e.g., 2006 Denial at 31, 58.) CTDEP refused to consider Islander East’s containment plan and claimed that Islander East’s proposed monitoring and operations plan failed to include an appropriate definition of a “significant release” of drill fluid. As noted by the majority, however, CTDEP approved a nearly identical definition used in a monitoring plan provided by the Cross-Sound Cable Company. CTDEP also failed to identify reasons why the use of alternative HDD technology was acceptable in the Cross-Sound Project, but not here. It was CTDEP’s responsibility to identify reasons to justify its inconsistent treatment of the plans, and it failed to do so.3
E. CTDEP’s Finding that the Anchor Corridor Would Include the Dredge Section
The 2006 Denial also concluded that the project would create an anchor corridor of 4,045 acres, approximately 1,120 of which are in existing and potential shellfish lease areas, an acreage characterized by CTDEP as “unacceptably large.” (2006 Denial at 41, 70, 80.) As noted by the majority, CTDEP erroneously included in this calculation 322.4 acres in nearshore waters that were incorrectly assumed to be subject to anchor strikes and cable sweeps, and failed to address Islander East’s proposed alternative means of installing the pipeline in the dredged area.
In its modified proposal, Islander East provided that a stationary barge could be used to assemble the necessary pipeline between mileposts 10.9 and 12 instead of laying the pipe from a barge directly into the dredged trench. (See Islander East Pipeline Project, Permit Application for: 401 Water Quality Certificate, Marine Pipeline Installation Methodology 1, 9.) Following this method, “a winch mounted on a construction vessel at the HDD exit hole will be used to pull two strings of pipe, each approximately one mile long, from the laybarge to near the exit hole.” (Id. at 1.) Thus, “[t]he HDD pipe string [could] be installed by the laybarge either by standard operations or by remaining stationary and [using] a.,winch mounted on a separate vessel ... to pull the pipeline off the laybarge to the HDD exit hole.” (Id. at 9.) CTDEP did not address the possibility of using this method to install the pipe, and therefore overestimated the impact by over twenty-five percent.4 CTDEP’s conclusions on the basis of these calculations5 are therefore unsupported.
F. CTDEP’s Failure to Address Mitigation Measures
Finally, CTDEP should have investigated the possibility of imposing conditions requiring the remediation of impacted areas in the dredged and plowed sections. Record evidence makes repeated refer-*170enees to the use of remediation plans as conditions to certificate approval. (See, e.g., Conn. Siting Council, Cross-Sound Cable Co., LLC, Application for a Certificate of Envtl. Compatibility and Public Need, Findings of Fact at 22 (Jan. 3, 2002).) The record also contains evidence indicating that proper remediation measures might encourage shellfishing interests to harvest within the anchor corridor. (See, e.g., Williams Test., Hr’g Tr. 98:6-12, 19-20 (stating that fishing around anchor holes would be possible with buoys and “a buffer zone near the holes”).) Other mitigation measures include notification of impending construction, removal of shellfish from the work area, reseeding of beds in the work area at Islander East’s expense, and provision of pipeline surveys. (See Islander East Pipeline Project, Response to Request for Additional Information, Impacts Analysis Report at 36 (2003).) Although its failure to address possible mitigation measures in itself does not render CTDEP’s conclusions arbitrary and capricious, based on this record, CTDEP should have addressed the possibility of conditioning approval on remediation of anchor strikes and topographical irregularities, and the possibility of providing surveys to shellfishing interests that would allow for renewed harvesting within the anchor corridor.
III. Conclusion
While there may have been a reasoned approach that CTDEP could have taken to justify its conclusion based on the evidence available on the record, CTDEP’s inconsistent treatment of the evidence continues to suggest that its denial of certification for the proposed pipeline may have been a foregone conclusion. As we indicated in Islander East I, “[a]ny 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.” 482 F.3d at 105. The fact that the agency’s decision would have been the same regardless of the errors on the record is insufficient to show that the 2006 Denial was not arbitrary and capricious, or that the errors noted by the majority were harmless.
In addition, the majority gives significant credit to CTDEP for its inclusion of more “voluminous” information in the 2006 Denial, stating that the panel reached its decision in Islander East I “largely because of the paucity of findings made by the CTDEP” in the original determination. Maj. Op., ante at 151. Our review is not relative with respect to the CTDEP’s prior findings reviewed in Islander East I, and the majority’s determination that CTDEP issued more detailed analysis in the 2006 Denial does not indicate that the agency’s conclusion is not still arbitrary and capricious. Although a lack of record evidence may certainly indicate a lack of support for an agency’s findings, the converse is not necessarily true. It is insufficient for an agency to provide “voluminous” information in support of its conclusion where such information is erroneous, dismissed by the agency without adequate explanation, or fails to fully explain the agency’s decision. I do not wish to provide such an incentive here. While the 2006 Denial provides a lengthy explanation of the reasoning that led CTDEP to deny Islander East’s WQC, the inconsistencies in the reasoning, CTDEP’s failure to consider relevant evidence on the record, and the manifest errors in the evidence relied upon by CTDEP, leave me with no choice but to conclude that the 2006 Denial is arbitrary and capricious.

. CTDEP cites an "unacceptable impact to benthic habitats ... indirectly through sedimentation,” and states that the project will cause the "biological integrity” of the area to be "unacceptably reduced and changed as a result of the change in benthic substrate, including sedimentation.” (2006 Denial at 80.)

. The majority finds a distinction on the grounds that, “in contrast to this case, where the CTDEP found that Islander East's pipeline project would cause a long-term loss of shell-fishing beds in existing or foreseeable future use, the Cross Sound Cable project implicated only dormant beds that were expected to remain so.'' Maj. Op., ante at 158. Under the CTWQS, however, both “[ejxisting and designated uses” are protected. CTWQS 1. In addition, it is not clear from the record that the potentially affected areas in this case had been recently used for shellfish cultivation, nor is it the responsibility of the court to draw such distinctions from the evidence where the agency neglected to do so.

. Also as noted by the majority, these conclusions are particularly troubling because the Cross-Sound monitoring plan was provided as a reference to Islander East.

. CTDEP calculated that 4,045 acres would fall within the anchor corridor created by the barges, but that only 1,120 acres of the corridor support an existing or designated use of shellfishing. (See 2006 Denial at 70.) CTDEP found that the use of this area would be lost in its entirety due to anchor strikes and cable sweeps. (Id.) Subtracting the 322.4 acres incorrectly assumed to be affected leaves only 797.6 acres of negatively impacted shellfish habitat. We do not have CTDEP's views on that impact.

.These figures are, according to Respondents, ''[t]he only specific acreage impact mentioned in [CTDEP's] conclusion as a basis for denial.” (Resp'ts' Br. 52.)