Opinion ID: 1318039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proposed Use of Some Native Spoil

Text: 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 practical. 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.