Opinion ID: 1318039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Engineered Backfill

Text: 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 โ particularly starfish โ 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]ock 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.